Disposed

Saride Raghavendra Rao and another v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC28 Apr 2022WP/18227/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal of registration for semi-finished flats. The court directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed with specific endorsements regarding pending Supreme Court proceedings and potential statutory violations.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent-Sub-Registrar to register sale deed with endorsement noting pending Supreme Court appeal; disposal subject to outcome of SLP(C) No.19695 of 2021.

Saride Raghavendra Rao and another Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.^{V. SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶5

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 18227^{OF 2022}

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

1 Saride Raghavendra Rao, S/o. S.Kaliki^{Murlhy, aged about 62 years,R/o.} Plot No. 152, Venkateswara Nagar,^{Near lvlother Theresaschool, Meerpet,} Kapra, Hyderabad^- 500040.

¶8

2 teooata Afnit, S/o. Naveen, Aqed^{about 21 years. Occ. business,Rl/o. H.No.} 1-45, Pandregupalli village,^{It4udigondal,4andalam,Khammam-.?911,??ar,}

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rept. by^{its Principal Secretary Stampsand} Reqistration Department Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶11

The Sub-Regrstrar, Gandipet Mandal^{Ranga ReddyDistrict.}

¶12

The Commis-sioner and lnspector^{Generalof Registration and Stamps,} Telangana State.

¶13

The lr/l-anikonda lr,4unicipality Rep. by^{its Commissonu, *rnSr..lurdrgoR5g,l.+b}

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution^{of lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more^{particularlyone in the natureof} writ of Mandamus declaring the^action of^{the 2nd respondentin refusing to} receive, register and release^{the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect} of semi finished Flat No.^{402 and 502 in 4th and 5th Floor respectively,in the} Building known as SIYA HEIGHTS,^{constructedin the Plot No 62lpafi in} category-ll in Survey No. 134,^{admeasuring 310.74 Sq. Yards, situated at} Neekanampur Village, under Manikonda^{Municipality, GandipetMandal, Ranga} Reddy District., on the^{groundof (i) Memobearing No.G2125712019 dated 26-08-} 2020 issued by the 3rd respondent^{and (ii) letter bearing No.45/TP/NMC/2019} dated 01-1 1-2019 issued^{by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary} to the orders^passed by this^{Honble court in W.P.No.10761 ol 2022 and} consequently direct the^{2ndrespondentto receive, register and release the sale} deed^presented by the^{petitioner in respect of semi finished Flat No. 402 86 502} in 4th and 5th Floor respectively,^{in the Building known as SIYA HEIGHTS'}

¶15

constructed in the Plot No. 62/part^{in category-ll in survey No. 134, admeasuring} 310.74 Sq. Yards, sitr-rated at^{Neekanampur Village' under Manikonda} Municipality, Gandipet Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District, withoutreferenceto Mtmo} bearing No.G2l257l2O19^{dated 26-08-2020 issued by the 3rd respondentand} letter bearing No.4S/TP/NMC/2019^{dated 01-1 1-2019 asdirected in} W.P.No.10761 of 2021

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying thatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the 2nd respondent to^{receive, registerand release the sale deed} presented by the petitioner in respect of semi finished^{Flat No. 402 and 502 in 4th} and Sth Floor respectively, in^{the Building knownas 'SIYA HEIGHTS',} constructed in the Plot^No. 62lpart^{in category-ll in surveyNo. '134,admeasuring} 310.74 Sq. Yards, situated at^{NeekanampurVillage,underManikonda} Municipality, Gandipet^{lrlandal, Ranga Reddy District,pendingdisposal of the} above writ^petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. ROOPESH^KUMARREDDY

¶19

Counsel for Respondents:^{AGP FOR REVENUE}

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

j I

¶22

\ I

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.18227 of2022

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard both sides ancl^{perused the n-ratcrial ott record.}

¶27

Il is submitted by the^{learned counscl on either sidethat} subject matter of this writ^{petition is squarelycovered by the common} order dateci 18.O2.2O22^passedby this^{Court in W.P. No.328 of 2022} and batch as modified by^{the order dated 22.02.2022 in I.A. No'2 ol} 2022 in W.P. No.2985 of 2022^{and batch, as such, this writ petition} may be disposed of in terms^thereof.

¶28

Therefore, foliowing the common^{order dated 18.02.2022 passed} by this Court in W.P. No.32B of^{2022and batch as modified by the} order dated 22.O2.2022 in I.A. No.2^{of 2022 in W.P.No'2985of 2022} and batch, in terms thereof, this writ^{petition is disposed of as under} without any order as to costs:

¶29

(i) The respor-rdent - Sub-Registrzu- is dirccti:d to rcgister the clocument of sale, trzrnsfer and^{gifi elc., prcseuted} for registration by the^{petitioner/s r.l'ithorrt referenceto} the Memo Nos.G2l257 12019 dated 2ti.08.2020^and the 29.12.2O2O issued by the^{resporldt: rlt -} Commissioner and Inspector^{Generalof Registration} and Stamps, Telangana; Letter No.45/TP/^{NMC/ 2019} dated 01.11.2019 issued by the respondent -^the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, 2^Nizampetto the respondent - the Sub Registrar, Quthbullapur, Ranga Reddy District, and similar letters,^{if any, issued} by the various Municipal Commissioners in^{the State'}

¶30

¶31

¶32

slrbject t() the^{petitioncr(s)complf ing u'ithtl-tc} provisions ol^{the lndian Registration Act' 1908'and} Indian St:rm1l^{Act, 1899. It is open to thc Registering} Authority to^{refuse/receivethe document(s)presented} bcfore hin.r,^{ifhe has an)' other objection'by} dull' assigning rcasons^{insupportof such decision} ar-rd communic:rLc^{the said decisionto the petitioner(s);}

¶33

(ii) the respondent -^{Sub-Registrarsin the State sha1l} make an endorsement^{at the reverseside of the first} page of the document^{referred in direction No (i) that} registratiorl^{so done is subjectto outcome of SLP (Civil)} No. 19695^{of 2O2l {i1ed by the StateGovernmentbefore} the Honble^{SuPremeCourt; and}

¶34

(iii) in case. it^{is found that thereis anyviolation of law} like plots /^lands /^{structures being sold form part of} F.T.L. ancl^{Buffer Zone} /^{Plotshaving less than 30 feet} road wiclth^{access, the SubRegistrar shall make an} endorscmellt^informing /^{cautioningthe purchasers} that dsl( is involved^{in purchase of such plots;such} transactiotrti^{are hit by rclevant statutoryprovisions;} that registr:rtion^{of the same is subject to outcome of} orders ol^{lhe HonbleSupremeCourt in SLP(Civil)} No.19695^{ol 2021. To that effect,an endorsement shall} be made^{or-r the reverse side of the first / second page of} the document^{and also} in the encumbrance^record, website elc.

¶35

<br>

¶36

As a sequel^{thereto, miscellaneousapplications, if any, pending} in the lvrit Petttt^{on sha1lstand closed.}

¶37

SD/. T. TIRUMALA^DEVI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,TRUE^COPY// t{il^oFFrcER

¶38

to'',. ' ' rn" Principal Secretary pJ'fpt, and Registration Department' state of Telangana^{SecretariatHvderabao'}

¶39

a+nf tl#n:,,;i::rj:f.Tfl^{3;Lysa[l[?:P&R""i''J"?iiJi]"j"oS'iamps} 4. H'S t^tiLi"t"'S:"M u n i c^{i p} a^{tv, Re p} tr One CC to^{Sri V RoopeshI} JJl& !?s-{,"",,9;ffi: : ::Y ilil'

¶40

1. Y*I EE.'i"-^{cP For iRevenue' High Courl for the stat'} 7. Two CD^CoPies

¶41

n\ ,, o One SPare^CoPY

¶42

$u. MBC

HIGH COURT

NVSK,J

DATED: 2810412022

1 H e s I,1
n
o 1fi hAt iiit
o
i

J P,4 eC
ORDER

¶47

WP.No.18227 of 2022

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS

Saride Raghavendra Rao and another v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saride Raghavendra Rao and another v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kompari Raju Vs State of Telangana

Boddu Thirupathi Vs The State of Telangana

Y Pawan Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Marram Sai Kishore Babu Vs The Manikonda Municipality and 2 others

Sri Mohan Lal Vs The State of Telangana

Sanku Laxmi Narayana Vs The State of Telangana