Allowed

M/s.Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., a Company incorporate under v. The Sub-Registrar, Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar District

Telangana HC16 Sept 2014WP/12833/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a writ petition challenging a Sub-Registrar's refusal to return a lease deed. The court held the refusal illegal and arbitrary as no provision authorized withholding the document upon a simple request to reject waiver of fees.

What did the court decide?

The impugned letter No.35/2009 dated 23.09.2009 was set aside and the Sub-Registrar was directed to return the document P-18/2008 to the petitioner.

M/s.Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., a Company incorporate under… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.12833 0f 2009

¶3

Between:

¶4

M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Rep. by General Manager Ch. Sri Rami Reddy

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

1. The Sub-Registrar, Jadcherla, Mehaboobnagar District, and another.

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition challenges the letter bearing No.35/09, dated 23.09.2009 issued by the 1^st respondent-Sub-registrar, Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶11

2. Heard Sri Vikram Posarla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶12

3. The undisputed facts in the present writ petition are that enclosing a sum of Rs.15,860/- towards the registration fee, the petitioner submitted a lease deed dated 12.03.2008 entered into by it with the APIIC for registration before the 1^st respondent-Sub-registrar. The 1^st respondent vide notice bearing No.1/2008, dated 28.04.2008, directed the petitioner to pay the deficit registration fee of Rs.1,57,500/. Since the petitioner failed in its efforts to get the waiver of registration fee under G.O.Ms.No.659, dated 12.05.2008, the petitioner by way of a letter dated 25.10.2008, requested the 1^st respondent to return the original document bearing document No.P-18/2008 pending registration and the same was followed by another letter dated 19.03.2009. In response to the said letters, the 1^st respondent issued a letter bearing No.35/2009, dated 23.09.2009 saying that the document No.P-18/2008, cannot be cancelled or withdrawn and the parties to the document may cancel the deed only after payment of deficit registration fee and registration of the document.

¶13

4. Assailing the said letter, dated 23.09.2009 of the 1^st respondent-Sub-registrar, the present writ petition has been instituted.

¶14

This Court issued Rule Nisi on 7.07.2009 and responding to the same, a counter affidavit has been filed, denying the averments in the writ affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.

¶15

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the impugned action on the part of the 1^st respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. It is further contended that the impugned action is totally one without jurisdiction and there is absolutely no justification on the part of the 1^st respondent in refusing to return the document. It is nextly submitted by the learned counsel, on instructions from his client, that the petitioner is prepared to forego the amount of Rs.15,860/- already paid by him.

¶16

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue vehemently contends that the 1^st respondent is perfectly justified in issuing the impugned letter and there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is no provision, which enables the respondent to return the document and as per the Standing Order No.230 of the Standing Orders, the return of document is impermissible.

¶17

7. In the light of the above backdrop, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court are whether the 1^st respondent is justified in issuing the impugned letter dated 23.09.2009, and whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief from this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

9. In order to resolve the controversy in the present writ petition, it would be necessary to look at the relevant provisions of law under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Registration Act, 1908, A.P. Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, and A.P. Stamp (Prevention of

¶19

Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975.

¶20

10. Part-VI of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with presentation of documents for registration. Section 32 deals with persons, who can present the documents for registration. Section 34 deals with enquiry by the registering officer before registration and Section 35 deals with the procedure on admission and denial of execution. Section 71 deals with reasons for refusal to register the documents. Chapter XVII of the A.P. Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 consisting of Rules 101 to 111 deals with the receipts for documents and for fees and return of documents. Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 deals with examination and impounding of instruments and Section 47-A deals with the procedure to be adopted for dealing with the undervalued documents. None of the said provisions of law, nor the A.P. Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975, authorise the 1^st respondent-registering authority to withhold the documents when the person applied for registration makes request of this nature for return of unregistered document.

¶21

11. Standing Order 230 also would not come in the way of return of document as the question of adjudication in the present case would not arise and the contingency stipulated in the said standing order is not present in the instant case. Therefore, the impugned letter bearing No.35/2009 dated 23.09.2009, refusing to return the document presented by the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as such the same is liable to be set aside. It is also required to be noted that no provision of law is pointed out by the respondents, which empowers or authorises the authorities to resort to the impugned action.

¶22

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the letter bearing No.35/2009, dated 23.09.2009 of the 1^st respondent-Sub-registrar, Jadcherla, Mehaboobnagar District, and the

¶23

1^st respondent-Sub-registrar is hereby directed to return the document to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the 1^st respondent need not refund the amount of Rs.15,860/- already paid by the petitioner at the time of registration of the document. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

_______________________ JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.

¶25

16^th September, 2014 Js.

M/s.Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., a Company incorporate under v. The Sub-Registrar, Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., a Company incorporate under v. The Sub-Registrar, Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar District

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

Onteru Manemma, Vs The District Collector, Warangal

Madireddy Ram Reddy Vs Madireddy laxmamma

Karakapatla Ramesh, Vs Sri I. Samuel Ananda Kumar, I.A.S.

Vilakavi Satyam Raju Vs Union of India, represented by its Secretary

K. Subash Chandra Bose, Vs The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Raskala Rajaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh