Disposed

Busireddy Arun Jyothi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Nov 2019WP/23928/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Full Bench judgment the court followed the earlier Full Bench judgment W.P.No.19069 of 2014 and held that the registering authority was directed to receive and process the Sale Deed. The reference to the District Gazette notification dated 26.09.2013. The court clarified that mere registration does not confer title. The government remains free to assert its title. The matter was disposed, the

What did the court decide?

Directed the registering authority to receive and process the Sale Deed for plots in Sy.No.5/3 without reference to the District Gazette notification dated 26.09.2013.

Busireddy Arun Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

W.P.No. 23928 of 2019

¶3

Date: 1.11.2019

¶4

Between :

¶5

Busireddy Arun Jyothi

¶6

Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others.

¶9

Respondents

¶10

This court made the following :

¶11

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶13

W.P.No. 23928 of 2019

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

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

¶16

This Writ Petition is filed alleging that the registering authorities are refusing to register and release the Sale Deed in respect of Plot No.141 (Southern portion) admeasuring 325 sq.yards and Plot No.142 (Western portion) admeasuring 75 sq.yards total admeasuring 400 sq.yards in Sy.No.5/3 of Raidurg Pan Maktha village, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy district, on the ground that it is included in the District Gazette Notification dated 26.09.2013.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

1 2015 (3) ALT 96

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

The Gazette 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:

¶24

“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.”

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

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 Sale Deed in respect of Plot No.141 (Southern portion) admeasuring 325 sq.yards and Plot No.142 (Western portion) admeasuring 75 sq.yards total admeasuring 400 sq.yards in Sy.No.5/3 of Raidurg Pan Maktha village, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy district 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 document 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 petitioner. It is made clear that mere registration of document 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.

¶28

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶29

Date: 1.11.2019 DA

¶30

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶32

W.P.No. 23928 of 2019
1.11.2019

Busireddy Arun Jyothi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Busireddy Arun Jyothi 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

Banda Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Asireddy Bal Reddy, Vs The Government of Telangana

S. a. Kareem Vs Sri. B. Venkatesham, IAS

Nandikonda Raji Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

M/s Arcesium India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana