Telangana High Court
Nerella Jyothi vs State Of Telangana on 22 March, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.44223 OF 2018; 9198, 12639, 13734, 14967, 15645, 22073 OF 2020; 275, 342, 4582, 4588, 7135, 7687, 7698, 8325, 8504, 8536, 9092, 10099, 10129, 10861, 11138, 11144, 11280, 11366, 12635, 12910, 13006, 13151, 13992, 14186, 14187, 14201, 14223, 15090, 15351,15470,15966,16011, 16038, 16113, 16178, 19229, 24306, 26049, 26168, 26894, 27183, 27190, 27193, 27198, 27209, 27224, 27235, 27269, 28184, 28891, 29225, 29419, 29459, 29536, 29580, 30697, 31551, 31577, 31805, 32886, 33114, 32499, 35501, 35615 & 35622 OF 2021 COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel representing Mr. V. Rohith, Mr. Surendra Desai, Mr. Srinivasa Rao Putluri and Mr. K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective petitioners, other learned counsel for the remaining petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents and Mr. G. V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents.
2. The lis involved in this batch of writ petitions is one and the same. Therefore, they are heard together and decided by this common order.
3. The grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is to declare the action of the respondent authorities, more particularly, the District Registrar and the Sub-Registrar in not entertaining the documents submitted by the petitioners for registration, and not releasing the same even after completion of registration formalities.
2
KL,J W.P. No.44223 of 2018 & batch
4. It is contended by the petitioners that the Vendors are owners of their respective extents in respective survey numbers, the details of which are specifically mentioned. The Registering Authority is not registering the properties without assigning any reasons. It is further contended that the respondents are not entertaining the registrations on the ground that they have received oral instructions from their Higher Officials and in some cases they have issued memos stating that no sale deeds will be registered.
5. According to the parties, the action of non-registration of the properties in Rekurthi Village is due to the disputes involved in W.P. Nos. 25622 of 2003, 25824 of 2003, 25825 of 2003, 25826 of 2003, 25829 of 2003. The Respondent authorities have, time and again, addressed various communications asking the Sub-Registrar to desist from registering any properties falling in the survey numbers.
6. In the present writ petitions, the Tahsildar, Kothapally addressed a letter dated 26.07.2018 to the Sub-Registrar, Gangadhara village requesting not register any properties till final orders are passed in W.P. Nos. 24485 of 2003, 25622 of 2003, 25824 of 2003, 25825 of 2003, 25826 of 2003, 25827 of 2003, 25829 of 2003 and 84 of 2004. Subsequently, a note Endt.No.PC/3187/2018 dated 28.07.2018 was addressed by the District Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Karimnagar to the Sub-Registrar, Gangadhara to restrain from 3 KL,J W.P. No.44223 of 2018 & batch registering properties appended to the said note dated 28.07.2018. The said note includes survey numbers which are not covered by the writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 25622 of 2003, 25824 of 2003, 25825 of 2003, 25826 of 2003, 25829 of 2003.
7. Further, is relevant to note that in none of the writ petitions, the Registering Authorities have given any reasons in writing for refusal to register the documents. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the lands in Rekurthi Village are covered by writ petitions and also the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.202 of 2020 and, therefore, the Registering Authorities were right in refusing to register the documents produced by the petitioners. However, he fairly submitted that as per Section - 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'Act, 1908'), the Registering Authorities shall give the reasons for refusal to register documents.
8. In view of the above said submissions, it is relevant to refer to Section
- 71 of the Act, 1908 and also Rule - 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'Rules').
"71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.--
(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 4 KL,J W.P. No.44223 of 2018 & batch 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."
"58. It forms no part of a Registering Officer's duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below:
a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be;
b) that the document is forged;
c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity;
d) that the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party applying for registration; or
e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic."
9. As per the above said Rule, the Registering Authority does not have the power to enquire about the validity of a document produced for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document, but he is bound to consider the objections raised and give reasons.
5
KL,J W.P. No.44223 of 2018 & batch
10. As per Section - 71 of the Act, 1908, the Sub-Registrar has to give specific reasons for refusal to register documents.
11. In the entire batch of writ petitions, there is no order passed by the Registering Authority assigning any reasons for refusal to register the documents. It is also relevant to note that the subject lands in the present batch of writ petitions is not covered by the lis involved in the batch of 2003 writ petitions and the land covered therein.
12. It is also relevant to note that Mr. G.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 in the said batch of 2003 writ petitions, had filed a memo dated 18.11.2021 stating that the land in 2003 batch writ petitions is in particular Survey Numbers and its respective extents, which is specifically mentioned below:
Survey Number Extent of Land in Dispute
Sy. No. 6 Ac. 2-34 Gts.
Sy. No. 27 Ac. 2-12 Gts.
Sy. No. 44 Ac. 0-38 Gts.
Sy. No. 20 Ac. 1-32 Gts.
Sy. No. 50 Ac. 3-03 Gts.
Sy. No. 216 Ac. 0-30 Gts.
Sy. No. 18 Ac. 9-28 Gts.
Sy. No. 26 Ac. 2-09 Gts.
Sy. No. 27 Ac. 1-28 Gts.
Sy. No. 58 Ac. 3-35 Gts.
Sy. No. 194 Ac. 88-21 Gts.
Sy. No. 186 Ac.17-35 Gts.
Sy. No. 157 Ac. 2-05 Gts.
Sy. No. 158 Ac. 0.12 Gts.
6
KL,J
W.P. No.44223 of 2018 & batch
13. The said fact is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and also Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the batch of writ petitions of the year 2003. It is also relevant to note that the land in the present batch of writ petitions is not covered by the orders passed by the District Collector and the Divisional Revenue Officer of the then Karimnagar District and the Tahsildar of Kothapally Mandal vide proceedings dated 26.07.2018. It is also relevant to note that this Court in the entire batch of writ petitions has granted interim orders directing the Registering Authorities to entertain sale deeds / documents produced by the petitioners and release the same after completion of registration formalities if the same are otherwise in order. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in compliance of the orders passed by this Court, the Registering Authorities have entertained the documents submitted by the petitioners, released the documents on completion of registration formalities. Therefore, these writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the interim order granted by this Court.
14. As far as the note Endt.No.PC/3187/2018 dated 28.07.2018 is concerned, it was contended by Mr. Srinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.11138 of 2021 that it was against Section - 22A of the Act, 1908. According to him, no notification was issued as required under 7 KL,J W.P. No.44223 of 2018 & batch Section - 22A (e) prohibition the registration of documents. He placed reliance on the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. No.5156 of 2021.
15. This Court agrees with the contention of Mr. Srinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel. The said note dated 28.07.2018 was merely issued as a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Gangadhara, instructing to watch in respect of Survey Numbers appended thereto and restrain all registrations pertaining to those survey numbers until they are entered into list of prohibited properties in the CCA Module. A notification as required under Section - 22A (e) was not issued. Further, the said note dated 28.07.2018 does not specify any reasons as to why the documents should not be registered in terms of Section - 71 of the Act, 1908 and Rule - 58 of the Rules. Therefore, the said note dated 28.07.2018 is set aside.
16. Considering the entire facts and also in view of the above discussion, more particularly, the fact that the land in the subject writ petitions is not covered by the land in the batch of writ petitions of 2003 and also considering the memo dated 18.11.2021 filed by Mr. G.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.6, these writ petitions are disposed of. As per Rule - 58 of the Rules, it is relevant to note that the Registering Authorities have no right to enquire about the validity of a document. It is also relevant to note that 8 KL,J W.P. No.44223 of 2018 & batch mere registration of a document will not entitle the petitioner to claim right over the subject property as it is only conveyance of property and it will not create any right. The writ petitions, in which the Registering Authorities have already entertained the documents and released the same on completion of registration formalities, are disposed of in terms of interim orders granted by this Court in the subject writ petitions. The Registering Authorities are directed to receive the documents produced by the petitioners and complete the registration formalities, if the same are otherwise in order. If the Registering Authority refuses to register the documents, he/she has to specifically assign reasons in terms of Section - 71 of the Act, 1908.
17. With the above said directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petitions shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 22nd March, 2022 Mgr