Telangana High Court
Kar Venkatarami Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 15 September, 2022
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No. 594 of 2022
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr. S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing all the respondents.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge declining to grant stay and dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.31890 of 2022 filed by the appellants as the writ petitioners. Order dated 18.08.2022 reads as under:
This application is filed seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to process and release the sale deed presented by the petitioners in respect of Flat No.301, 3rd Floor, "Urban Castle", in Plot Nos.76/Part, 76/Part and 77, situated in Survey No.28, Bachupally Village and Mandal, Nizampet Municipal Corporation, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, State of Telangana vide Memo No.G2125712019, dated 26.08.2020, while quoting the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, has issued certain directions to the ::2::
registering authorities in respect of registration of open plots or structures in any Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation including GHMC. Thereafter, vide Memo No.G2125712019, dated 29.12.2020, the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps has issued clarification to the Memo No.G2125712019, dated 26.08.2020, and directed the Sub-Registrars to strictly follow the instructions in the said Memo.
Challenging the letter bearing Lr.No.45/TP/NMC12019, dated 01.11.2019, addressed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Nizampet to the Sub- Registrar, Quthbullapur, directing the latter not to register any document in respect of the unauthorized floors; and Memo No.G 2/257/2019, dated 26.08.2020, W.P.No.9248 of 2021 was filed before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.08,2021 has allowed the said writ petition and directed the respondent No.2 therein to receive, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of the said writ petition, without reference to letter bearing No.45/TP/ NMC/2019, dated 01.11.2019 and Memo No.G2125712019 dated 26.08.2020, if the document is in accordance with law, otherwise, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.
Challenging the said order dated 23.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.9248 of 2021, the Nizampet Municipal Corporation and others have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and ::3::
filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19695/2021, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.05.2022 has passed the following order:
"Leave granted.
The operation and effect of the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2021 shall remain stayed but, when it has been indicated during the course of submissions that the. document in question has already been registered on 24.09.2021, it is provided that, if any further steps are taken in relation to the said registered document and the property involved therein, the entire process shall remain subject to the final orders to be passed in this matter."
The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not processing the sale deed presented by the petitioners in respect of Flat No.301, 3rd Floor, "Urban Castle", in Plot Nos.76/Part, 76/Part and 77, situated in Survey No.28, Bachupally Village and Mandal, Nizampet Municipal Corporation, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, in spite of completion of all the formalities required for registration as per Sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 of the Registration Act, 1908, as illegal and arbitrary.
After passing of the order dated 18.05.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19695/2021, this Court has refrained from passing any order in respect of the properties covered under the Memo ::4::
No.G2/257/2019 dated 26.08.2020 and the letter bearing No.45/TP/ NMC/2019, dated 01.11.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Deific Abode LLP v. Union of India (WPA .No.11123 of 2020 and batch, dated 16.04.2021), and sought the indulgence of this Court to pass necessary orders in the present case.
In Deific Abode LLP's case, the Calcutta High Court has held that if any stay is granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same is binding only on the parties to the said litigation, and the said stay order cannot be interpreted as if it is a 'declaration of law' under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Admittedly, in the present case, the flat in respect of which the document is presented for registration, is an unauthorized one, as the same has been constructed without obtaining any valid building permission from the competent authority.
Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is only binding on the parties to the said litigation, since the order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9248 of 2021 has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19695/2021, and as the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, judicial propriety demands that until the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this ::5::
Court should not pass any interim order till then. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to pass any order in this LA. for the present.
The I.A is accordingly dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner to file an appropriate application once the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19695/2021 is disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that merely because the earlier judgment of this Court dated 23.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.9248 of 2021 has been stayed by the Supreme Court would not ipso faco mean that the said judgment has been erased from the record. It continues to hold the field. In this connection, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Shre Chumandi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association1 and submits therefrom that stay of operation of an order would mean that the order, which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of passing of the stay order but it does not mean that the order which has been stayed has been wiped out from existence. This order has also been followed by the Calcutta High Court in Deific Abode LLP v. Union of India2. 1 1992 AIR 1439 2 WPA .No.11123 of 2020 & batch, dt. 16.04.2021 ::6::
4. On going through the order of the learned Single Judge, the material papers and considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, we are not inclined to entertain the writ appeal for the reason that the learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion in declining to grant stay. According to learned Single Judge, the prayer for registration of the sale deed is made by the appellants relying on the memo dated 26.08.2020, which was interfered with by this Court vide the judgment dated 23.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.9248 of 2021. Supreme Court in SLP(c) No.19695 of 2021 had passed an order dated 18.05.2022 staying the operation and effect of the aforesaid judgment dated 23.08.2021. This would mean that the memo dated 26.08.2020 would stand revived though subject to outcome of the Special Leave Petition pending before the Supreme Court. If this be the position, no fault can be found with the approach taken by the learned Single Judge in declining to grant any interim relief.
5. That apart, the writ petition is pending before the learned Single Judge and would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition ::7::
6. In the circumstances, no interference is called for. Writ Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 15.09.2022 LUR