Dismissed

Mr.Uppu Shekar v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2022WP/2494/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to declare the inaction of the Stamp and Registration Department illegal. The Court observed that the underlying prohibitory orders were closed by the trial court in 2011 without an appeal, rendering them non-subexistent, thus the writ petition could not be maintained.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 06.02.2020 extended until further orders on 24.04.2020, stands vacated. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.

Mr.Uppu Shekar Vs State of Telangana — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2494 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr.Uppu Shekar, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged 33 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Swamulavari Lingotam Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District (Erstwhile Nalgonda District).

¶9

Mr.Uppu Ravi, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged 31^years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Swamulavari Lingotam Village; Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District (Erstwhile Nalgonda District).

¶10

Smt. Uppu @ Tula Bhagya Laxmi, Wo Venkatesham, Aged 37^years, Occ Agriculture, Rlio. Adloor Village, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

The Commissioner and lnspector General, Stamps and Registration Department, Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department, Nalgonda District.

¶16

The Sub-Registrar, Choutuppal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶17

The Tahsildar, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶18

Mr-Uppu Veeraiah, Sio. Venkaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ Agriculture, Fl/o Swamulavari Lingotam Village and Post, Choutuppal Mandal, YadadriBhongir District-508252.

¶19

Mr. Dilli Shekar Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ Private Employee, Rl/o. Swamulavari Lingotam Village and Post, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadad ri-Bhongir District-508252.

¶20

B. Smt.Uppu Vasantha, Wo. Veeraiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ House Wife, Rl/o. Swamulavari Lingotam Village and Post, Choutuppal Mandal, YadddriBhongir District-508252.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

¶23

pleased to issue a Wril or order or direction more particularly on<; in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, de:laring the action of the Respondent ,:r.2 and 3 in not initiating action agains the respondent No.4 pursuant to th€ Oomplaint, dated 2011112019 submitted by the petitioners for entertaining and registering the Regd.Sale Deed No 3349/2014, dated 2210712014 and Regd.Sale Deed No.11760/20'19, dateo 2510712019 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Choutuppal, Yadadri-Bhongir Distri ;t (Erstwhile Nalgonda District) exeouted by the 6th respondent in favour rf the 7th and Bth respondent resperctively during the subsistence of prohibitr ry orders restraining the alienation passed by the Honble Senior Civil Judges Ccurt, Bhongir in l.A.No. 49 of 2009 in O.S.No. 10 of 2009, daled 2910912009, bein; illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndi r apart from being violative of principles of natural^justice and set aside the R-.gd.Sale Deed Nos.3349120'14, daled 2210712014 and No.11760/2019, dated 25/07/2019 and consequently direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to initiate actiorr cursuant to the complaint, dated 20111t2019 submitted by the petitioners.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶25

Petition under Sr,ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sl^pport of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to suspend the Regd.Sal r Deed No.334912014, daled 22107,t20'1.1 and Regd.Sale Deed No.1176012019, dated 25107120'19 on the file of thr: Sub-Registrar, Choutuppal, Yadadri-Bt ongir District (Erstwhile Nalgonda Distriot) executed by the 6th respondent in favc ur of the 7th and 8th respondents respectively, pending disposal of the main wr i petition.

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶27

Petition under Sir 'ction^'151 CPC praying that in the ci.cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sr oport of the petition, the High Couft rnay be pleased to vacate the interim orde s passed by the Hon'ble Court on 24 -4-?-(t20 and direct the respondent No.5, Te rsildar, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, (Nalgonda) to release t re Rythu Bandu amounts payable for the year 2022 as per her original allotment b, the Govt of Telangana under PM-Kisan Samman Nidhi.

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶29

Between:

¶30

State of Telangzrr a, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Departrnt:nt of Slamps and Registratiorr, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶31

The Commission :r and lnspector General, Stamps and Regrstration Department, Hyrl rrabad.

¶32

3 J[?Bl:,..,^{Resis trar, Stampsand Registration Department,} Nalgonda

¶33

The Sub-Registra . Choutuppal, yadadri_Bhongir Districl. The Tahsildar, ch rutuppar Mandal, yadadri_Bhongir Districl.

¶34

Mr.Uppu Veeraiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Swamulavari Lingotam Village and Post, Choutuppal lvlandal, YadadriBhongir District-508252.

¶35

Mr. Dilli Shekar Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ:Private Employee, Rl/o. Swamulavari Lingotam Village and Post, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District-508252.

¶36

B. Smt.Uppu Vasantha, Wo. Veeraiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ:House Wife, FVo. Swamulavari Lingotam Village and Post, Choutuppal Mandal, YadddriBhongir District50B252.

¶37

...Petitioners/ Respondent No's. 6,7&B

¶38

AND

¶39

Mr.Uppu Shekar, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged 33 years, Occ Agriculture, Fl/o. Swamulavari Lingotam Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District (Erstwhile Nalgonda District).

¶40

Mr.Uppu Ravi, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged 31^years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Swamulavari Lingotam Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District (Erstwhile Nalgonda District).

¶41

Smt. Uppu @ Tula Bhagya Laxmi, Wio Venkatesham, Aged 37^years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Adloor Village, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶42

... Respondents/ Petitioners

¶43

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 vacate the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Courl on 241412020.

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent No's. 1 to 5: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent No's. 6 to 8:SRl AMRUTHA SANJEEVA

¶47

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶48

THE HO:\ BI,E SIII JUSTICE A. ABHISH[]I( IIIEDIDY I^{tllllT PETITION No.2494 of 202Q}

¶49

ORDER:

¶50

Questic,r^{irrg the actionof the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in} not initiatin6 action against the respondert No.4 Sub-Registrar. Choutuppal, Yadadri-Bhongir Districrl, pursuant to the cornplar^,rt dated 20.11.2019 made by the pe,titiorters for entertaining a: d registering the registered Sale Der:ds executed by the resporr< ent No.6 in favour of the responderLt Nos.7 and 8 respectively cluring the subsistence of prohibit,ory orders restraining thr alienation passed by the Senior Cir,il .ludge's Court, Bl'ron11 ', in I.A.No.49 of 2009 in O.S.l'Jo.l0 of 2009 dated 29.09)l(^r09, the petitioners have filed the prr:sent Writ Petition.

¶51

On 06.0^'..2020, when the matter came up fo: adnrission, this Courl hasr rassed the following order:

¶52

l).x

¶53

Me nrvhile, the parties sliall not alienate the sr.rbjcct prclert.r."

¶54

A coun o-r- has been filed by the learned (;0unse.l

¶55

appeanng on t ehalf of the respondent Nos.6 to g srating that \

¶56

AAR, J W.P-No 2491 ol 2O2O

¶57

¶58

vide order dated 29.09.2009 passed in I.A.No.49 of 2009 in O.S.No.10 of 2009, the trial Court initiatly granted stay of alienation, and the said order was extended until further orders on 30.10.2009, but, subsequently, the said I.A. was closed by the trial Court vide order dated 08.04.2011. The learned counsel has further stated that once the I.A.No.49 of 2009 was closed, the question of subsistence of the order passed in the said I.A. does not arise. That the petitioners without disclosing the said facts, have obtained the interim ordcrs from this Courl and has prayed this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition with exemplary costs.

¶59

On 08.09.2022, when the same was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel has sought time to find out whether any steps have been taken pursuant to the closure of I.A.No.49 of 2009 in O.S.No.10 of 2009 by the trial Court vide order dated 08.04.2011. Today, when the matter has come up, the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that as against the said order dated

¶60

,\AR,.J 3 \r' t' No.2 r9i ol2O2O

08.04.201 l, nc appeal or Civil Revision Petition^has been^filed by the petition,'rs.

¶65

In view r1'the above made submissions, the question of passing any o'der by this Court on the basis o1' the orders passed by the rial Court in I.A.No.49 of 2001) in C,.S.No.l0 of 2009, which,r rs been closed subsequently in 2()ll itseif, does not arise, mor-' particularly, when the said order has become final as no appcal or CRP has been filed against the said order.

¶66

llaving^,'egard to the above, the relief sor:ght by the petitioners in lhe present Writ Petition cannot btr granted in their f-avour.

¶67

Accordi rgly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. lnterim order dated^t):.r)2.2020 and extended until furthr:r orders on 24.04.2020 sti nds vacated.

¶68

Miscelli rreous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶69

closed. There^.lrall be no order as to costs.

¶70

SD/.V.SUDHA ASSISTANT REqIqTRAR .lg .:q\u\ I Z IITRUE COPYII SECTTON OFFICER

¶71

To,1. The Principal se ;retary, Department of stamps and Registration, State of Telangana, Sec:r rtariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hvderabad] 2. The Commissior --r and.lnspeclor General, Stdmps and Registration Department, Hlc --rabad. Relyi ,rrar, Sramps and Resistration Department, Natgonda a l[:rfli:,r'"

¶72

The -Sub-Registr. . Choutuppal, yadadri-Bhongir Distrirt. 6. 5. one The Tahsitda-r. cc to SRt ,apAthn.p_e-oonr<JLnlii"tliB c rorrrrrnoat !1g!d_rt %;;;inE'#oniir. o,rm ,t topuc,L 7^{-r'.,^} n/'c rn Gp ,oR srAMp5 AND ilEciiiHiiior,r,HiEh court for the

¶73

I {

¶74

B. One CC to SRI AIUFTUTHA SANJEEVA Advocate IOPUCI 9. Two CD Copies. 10.One Spare Copy. GB P'N,--

HIGH COURI' { .

DATED:1 5101t,,2022

ORDER

WP.No.2494 t,f 2020

z ..: #1,fi-^<br>:
aJ 10 i,ri]! 2m
c)
7 ).
T

¶80

DISPOSING^I(IF THE WP

¶81

WITHOUT CC STS.

¶82

r4 \o"//

Mr.Uppu Shekar v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Uppu Shekar v. State of Telangana

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

K. Srinivas Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and 13 others

Mr.Syed Ather Ahmed Quadri Vs The State of Telangana

Vakiti Sathi Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

B Chandra Sekhar, Hyderabad Vs Secy, Panchayat Raj Dept., Hyd and 3 Others

Mrs. Pooja Joshi, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mangalagiri Suresh Kumar,Mahaboobnagar Dist Vs Govt.of Ap,Scy,P.Raj,Hyd,and 3