Disposed

T.Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Aug 2021WP/17838/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment constitutes an oral order disposing of Writ Petition No. 17838 of 2021 and a miscellaneous petition under Section 151 CPC. The Single Judge of the Telangana High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to present the sale deed No. 281 of 2015 for registration, directing the Sub-Registrar to receive and process the documents if they met legal requirements upon presentation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to present sale deed No. 281 of 2015; Sub-Registrar directed to receive and process documents if in order; if not accepting, to assign reasons.

T.Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 17838 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

TSatyanarayana, S/o.T. Ramanaiah, Aged 38 Yrs, Occ. Pvt Employee, Rt/o. H.No.11-7!?111191^{,Santosh Nagar, 8 lncline Cblony Ramagundam, Pedd-ampet, Karimnagar-} s05208.

¶8

..,PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

1. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registrations and Stamps, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶12

The Dishict Registrar, Peddapally, Peddapally District.

¶13

The Sub-Registrar, O/o. District Registrar, Peddapally, Peddapally District

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4rh respondent in not receiving, processing and issuing the sale deeds presented by the petitioner in favour of the purchasers covered in the sale Deed No.281 of 2015, d1.211112015 of SRO, Peddapally admeasuring 242 Sq.Yrds of Ramagundam (M), Peddapally district as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutiona I and violation of Art 300-4 of the constitution of lndia

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

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 the 4th respondent to receive, process and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner covered in the sale Deed No. 281 ol 2015, dl .21 .1 .2015 of SRO, Peddapally of plot admeasuring 242 Sq.Yrds of Ramagundam (M), Peddapally district pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRIDHAR CHIKYALA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶21

TIONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEENRAO} WRIT t-l N l7 38 20

¶22

ORAL ORDER:

¶23

Heard^Mr. Sridhar^{Chikyala, learned counselfor the petiti')nerandlearned}

¶24

Assistant Government^{PleaderforRevenuefor respondents'}

¶25

In this writ^{petition, petitionerseeksfoltowingrelief:}

¶26

"......to issue an^{order or direction more f,articularlyone in} trre nature^{oi w]ii oit"nat"t""declaringthe actionof} 'the 4th respondent^{in notreceiving processing and} 1::-:'I^C^:T :11:":Ti: presented b)^{the petitionerin favor} -of^{the pur( has€rs covereo rIr} tr,. ,"rt b"ia^{No 281 of 2015dt 21 t 1l2ol5 rrf SRoPeddapallr} sq vta" of^{RamaguniamM Deddapallydistrict} "a."u"'iit'Jz+i as illegal arbitrary^{unconstrtutlonatand violatron of Art30OAoI} the constitution^{of India and to pass "}

¶27

This writ^{petitionis liledallegingthat when the sale deedwas presented} belore the^{registeringauthority, the registeringauthority is not receivingand processing} the documents.

¶28

According to^{learned counsel for the petitioner' the Sub Registraris not} receiving the^{documentson the groundthat suit is pending collcerning the same} property. However,^{he fairly submitsthat no injunction was grantedand the property is} not included^{in the list of prohibitedproperties That being so' nolhingprevented the} petitioner from^{presenting thedocumentsby paying stamp duty' and registration} charges.Evenbeforethedocumentsarepresentedbycomplyingwil.htherequirements of lndian Regisration^{Act, 1908, and the lndian StampAct 189!)'petitioner cannot} complain^{againstthe registeringauthority'}

¶29

Therefore, Iiberty^{is granted to petitioner to presentthe sale deed No' 281} of 2015 dated 21.^{I.20 15 in respectof landadmeasurirlg242sq yztrds in sy'No'625oI} Chanclrashekar^{Nagar, Godavarikhani,JangaonShivar'RamagumdamMandal'} Peclclapalli District.^{As and when such documents are presented for registration'the} Sub-Registrar shall^{receiveand processthe documents' if theyarer)thenvise in order' lf} the Sub-Registrar^{is not acceptingfor registration'he shall pass ordersassigning} reasons in support^{of his decision and communicatethe sameto the petitioner'}

¶30

with the above^{observations,the Writ Petitionis d sposedof No costs'} Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any pencling, are closed'}

¶31

¶32

¶33

SD/-V.SUDHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// \Y./ SECTION^OFFICER

¶34

1 The Principal^{Secretary, Department of Revenue'Secretariat' Stateof} 2 H'3t%1iil'[Y|;:?txt^{I nspector' General of Resistrationri and stamps'} Hyderabad,^T.S.

¶35

3 The Distnct Registrar, peddapallv, peddaoallv District 4 the Sub-Reoistrur. Oto. Distri,ct Registrar: p^eddapally peddapally District 5 One CC to Sli Sridhar Chikvata. noVoca're iopuii- '

¶36

6 Two ccs to GP for Revenu-e, High court fciitne state of rerangana, Hyderabad tourl

¶37

Two CD Copies

¶38

One Spare Copy Ki.'J cl

HYderaoao'^t "'

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110812021

ORDER

1 c L
<br>*
a,
'<br>s
o
t- rLrJ
(.)
=s
o <br>\ ;! ,.
\s..l .9^ a\ty'
J H ../ /

¶45

WP.No.17838 of 2021

¶46

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶47

..S
t)

T.Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Satyanarayana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vandanapu , Anumundla rajamani , Rajeshwari Vs Yedamakanti Jyothi Rani

Vandanau , Anumndla Rajamani , Rajeshwari Vs Yedamakanti Jyothi Rani

Shanker Venkatesh Vs The State of Tenlangana and 10 others

B.Rajavardhan Reddy Vs State of Telangana

V.S.Ranga Raju Vs State of Telangana

Erukula Balaiah and another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others