Disposed

Sri Purushotham Denchanala v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jul 2019WP/13045/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions by directing the registering authority to receive and process documents presented by petitioners for properties in Gajula Ramavaram Village without reference to a notification calling for objections. The Court prohibited rejection of documents based on Section 22-A without formal inclusion in the prohibited list.

What did the court decide?

Directing the registering authority to receive and process documents without reference to the notification dated 25.09.2013 and to complete formalities or pass a reasoned order under Section 76 within

Sri Purushotham Denchanala Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.13016 and 13045 OF 2019

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶4

In these writ petitions, petitioners contend that even though the documents are presented for registration in respect of properties located in survey Nos.329/4, 329/5 and 329/2 respectively of Gajula Ramavaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, the registering authority is not even receiving the documents.

¶5

The issue of inclusion of properties in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act’) was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in VINJAMURI RAJAGOPALA CHARY v. STATE OF ANDHRA

¶6

PRADESH¹ giving several directions. Insofar as these Writ Petitions are concerned, paragraph No.25.3 of the said judgment is relevant whereunder the District Collector is vested power to notify the District Registrar/Registering Authority that the subject properties are Government properties and no deed of conveyance can be entertained. However, in the case on hand, what was issued by the District Collector was only a notification calling for objections and so far he has not exercised the power vested under Section

¶7

22-A of the Act. The issue of inclusion of properties in the prohibited list, not accepting the documents for registration and

¶8

1 2015 (3) ALT 96

¶9

¶10

the scope of Section 22-A of the Act were elaborately considered by the Full Bench of this Court.

¶11

It is also appropriate to note at this stage that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court was carried to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4019 of 2018 and batch. The Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioners therein and any other aggrieved person to challenge the validity of Section 22-A of the Act and directed the Full Bench to decide the said validity. The Supreme Court has also granted interim direction of registration of deeds of conveyance, but such registration was directed to be treated as provisional subject to the result of the writ petitions now pending before the High Court and the parties should not claim any additional equity. The Gazette notification dated 25.09.2013 was considered in W.P.No.4924 of 2019. The relevant paragraph of the judgment dated 11.03.2019 reads as under:

¶12

“In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner without reference to the Notification dated 25.09.2013 issued by the Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. In the event, the said document is found to be fit for registration, the third respondent shall complete the due formalities in accordance with law and release the document. However, if he still finds any ground to exercise power under Section 76 of the Act of 1908 and refuse registration, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, be it from whatever source. It is also made clear that mere registration of this document would not confer title upon the property covered thereby, if it is otherwise wanting, and would not preclude the Government from taking appropriate steps as warranted by law, if it seeks to assert any right or title over the said land.”

¶13

¶14

Following the said decision, several other Writ Petitions were disposed of. Therefore, following the earlier decision in W.P.No.4924 of 2019, dated 11.03.2019, these Writ Petitions are also disposed of directing the registering authority to receive the documents as and when they are presented and process the same without reference to the notification dated 25.09.2013 issued by the Collector, Malkajgiri Division, Quthubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy. In the event the said documents are found to be fit for registration, the registering authority shall complete the due formalities in accordance with law and release the document. However, if he still finds any ground to exercise power under Section 76 of the Act of 1908 and refuse registration, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, be it from whatever source. It is also made clear that mere registration of these documents would not confer title upon the properties covered thereby, if it is otherwise wanting, and would not preclude the Government from taking appropriate steps as warranted by law, if it seeks to assert any right or title over the said properties. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶15

P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶16

9^th July, 2019 sur

Sri Purushotham Denchanala v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Purushotham Denchanala v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.G.Vikas Reddy and Co., Vs Kakatiya Urban Development Authority

Manchala Vishwanatham S/o Narayana Vs The Government of A.P

M. Swayamprabha Vs The State of Telangana

New Noble Educational Society Vs State of Telangana

New Noble Educational Society Vs State of Telangana

Korlapati Stya Ramesh Babu and another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others