Disposed

Sri Vivekananda Desai v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Dec 2022WP/38062/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of sale deed documents due to a stay order and lack of title deeds. The Court noted the stay was withdrawn and title documents were produced. The petitioners were permitted to submit the documents for registration before the Tahsildar/Cum-Joint Sub-Registrar.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to present pending documents for registration before the Tahsildar, Cum-Joint Sub-Registrar within three weeks if submitted by the petitioners, and to complete registration withi

Sri Vivekananda Desai Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA /.} ATHYDERABAD . ,,/ (Special Original Jurisdiction) - THURSDAY,^{THE FIRST DAYOF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO} ,..

¶2

[^32s6 ]

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR} WRIT PETI TION^{NO:380620F 2022}

¶5

Between:

¶6

l.SriVivekanandaDesai,S/o.LateV.H.Desai,Occ-PrivateService,R/o.H.No. 2-14711D, E, f,^{Flat No. 404, Sharda Apartments' Street No.6, Nallakunta'} Now residing at^{Konddapur, Sherilingampally,Ranga Reddy District'} Hyderabad.

¶7

S;i V. Subhash^{Chander Desai' S/o. LateV H' Desai, Occ Private Service'} - R/o. Flat No.502, Maduranagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District' Hyderabad.

¶8

S;t. M. Vimala,^{Wo. Dr. Mohan.S Rao, Occ'Housewife'R/o' H No' 2-2-} 185/56/C/3, Flat^{No.103, Satya Sai Apartments, Bagh Amberpet' Hyderabad -} 5000 013.

¶9

4.Smt.K.VijayaLakshmi,Wo-M.KrishnaRao,Occ'Housewife'Rl/o-H'No115. Sri ii_iztaz6s, Damodar Road^{Chincholikar, No.r,Atkapuri, Saroornagar, Ranga 'S/o Late Righavender Reddy District. Rao' Occ' Retired} _ ..

¶10

imptoyee, trUo. F1-2O2, Balali Mansion, H No'3-6-504/A' Street No'7' Hil;t;tn"g"t,^{Hyderabad, now Residing at Kondapur'Sherlingampally} Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District, Hyderabad}

¶11

O. Smt. Manjus[a,^{Wo. Sri Sandeep Pathreekar, Occ Housewife} '^trJo'F1-2O2'

¶12

e"irii tvtansion,'H.t'to.2-6-5O4tA, Skeet No 7, Himayatnagar' Hyderabad' ^

¶13

T.Smt.KasturiChincholikar,Wo.sriRaviMahadevan,occ.Housewife,Rl/o. Flat No. 402,^{Sri RatandeepApartments, H No 3$-190/A' Urdu HallLane'} Himayatnagar,^HYderabad.

¶14

ii"p'oy^{iti opA Holder,Sri T. VenkateshwarReddy' S/o' Sri T' Anantha} hJOy,'O"".^{Business' R/o. Flat No 601, Lotus Gagan ViharApartments'} H.No.1-2-593/59,Gaganmahal,Domalguda'Hyderabad) ..-petitioners

¶15

AND

¶16

,| The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps} and Registratinn)^{Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad' Telangana'}

¶17

2 The Coirmissioner,^{and lnspector General,Stampsand Registration} Department, RangareddY^District-

¶18

3 inJ bi.trbt h"gis-trar,^{S[amps and Registration Department' Rangareddy} District.

¶19

4 ine fJsifOar, Cum^{Joint Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad Mandal' Rangareddy} District'

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

Petition under^{Article226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstanc.esstated!ntheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pi""."O to issue a writ,^{order or direction, more particulady one in the natureof} writ of Mandamus,^{declaring the action of the 3rd Respondentin passing the}

¶22

rejection order vide proceedings No. '15095/G1/202.1 , dated 16.02.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and vioration of the Registration Act, 'r908 and "r.o ,grin.t ii..'" Pattadhar Passbooks Act, 1971 and its Rures 1989 and viotaiive o?-th" ng;;t. guaranteed by the constitution of rndia and consequentry direct tne nesponJEnts to assign the number for the petitioners documents bearing p.Nos. g5/2020, 8612020' 92t2o20, 93t2020, ggr2o2o to 10112020, in respJct to tne tani in Sy.No.108A and 10BE (Et,,E2, E3) of Tondupally Village, S't rr"t rU"J fi,f"nOrf , Ranga Reddy District and to rerease the d'ocuments pending before the 4th Respondent.

¶23

IA NO: 10F 2022

¶24

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiifion, it'. Higt, court may G p[r."d t" direct the Respondents to assign number and to rerease the'petitircner 999yn9tt"^{bearingp.Nos. 85/20i0, 8612020, g2.t2o2l, g3t2o2lt,} SsT2OrO to 10112020, in respect to the tand in Sy.No.10BA and 108E tEr, eZ, Lij or Tondupally Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH VENKAT RAMAN

¶26

counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: Gp FoR srAMps AND REGlsrRATloN The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR PETITION No.3 t 2022

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.

¶30

This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by respondent No.3 in proceedings No.1509S/ Gt /2O2L, dated, 16-02.2022, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 72 of the Registration Act, l90g is re-lected.

¶31

The case of the petitioners is that aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in refusing to register and process the sale deed presented b5r the petitioners vide pending documents bearing Nos.BS/2O20, 861202c., g2/2}2o, ss/2o2o and 99/2O2O to tol /2O2O of the office of the sub Regisrrar, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The initial refusal for registering the said documents is on the ground that there was a starlzs quo order dated I 1.OS.2OIg passed in O.S.No.5g4 of 2O18 on rhe file of the I Additional Disrrict Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Wkren the matter went before the appellate authority - respondent No.3 herein, the said appeal was rejected

¶32

¶33

on the ground of sratus quo order as well as on^{the groundthat} the petitioners failed to produce title deeds and^pattadar passbooks in respect of the subject prop€rty, which is a mandatory requirement as required under Section 6 (D) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,^1971.

¶34

When this matter is taken up for consideration before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners brought^to the^notice of this Court that after liling the present writ petition,^the petitioners have obtained title deeds and pattadar^passbooks in respect of the subject land and they are ready to^produce the said title deeds and pattadar passbooks before^the respondent authoritics. It is also brought to the notice of ris^{Court that} O.S.No.584 of 2O 18 on the file of I Additional District^Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, was^dismissedas withdrawn l>y the petitioners as early as on 07.01.2021.^Thus, it is contended by learned counsel for the^{petitionersthat as the} twin reasons, basing upon which the subject documents are refused to be registered^were exhausted, the^petitioners seek liberty to approach the respondent authorities^by representing the subject documents and also^{seek further} direction^(o direct the respondents to consider the^said documents for registration^afresh.

) \

Taking into consideration ttre submissions made by learned counsei for the petitioners, especially the grounds on which the subject documents are refused to be registered by the respondents are stated to be no more subsisling, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioners to represent the pending documents bearing Nos.85/2O2O, 86/2O2O, 92/2O2O, 93/2O2O and 99/2O2O to lOll2O2O. This Court is also of the considered view that when the subject documents are presented for registration initially, the Sub Registrar, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is the competent authorit5r to register the subject documents and in view of the change of law, respondent No.4 herein is conferred with the power to register the documents in respect of the agricultural lands and hence the petitioners can be permitted to represent the returned documents before respondent No.4.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to represent the returned documents bearing P. Nos.85/2o2o, 86/2020,92/2O2O, \Z/2O2O and 99/2O2O to lOl/2O2O of the office of the Sub Registrar, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, before respondent No.4 herein, who is the competent authority now within a period of three

¶40

¶41

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on submission of such documents by the petitioners, respondent No.4 shall process the same by duly verifying the pattadar passbooks and title deeds produced by the petitioners and also veri[zing the factum of dismissal of O.S.No.584 of 2O18 on the Iile of the I Additional District Judge, Ralga Reddy District, and complete the process of registration of the documents, within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of the documents by the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

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

¶43

SD/- MOHE,.SANAULLAH ANSARI ATiSISTANT REGISTRAR

i/TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Revenue^(Stamps and Registration)^Department, Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana, Hyderabad Telangana.

¶48

The Commissioner and lnspector General, Stamps ard^Registration Department, Rangareddy District.

¶49

The District Registrar, Stamps and Registration^{Depadment, Rangareddy} District.

¶50

The Tahsildar, Cum Joint Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District.

¶51

One CC to SRl. CH VENKAT RAMAN Advocate [OPLJC]

¶52

Two CCs to GP FOR STAIIIPS AND REGlSrRATlOltl, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶53

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

MSK.J

DATED:0111212O22

ORDER

-i c T4
14:
/.(
).
tts ll -' z D DEC 7.177
l'. -:-
... //
:.'

¶59

WP.No.38062 o12022

¶60

WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF^{WITHOUT COST}

Sri Vivekananda Desai v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vivekananda Desai 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

Kaki Narayana Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Kunchala Gattamma Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

M/s. Ramky Integrated Township Limited and 2 others Vs The Sub-Registrar and 4 others

Samineni Swarajyam, Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Arifa Begum Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Sri Vivekananda Desai and 6 others Vs The State of Telangana