Telangana High Court
Kukudala Rajashekar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 4 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.P. No.36264 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.5, Sub-Registrar, Vanasthalipuram, in refusing to receive, register and release the sale deed pending document No.P.149/2019 dated 26.07.2019 presented by the petitioners vide refusal order No.P149/251/2019, dated 15.10.2019 on the ground that the open land bearing Plot No.171, admeasuring 500 square yards or 417.698 square meters in Sy.No.200, situated at Sreepuram, Sahebnagar village, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under L.B. Nagar Circle-III of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, is included in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent No.5 to receive, register and release the said subject document.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they jointly purchased the subject land from one Smt. Nuthi Subba Lakshmi and her sons, whose common ancestor Nuthi Subramanyam had earlier purchased said open Plot No.171 through registered sale deed vide document bearing No.1625 of 1967 from one Sri Pucha Venkata Subramanya Shastry. After purchasing the above referred plot, petitioners raised a temporary shed in the said plot and got electricity connection.
NVSK, J 2 W.P. No.36264 of 2024
3. It is further submitted that the petitioners have entered into sale transaction in respect of the subject property and paid substantial sale consideration to their vendor, presented the sale deed for registration by complying all the procedures on 26.07.2019. However, the respondent No.5 received the said document and kept the same pending vide P.149/2019 and passed refusal order No.P149/251/2019 dated 15.10.2019 by taking objection that the subject property cannot be registered as per the letter issued by the District Collector vide Lr.No.JC-1/Peshi/Spl/2009 dated 20.02.2009 by putting the subject property in prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that once the subject plot is declared as private land and the documents were registered earlier and subsequently the title has been flown to different hands and residential houses also came up in the said locality, therefore, the same cannot be treated as Government land until and unless a judicial order or a proceeding is issued. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents in including the subject plot or its survey numbers in prohibited list is bad in law as the title holders were not issued any notice or caused any opportunity to afford their explanation.
NVSK, J 3 W.P. No.36264 of 2024
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that though specifically subject plot has not been shown as prohibited, however the subject survey number has been included in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act as it is a Government land hence, refused to register the subject plot for registration.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on the record.
7. The main grievance of the petitioners is that though the subject plot is declared as private land and several documents were registered since long time and the title has been flown, now the authorities cannot refuse to register the subject property.
8. On a perusal of the subject document an Endorsement has been made by the Sub Registrar that "Refusal Order No.74/2019 dated 15.10.2019, Registration refused as the property is prohibited u/s 22A(1)(b) of Registration Act, 1908."
9. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar circumstances this Court passed the orders in W.P. No.2903 of 2023 wherein directed the authorities to register the subject property mentioned therein. Further it is held that in the absence of any notification the authorities cannot deny the registration.
NVSK, J 4 W.P. No.36264 of 2024
10. At this juncture, it is not out of place to mention that in the case of M/s.Invecta Technologies Private Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the validity of the Section 22-A of the Registration Act, while referring to the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary Vs. Revenue Department 2 wherein had issued certain directions and the relevant direction herein at para No.156 is that ".... (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 six weeks from the date of receipt of the application and make its copy available to the concerned party."
11. Coming to the case on hand, it is to be noted that since the subject Plot No.171 is falling in Sy.No.200 situated at Sreepuram, Sahebnagar village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and as could be seen from the prohibited list placed before this Court subject Sy.No.200 is included in the prohibited list and various extents have been shown.
1 2024 (1) ALT 272 (DB) 2 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407 NVSK, J 5 W.P. No.36264 of 2024
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and following the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to make an application to the respondents authority seeking for deletion/modification of the subject property from the prohibited list, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, it is for the respondents authority to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of such representation. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 03.02.2025 LSK