Allowed

Vattipalli Krishna Murthy v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC8 Dec 2022WP/17823/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a refusal to register a sale deed. The court held that the refusal based on an internal administrative letter without a statutory notification under Section 22-A was illegal. The writ was allowed, setting aside the refusal and directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to register the document.

What did the court decide?

The impugned refusal order was set aside. The petitioner was permitted to resubmit the sale deed before Respondent No. 6 within four weeks, who is directed to register it without reference to the proh

Vattipalli Krishna Murthy Vs The State of Telangana and… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER^KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17823 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vattipalli Krishna Murthy, S/o. Vattipalli Ram^{Chandraiah,Agedab_out 75} yeari, Occ. Agriculture, F/o. 18-7-73913011lN1, Ayodya Nagar Colony, Gowlipura, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶9

...pETtTtoNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principle^{Secretary,Revenue} Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat,^{Hyderabad, Telangana.} 2. The District Registrar, Rangareddy^District.

¶12

The Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram,^{RangareddyDistrict.}

¶13

The District Collector, Rangareddy District.

¶14

The Bhoodan Yagna Board, for the State of^{Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary,} At Commissioner of Land Revenue Buitding, Abids,^Hyderabad.

¶15

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kandukur^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶16

R6 is impleaded as^per Court Order dated^0310212021,n *_1h?!r$r3;r"r" '.O. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the}

¶17

circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of^writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd^{Respondentin refusing to Register} the document submitted by the^{petitionervide RefusalOrderNo.15/2020,} Dl.26tOBt2O2O as being arbitrary, illegal,^{u nconstitutionaland contraryto the} provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and various directions issued by this Hon'ble Court

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to}

¶20

direct the respondents to^{Receive, Register and Release the documentsubmitted} by the Petitioner in the interest^{of justice, pending disposal of the writ petition}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI PASHAM MOHITH}

¶22

Counsel for Respondent^{Nos. 1 to 4 & 6: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶23

Counsel for Respondent^{No. 5: SRI GATTU KIRAN KUMAR,} SC FOR BHOODAN YAGNA^BOARD

¶24

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI^{SUDHEER KUMAR} IVRIT PETITION No.17823 of2O2O

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel appearing for the^petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for^{Revenue appearing} for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 and^{Sri Gattu Kiran Kumar,} learned Standing Counsel for Bhoodan Yagna^{Board appearing} for respondent No.5.

¶28

This writ petition is filed^questioning the^{refusa-l order} No.15 of 2020 dated 26.08.2020^passed by^{respondent No.3} refusing to register the saie deed^presented by the^petitioner dated 06.03.2020 proposing to convey the^{land admeasuring} Ac.5.O0 in Survey No.441/U of Kandukur^Mandal,Ranga Reddy District, on the^ground that the^{land covered by the said} deed is prohibited for registration by treating the^sameas Bhoodan land by virtue of the letter of respondent^No.4 in Lr.No.B I 98 I 20 1O, dated 25.01.20^{1 1.}

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.l.29^guntasin Survey No.441/U of Nedunoor Revenue Village, Kandukur Mandal, and his name was also entered in the revenue records

¶30

¶31

¶32

as pattadar and he was also issued digital pattadar passbook bearing No.T0511O22OOSB with Khara No.82 duly including the said extent of land in the digital pattadar passbook. It is the further case of the petitioner that his name is also updated in Dharani Portal as pattadar.

¶33

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of reflecting the name of the petitioner .as pattadar in Dharani Portal, when the subject document is presented for registration by the petitioner, the same is refused on the ground that the subject land is Bhoodan land as per the letter addressed by respondent No.4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the subject land is never treated as Bhoodan land and respondent No.4 never addressed letter to include the subject land in the list of prohibited properties and respondent No.3 without application of mind, mechanically refused to register the subject document and passed the impugned order.

¶34

On behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 6, a counter affidavit is fiied by respondent No.6 and on behalf of respondent No.5, a separate counter affidavit is filed.

¶35

From a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the^./i, respondents, it is noticed that it is not the case of the

¶36

¶37

¶38

respondents that the subject property is notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, but it is only basing upon a letter addressed by respondent No.4, the subject property is included in the prohibited properties list and thereby the subject document was refused for registration through the impugned order.

¶39

A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5 and the annexures liled along with the said counter afhdavit do not indicate that the subject property is ever treated as land donated in favour of Bhoodan Board nor there was any such acceptance by respondent No.S.

¶40

B. A copy of the donation letter placed on record purported to be a document under which the land in Survey No.441 was said to have been donated in favour of respondent No.5 does not contain any signature of the original land owner i.e., Sri Ramachander Rao, and except the said letter, there is no other material placed on record to show that the subject land was donated in favour of respondent No.S.

¶41

In the absence of complete material placed before this Court that the subject land is a Bhoodan land nor the same is included in the prohibited properties list by virtue of a

I tl x

I I

Noti{ication issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned order refusing to register the subject document only on the ground that a letter was addressed by respondent No.4, is illegal and arbitrary.

¶46

In the circumstances, the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned refusal order cannot be sustained under law and the same is accordingly set aside. Taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.3 is not conferred with the power to entertain registration of the documents in respect of agriculture properties and it is the respondent No.6, who is now competent to register the documents relating to agriculture properties, the petitioner is permitted to resubmit the returned document vide Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2020, which is the subject matter of the impugned refusal order before respondent No.6 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on presentation of the said document, respondent No.6 is directed to receive and register the same without reference to the fact of including the subject property in the prohibited properties list on the ground that the same is Bhoodan land and complete the process within a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

¶47

¶48

¶49

of this order, subject to the said document compiying with the requirement of the Registration Act, 190g and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶50

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shail be no order as to costs.

¶51

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition sha_Il stand closed.

¶52

SD/. T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I ( fl) SECTION OFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

The Principle Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶55

The District Registrar, Rangareddy District.

¶56

The Sub-Registrar, lVlaheshwaram, Rangareddy District.

¶57

The District Collector, Rangareddy District.

¶58

The Secretary, Bhoodan Yagna Board, forthe State ofTelangana, At Commissioner of Land Revenue Building, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶59

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶60

One CC to Sri Pasham Mohith Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶62

One CC to Gattu Kiran Kumar, SC for Bhoodan Yagna Board (OPUC) '10.Two CD Copies

IVB (- GJPJ

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0811212022

E 5 TA 7€:
'(
1 i i r', 1
ooJ L 1 IAll f'- l'-r !-')
J,
D

¶68

ORDER

¶69

WP.No.17823 of 2020

¶70

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

¶71

WITHOUT COSTS

Vattipalli Krishna Murthy v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vattipalli Krishna Murthy v. The State of Telangana and 4 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

M/s Dixon Stock broking (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Jarpula Venkanna, Vs The State of Telangana

Chinthapatla Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Khader, Hyd Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue (Stamps and Regn), Hyd and 3 Othrs

Gulam Samiuddin Vs The State of Telangana

S.Panduranga Rao Vs State of Telangana