Telangana High Court
Sri. Dasari Rama Murthy vs The State Of Telangana on 19 July, 2024
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ Writ Petition No.16109 of 2024
% 19.07.2024
# Between:
Dasari Rama Murthy Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Telangana,
Rep by Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.
Respondents
! Counsel for Appellants : Mr. K.Sai Sri Harsha
^ Counsel for Respondents : Learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Stamps and
Registration
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 2024 (1) ALT 272
2 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition No.16109 of 2024
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings in No.E5/2825/2021 dated 10.06.2021 in Sy.No.41/5 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy as being illegal and arbitrary and direct respondent No.4 to receive, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of flat bearing No.405, IV floor of Vintage heights admeasuring 1175 sq.ft., with undivided share of 54 sq.yds., situated at H.No.2-56/VH/405, Sy.No.41/5 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy (subject property) District without reference to the said proceedings dated 10.06.2021.
Brief facts of the case:
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner submits that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property, having obtained it through a registered Development Agreement dated 17.08.2013. The petitioner submits that originally one Kaatika Sandaiah was the owner and pattadar of Ac.0.12.5 gts., in Sy.No.41/5 of 3 Khanamet Village, which he sold through registered sale deeds to the vendors of the petitioner. Thereafter, the vendor of the petitioner sold an extent of 491 sq.yds., out of 1475 sq.yds., to the petitioner and one K. Srinivasa Rao through registered sale deed dated 31.01.2013.
Subsequently, petitioner and his co-owner gave the property to development under registered development agreement-cum-GPA dated 17.08.2013 to one M/s.JPS Construction and thereafter the said JPS Constructions completed the construction of residential apartment and flat No.405 fell in the share of the petitioner herein.
3. It is submitted that to meet financial requirements, the petitioner want to sell the said flat and offered to sell to the purchaser viz., Smt.Manasa Ratna, who agreed to purchase the same for a sale consideration of Rs.36,00,000/- and entered into an agreement of sale. It is also submitted that his vendees obtained loan from State Bank of India and when the sale deed was presented before respondent No.4 for registration, the same was refused for registration and issued a refusal order dated 10.06.2021 in which it is stated that the Sy.No.41/5 of Khanamet Village 4 is kept in prohibited list under section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
Counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4:
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Joint Sub-Registrar, RO (OB) stating that the petitioner so far has not presented any document to the Registering Authority and hence the question of neither receiving nor processing the document does not arise. He would deny that the subject plot of the petitioner is not prohibited property and no notification was ever issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and also many sales took place till today and without any objection, they have been registered.
4.1. He would further submit that the subject property is in prohibition as per the letter issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 dated 29.09.2021 in which it is stated that the land in Sy.No.41/5 is declared as Government land under Section 22(A)(1)(b) of the Act, and is prohibited for registration and the registering authorities 5 are bound by the instructions of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. In view of the same, prays to dismiss the writ petition as it is devoid of merits.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION:
5. This Court in the case of M/s.Invecta Technologies Pvt.Ltd., and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1 has upheld the validity of Section 22(A) of the Act and referred to the guidelines issued by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. Revenue Department 2. Section 22(A)(1) of the Act is extracted herein for the facility of reference:
"22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.-
(1)The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely:
(a) documents relating to transfer of immoveable property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or Central Government;
(b) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immoveable property owned by the State or Central 1 2024 (1) ALT 272 2 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407 6 Government, executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(c) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in respect of immoveable property, owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or by Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(d) agricultural or urban lands declared as surplus under the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976;
(e) any document or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal, Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are likely to adversely affect those interests.7
6. On a perusal of the letter of the District Collector in Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 dated 29.09.2021, it is evident that certain lands were placed in prohibitory list under Section 22(A) of the Act for implementation of the Court orders dated 23.12.2015 in W.A.No.232 of 2012. In the case of M/s.Invecta Technologies Pvt.Ltd., (supra), W.A.No.232 of 2012 which was referred in the aforesaid letter was also the part of the batch, wherein validity of Section 22(A) has been upheld. In the said proceedings, it is submitted that the list of Government lands in Serilingampally Mandal and Gandipet Mandal of Rajendra Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District were submitted for taking further necessary action. In other words, the list of the properties which have been identified as the Government lands have only been referred for taking further necessary action.
7. Section 22(A)(1)(e) refers to any document or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, 8 Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal, Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are likely to adversely affect those interests.
8. Section 22(A)(2) further mandates that for the purpose of clause (e) of sub-section (1), the State Government shall publish a notification after obtaining reasons for and full description of properties furnished by the District Collectors concerned in the manner as may be prescribed.
9. The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in M/s.Invecta Technologies Pvt.Ltd., (supra) also referred the Full Bench paragraphs 155 and 156 at para 30, which reads as under:
"30. Thereafter, the Full Bench of this Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary in paragraphs 155 and 156 of its decision held as follows:
"155. Further, as noticed earlier the State Government is empowered either suo motu or on application to consider the grievances against inclusion of any property in the prohibitory list 9 under Section 22-A of Registration Act and is also empowered to de-notify either in full or in part the notification issued under sub-section (2). In our opinion, the redressal mechanism is available only with respect to notifications published relating to the properties falling under clause (e) of Section 22-A. Hence, any grievance of the parties with reference to the properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) will have to be questioned by the aggrieved parties only by appropriate proceedings before a competent Court and the adjudication by such Court would be final. Further, so far as notified properties falling under clause (e) are concerned, the redressal mechanism under subsection (4) of Section 22-A would be able to effectively address the grievance provided the mechanism thereunder is effective, expeditious, fair, and judicious. Thus, in order to make an effective redressal mechanism, we deem it appropriate to direct the respective Governments of both the States to constitute a Committee or establish a Forum within time frame, may be comprising of Principal Secretary of Revenue, Director of Survey and Land Records and a retired Judicial Officer of the rank of a District Judge which shall meet periodically to consider the grievances of the persons affected by the notifications. The Committee shall be 10 empowered to examine relevant records and then pass a reasoned order either accepting or rejecting the grievance by either confirming/deleting/modifying any such property from the notified list of properties. In our view, such orders passed by the Committee shall be binding on the State as well as on the aggrieved person and in the event of any of them being aggrieved thereby, they shall have to approach a competent Court of Law for redressal of their grievance.
156. We, thus, summarize our conclusions and issue directions as follows:
(i) The authorities mentioned in the guidelines, which are obliged to prepare lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d), to be sent to the registering authorities under the provisions of Registration Act, shall clearly indicate the relevant clause under which each property is classified.
(ii) Insofar as clause (a) is concerned, the concerned District Collectors shall also indicate the statute under which a transaction and its registration is prohibited. Further in respect of the properties covered under clause (b), they shall clearly indicate which of the Governments own the property.
(iii) Insofar as paragraphs (3) and (4) in the Guidelines, covering properties under clause (c) 11 and (d) are concerned, the authorities contemplated therein shall also forward to the registering authorities, along with lists, the extracts of registers/gazette if the property is covered by either endowment or wakf, and declarations/orders made under the provisions of Ceiling Acts if the property is covered under clause (d).
(iv) The authorities forwarding the lists of properties/lands to the registering authority shall also upload the same to the website of both the Governments, namely igrs.ap.gov.in of the State of Andhra Pradesh and registration.telangana. gov.in of the State of Telangana. If there is any change in the website, the State Governments shall indicate the same to all concerned, may be by issuing a press note or an advertisement in prominent daily news papers.
(v) No notification, contemplated by sub-
section (2) of Section 22A, is necessary with respect to the properties falling under clauses (a) to (d) of sub section (1) of Section 22-A.
(vi) The properties covered under clause (e) of Section 22-A shall be notified in the official gazette of the State Governments and shall be forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the relevant notification/gazette, to the concerned registering authorities under the 12 provisions of Registration Act and shall also place the said notification/gazette on the aforementioned websites of both the State Governments. The Registering authorities shall make available a copy of the Notification/Gazette on an application made by an aggrieved party.
(vii) The registering authorities would be justified in refusing registration of documents in respect of the properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of subsection (1) of Section 22-A provided the authorities contemplated under the guidelines, as aforementioned, have communicated the lists of properties prohibited under these clauses.
(viii) The concerned authorities, which are obliged to furnish the lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of subsection (1) of Section 22-A, and the concerned Registering Officers shall follow the guidelines scrupulously.
(ix) It is open to the parties to a document, if the relevant property/land finds place in the list of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, to apply for its deletion from the list or modification thereof, to the concerned authorities as provided for in the guidelines. The concerned authorities are obliged to consider the request in proper perspective and pass appropriate order within 13 six weeks from the date of receipt of the application and make its copy available to the concerned party.
(x) The redressal mechanism under Section 22-A(4) shall be before the Committees to be constituted by respective State Governments as directed in paragraph-35.1 above. The State Governments shall constitute such committees within eight weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
(xi) Apart from the redressal mechanism, it is also open to an aggrieved person to approach appropriate forum including Civil Court for either seeking appropriate declaration or deletion of his property/land from the list of prohibited properties or for any other appropriate relief.
(xii) The directions issued by learned single Judges in six judgments (W.P.No.2775 of 2009, dated 15.03.2011; W.P.Nos.20050 of 2011 and batch, dated 08.09.2011;
W.P.No.26566 of 2011, dated 18.01.2013; W.P.No.30526 of 2012 and batch, dated 31.12.2012; W.P.No.31409 of 2014, dated 29.01.2015 and W.P.No.24587 of 2014 and batch 01.06.2015) or any other judgments dealing with the provisions of Section 22-A, if are inconsistent with the observations made or directions issued in this judgment, it is made clear that the observations made and directions 14 issued in this judgment shall prevail and would be binding on the parties including the registering authorities under the Registration Act or Government officials or the officials under the Endowments Act, Wakf Act and Ceiling Acts. NVSK, J 24 W.P. Nos.9645 of 2021 and 26353 of 2023
(xiii) If the party concerned seeks extracts of the list/register/gazette of properties covered by clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A (1), received by the registering officer on the basis of which he refused registration, it shall be furnished within 10 days from the date of an application made by the aggrieved party.
(xiv) Registering officer shall not act and refuse registration of a document in respect of any property furnished to him directly by any authority/officer other than the officers/authorities mentioned in the Guidelines.
(xv) Mere registration of a document shall not confer title on the vendee/alienee, if the property is otherwise covered by clauses (a) to
(e), but did not find place in the lists furnished by the concerned authorities to the registering officers. In such cases, the only remedy available to the authorities under clauses (a) to
(e) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A is to approach appropriate forums for appropriate relief."
15
10. In the case on hand, in the counter affidavit which is filed along with letter dated 29.09.2021, the subject land i.e., Sy.No.41/5 of Khanamet Village falls in Sl.No.620. Subsequent to the said letter, neither a notification notifying the subject lands in prohibitory list has been issued as mandated under clause (e) of Section 22(A)(1) (extracted supra) nor the said lands are notified in the official gazette of the State Governments as per Guideline (vi) issued by Full Bench of this Court as cited supra.
11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the same.
12. It is also pertinent to note that in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary (Supra) at paragraph 156 the Full Bench of this Court had summarized and issued directions. As per the Guideline (v), no notification is contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 22(A) of the Act with respect to the properties falling under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22(A). As stated earlier, as per Guideline (vi), the properties covered under clause 16
(e) of Section 22-A shall be notified in the official Gazette of the State Governments and shall be forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the relevant notification/Gazette, to the concerned registering authorities under the provisions of the Act and shall also place the said notification/Gazette on the websites of both the State Governments.
13. As such, the letter dated 10.06.2021 in Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 and the similar letter dated 29.09.2021 in which reference of letter dated 10.06.2021 was made, are only letters submitted by District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to District Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department, Ranga Reddy District for taking further necessary action and that cannot be the basis for refusal for registration of the subject property. It is also pertinent to note that subsequently, no notification was issued by respondent authorities with respect to the list of lands mentioned in the letter dated 10.06.2022. In view of the same, letter dated 10.06.2021 in Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 and the similar letter dated 29.09.2021 submitted by District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to District 17 Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department, Ranga Reddy District are not in consonance to the provisions of Section 22-A of the Act and 22(A)(1)(e) and Clause (vi) of the guidelines and the same cannot be referred for the purpose of denying registration of the subject properties. Consequently, reference made vide Lr.No.E5/2825/2021, dated 10.06.2021 and similar letter dated 29.09.2021 are per se illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and are hereby set aside and writ petition stands allowed. Registering Authorities are directed to receive, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899. It is also open to the Registering Authority to refuse to register the subject document, by specifically assigning the reasons in terms of Section 71 of the Act, 1908 and communicate the said decision to the petitioner.
14. Needless, to state that respondent Authorities shall scrupulously follow the directions and shall not further refer to the Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 dated 10.06.2021 18 and similar letter dated 29.09.2021 as a reason for refusal of registration and Registering Authorities shall verify the same before denying the registering on the similar ground which has already been addressed in this writ petition. It is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer title on the subject property and it is also made clear that this order would not have any bearing on all those matters where title/rights of the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision/appeals for adjudication and in any other case this order also does not preclude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of law.
15. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed with the above observations.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 19.07.2024 MRM Note: L.R.Copy to be marked.