Allowed

Khaja Mohd. Server v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak

Telangana HC1 Dec 2005WP/4371/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the refusal of Sub-Registrar to register sale documents for house plots, which was based on revenue proceedings by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Court held that a notification under Section 22-A is mandatory for such refusal to be valid. It directed the respondents to accept and process the documents if otherwise in order.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to receive the documents and process the same, if found to be otherwise in order.

Khaja Mohd. Server Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

W.P.No. 4371 OF 2005

¶3

1 st December, 2005

¶4

Between:

¶5

Khaja Mohd. Server and Others …Petitioners

¶6

A N D

¶7

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak

¶8

and another …Respondents

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶10

W.P.No. 4371 OF 2005

¶11

O R D E R :

¶12

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are nine in number with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in refusing to receive the

¶13

documents for registration as arbitrary and illegal.

¶14

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:

¶15

The petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of the house bearing Nos. 3-966, 3-9-67 and 3-9-67/A totally admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas comprising Sy.No. 1174, situated at Medak town. The properties were originally purchased by their great grand father-Mohd.Yakub Sahab through a sale deed dated 5-3-1326 Fasli (1916) and constructed a house thereon. After death of their great grand father, their grand father by name Mohd. Abbas Ali has inherited the same as absolute owner and after his death, they inherited the same and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. The father of the petitioners obtained permission from the Commissioner and Special Officer, Medak Municipality for construction of shed and compound wall in the above said premises. Their father established an industry in the name and style as M/s Medak Leather Tanning Company in the year 1975 by obtaining loan to a tune of Rs. 75,000/-. He mortgaged the premises in favour of the Indian Bank, Madras Branch at Medak as security for the loan availed by him. The Bank filed O.S.No.60 of 1984 for realization of the amounts due from their father. The said suit being O.S.No.60 of 1984 ended in decree on 17-4-1985. Bank filed E.P.No. 4 of 1985 in O.S.No. 60 of 1984 for realization of the decretal amount. After putting the existing structure to the auction, part of the decretal amount has been realized and part of the amount has been paid by the petitioners. Later, the petitioners converted the lands into house plots and proposed to sell the same. They sold five plots to various individuals. At that stage, the Revenue Divisional Officer1^st respondent issued proceedings directing the Sub-Registrar-2^nd respondent not to register the documents in respect of plots bearing house No.3-9-66, 3-9-67 and 3- 9-67/A, admeasuring Ac. 0-30 guntas in Sy.No. 1174, situated at Medak town on the pretext that the said land has been recorded in Khariz Katha in the revenue records. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land bearing survey No.1174 admeasuring Ac.0-30 guntas is the property of the great grand father of the petitioners and it is not a Government land.

¶18

5. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents that in the Revenue record the land has been entered as Khariz Katha and therefore, it is a Government land.

¶19

6. It is the stand of the petitioners in the writ affidavit that their father raised a loan by mortgaging the premises in question and thereupon the bank filed a suit and obtained a decree and put the existing structure thereon for sale and realized part of the amount and part of the amount has been paid by the petitioners. These facts are detailed in paras 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit. It can be said without any controversy that the property has been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over a considerable period. They converted the land into house plots and proposed to sell five plots to various individuals. When they presented the sale documents for registration, the Sub-Registrar-2^nd respondent refused to receive the same, in view of the impugned proceedings dated 24-2-1999, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer-1^st respondent.

¶20

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that unless the notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) has been issued, the Sub-Registrar-2^nd respondent cannot refuse to receive the documents for registration and the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer-1^st respondent cannot be construed as notification under Section 22-A of the Act. In support of his submission she placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of our High Court in Mandadi Nirmala Vs. District Collector,

¶21

Hyderabad and Kunchanapalli Mysooraiah V. Sub-Registrar, Cuddapah District,

¶22

“The Government is vested with the power under Sectin22-A of the Registration Act to notify to the registering authority the details of the properties in respect of which, the registration shall not be effected. Except in a case where a properly is notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the registering authority has no power to refuse to register a document presented to him as regards the property within his jurisdiction, if the document is otherwise in order and if there is no dispute as to the identity of the executant. In Mandadi Nirmala vs. District Collector, Hyderabad a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a case where the registering authority refused to register the document on the ground that

¶23

the proceedings relating to the subject matter of the document were pending in the Land Grabbing Court, speaking for the Bench, Sri Justice P.Venkatrama Reddy (as he then was) observed as under:

¶24

We therefore, direct the Sub-Registrar to consider the question of registration of the documents in the light of the Registration Act after referring to the objection raised by the Mandal Revenue Officer and to pass appropriate orders according to l a w . In case it is decided to register and release the documents, appropriate endorsements shall be made on the documents referring to the factum of objection by the Revenue Department and the overruling of objection. It is made clear that the alienations in question will be subject to the result of Land Grabbing Case said to be pending in the Special Court”.

¶25

8. Therefore, the dispute with regard to title or pendency of the proceedings before some other authorities does not confer any right on the respondents to refuse the document produced by the petitioners for the purpose of registration, since no notification has been issued under Section 22-A of the Act and the act of the respondents in not accepting the documents presented by the petitioners is not justified.

¶26

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to receive the documents and process the same, if it is found to be otherwise in order. No order as to costs.

¶27

Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy

¶28

1^st December, 2005

¶29

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶31

W.P.No. 4371 OF 2005

¶32

1 st December, 2005