Dismissed

Kodati Venu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Mar 2022WP/38019/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order disposing of a writ petition challenging refusal to register a sale deed. The court decided to dispose of the matter in terms of a common order passed in connected W.P.No.328 of 2022 regarding registration restrictions in violation of statutory reservations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of common order dated 18.02.2022 in W.P.No.328 of 2022.

Kodati Venu Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (SpecialOriginal J u risd iction)

¶3

FR]DAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF I\IARCH - TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWq-

¶4

PR ES ENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 38019 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kodatr Venu S/o Kodatr Narsaiah, Aged abor"rt 29 Years, Occ Business, R/o H.No 7-39, Pothugal village, N,4usthabad l\4andal, Ra.lanna Sircialla District.

¶9

..PETTTTONER(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government Stamps and Registration Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner and lnspector General of Stamps and Registration, ltloazzam Jah i lVlarket, Hyderabad

¶13

3 The Sub-Regrstrar. Sircilla Sircrlla Town. RaJanna Sircilla Distnct.

¶14

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petitron under Artrcle 226 ot the Constrtution ol lndia praying that in the crrcurnstances stated rn the affidavit frled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to rssue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declanng the action of the 3'd respondent herein in refusing to receive, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of plot ./a bearrng Nos 139'to an extent of 134 So yards in Sy No 88/Al2l1. 88lAl3l1 , 196/8 and196/C (As per the document in Sy No.B8/A and 196). situated at Maddikunta village of lVlusthanabad It/andal. Rajanna Sircjlla District, on the ground of Memo .7 bearing No. G21257t201 I Dated 26-08-2020 and 29-12-2020 issued by the 2nd

¶16

respondent as illega lly, arbitrary without lr,rrrsdrction contrary to the provision of Reg istration, Act 1908 and violation of Artrcle^'14 of Corrslrtutron of lndra and consequently d ire ct the respondent No.3 to receive register and release the documents in favour of the petitioner without reference to lvemo bearrng No G2125712019 dated 29-12-2020 issued by the 2nd respondent

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under section^,151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the Hjgh court may be pteased to direct the respondent No.3 to receive, register and release the documents in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot bearing No.1 39 to an extent of 1 34 sq.yards in Sy No BB/A/2/1 , BBlAl3l1, 196/8 and196/C (As per the document in Sy.No BBiA and 196), situated at Maddikunta village of lv4usthanabad Mandal, Rajanna srrcilta District, without reference to Memo bearing No G21257 Da19 dated 29-12-2020 tssued by the 2"r respondent

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. MADAS BHARATH CHANDRA r-

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER .,,

¶21

¶22

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSENREDDY'} WRIT PE^{TITION No380r9 0F20I}

¶23

RDER^(oRAL):

¶24

Heard both sides^{andperused the materialon record'}

¶25

lt is submitted^{by the leamed counselon either side that subject} matter of this^{writ petition is squarely covered by the cornmon orderpassed} by this^{Court in W.P.No.328 of 2022 and batchdated 18'02'2022'as} rnodifierl^{by the orcler dated22.02'2022in I'A No2 of 2022in W'P'No'2985} of 2022^{ancl batch,ancl therefore, keeping the tnatter pendingwill not serue} any pulpose,^{as such, the sarne rnay be disposedof in terrnsthereof'}

¶26

This Court^{passed interirn order in this writ petition directingthe} respondents^{to receive,process,registerand release the subject document/s'} However, conditions^{were imposedthat (a) the petitioner/sis/are not} permitted to withdraw^{the writ petition and (b) registration shall be subject} to final result^{of the writpetition'}

¶27

ln view of^{the above,recording the aforesaid submissionof the} learned counsel^{on either side, followingthe commonorder dated} 18.02.2022 in^{W.P.No.328of 2022 and batch'as modifiedby the order} dated 22.02.2022^{in I.A.No'2of 2022 in W'P'No'2985of 2022' in terms} thereof, this^{writ petition is disposedof as under'withoutany orderas to} costs:

¶28

(A) If the subiect^{docurnenVs has/havealready been registered and} released^{pursuantto the interimorder;}

¶29

(i) the documenVs^{registered by the S^ub-Registrarshall be} iuOlect to^{outcome ot Slf} lCivit;^{No 19695 of 2021 filedbv} the State Government^{beforethe Hon'ble SupremeCourt;} and

¶30

(ii) in case, it is^{found that there is any violationof law like} ptots/lands/structures^{being sold form^part of F T L and} Buffer ZonelPlots^{havingless than 30 feet roadwidth} access, the^{SubRegistiar shall make an endorsement}

¶31

..2:

¶32

informing/cautioning^{the purchasersthat risk is involvedin} purcnas6 of such^{pl-ots; such transactionsare hit by relevant} statutory^{provisions; that registration} -of^{the same is subject} to outcome^{of ordeis of thJHon'bleSupreme Court in SLP} icirit;^{No.toossof 2021'To that effect'an endorsement} inatt Ue^{maOe in the encumbrance record' websiteetc'}

¶33

(B) If the subject^{document/sis/are not yet registeredand released}

¶34

pursuant to the interim^order;

¶35

(i) the respondent^{- Sub-Registraris directedto register the} document of^{sale, transfei and gift etc} '^presentedfor registration by^{the petitioner/s withqu^t^referenceto the} M6mo Nos.G2l257t2019^{dated26 08 2020 and 29 12'2020} issued by the^{respondent-theCommi-ssioner and lnspector} General of^{Registrationand Stamps'Telangana;} Letter No.45/TP/NMC/201^{I dated 011 1 2019 issued by the} respondenlthe^{Commissioner' MunicipalCorporation'} Nizampet to the^{respondenlthe} .^{Sub Registrar'} Quthbullapur,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict'and similar letters'if} any, issued^{by the"variousi'/tunicipalCommissioners in the} State;

¶36

(ii) the Sub Registrars^{in the State} .shall^{make an} endorsement^{at tie reverse sideof the first page of the} document^{referredin directionNo (i) that registration so} done is subject^{to outcome of SLP(Civil) No 19695of 2021} filed by the State^{Government before the Hon'ble Supreme} Courtl and

¶37

(iii) in case, it is^{found that there is any violation of law like} plots/lands/structures^{being sold form^part of F T L and} 'Buffer ZoneiPlots having^-less than 30 feet road width access, the^{SubRegistiar shall make an endorsement} informing/cautioning^{th'e purchasersthat risk is involvedin} purchas6 of such^{piots; suchtransactions are hit by relevant} statutory^{pro,isions; thatregistration} ^of^{the same is subject} to outcome oi ora"t^{of thiHon'bleSupreme Court in SLP} (Civil) No.19695 of 2021'^{To that effect' an endorsement} ihall^'be made^{on the reverse side of the first/secondpage} of the document^{and also in the encumbrancerecord'} website etc.

¶38

As a sequel thereto,^{miscellaneouspetitions,if any'pgnding in this}

¶39

SD/.L.LAKSHMI^BABU writ petition stand^closed. ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

(:^,/

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 Tho Princioal^{Secretary to the Government Stan)ps ano Reglstratlon} J"-partment^{Stateo{ r"r'"glt;"L;crelarialHyderabad}

¶46

The Commissioner^{and.lnspector General of Stampsand Regrstration} I *i"ri-.^{t'nt\IarketHYderabad}

¶47

¶48

,3.^{f he Sub-Registrar, Sircrlla' Sircilla Town'Rajanna Sircilla District'} 4 One CC to^{SRI MADAS BHARATH CHANDRAAdvocate IOPUCI}

¶49

-5 Two^{CCs to GP FORREVENUE'High Court for the State of Telangana'at}

¶50

( Hyderabad IOUTI

¶51

/6 fwo CD CoPies

rrk

HIGH COURT^C-

BVRJ

DATED:1¹ /03/2022

'rA
s T
6f- (' (J
i
v
o
)c
1t l\lll 1[tt
o

D ?,i c

¶57

ORDER^/

¶58

wP.No.3Bo1e Lor.

¶59

WRIT PETITION^{IS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT COST}

Kodati Venu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kodati Venu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Penta Thirupathi Vs The State of Telangana

V. Sita Vs The State of Telangana

G. Swamy Vs The State of Telangana

T.Paramesh Vs State of Telangana

T. Veera Bhasker Vs The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Sri. Aenugu Raghuma Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others