Dismissed

M.v.Ramakrishna Rao and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC16 Oct 2019WP/21791/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the refusal of registering authorities to accept deeds due to a District Gazette notification. The Court directs authorities to receive and process the deeds in compliance with registration and stamp acts, noting that such consideration does not affect the Government's right to assert title.

What did the court decide?

Directed registering authority to receive and process the deed of conveyance without reference to the District Gazette notification.

M.v.Ramakrishna Rao and 3 Others Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21791 OF 2019

¶3

Date:16.10.2019

¶4

Between:

¶5

M.V. Ramakrishna Rao S/o.M.Satyanarayana, Aged about 60 yrs, Occu : Business, R/o.G-4, Wonder Scape, Nallakunta, Hyderabad-44 & others.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.21791 OF 2019

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

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

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed alleging that the registering authorities are refusing to receive the deed of conveyance/sale deed/mortgage deed/release deed/partition deed on the ground that District Gazette notification was issued on 26.09.2013, wherein the subject property was included in the said notification.

¶15

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 property is Government property and no deed of conveyance can be entertained.

¶16

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

¶17

1 2015 (3) ALT 96

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

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 High Court 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.

¶21

The Gazatte notification dated 26.09.2013 was considered in W.P.No.19069 of 2014. Paragraph No.12 of the judgment dated 25.08.2014 reads as under:

¶22

“Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar to receive and process the deeds of conveyance without reference to the District Gazette notification dated 26.09.2013 in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. However, it is open to the registering authority to refuse to register the deeds presented before him, if he has any other objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicate the decision to the petitioners. It is made clear that mere registration of deed of conveyance does not confer title to the property and it is made clear that this order does not preclude the Government to take appropriate steps as warranted by law and to assert its title. No costs.”

¶23

Following the said decision, several other Writ Petitions were disposed of.

¶24

¶25

In view thereof, following the earlier decision in W.P.No.19069 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014, this Writ Petition is also disposed of directing the registering authority to receive and process the deed of conveyance without reference to the District Gazette notification dated 26.09.2013 subject to compliance of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is also open to the registering authority to refuse to register/receive the deeds presented before him, if he has any other objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicate the said decision to the petitioners. It is made clear that mere registration of deed of conveyance does not confer title to the property. It is also made clear that this order does not preclude the Government/District Collector to take appropriate steps as warranted by law and to assert its title. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶26

_____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 16^th October, 2019 Rds

M.v.Ramakrishna Rao and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.v.Ramakrishna Rao and 3 Others 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

C.Mallikarjun Vs State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 10

Bairoju Chilukamma Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Gollapally Nagamma Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Peers Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Sonule Mondi Vs The State of Telanana

M. Kishore Reddy Vs The State of Telangana