Allowed

Guru Bachan Singh Sardar v. State of Telangana and 2 another

Telangana HC4 Feb 2021WP/2301/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register a sale deed due to a government notification prohibiting registration of certain lands. The court directed the registrar to receive and process the deeds without reference to the notification, while clarifying that registration does not confer title.

What did the court decide?

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

Guru Bachan Singh Sardar Vs State of Telangana and 2… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2301 OF²⁰²¹

¶7

Between:

¶8

Guru Bachan Singh Sardar, S/o.S.Ram^{Singh aged about 56 years, Occ Business,} R/o. H. No.4-9-99, MIG-31,^{Ir,4ushk lr,4ahal,HUDAColony, Hyderabad}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, rep. by^{its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and} Reoistration) department, Secretariat.^Hyderabad.

¶12

Thd District iRegistrar. Stamps^{and Regidtration Department Ranga Reddy} District.

¶13

S. if',e SuO Registrar, Stamps^{and Registration Department SRO, Shamshabad,} Ranga Reddy District

¶14

...RESPoNDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to} issue a writ, order or^{direction more particularlyone in the nature of writ of} N,4andamus declaring the^{action of the responients moreparticularlythe 3'd} respondent in refusing to^{receiveand registerthe sale deed presentedby the} p"t'i6on"r in respect ofiand bearing^{plot no.1B9 and 178, admeasuring400 sq. yards,} in Southern^{paradise Phase-|, unter sy.no.72518,situatedat ShamshabadVillage} and tr/andal, Ranga^{Reddy District, on the ground of issuanceof the Notification} dated.26.09.2013lssued^{by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District,as illegal,} arbitrary, unjust, unconstitution^{a I, violation of principlesof naturaljusticeand also} contrary'to ihe^{provisionsof RegistrationAct, 1908, and consequentlydirectthe} responients 2 and 3^{to receive, register and releasethe sale deed presented by the} pllitiln",- in respect of sub.leci^{land withoutreference to the Notification} dated.26.09.2013^{issuedby the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section^{151 cPC prayingthatin the circumstances stated in the} affidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCoudmaybepleasedtodirectthe respondents 2 and 3^{to receive, register and release,the sale deed presented by the} pltiiiin"r- in respect of land bearing^{plot no l Bg & 178, admeasuring400 sq yards'in} bouthern^{paradisephase-1,under-sy.no.725l8, situated at ShamshabadVillageand} Ir/andal Ranga^{Reddy Distiict,witholt referenceto the Notification dated 26 09 2013} irrr"J UV th; Distric[^{Collector, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposalof the writ} petition

¶18

Counsel for^{the Petitioner: SRI MOHD MOINAHMED OUADRI}

¶19

Counsel for^{the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE}

¶20

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶21

I !

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{T,AMARNATH GOUD}

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.23O1 of 2O2l

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and^learned Government Pleader. With their consent, the^{r'r'rit petition is} disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent - registrar is not receiving the documents and not registering on the sole ground that it is a covered under the notification dated 26.09.2O13 and it is under the prohibitorl' Iist.

¶27

Per contra, learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, would submit that the subject lands are assigned and thev are prohibited for registration and hence, the action of the 3..1 respondent is just, proper and in accordance ll'ith 1a',1'.

¶28

In view of the above submissions, without expressing any opinion, the writ petition is disposed of directing the SubRegistrar to receive and process the deeds of conveyance without reference to the District Gazettee notification dated 26.09 .2013 in accordance q,ith the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Hou'ever, it is open to the registering authority to refuse to register/ receive the deeds presented before him, if he has an-. other objection, b.v duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and

¶29

¶30

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 crear that this order does not preclude the Government to take appropriate steps as u,arranted by law and to assert its title. Il any 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/appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition,

¶32

sha11 stand closed.

¶33

SD/-N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYi/

SECTION^OFFICER

1 The Sub^{Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department SRO' Shamshabad'} Ranoa ReddV^District

¶38

2.J. iii'"tcc't" Two CCs^to sii^{GP rtlo'r,o' for n"u"n'"''iiidt'lto"t tr,loinAhmedouad ri' ior Advocate, the Statb of [oPUClTelanganaat} Hvderabad [OUTI 4. Two CD^CoPies Kj

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0410212021

H c. I
315 5 F E B 2021
*{
9.t.tpcrcB

¶44

ORDER

¶45

WP.No.2301 of 2021

¶46

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶47

SstJ '
(coP'e
^ ><br>)r ''{

Guru Bachan Singh Sardar v. State of Telangana and 2 another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guru Bachan Singh Sardar v. State of Telangana and 2 another

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

Dr. Madhavarapu Raghava Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Dara Narasimha Rao Vs The Additional Agent to Government

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