Dismissed

Shaik Sathar and another v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC1 Jul 2021WP/13465/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to prevent the registering authority from processing conveyance deeds of agricultural land held by respondents, despite petitioners' pending civil suit claiming title.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to restrain the registering authority from processing the deed of conveyance was dismissed.

Shaik Sathar and another Vs The State of Telangana and… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 13465 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . Shaik Sathar, S/o. Shaik Khasim, Aged about 66 years, agriculture, Resident of Siddapur Village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

Shaik Jilani, S/o. Shaik Khasim, Aged about 56 years, agriculture, Resident of Siddapur Village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1, The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy, Lakadikapul, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

The Sub-Registrar-cum-Tahsildar, Kothur, Kothur lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District 5. Shaik Chand Pasha, S/o. Madhar Sahab, Aged about 61 years, Resident of H. No. 39-'1-1 1/2, Muralinagar Colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh State.

¶17

Shaik lmitiyaz, S/o. Madhar Sahab, Aged about 39 years, Resident of H. No. 391-1 1/2, Muralinagar Colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh State.

¶18

Shiak Tubrez, S/o. Madhar Sahab, Aged about 35 years, Resident of H. No. 391-1 I 12, Muralinagar Colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh State

¶19

...RE.P.NDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring action of 4th respondent in not considering^petitioners objection daled 2010512021 and entertaining registrations with regard to agricultural lands in Sy. No. 139A and 139AA an extent of Ac. 12-34 Gts. situated in Siddapur Village, Kothur lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District and consequently direct^4th respondent to consider^petitioners objection daled 2010512021 with^{regard to} entertaining of registration of agricultural lands in Sy.^{No. 139Aand 139AAan} extent of Ac. 12-34 Gts. situated in Siddapur Village, Kothur^{Mandal, RangaReddy} District.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleased to direct} 4th respondent to consider and^pass appropriate orders on^{petitionersobjection} dated 20-05-2021 before entertaining registrations of agricultural^{landsin Sy. No.} 139A and 139AA an extent of Ac. 12-34 Gts. situated in Siddapur^{Village,Kothur} I,4andal, Ranga Reddy, pending disposal of the above writ^petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. R.R. KALYAN

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

-2-

¶25

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN^RAO WRIT PETTTION No.13465 of 2O2L

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is filed praying to^grant following relief:

¶28

"... to^issuea writ,^{orcleror directionmoreparticularly one in the} natur€ of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of^{4threspondentin} not considering our objection dated 20.05.2021 and^{enterta-ining} registrations with regard to agricultural lands in^{Sy.No.139Aand} 139AA an extent of Ac.12.34^gts situated in Siddapur^Village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District^{and consequentlydirect4rh} respondent to consider our objection dated 20.05.2021^with regard to entertaining of registration of agricultural^landsin Sy.No.139A and 139AA an extent of Ac.i2.34^{gts situatedin} Siddapur Village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District^{and to} pass such other order or orders.."

¶29

Heard Sri R. R. Kalyan, learned counsel for^{the petitioners} and learned Assistant Government^{Pleaderfor Revenue.}

¶30

Petitioners claim to be agriculturists and in^{occupation of} Acs.12.34 guntas of land in Sy.Nos. 139A and^{139AA of Siddapur} Village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy^{District. They claim to have} inherited the said property from their^{late father Shaik Khasim.} Hou,ever, the narrie of Madhar Sab^{was recorded as pattadarand} name of late father was recorded only in^{possession column,} though in 197 4 itself, due to^{illiteracy their father could not take} steps to correct the revenue^{records. Accordingto petitioners,} O.S.No.52 of 2005 was liled in^{the Court of Senior Civil Judge at} Mahabubnagar by respondent^{Nos.6 and 7, prayingto grant decree} of injunction against the^{petitioners,but the said suit was} dismissed on 16.08.2007, for^{non prosecution'Since petitioners} have been in possession continuously,^{acquiring right and title} over the said property,^{petitioners institutedsuit praying to grant} decree of declaration of title^{and possession in the Court of Senior} Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar at^{Shadnagar bearingO.S(S.R).No.59}

¶31

-3-

¶32

of 2021. That being^{so, petitionersnow apprehendthat the} respondents 5 to 7^{are attemptingto disposeof the very same} property to third^parties and^{in such an event graveprejudice} rvould be caused to the^{petitioners.On 20'O5'2O21, petitioners} submitted application to^{the Tahsildar, KothurMandal-4t]1} respondent, requesting^{not to entertain any deed ol conveyance} that may be^{presentedby the respondents5 to 7 on the above} extent of land, during^{the pendencyof civil suit Alleging inaction'} this writ petition is filed.

¶33

Admittedly, petitioners^{claim that they are in possession and} since they are in^{possession for a long time, they shall be declared} as acquiring title over^{the property. But the revenue records reflect} the names of respondents 5 to^{7 as pattadars' As per the} provisions of the Telangana Rights in^{Land and PattadarPass} Books Act, 2O2O^(Act 9 of^{2O2Ol,lndianRegistrationAct, 1908 and} Indian Stamp Act, 1899 the^{registering authorityprocessing the} deeds of conveyance alfecting^{agricultural land has to entertaina} documcnt if the same is^{presentedin complianceof the above} plovisions. If a document is^{presented by the pattadarproposingto} alienate the land and a valid^{documentis executedby him in} compliance of the provisions^{mentioned above, the registering} authority is bound to receive,^{processand register the document'} The registering authority cannot^{refuse to receivethe document} merely on the ground that a counter^{claim is made on the title to} the property and a suit is instituted^{beforethe competent Court'} The registering authority can^refuse to^{register the deed of} conveyance or any other document^{affecting agricultural land, if it} is included in the list of^{prohibited properties Under Section 22-A}

¶34

-1-

¶35

of the Indian Registration Act or any^{restraint order is passed by} the Civil Court or by this Court. Unless these two^{contingenciesare} attracted, the registering authority cannot be^{directednot to} process the deed of conveyance, if otherwise,^presented in compliance ol the statutory^provisions. The direction^{sought in the} writ petition is in violation of the statutory mandate.

¶36

When a statutory authority is conferred^pov/er to receive^a document for registration and statutory^provisions vest right in^a person to present the document for registration, the Court cannot restrain the statutory authority from entertaining^{the document.} No direction can be issued to the statutory authority not to actⁱⁿ accordance with the provisions of the statute under^{whichhe is} required to exercise his powers. Therefore, the^prayer sought in^the i.l,rit petition cannot be granted.

¶37

Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to^thc petitioners to prosecute the pending suit. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

SD/-T,KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to Sri R.R. Kalyan, Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. tOUTI Two CD Copies 4 One spare copy CHR NS \ },,--

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10712021

ORDER

W.P.No.13465 of²⁰²¹

e TA I €
t{
J
o 1 t JUI 20tl 11
*
D :j

¶50

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

-S.+ >\

Shaik Sathar and another v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Sathar and another v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

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

P .Shankar and 9 others Vs The state of Telangana

Konuru Radha Krishna Vs the State of Telangana

Karam Venkaesh and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Peesari Srikanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan Vs The State of Telangana

Polepaka Venkatamma Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others