Telangana High Court
S.Surya Prabha vs The State Of Telangana on 27 June, 2023
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION No.9560 of 2023
ORDER:
1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Challa, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri B.Dilip Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, who is representing Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the Court to issue an order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the refusal order vide order No.157 of 2020, dated 25.08.2020, issued by Respondent No.3 i.e., the Joint Sub- Registrar, R.O(OB), Ranga Reddy District, in refusing to register the Sale Deed dated 12.06.2020 in respect of H.No.5- 85/183 on Plot No.183, admeasuring 833 Sq.yards, situated in Sy.No.5/3 of Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, basing on the Gazette Notification dated 26.09.2013 issued by the 4th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the said Public Authority to register the Sale Deed without reference to Gazette Notification dated 26.09.2013. 2
Dr.CSL,J W.P.No.9560 of 2023
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basing on the notification vide Proc.No.E5/4733/2013/ Serilingampally/Raidurg Pan Maktha, dated 26.09.2013, the Registering Authority is refusing to entertain the document that is presented by the petitioner for registration which is highly illegal. Learned counsel submits that the said proceedings does not amount to the notification issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and therefore, the said notification cannot form basis for declining registration.
4. Gone through the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Basing on the counter affidavit filed, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submits that the notification is enclosed along with the counter affidavit and the contents of the notification be taken into consideration. The opening sentences of the notification reads as under:-
"In exercise of the powers conferred under G.O.Ms.No.863 Rev (Reg.I) Dept., dated 20.6.2007 and CCLA's circular Instructions No.B1/385/2012, dated 29.05.2013, the following lands are notified under Section 22-A(1)(a) for the purpose of Section 22A(1). Notice is hereby given inviting objections and 3 Dr.CSL,J W.P.No.9560 of 2023 suggestions on the above proposal from all persons who are likely to be affected thereby for being taken into consideration by the Government. All objections and suggestions should be in writing in English or in Telugu and should be addressed to the Collector (By designation) of Ranga Reddy District within whose jurisdiction the area lies, so as to reach the office of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, on or before the expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of this notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazzette."
5. Thus, through the said notification, objections and suggestions were called for notifying the subject land under prohibitory list. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, such proceedings can be termed to be notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
6. In this regard, learned counsel referred to the decisions of this Court in W.P.No.26288 of 2019, dated 28.11.2019, W.P.No.2886 of 2020, dated 24.02.2020, W.P.No.11240 of 2020, dated 28.07.2020, W.P.No.10039 of 2020, dated 10.07.2020, W.P.No.6388 of 2020, dated 25.06.2020 and W.P.No.4358 of 2020, dated 28.02.2020.
4
Dr.CSL,J W.P.No.9560 of 2023
7. Thus, considering the stand taken and as the notification which was taken aid by the Registering Authority cannot be termed to be a notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Further, this Court in the orders rendered in W.P.No.26288 of 2019, dated 28.11.2009, dealing with the same notification, however in respect of a different village, at Paras 8 to 12 of the order, held as follows:-
"8. The only issue for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the notification issued by the District Collector amounts to prohibition of registration of lands mentioned therein concerning Survey Nos.77 to 80 of Hafeezpet Village in purported exercise of power under Section 22(A)(1)(e) of the Act.
9. Learned Advocate General submits that the notification in question is not issued under the above said provision and that it is erroneously mentioned and that the power is vested to issue a notification only in the State Government under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act. Further, the State Government is entitled to call for the report from the District Collector and the notification issued on 26.09.2013 is for the purpose of compiling the information and submitting a report to the State Government to enable it to issue a notification under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act.
5
Dr.CSL,J W.P.No.9560 of 2023
10. In other words, learned Advocate General fairly submits that there is no notification issued as on today under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act. It is further submitted that only after receipt of report from the District Collector and after examining the same by the State Government, appropriate action as warranted by law more particularly under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act would be taken.
11. In view of the submission of learned Advocate General, it is made clear that notification dated 26.09.2013 is not a notification under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act and since, as on today, there is no such notification issued under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act, there is no restraint on the registering authority to receive and process the deeds of conveyance concerning the lands in Survey Nos.79 to 80 of Hafeezpet Village.
12. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar to receive and process the deeds of conveyance without reference to the District Gazette notification dated 26.09.2013 in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. However, it is open for the registering authority to refuse to register the deeds presented before him, if he has any other objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicate the decision to the petitioners. It is made 6 Dr.CSL,J W.P.No.9560 of 2023 clear that mere registration of deed of conveyance does not confer title to the property and it is made clear that this order does not preclude the Government to take appropriate steps as warranted by law and to assert its title. No costs."
8. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is justified in seeking for a direction to the Public Authority to perform its duty.
9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The refusal order vide order No.157 of 2020, dated 25.08.2020, issued by Respondent No.3 i.e., the Joint Sub-Registrar, R.O(OB), Ranga Reddy District, is set-aside. Registering Authority is directed to receive and register the Sale Deed produced by the petitioner in respect of H.No.5-85/183 on Plot No.183, admeasuring 833 Sq.yards, situated in Sy.No.5/3 of Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, subject to verification of the nature of the land and supporting documents to be submitted by the petitioner with regard to her capacity to sell the land without reference to District Gazette Notification dated 26.09.2013, in case the said documents are in compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In 7 Dr.CSL,J W.P.No.9560 of 2023 case it is found that the said documents are not admissible for registration, necessary orders in that regard shall be passed and the objections shall be communicated to the petitioner in writing. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Date:27.06.2023 ysk 8 Dr.CSL,J W.P.No.9560 of 2023 HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION No.9560 of 2023 Date:27.06.2023 ysk