Partly allowed

K.Sitha Ram Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Feb 2022WP/3345/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the stage of admission. Directing respondents to register the petitioner's sale deed regarding land at Shamshabad without reference to a specific Collector Notification, subject to complying with the Registration Act.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to receive and register the sale deed for Plot No. 63 without reference to the Notification dated 26/09/2013, subject to applicant complying with Registration Act and Indian Stamp

K.Sitha Ram Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3345 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

K.Silha Ram Kumar, S/o.Sri K,A.J.Varma aged about 53^years, Occ: Doctor, R/o Plot No.102, Surya Residency, D/66(67), [,4adhura Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue^{(Registration} and Stamps) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad,

¶13

2 The District Registrar Revenue^{(Registration} and Stamps) Department, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

3 The Sub Registrar Revenue^{(Registration} and Stamps) Depa(ment, SRO, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

,..RESPONOENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more^particularly the 3rd respondent in orally refusing to receive and register the sale deed^presented by^the petitioner in respect of land bearing Plot No.63, admeasuring 200 sq. yards, under Sy.No.725l6, situated at Shamshabad Village and lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District, on the ground of issuance of the Notification dated.26/09/2013 by the Oistrict Collector, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of Registration Act, 1908, and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 receive, register and release the sale deed^presented by the^petitioner in respect of subject land without reference to the Notification dated.26109/2013 issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Se tion^{151 CPC prayingthat in thecircumstancedstated in} the affidavit filed^{in supF ort of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto direct} the respondents^{2 and : to receive,registerand releasethe saledeed presented by} the^petitioner in respec^{of land bearing Plot No'63,admeasuring200 sq yards'} under Sy.No.725l6,^{sit iatedat ShamshabadVillage and Mandal' RangaReddy} District, without^{referen:e to the Notification dated.26/09/2013 issued by the District} Collector, Ranga^{ReddlDistrict, pending disposal of the writ petition'}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Petitio rer : SRl. MOHD MOINAHMEDQUADRI}

¶20

Counsel for the^{Respc ndents: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶21

The Court at^{the stagc of admissionfollowing: ORDER}

¶22

THE^{HONOURN'LE SRI JUSTICE B'VIJAYSENREDDY} T N o,3345^t2

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard^the learned^{counsel for the petitioner andthe} iearned^{Government Pleader for Revenuefor the respondents'} With their^{consent, the WritPetitionis disposedof at thestage} of admission.

¶25

The learned^{counselfor petitioner submits that the issue} raisedinthiswlitpetitionissquarelycoveredbytheorder passed^{by this Court in W'P'NoI5117 of 2O2l datedTT '2021'}

¶26

In view of^{the same'this writ Petition is disPosedof'} directing the Respondents-Registering^{Authorities to receive arrd} the sale^{deedpresented by the petidoner in respect of} process Plot No .63 admeasuring^{2Oosq'yardsin Sy No 725/6situated} atShamshabadvillageandmandal,RangaReddydistrict without^{referenceto the Notificatiofldated 26'9'2013issued by} the District^{Coilector'Ranga Reddydistrict' subjectto the} petitioner^{comPlYingwiththe provisionsof the Registration Act'} 1899. It^{will be oPen to the} 1908,^{and Indian StamP Act'} receive^{the documentPresented} Registering^{Authority to refuse /} er objection,^{bY dulYassigning} before^{him, if he has any oth} ision and^{communicatethe said} reasons^{in suPPort of such dec} miscellaneous Petitions^Pending' decision^{to the} Petitioner'^The if any,^{sharl stand closedrhere shalr} " ,diljjj*:r r/rRUE^{coPY,^tt'} ;r,M;";-

¶27

"';i?:',Br,ili-{,lBiini#'srft xs'H!EF'P'"'!ffi :T'"'#;:::::il:1""'"

¶28

;il'il'^{$il''""'d;ff -:'}

TRI ffiffijry BS V

HIGH COURT

DATEO:1110212022

ORDER

WP.No.3345 of 2022

19 rii

DISPOSING OF THE V RIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF A] 'MISSION WITHOUT COSTS

¶36

k&{

¶37

K.Sitha Ram Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sitha Ram Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. R. Sumathi Vs Special Grade Deputy Collector and 7 others

Jarupla Seenya alias Cheenya Vs The State of Telangana

Veeramaila Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Chintala Manemma Vs The State of Telangana

Jyothi Mahesh Bhai Vs State of Telangana

Dr.K.Sharada Vs State of Telangana and 2 others