Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Trinity Homes And Resorts Pvt Ltd, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 July, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.573 OF 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent passing the impugned proceedings Notice No.P-16/2019 dated 04.12.2020 directing the petitioner to get the details of land updated in Web land as illegal arbitrary malafide intentional and contrary to the rules under Section 71 of the Registration Act and consequently set-aside the same as illegal and further direct the 3rd respondent to register the pending document"
The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner - company purchased an extent of Ac.19-50 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No.321-1D of Thikkavanipalem hamlet of Chipurupalli Village, Parvada Mandal from their vendor G. Jagannadha Raju and others. Initially, the third respondent/Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem kept the document pending, as there was an issue regarding payment of stamp duty. The third respondent referred the matter to the District Registrar for collection of stamp duty. The District Registrar passed an order on 19.03.2019 directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.10,35,950/- and deficit registration fee of Rs.1,56,000/-, totalling to Rs.11,65,950/-. The second respondent/ District Registrar and Inspector, directed the third respondent to collect the deficit amount and take necessary action, if the document is otherwise is order.
The petitioner further contended that, though the petitioner paid the entire deficit amount, as directed by the second respondent, the third respondent kept the document pending erroneously on a MSM,J W.P.No.573 of 2021 2 flimsy ground and it is observed by the third respondent that the schedule land details of the seller in ROR 1B web land are not appearing and it has to be treated as not accompanied with Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds of seller's with documents; therefore, advised the petitioner to get the land in the WebLand ROR 1-B updated, within 15 days with threatened action under Section 71 of Registration Act, 1908, with respect to pending Document P.No.P16/2019. The petitioner contended that issue of Notice No.P16/2019 dated 04.12.2020, directing this petitioner to get the Webland adangals updated, is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction as stated supra.
Third respondent/Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia contending that the vendors of the petitioners i.e., Ganapathiraju Jagannadha Raju and others executed a sale deed dated 03.01.2019 in favour of the petitioner conveying an extent of Ac.19-50 cents in Sy.No.321-1-D of Thikkavanipalem, Hamlet of Cheepurupalli East Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and presented the same before the then Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem for registration and the then Sub- Registrar, Lankelapalem having found that the document is undervalued, kept the document pending by assigning P.NO.16/2019 and referred the matter to the District Registrar, Anakapalli for determination of the market value. Accordingly, the District Registrar, Anakapalli decided the deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fee and this petitioner paid the deficit stamp duty and registration charges. Since, the Webland details are not updated, the document is not registered and advised the petitioner by issuing MSM,J W.P.No.573 of 2021 3 notice impugned in this writ petition to get the Webland details updated. Therefore, there are no grounds to set-aside the order, since it is only a notice intimating about the defect to be cured for registration of the document and the said advise cannot be declared as illegal or arbitrary and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
During hearing, Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the notice impugned in the writ petition is in the nature of advise at one stage and at the end, it is in the nature of order. Issue of advise or passing an order is illegal on the face of record, as the Sub-Registrar is not authroized to give such advise and requested to set-aside the same.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration contended that, the impugned notice cannot be set- aside, as it is only an intimation by way of notice and in the absence of updation of entries as per Section 6 of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971, registration cannot be done and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
A bare look at the notice impugned in the writ petition, bearing Notice No.P16/2019 dated 04.12.2020, though third respondent/Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem, made several allegations, at the end, he advised this petitioner to get the records updated in WEBLAND ROR-1B within 15 days with a threat to pass appropriate orders under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, with respect to the pending document P.No.P16/2019 of the office of Sub- Registrar, Lankelapalem.
MSM,J W.P.No.573 of 2021 4 According to Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, (1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub- district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words "registration refused" on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded. (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered.
Thus, when registration of a document is refused, the duty of the Sub-Registrar is to pass appropriate order and record reasons under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.
In the present case, the third respondent/Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem, for the reasons best known to him, issued notice with no authority of law. It is only in the nature of advise and the same cannot be challenged before this Court. However, the Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem is under obligation to pass appropriate order under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. If, the third respondent/ Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem is not willing to register the document on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 71(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, he shall record reasons and return the same without causing any delay. Therefore, the third respondent/ Sub- Registrar, Lankelapalem is directed to register the document, if it is otherwise in order or in case, the third respondent/ Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem is not willing to register the document on any of the MSM,J W.P.No.573 of 2021 5 grounds mentioned under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, pass appropriate order(s) under Section 71 of the Registration Act, recording reasons and intimate the same to the petitioner within four weeks from today. The petitioner, if aggrieved by such an order passed under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, may prefer an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908.
With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 05.07.2021 SP