Dismissed

M.M. Vasu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Dec 2022WP/19106/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses writ petitions filed under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC challenging the registration of a sale deed. The Court held that registrars cannot adjudicate on the title or validity of link documents during registration and that the matter is already pending as a civil suit, rendering this writ application inappropriate for interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions filed under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC were dismissed without costs, leaving the petitioner to pursue the pending civil suit O.S.No.228 of 2018.

M.M. Vasu Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ' AT HYDERABAD /, (SpecialOriginalJurisdiction) .,

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENry SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER^-- TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO /.

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION N : 19106 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.M. Vasu, S/o. Late M. Keshava Rao, Occ. Business R/o. H.No. 1-24-387, Sri Sainagar Colony, Lothukunta, Alwal, Secunderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER /

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Registration and Stamps Department Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, 5-3953, Nizam Shahi Road, Mozamjahi, Market, Heza Estate, Risala Abdullah Colony, Jam Bagh, Hyderabad - 500095.

¶13

The District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Dept., Medchal-Malkajgiri District,Medchal - 501401. Erstwhile Ranga Reddy district.

¶14

The Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration Dept., Shamirpet, MedchalMalkajgiri District.

¶15

Shanta R. Patel, Wo. Late Ratan C. Manji Patel, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No. 1-7-'15311 , Padmaraonagar, Sec'bad - 500020.

¶16

Vinod Patel, S/o. Late Ratan C Manji Patel, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 6-1132n0, Padmaraonagar, Sec'bad - 500060.

¶17

Gopal Patel, S/o. not known to the petitioner, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 6-11 3217 0, P admaraonagar,Sec'bad - 500060.

¶18

Mayur Patel, S/o. Late Ratan C. Maji Patel, occupation business, R/o. H.No. 1-7-15311 , Bakaram Road, Musheerabad, Hyderabad - 500020.

¶19

D. Saraswathi, W/o. D. Maisaiah, Occ. House wife R/o. H.No. 1-Bl9, Shameerpet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Erstwhile R R dist.

¶20

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of

¶23

--_-..----

¶24

Writ of Mandamus, (a) declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly 4th respondent herein in registering the sale deed document No. 3307 of 2017, dt.18-09- 2017, executed by C.S. Joshi and 5th respondent through their GPA holder, the 6th respondent, in favour of the 11th respondent herein, without conducting any enquiry and verifying link documents as illegal and arbitrary and also violative of Art. 14 and 3004 constitution of lndia, b) consequently direct the 4th respondent herein to conduct an enquiry and take necessary action on the said registration of fraudulently fabricated sale deed document No.3307 ol 2017, dt.'l8-09-2017, registered at his office forthwith c) appoint an Advocate Commissioner on the basis of the material facts and reasons by considering the petitioners representations;

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to issue a direction directing the 2nd respondent herein to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dt.10-01-2022, against the 4th respondent herein for alleged act on the part of the respondent No. 4 forthwith in the interest of^justice

¶27

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to issue a direction directing the 2nd respondent herein to conduct departmental enquiry by investigating the alleged registration of the sale deed document No.3307 ot 2017, dt.18-09-2017 in connection with GPA Document No.10 of 2008, dt.20-05- 2008, in the interest of justice.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M R B MANIKANDAN

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents Rl TO R4: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent R9: SRI N.M. KRISHNAIAH

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

t I

¶34

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR IIIRIT PETITION No.L91O6 of 2022

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4 and Sri N.M. Krishnaiah, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.9.

¶38

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the action of respondent No.4 in registering the sale deed dated 18.09.2017 vide document No.3307 of 2017 in favour of respondent No.9 herein on the ground that respondent No.4 has entertained registration of the said document without verifying the link documents.

¶39

It is brought to the notice of this Court tJlat seeking cancellation of the very same document, which is impugned in the writ petition, the petitioner herein along with two others have already filecl O.S.No.228 of 2018, wherein the petitioner sought for declaration of General Power of Attorney, dated 2O.05.2008, as null and void as well as to declare the impugned sale deed dated 18.O9.2017 as null and void and also sought for certain other reliefs.

d,.'..

As this Court time and again has declared that the respondent - Sub Registrar, while entertaining any document for registration, cannot go into the aspects of title or va.liditSz or otherwise of the link documents, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned sale deed, especially taking intc consideration the fact that the petitioner has already instituted O.S.No.228 of 2O18 seeking to declare the very same document, which is impugned in the writ petition, as null and void.

¶44

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue O.S.No.228 of 2018, which is already pending on the hle of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal. However, this order, in any way, shall not come in the way of learned Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal, while deciding the said suit on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

i/TRUE COPYII

SECTIO OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRl. M R B MANIKANDAN Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. N.tvl. KRISHNAIAH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, Hish Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶53

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

MSKJ

DATED: 2611212022

ORDER

,,..
,u,.,'i' Iltt-. SI4 14:
.[6 Jlll zln

¶59

WP.No.19106 of 2022

¶60

WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED OF WITHOUT COST

M.M. Vasu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M. Vasu 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

Pannala Sesha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Gopuraju Ramesh Vs Sri Somesh Kumar , IAS

Madarsa Darul Uloom Jamia Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Mohd Shafiuddin Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

M/s. Rushi Health Care Services and another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Mohd.Kareem Vs The State of Telangana