Disposed

Gangasani Sudarshan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Dec 2022WP/14628/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC challenging non-consideration of representation regarding validation of an agreement of sale. Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.02.2022 for validation of the agreement of sale and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Gangasani Sudarshan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32s6 |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST'ATE OF TIILANG,{NA AT TTYDERABAD (Special Original Ju risdiction)

¶3

MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF DI]CEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENT'TUiO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINIiNT SUDHEBR KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 14628 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gangasani Sudarshan.B4dv,. S/o.Grsarva Reddy, occ. Business, R/o.H.No.2-2-969, Burjugal ly. Amberpet. Hyderabad.,./

¶9

...PETITTONER

¶10

ANI)

¶11

Thc State ot' Ielangan4 Rep. by its principal Secrctary, Starnps and Resistration Departmenr, Secretariat Buildings. BRKR Bhivan, Tanir Bund, Hya".uura.

¶12

2 I'he Commissioner and Inspector General o1'Registration and Stamps. M.J.Market, Hyderabad. Telangana State.

¶13

l. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, Irrashanthi Nagar, Kukatpally,

¶14

Hyderabad-72.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition trnder Article 226 ot' the Constitution of Inclia prrvirrr thar in rhe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, thc High Courr nray-be plcaserJ to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the narurc of Writ ol' Mandamus. declaring the action of the 3rd Responde.irt in failing to consider r6e Representation of the Petitioner,Dt.24-02-2022 tbr validrtion of the ,{greement of Sale, Dt.08-07-2004 by rcc.eiving the necessary Fees and Stanrp dut1, inspitelf suumitting all the Doctttttents in fbrmat on 08-10-2021 and 23-lli02l as ilteqal, arbirrary,. un Constitutional and contrary to the provisions of .tndian Starnp Act and consequcntlv direct the 3rd Respondettt to florthrvith initiate action for valiiating rhe Agreer.cnt of Sale ot tltc I'etitiorrer, Dt.08-07-2004 by receiving the necessary Fees and itamp dut-v pursuant tlte subtuission of the Application along rvith Documents on 0li-10-2021 and 2i-^I l-l0l I b1' drll' ctmsidering the Representation. Dt.24-02-2022

¶17

IA NO: I oF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section l5l CPC praying that in thc circurnstancc:; srrrred in the altrdavit tlled in support of the petition, the High Court rrra.v be pleased ro rlirect the jrd Respondent to lbrthrvith validate the Aglreement of Sale <il.ilrr: petitioncr. I)t.0fi-07_2004

¶19

by receiving the necessary Fees and Starnp duty pursuant the submission of the Application along with Documents on 08-10-2021 and 23-1,1-2021 by duly considering the Representation, Dt.24-02-2022 pending disposal of the abpve writ petition 1

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. C HARI PREETH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HOI{'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PET.ITION No.146?8 of 2o22

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration.

¶26

The petitioner herein claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of plot bearing No.57 admeasuring 2OO sq. yards in Survey Nos.202 to 2O7 and 225 to 229 situated at Pasmarnla Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under an agreement of sale dated O8.O7.2OO4. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has paid the entire sale consideration under the said agreement of sale and he has taken possession of the subject plot. It is the further case of the petitioner that the vendor of the petitioner has acquired the subject plot rrnder a registered document No.lL23O /1989. The petitioner, thus, having came into possession of the subject plot claims to have approached the office of respondent No.3 requesting for validation of the egreement of sale dated o8.o7.2oo4 by submitting all the requisite documents in proper form. However, respondent No.3 stated to have raised certain office objections and in response thereto, the petitioner also claims to have complied with such oidections and submitted the required

¶27

¶28

documents on 23.11.2021. Further, accorcing to the petitioner, the said application is still pending befor-e responCent No.3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner claims to have submitted a represenLation dated 24.02.2022 before respondent No.3 and the said representation is also still pending consideration before respondent No.3. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for passing appropriate orders directing resijondent No.3 to take immediate action on the representation dated 24.O2.2022 submitted by the petitioner.

¶29

A perusal of [h. material on record shorvs that the representation dated 24.02.2O22 submitted by the petitioner is -acknowledged by the office of respondent No.3 on the same day. As contended by learned counscl flor the petitioner, the said representation is still pending consideration before respondent No.3 and no orders have been passed thereon.

¶30

learned Assistant Gcvernment Pleader for Stamps and Registration submitted that in case, if the representation submitted by the petitioner is still pending before respondent No.3, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.

¶31

¶32

1 r EI E ?! ii I ! I I

¶33

i :

¶34

I; I I It; I I I IN i i iiii lr t1l! t; ti fi ItI x

¶35

¶36

Taking into consideration the submissions made on either side, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to take immediate steps for considering the representation dated 24.02.2022 submitted by the petitioner for validation of the agreement of sale dated 08.07.2004 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶38

¶39

SDi- P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

l. The^{principal Secretary,Stamps andReg!;trationDepartment, SecretariatBuildings,} BRKR Bhivan,^{TankBund, Hyderabad,T'S'}

¶44

The Commissioner^{and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, M'J'Market,} Hyderabad, Telangana^State-

¶45

The District^{Registrar,RangaReddyDistrict, Prashanthi Nagar, Kukatpally,} Hyderabad-72.

¶46

One CC ro SRI.^{C HARI PREETH Advocate} IOPUC]

¶47

Trvo CCs ro^{GP FORSTAMPSAND REGISTRATION (TG) ,High court for the} State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶48

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

MSKJ

DATED:05/1212022

ORDER

WP.No.l4628 of 2022

STA 'rg
{
(< .1..
0 4 ,lAl'l 2[23
CIu
I
: " -+1"

¶56

WP IS DISPOSED OF WTTHOUT COSTS

Gangasani Sudarshan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangasani Sudarshan Reddy 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

Weldflux India Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Kala Praful Jain Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Surender Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Y. Narayan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

S. Shyam Sunder Reddy Vs R.Y. Venumadhava Rao and another

Gangasani Sudarshan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana