Telangana High Court
M/S. Living Realty Properties India ... vs State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2022
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.16787, 16963 AND 18825 OF 2021 COMMON ORDER:
In all these writ petitions, the issue involved is common, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The reliefs sought in these writ petitions are as under:
W.P. No.16787 of 2021 " ... ... issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the 3rd respondent issued in Memo No.G2/5402/2016 dated 09.12.2019 and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Lr.No.ROR-1/1140/2019 dated 05.12.2019 in including the lands of the petitioner admeasuring an extent of Ac.36.21 gts in Sy.No.12, 13 and 14 of Toopranpet Village, Choutuppal Mandal,Yadadri Bhongiri District in the prohibited list under section 22(A) of the Registration Act as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 5th respondent to receive and register the documents in respect of the above land ... ..."2 W.P. No.16963 of 2021
" ... ... to issue a Direction, Order or Writ most specifically Writ of Mandamus to declare the decision communicated by the 2nd respondent in letter No.ROR-I/1140/2019 dated 05-12- 2019 in so far as at including the land in Survey Nos.68 an extent of Acres 18-11 gts, Survey No.69 Acres 8-33 gts., Survey no.71, 72, 73, 78, 79 and 80 an extent of Acres 24-00 gts, total extent Acres 51-04 gts, situated at Bhongir Village and Mandal, Yadadri, Bhongir District in the prohibitory list under section 22A(1)(e) of Registration Act, as illegal, arbitrary, null and void, without any power and jurisdiction. Consequently direct the 5th Respondent to register the documents to be presented by the petitioner in respect of lands/plots in Survey Nos.68 an extent of Acres 18-11 gts, Survey No.69 an extent of Acres 8-33 gts., Survey no.71, 72, 73, 78, 79 and 80 an extent of Acres 24-00 gts, total extent Acres 51-04 gts, situated at Bhongir village and Mandal, Yadadri, Bhongir District covered under the HMDA approved layouts vide Letter No.103961/LO/Plg/ HMDA/2013, Dated: 26.05.2018 and Letter No.105800/LO/HMDA/ 2013, dated: 14.12.2018 ... ..."3 W.P. No.18825 of 2021
" ... ... issue a writ , order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in not receiving and registering the documents presented by the petitioner in respect of Plot Nos.114 and 115 situated in Sy.Nos.550/A, admeasuring 200 sq. yards each, situated at Sri Sai City, Raigir village, Jammapur Gram Panchayath, Bhongir mandal, Nalgonda district, on teh ground that the 2nd respondent issued a Memo No.G2/5402/2016 dated 09.12.2019 wherein including the list of properties under section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 belongs to the properties of Gangster Nayeemuddin @ Nayeem and also the letter issued in C.No.165/Crime, BGR Rural/2016 dated 29.08.2016 and also the letter isused in C.No.160/Crime, BGR Rural/2016 dated 29.08.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent and also the pendency of the suit in O.S. No.117 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge: Bhongir, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908, and consequently declare the Memo No.G2/5402/2016 dated 09.12.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and 4 letter issued in C.No.165/CrimeBGR Rural/ 2016 dated 29.08.2016 and the letter issued in C.No.160/CrimeBGR Rural/2016 dated 29.08.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and same is liable to be set aside ... ..."
3. In these three writ petitions, the main challenge is to the Memo No.G2/5402/2016 dated 09.12.2019 issued by respondent No.3 - the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad, and also the Letter No.ROR-I/1140/2019 dated 05.12.2019 issued by respondent No.2 - the Special Chief Secretary to Government and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (FAC), Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.
4. The averments in W.P. No.16963 of 2021, which is treated as lead case, are referred to for disposal of these matters.
5. The case of the petitioner - M/s. Living Realty Properties India (Private) Limited, Hyderabad, is that it had purchased an extent of Acs.149-12 guntas of land (hereinafter referred to as 5 'subject land') under four registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.7129 of 2012, 242 of 2013, 7130 of 2012 and 1875 of 2013, the details of which are as under:
(i) An extent of Acs.68-27 guntas of land in Survey Nos.65(Part), 66, 67, 68, 69(Part) and 70 with definite boundaries was purchased through the sale deed bearing document No.7129 of 2012;
(ii) an extent of Acs.54-39 guntas of land in Survey Nos.71, 72, 73(Part), 78 (Part), 79 (Part) and 80 situated at Bhuvanagiri Village and Mandal, the then Nalgonda District, was purchased through the sale deed bearing document No.242 of 2013 dated 05.09.2012;
(iii) an extent of Acs.22-26 guntas of land in Survey No.178 situated at Penchikal Pahad Village was purchased through the sale deed bearing document No.7130 of 2012 dated 05.09.2012; and
(iv) an extent of Acs.3-00 of land in Survey No.79(Part) of Bhongir Village was purchased through the sale deed bearing document No.1875 of 2013.
6
(a) The subject land was mutated in favour of the petitioner vide Mutation Proceedings Nos.B/5276/2012 dated 25.02.2013, C/496/2013 dated 04.03.2013, C/697/2013 dated 04.03.2013 and C/660/2013 dated 14.05.2013 respectively.
(b) Subsequently, the petitioner applied for conversion of the subject land, and the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) had issued proceedings for conversion of the subject land from agriculture to non-agriculture vide Letter No.12966/MP1/Plg/HMDA/2013 on the petitioner's letter dated 01.11.2013. The HMDA authority has also issued letters dated 01.11.2013, 21.11.2013 and G.O. Ms. No.476 dated 27.11.2013 in respect of conversion of the subject land from agriculture to non- agriculture i.e., residential zone.
(c) The petitioner applied for residential plots layout in respect of the subject land to HMDA and after following due process of law and procedure, preliminary layouts were issued as per the norms and rules. On compliance of the conditions, the HMDA has released final layouts vide Letter 7 No.103961/LO/Plg/HMDA/2013 dated 26.05.2018 and Letter No.105800/LO/Plg/HMDA/2013 dated 14.12.2018.
(d) In compliance of the conditions imposed in the above sanctioned proceedings, the petitioner has executed two registered gift deeds bearing document Nos.8695 of 2017 dated 27.10.2017 and 13605 of 2018 dated 09.11.2018 in favour of Bhongir Municipality in respect of open areas, common areas, roads etc. Power supply was sanctioned to the petitioner vide proceedings No.SPP.O.O.(Coml) Ms.No.43/2016-17 dated 04.02.2017.
(e) While so, the Station House Officer, Bhongir issued a communication letter dated 24.03.2019 instructing respondent No.5
- the Sub-Registrar, Bhongir, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District to stop registration of documents in respect of the subject land and some other properties by referring to criminal cases filed against the gangster late Nayeem and his associates vide Crime Nos.302 of 2016, 324 of 2016 and 60 of 2017.
(f) The above communication letter dated 24.03.2019 was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No.16432 of 2019 8 before this Court and the writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court by the common order dated 11.03.2020 setting aside the communication letter. The respondents therein did not prefer any appeal against the common order in W.P.No.16432 of 2019 dated 11.03.2020, and, thus it has become final.
(g) However, by communicating the order in W.P. No.16432 of 2019 dated 11.03.2020, when the petitioner requested respondent No.5 to register the document to be presented in respect of the subject land, respondent No.5 avoided the same on the pretext that he did not receive any instructions from his superior authorities. When the petitioner presented document sale deed dated 03.06.2021 for registration executed in favour of one K.A. Naidu in respect of Plot No.444 covered by the subject land, respondent No.5 informed that the same cannot be registered since the plot is covered by Survey Nos.72 and 73 of Bhongir Village which are prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1)(e) of The Registration Act 1908 as communicated by respondent No.3 - the Commissioner and Inspector General (Stamps and 9 Registration), Telangana, Hyderabad vide Memo No.G2/5402/2016 dated 19.12.2019. Immediately petitioner submitted an application dated 10.06.2021 under The Right to Information Act 2005 to respondent No.5 and sought information and also copy of the notification issued by the Government. On the very next day, respondent No.5 passed Order No.5 of 2021 refusing to register the sale deed and communicated the same by the letter in LR No.214/2021 dated 11.06.2021.
(h) In response to the petitioner's application, respondent No.5 furnished copies of the impugned memo and communication along with a list of properties prohibited under Section 22-A(1)(e) of The Registration act 1908 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3.
(i) The petitioner submits that the impugned letter No.ROR/I/1140/2019 dated 05.12.2019 informs details of the properties included in the Prohibitory Properties List and respondent No.3 communicated the same to respondent No.5 by Memo No.G2/5402/2016 dated 09.12.2019. The petitioner immediately filed another application dated 26.06.2021 under The 10 Right to Information Act 2005 to respondent No.2 seeking information as well as copy of the file based on which decision in the above letter No.ROR/I/1140 dated 05.12.2019 was arrived at by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and communicated the same to respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 surprisingly informed by the communication dated 15.07.2021 that the file culminating in the impugned letter cannot be traced out.
(j) The petitioner submits that action of the respondents in including the subject land in the prohibitory properties list is illegal, without any power and jurisdiction. The subject land is private land and the same is recognised by the respondents' authorities. The subject land does not fall under the purview of Section 22-A(1)(e) of The Registration Act 1908. There is no attachment against the subject land by any Court of Law or Tribunal or Revenue Court to attract the provision under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act and the police have no source of power to attach the immovable properties in connection with any criminal case as held by this Court in W.P. No.16432 of 2019 dated 11.03.2020.
11
6. In the counter filed by respondent No.5, it is stated that by the order dated 11.03.2021 in W.P. Nos.15722, 15724 and 16432 of 2019, this Court directed respondent No.5 therein (respondent No.5 herein too) to take necessary action as per law by setting aside the impugned communications of the Inspector of Police, SIT Bhongir dated 24.03.2019. The document dated 03.06.2021 presented by the petitioner was refused for registration and communicated the same to the petitioner. The properties mentioned in the schedule of the said document are prohibited from registration under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act 1908. According to the letter received by respondent No.5 from respondent No.3, the document presented by the petitioner was refused for the above reasons.
(i) The lands in Survey Nos.72 (Part) and 73 (Part) of Bhongir Village are prohibited from registration as the same are listed by the Government under Section 22(A)(1)(e) of the Registration Act. The same is communicated through the Commissioner and Inspector General (Registration and Stamps) 12 Department, through Memo No.G2/5402/2016 dated 09.12.2019 with the District Registrar Nalgonda Endt.No.G/2403/2019 dated 09.12.2019 and entered in the Prohibited Properties Watch Register in CCA CARD, and therefore, the said lands are prohibited from registration. The subject lands to an extent of Acs.24.00 in Survey Nos.71, 72, 73, 78, 79 and 80 is placed in the list at Serial No.312 of the Prohibited Properties List. Thus, total an extent of Acs.51.04 guntas of land situated in the above survey numbers of Bhongir Village and Town are prohibited from registration through the communication issued by the Government.
7. Heard Mr. V. Ravinder Rao, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.16963 of 2021; Mr. S.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.16787 of 2021; and Mr. M. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.18825 of 2021, and Mr. Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General and also the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Government Pleader for Home, and perused the material on record. 13
8. As noted above, in the earlier litigation W.P. Nos. 15722, 15724 and 16432 of 2019 were disposed of by the common order dated 11.03.2021. The relief therein was to declare action of the Inspector of Police/Station House Officer, Bhongir Town Police Station, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate in issuing proceedings dated 23.09.2016 and 24.03.2019 of the District Registrar to the Sub Registrar, Yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana to stop further registrations in respect of the lands covered by the documents specified in the said letters as illegal and arbitrary.
9. In paragraph No.14 of the said common order, the following issues were framed by the learned single Judge:
"(i) Whether the Station House Officer is bestowed with power under any enactment to issue the communications of impugned nature; and
(ii) Whether the action of the registering authorities in refusing to register a validly executed document presented for registration on the basis of such communication, can be said to be valid and sustained."14
10. The following observations were made in the said common order:
"17. In P. Srinivasulu Vs. The Sub- Registrar, Renigunta, Chittor District (Writ Petition No.21836 of 2012, High Court of Andhra Pradesh), the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh (for the unified State of AP) while dealing the provisions of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, was pleased to observe as under :
"A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that for class of documents relating to the properties covered by Section 22-A(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Registration Act, there is prohibition for registration, even without issuing any notification. But for the class of documents covered by Section 22-
A(1)(e), the State Government is
empowered to issue notification
prohibiting registration of the documents relating to the properties in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, 15 Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions is likely to adversely affect."
18. Further, in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and Ors. Vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and Ors (W.A. No.343 of 2015 and batch, High Court of Andhra Pradesh) a Division Bench of the Common High Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, while dealing with the provisions of Section 22A of the Act, had observed as under :
"36. (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 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."16
19. Having regard to the position of law as stated above, and the material placed before this court, admittedly, there is no notification issued by the Government in exercise of its powers either suo moto or based on any application by any person. Though, it is stated by the Learned Advocate General that the concerned police authorities having regard to the complaints received, have issued the impugned communications directing the authorities not to register further documents, it is not shown to this Court that any communication having been addressed to the State Government requesting for issue of any notification in relation to the immovable properties from not being registered by placing the same in prohibitory list interalia including the petitioners properties.
20. Further, under the provisions of the Act, whereby the power to refuse to register a document being conferred only on the registering authority in respect of the properties for which a notification is issued by the State Government under Section 22- A(e) of the Act, and the Registration Act, 1908, being a complete code in itself, the action of the 17 registering authority in refusing to register a validly executed document on its presentation, on the basis of the impugned communications issued by the police authorities, is contrary to the powers conferred on the said authority under the Act. The submission of the Learned Advocate General that the communication issued directing the Registering authority not to entertain further registration cannot be construed as is not in the nature of seizure contemplated under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and that it is only in the course of investigating into the crimes registered, it is to be seen that exercise of such power by the authority should be expressly conferred on such authority by the statute. No such provision under statute conferring power on the police authorities to address such communication has been shown to this court.
21. The learned Advocate General placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nevada properties (supra) [2019 AIR 4554 (SC)] and by drawing attention of this Court to para 20 of the said judgement, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the authorities are empowered to seize the documents relating to 18 immoveable properties, would submit that the police authorities in the course of investigation into any crime are duly authorized to 13 seize title documents as they are considered as movable property under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and in the facts of the present case instead of resorting to seizure after such documents are executed, the respondent police authority had issued the impugned communication not to register any documents presented for registration and such action is in preventive nature.
22. Though the above submission of the learned Advocate General is appealing at the first blush, in absence of any provision of law conferring such power on the Station House Officer to issue communication of such nature, the only source of power referable is Section 102 Cr.P.C. If Section 102 of Cr.P.C. is considered as source of power, the same applicable only in respect of moveable property and such power does not extend to immoveable property, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nevada properties (supra). Though, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision has observed that the power under Section 102 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in 19 relation to the documents of title relating to immovable property, no material is placed before this Court to show that any of the documents either relating to the petitioner or petitioners predecessors in title having been seized in connection with any crime under investigation, requiring further alienation from being stopped."
11. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid common order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos.15722, 15724 and 16432 of 2019 dated 11.03.2020. However, the same is disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that pursuant to the letter issued by respondent No.2 - the Special Chief Secretary to Government and Chief Commissioner of the Land administration, Telangana State, Hyderabad, to respondent No.3 - the Commissioner and Inspector General (Stamps & Registration), Telangana, Hyderabad, the subject lands are included in the Prohibited Properties List. However, the learned Special Government Pleader fairly conceded that 20 notification as required under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act 1908 has not been issued. As held by the learned single Judge in paragraph Nos.18 to 20 of the afore-referred common order in W.P. No.15722 of 2019 and batch dated 11.03.2020 that registration of the lands/properties cannot be refused unless notification under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act 1908 is issued. In the opinion of this Court, the issue arising in this case is squarely covered by the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid common order. Admittedly, notification was not issued in the instant case under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act 1908. In view of the same, the impugned communication dated 05.12.2019 in respect of the subject land is unsustainable.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, all these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned communication in Letter No.ROR- I/1140/2019 dated 05.12.2019 issued by respondent No.2 and Memo No.G2/5402/2016 dated 09.12.2019 issued by respondent No.3 are set aside. Respondent No.5 is directed to receive and register the documents to be presented by the petitioner in respect 21 of the subject lands in these three writ petitions. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions stand closed.
______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J March 25, 2022.
PV