Allowed

M/s.Himagiri Group v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC23 Feb 2023WP/3792/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition challenging a Sub-Registrar's refusal to register sale deeds. The refusal was based on an Andhra Pradesh Government order attaching the debtor company's properties. The Court relied on a judical precedent clarifying that properties registered before the attachment order's effective date are exempt from encumbrance, thus setting aside the refusal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned refusal check slip is set aside; the matter is remitted to the third respondent for reconsideration and registration of the documents within four weeks.

M/s.Himagiri Group Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Writ Petition No.3792 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :23.02.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.3792 of 2023 and WMP.No.3861 of 2023

¶7

M/s.Himagiri Group Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri B.Poorna Chandra Reddy (M/60), S/o Sri B.Seena Reddy, Flat No.301, Himagiri Homes, No.131/1-A2, Marenahalli, J.P.Nagar 2^nd Phase, Bengaluru – 560 078. ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

The District Registrar of Registrations, Krishnagiri District.

¶11

The Sub-Registrar, Hosur Taluk, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. … Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the 3^rd respondent's refusal check slips No.RFL/Hosur/60/2022 dated 08.12.2022, to quash the same and to consequently directing the 3^rd respondent to register the sale deeds that

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

1/10

¶15

Writ Petition No.3792 of 2023

¶16

are executed by the petitioner in respect of sites/plots carved out in Sy.No.96/2B, Sy.No.96/3B and Sy.No.96/4 of Eluvapalli Village in Hosur Taluk in the Layout called “HIMAGIRI CITY”, Sector – II, North Gate.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned refusal check slip of the 3^rd respondent in refusal check slip No.RFL/Hosur/60/2022 dated 08.12.2022 and to consequently directing the 3^rd respondent to register the sale deeds that are executed by the petitioner in respect of sites/plots carved out in Sy.No.96/2B, Sy.No.96/3B and Sy.No.96/4 of Eluvapalli Village in Hosur

¶20

Taluk in the Layout called “HIMAGIRI CITY”, Sector – II, North Gate.

¶21

The petitioner presented a document for registration before the

¶22

third respondent, which has been refused to be taken up for registration and in this regard, a refusal check slip dated 08.12.2022 has been issued. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/10

¶25

Writ Petition No.3792 of 2023

¶26

Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

petitioner, who would submit that the reason cited by the third respondent i.e., Sub-Registrar to refuse to register the document presented by the petitioner is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.23, Home (ARM & SPF) Department, dated 20.12.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.21, Home (General -A2) Department, dated 29.02.2016, based on these two Government Orders, the objection had been raised by the Sub-Registrar stating that under these two Government Orders issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, what are all the properties that stood in the name of Agri Gold company would be attached and those documents cannot be encumbered with further. Insofar as this embargo is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that this position has been clarified by a judicial order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the matter of Sri Thotavenkata Naga Ravikanth Vs. The State of Andhra Prades in W.P.No.15669 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020, where he relied upon paragraph 9 of the order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which reads thus:

¶28

“9. While so, the impugned notice dated 21.06.2020 shows that the same was issued by 3rd respondent directing

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

3/10

¶31

Writ Petition No.3792 of 2023

¶32

the petitioner to deposit the damages into the bank account of the Competent Authority on the ground that the subject property was attached by the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.23, Home (ARMS & SPF) Department, dated 20.02.2015. There can be no demur that in view of Section 3 of the Act mentioned supra, the Government have power to issue ad-interim order of attachment of a property in the interests of the depositors upon fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in the said section. The petitioner is not questioning the statutory power of the Government. However, his concern is that even the said G.O.Ms.No.23 itself has exempted from attachment of those properties which were registered prior to the registration of the Crime on 01.03.2015 by the Police of Pedapadu Police Station and the subject property being registered on 05.07.2013, the same will not fall within the purview of the said G.O. I find force in the said contention. In the Annexure – I of the G.O.Ms.No.23, it was mentioned thus. “Except the plots that were registered in the respective Sub-Registrar Officers before the Criminal cases were registered i.e., 01.03.2015 at Pedapadu, West Godavari District, the rest of the land shall cover under the above G.O.” The aforementioned stipulation shows that the plots which were belonging to Agri Gold company and which were sold under registered documents prior to 01.03.2015 were excepted from the purview of the G.O.Ms.No.23. It goes

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

4/10

¶35

Writ Petition No.3792 of 2023

¶36

without saying that any constructions made on those plots and sold prior to 01.03.2015 will also be exempted from G.O.Ms.No.23. The copy the Sale Deed executed in favour of the petitioner by Agri Gold Constructions Private Limited through its authorised signatory shows that it was registered on 05.07.2013. Therefore, in view of the above stipulation in G.O.Ms.No.23, the subject property can be said to have been exempted from attachment even assuming that the said property was acquired with the funds collected from the depositors. In that view, the impugned notice is not sustainable.”

¶37

Relying upon this portion of the order, learned counsel would

¶38

contend that the stipulation mentioned in the two Government Orders referred to above are concerned, such attachment would come into effect for those properties stood in the name of Agri Gold Company as on 01.03.2015, in other words, the property sold in favour of the Agri Gold, who purchased the same on or after 01.03.2015 alone are to be subjected to these attachment, that means, those properties purchased by the Agri Gold Company prior to 01.03.2015 and sold or exploited or encumbered would not be covered under the import of the said Government Orders.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

5/10

¶41

Writ Petition No.3792 of 2023

¶42

Citing these developments i.e., import of the judgment referred

¶43

to above, learned counsel for the petitioner would canvass the point that, insofar as the present property is concerned, for which, the document in question was presented for registration, that property was not purchased on or after 01.03.2015 by the said Agri Gold Company, therefore, it is not covered under the Government Orders referred to above. Hence, the reason cited by the Sub-Registrar in the impugned refusal check slip would not be sustained, he contended.

¶44

I have heard Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special

¶45

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. He has made an attempt to sustain the order passed by the Sub-Registrar by citing the reason that the import of the Government Orders i.e., G.O.Ms.No.23, Home (ARM & SPF) Department, dated 20.12.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.21, Home (General -A2) Department, dated 29.02.2016 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, cannot be interpreted according to the convenience of the petitioner and therefore, the reasons cited by the third respondent i.e., Sub-Registrar has to be sustained in view of the categorical Government Orders issued in this regard by the State of

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

6/10

¶48

Writ Petition No.3792 of 2023

¶49

Andhra Pradesh and the learned Special Government Pleader wants to

¶50

sustain the reason cited in the impugned refusal check slip.

¶51

I have considered the said submissions made by the learned

¶52

counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶53

The following words are used in paragraph 9 of the judgment referred to above “The aforementioned stipulation shows that the plots which were belonging to Agri Gold company and which were sold under registered documents prior to 01.03.2015 were excepted from the purview of the G.O.Ms.No.23.”

¶54

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh therefore has clarified in clear terms that, the embargo put in against the properties, which were purchased by the Agri Gold company is concerned as per the two Government Orders i.e., G.O.Ms.No.23, Home (ARM & SPF) Department, dated 20.12.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.21, Home (General -A2) Department, dated 29.02.2016 referred to above issued by the State of

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

7/10

¶57

Writ Petition No.3792 of 2023

¶58

Andhra Pradesh, those properties if it is purchased on or after 01.03.2015 alone can be subjected to such conditions of the Government Orders that there may be a attachment of those properties, which cannot be sold or exploited or encumbered by anyone.

¶59

However, the property in question was not purchased on or after 01.03.2015 and it was a prior purchase and sale i.e., prior to 01.03.2015 and therefore, not covered under the aforesaid Government Orders in view of the law having been declared by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the judgment cited supra. Therefore, this Court has not hesitation to hold that the reason stated by the third respondent in the impugned refusal check slip is not sustainable and accordingly, the said order is to be interfered with.

¶60

In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order:

¶61

That the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent for reconsideration.

¶62

While reconsidering the same, without citing the reason now being

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

8/10

¶65

Writ Petition No.3792 of 2023

¶66

quashed, the third respondent shall independently scrutiny the document and if it is found in order in all respects, the same shall

¶67

be proceeded to register by the third respondent in the manner known to law.

¶68

The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the third respondent within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶69

With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶70

23.02.2023

¶71

Index : Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No mp

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

9/10

¶74

Writ Petition No.3792 of 2023

¶75

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶76

¶77

¶78

The Secretary, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶79

The District Registrar of Registrations, Krishnagiri District.

¶80

The Sub-Registrar, Hosur Taluk, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶81

Writ Petition No.3792 of 2023

¶82

23.02.2023

¶83

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶84

10/10

M/s.Himagiri Group v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Himagiri Group v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Karuppanan Vs The Sub Registrar

U.Shamima Vs The Secretary to Government

U.Shamima Vs The Secretary to Government

L.Mahendiran Vs The Secretary to Government

Amutha Vs The District Registrar

Munusamy Vs The Revenue Divisional officer