Dismissed

K Praveen Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Nov 2020WP/15197/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ to restrain the registering authority from processing documents pending a third-party objection regarding property title. The single-judge High Court Bench held that the Registration Act does not empower sub-registrars to adjudicate title disputes based on third-party protests, dismissing the writ petition as misconceived.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus against the Registering Authority was not granted; the petition to stop registration pending title objection was dismissed.

K Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.15197 of 2020

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed

¶5

seeking the following relief/s:

¶6

“…to issue a Writ one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 & 3 in considering the representation through legal notice, dated 15.07.2020 made to them before processing the document submitted by the 4^th respondent for registration in respect of petitioners property admeasuring 81-11 square yards open site and 556-62 square feet Kadapa Slabs and wooden rafters roof house and Kadapa slabs and wooded rafters roof 273.75 square feet 1^st floor house HSC No.33 out of an extent of 17.14 cents in Sy.No.259-1B2, admeasuring 39.66 square yards open site and 170 square feet RCC house baring No.2/140 and RCC 1^st floor full out of Ac.9.63 cents in Survey No.251-2 and admeasuring 36.48 square yards open site and house constructed in the open site with RCC roof 328.37 square feet house bearing No.D.No.2-140 fitted with HSC No.72 full in Ac.0.47 cents in Survey No.262-7A, all the properties situated at Gorantla village fields, Gorantla Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India…”

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. Since this Court is inclined to hear and pass appropriate order in the writ petition at the stage of admission, no notice is ordered to the 4^th respondent.

¶8

The case of the petitioners is that the subject properties are the ancestral properties and they fell to the share of their father, who in turn allotted the same to the petitioners by way of registered settlement deeds dated 26.04.2014 and registered gift deed, dated 12.04.2016. Since the date of the documents, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioners came to know that the 4^th respondent, without any right and title to the properties, is making serious efforts to create collusive documents by registering the property to third parties. Hence, they got issued a legal notice dated 15.07.2020 to the respondents 2 & 3, enclosing copies of registered deeds, requesting them not to process any documents which the 4^th

¶9

¶10

MGR,J WP_15197_2020

¶11

respondent may produce in respect of the subject property as she has no right over the properties. The petitioners apprehend that at any point of time the respondents 2 & 3, at the instance of the 4^th respondent, may register the documents and create third party rights over the subject property. Hence, the writ petition.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a duty is cast on the registering authority to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration by considering any written or verbal protest against the registration of such a documents if the executing party had no right to execute the document and every document shall, before acceptance for the registration examined by the registering officer to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and Rules have been complied with.

¶13

A plain reading of the provisions of the Registration Act and the A.P Rules made thereunder makes it clear that none of the provisions of the Registration Act authorize the Registering Officer to consider the objections of the third party to the document and make a roving enquiry into the title and refuse the registration of a document on the objection raised by a person who is a third party to the document, on the ground that the party who executed the document and sought to register it, has no title to the property. However, the Registering Officer is bound to follow the procedure enumerated in Rule 58(a) to (e) of the A.P. Rules. In fact, the petitioner, by asking the Registering Authority not to register the document to be presented for registration on the ground that he is the absolute owner of the property covered thereby, was seeking to raise a title dispute, which the Registering Authority, under the provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder, is not entitled to go into. If the petitioner intends to dispute the document to be presented for registration and the contents thereof, he has to avail the

¶14

¶15

MGR,J WP_15197_2020

¶16

common law remedy, but he cannot ask the Registering Authority nor the Registering Authority has any right or power under the Registration Act to determine disputes relating to title to the property. The Registering Authority is required to discharge his statutory duties within the powers conferred on him under the statute and not otherwise. If any person is aggrieved by registration of a document, it is open to such person to avail remedies under the provisions of the Registration Act and other remedies under common law by approaching competent civil Court.

¶17

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is misconceived and the counsel for the petitioner could not persuade this Court with regard to the provision of law which obligates the Registering Authority to consider any objections raised by the third party to the document. Hence, the relief cannot be granted to the petitioner putting an embargo on the sub-registrar to consider the representation through legal notice before registering any document pertaining to the petitioner’s property.

¶18

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

______________ M.GANGA RAO, J

04.11.2020 Vjl

MGR,J WP_15197_2020

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶25

Writ Petition No.15197 of 2020

¶26

04.11.2020

¶27

Vjl

K Praveen Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Praveen Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Koteswararao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Atmakuri Sambasiva Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Praveen Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mettu Srinivasa Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Krishna Zilla Apcpdcl Vidyuth Contractors Welfare Association (Regd.), Vs Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.

Chichili Purushotham Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh