Allowed

Dr. Madhavarapu Raghava Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Feb 2021WP/2088/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Sub-Registrar to receive and process deeds of conveyance without reference to the 2013 notification. The court clarified that registration does not confer title and registration is subject to pending litigation between parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Sub-Registrar to receive and process deeds without reference to the 26.09.2013 notification.

Dr. Madhavarapu Raghava Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 2088 OF 2021

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Dr. [t4adhava rapu Raghava Rao, S/o Sri lVadhavarapu Satyanarayana Rao, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Doctor, R/o. H.No.4-76, Janmabhumi Nagar, N,4ancherial, l,4ancherial District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

The Commissioner, and I.G. Registration and Stamps. A.P. Registration Bhavan, l,4.J. Road, Hyderabad

¶12

3 The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District At lt4oosapet, Hyderabad

¶13

The Joint Sub Registrar l, Registration and Stamps Department R.O. (OB), Sony Complex, P rasha nthinaga r, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad

¶14

The Joint Sub Registrar ll, Registration and Stamps Department R,O. (OB), Sony Complex, Prasha nth inaga r, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad

¶15

Dlstrict Collector, Ranga Reddy District

¶16

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of |he Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [r,4andamus a) Declaring the action of the respondents in not registering the documents in respect in respect of House bearing No. 5-86/131 admeasuring 500 Sq.yds in Plot NO. 131 in Survey No.5/3, situated at B.N.R. Hills of Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, basing on the alleged notification dated 26.09.2013 of the 6th respondent which is already set-aside by this Hon'ble Couft as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia. b) Consequently to direct the respondents to register documents of the petitioner in respect of House bearing No. 5-86/131 admeasuring 500 Sq.yds in PIot NO. 131 in Survey No. 5/3, situated at B.N.R. Hills of Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally lt4andal and Municrpality, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section^'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct register House bearing No. 5-86/131 admeasuring 500 Sq.yds in Plot NO.^'131 in Survey No. 5/3, situated at B.N.R. Hills of Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally l\rlandal and Ir/unicipality, Ranga Reddy District without reference to the proceedings of the 6th respondent dated 26.09.2013,^pending disposal of the writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. N.NIYATHA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR STAMPS AND^REGISTRATION

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.2O88 of 2O2l

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on earlier occasions, this Court in W.p.No.19O69 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014 and W.P.No.S912 of 2O2O dated 20,04.2020, has passed orders directing the registration of the documents presented/ pending before the authorities; the cause of action in the present writ petition also pertains to the same.

¶28

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar to receive and process the deeds of conveyance without reference to the District Gazettee 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/receive 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 petitioner. 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 to take appropriate steps as warranted by law and to assert its title. If any

¶30

¶31

proceedings/suit/appeal are pending between the executant of the document/Government or any other interested party, the registration of the document will be subject to the result of that proceedings/suit/appea1. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Miscelianeous petitions, if any, pending in this petition,

¶33

shall stand closed

¶34

SD/.V.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// k-.-

SECTION OFFICER

The Joint Sub Registrar l, Registration and^{Stamps Department R.O. (OB)' Sony} Complex, Prashanthinaga r, Ranga Reddy^{District, Hyderabad}

¶40

The ioini Sub Registrar-ll,^{Regis-irationahd Stamps DepartmentR.O. (oB), Sony} Complex, Prashanthinagar, R-nga^{ReddyD-istrict, Hyderabad}

¶41

One CC to lV/s. N.Niyatha, Advocate IOPUC]

¶42

+. two CCs to GP for Siampi^{and Regidtration; High Court for the Stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶43

Two CD Copies

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0410212021

ORDER

WP.No.2088 ot 2021

1ti f, sTA Ig:
e
o5
15 FEB 2021
L)
*
t
D s trri1 C

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶51

1,<br>

Dr. Madhavarapu Raghava Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Madhavarapu Raghava Rao 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

M/s. Kkr Infrastructures Man Power Outsourcing Agency Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Neelima Vs State of Telangana

Mogalipaka Pushpa, Vs the State of Telangana

Dara Narasimha Rao Vs The Additional Agent to Government

Guru Bachan Singh Sardar Vs State of Telangana and 2 another

B Thirumala Rao Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary to