Allowed

P.Srinivas Rao v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC2 Aug 2019WP/16275/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition disputing the refusal to register a deed due to a Gazette notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Relying on a Full Bench decision and W.P. No. 4924 of 2019, the court directed the registering authority to accept, process, and register the document without immediate reference to the notification. If grounds for refusal exist, the authority mus

What did the court decide?

Directed the registering authority to receive, process, and register the documents presented without reference to the notification dated 25.09.2013, subject to their completion of due formalities and

P.Srinivas Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.16275 of 2019

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

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

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed alleging that the registering authorities are refusing to register the deed of conveyance/sale deed/mortgage deed/release deed/partition deed on the ground that District Gazette notification was issued on 25.09.2013, wherein the subject properties were included in the said notification.

¶6

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 PRADESH¹ giving several directions. Insofar as this Writ Petition is 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 22-A of the Act. The issue of inclusion of properties in the prohibited list, not accepting the documents for registration and the scope of Section 22-A of the Act were elaborately considered by the Full Bench of this Court.

1 2015 (3) ALT 96

2 PNR,J

W.P.No.16275 of 2019

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:

¶11

“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.”

¶12

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, this Writ Petition is 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

¶13

3 PNR,J W.P.No.16275 of 2019

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any pending, shall stand

¶17

closed.

¶18

_________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶19

Date: 02.08.2019 LSK

P.Srinivas Rao v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Srinivas Rao v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

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

Smt. Bochu Vanaja, Vs The state of Telangana

Mohd.Azam Vs The State of Telangana

Rangu Bhikshapathi Vs The State of Telangana

Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Limited. Vs State of Telangana

Ajaz Ahmed Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Baber Hussain Vs The State of Telangana