Petitioner challenged a letter prohibiting registration of his sale deed. The Court held the Sub-Registrar is bound only by the Registration Act, not administrative letters, and directed him to register the document.
Impugned letter declared void; Sub-Registrar directed to receive and register the sale deed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.36087 of 2012
Dated 2 3 rd November, 2012
Between:
D.Venkata Gopi Krishna
…Petitioner
and
The Sub-Registrar, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District and another
…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Venkat Reddy
Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Home
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside letter, dated 19.06.2008, of respondent No.2, directing respondent No.1 to stop registration of the petitioner’s flat bearing No.B-4, B-Block, 1st Floor, Swarna Residency, bearing Door No.48-11/8-7, in R.S.No.350/1 of Currency Nagar, Gunadala, Vijayawada Town, Krishna District.
The petitioner is the owner of the above-mentioned property having purchased the same under sale deed, dated 25.08.2001. When he intended to sell the same and presented a sale deed, respondent No.1 refused to receive the same. On the enquiry made by the petitioner, he was informed that respondent No.2 has addressed letter, dated 19.06.2008, to respondent No.1, wherein he has requested him to stop registration of the above-mentioned property, as a criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioner by an agency
called Family Credit Limited, wherein the petitioner has allegedly worked as Branch Manager and committed misappropriation. Feeling aggrieved by the said letter of respondent No.2 and the consequential inaction of respondent No.1 in receiving and registering the document sought to be presented by the petitioner, he has filed the present writ petition.
When the case came up for admission and hearing in the pre lunch session, this Court has passed over the case to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.1 to get instructions. In the post lunch session, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in view of the above-mentioned letter addressed by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has not received the document. He was, however, unable to state any provision of law under which respondent No.1 is bound to act on the above-mentioned letter of respondent No.2.
Respondent No.1, who is a functionary under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) is bound to act within the parameters of the said Act. The only provision which deals with the prohibition on registration is Section 22-A of the Act. Unless the registration is barred by any of the Clauses of the said provision, it is imperative for respondent No.1 to receive and register the document subject however to any orders that may be passed by the competent Court restraining such registration. In my opinion, respondent No.2 has no power or authority to address the impugned letter to respondent No.1 and the latter is in no way bound to accept the request of respondent No.2.
In the premises as above, it is declared that the letter addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 has no effect in law and the same does not bind the latter. Respondent No.1 is directed to receive the document that may be presented by the petitioner in respect of the above-mentioned property and process the same in accordance with the Act and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.45863
of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
23rd November, 2012 VGB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Sub-Registrar is bound by an administrative letter from a higher authority prohibiting the registration of a document without a court order.
Whether the respondent Sub-Registrar had the authority to refuse to register the sale deed based on the impugned letter.
The legal effect of a letter from the Department of Home regarding the registration of immovable property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Venkata Gopi Krishna
The Sub-Registrar, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District
The Government (Home Department)
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
