Disposed

Mohd. Mustafa v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Feb 2022WP/5724/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the refusal of respondents to register sale deeds for a residential property in Hyderabad. The court disposed of the petition by directing the Sub-Registrar to register the documents without reference to specific internal memos, subject to a Supreme Court decision and with mandatory endorsements regarding potential FTL and buffer zone violations.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub-Registrar to register the presentation of sale documents without reference to mentioned internal memoranda, subject to Supreme Court ruling and with a mandatory endorsement cautioning

Mohd. Mustafa Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE^{TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSENREDDY}

¶5

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 5724 OF 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

1.lr/ohd.Mustafa,S/o.Mohd.Jahangir,Age:46Yrs,Occ:Business'Rlo21-4' 242, Gulab Singh^{Bowli, Hyderabad,Telangana'}

¶8

2.AbdulWaheed,S/o.Latelvlohammedlqbal,Age:48Yrs'Occ:Business',R/oi i-o:ais, Frai rtro.- o'or, tvliwn Av6nue, \ew Mallepallv' Hvderabad' Telangana.

¶9

...PETlTloNER(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of^{Telangana, Repby lts Princip-alSecretary,Revenue (Stamps} ,nJ ni,sjLtr"ution^{o6partmerit),SecretariatBuildings' Hyderabad'}

¶12

2 The Commissioner^{and lnspectorGeneral, Registration and Stamps''} i"6"":r", Strie, office^{at 5-3-953, Nizam shrhi Road lt'4ozamjahi Market'} n.-""EsGte Riiala Abdullah,^{JamBagh'Hyderabad,Telangana'}

¶13

The District^{Registrar, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department'} Hyderabad District.

¶14

The Joint Sub-Registrar,^{Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana'}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Pelition under Article 226^{of the constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High courl maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate^{writ, order or Direction, more particularlyin the} nature of Writ of Mandamus,^{to declarethe action of the 1st to 4th respondentin} refusing to receive,^{register and release the sale deeds presentedby the} petitioners in respect of Flat No.^{G1 admeasuring 1200 Sq. Feet of residential} building known as^{NIAWINELITEsituated at Part of PIot No. 139, in SurveyNos.}

¶17

41 ,174, 177,178,180/1,^{181, '182and 211 under GHMCWardNo B, Block No} 1, land admeasuring to^{an extent of 1000.00 Squareyards or 833 55 Square} yards out of 2368.84 lt/eters situated^{at Tolichowki, shaikpet Village and I\l]andal,} Hyderabad, Telangana^{on thegroundofN,4emo No.G2125712019} dated.26/08/2020^{issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust,} unconstitutional,^{violationof principlesof natural justice and also contrary to the} provisions of Registration Act,^{1908, and set aside the same, andconsequently} direct the respondents^{3 and 4 to register andreleasethe documentspresented} by the^{petitioner in respect of subject plot withoutreference to the N4emo} No.G21257t2019^{dated.26108/2020 issuedby the 2nd respondent'}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under section^{151 cPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to} pass orders directing the 4th respondent^{herein to receive, register andrelease} the documents^{presentedby the petitionersin respect of Flat No. G1} admeasuring 1200^{Sq. Feet,of residentialbuilding knownas "IMAWlN ELlTE""} situated at Part of^{Plot No. 139, in Survey Nos.41 ,174' 177,178'18011,181} ' 182 and 21'1 under GIAMC^{Ward No. B, Block No 1 , land admeasuringto an} extent of 1000.00^{squareyards or 2833.55 Square yards or 2368.84tt4eters} situated at Tolichowki,^{ShaikpetVillageand lt/landal,Hyderabad, Telangana} without reference to the Memo^{No.G21257 l2O'19 dated: 26.08,2020 issuedby the} 2nd respondent,^pending disposal^{of the writpetition.}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : SRl. GULAM RABBANI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents : AGp FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.5724 of 2022

¶25

ORDERT

¶26

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel on either side that subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in W.P. No.32B of 2022 and batch dated 18.02.2022 as modified by the order dated 22.02.2022 in I.A. No.2 of 2022 in W.P. No.2985 of 2O22 and batch, as such, this writ petition may be disposed of in terms thereof.

¶28

Therefore, following the common order dated lB.O2.2022 in W.P. No.32B of 2022 and batch as modified by the order dated 22.02.2022 in I.A. No.2 of 2022 in W.P. No.29B5 of 2022, in terms thereof, this writ petition is disposed of as under without any order as to costs:

¶29

(i) The respondent - Sub-Registrar is directed to register the document of sale, transfer and gift etc., presented for registration by the petitioner/s without reference to the lvlemo Nos.G2/257 /2019 dated 26,08.2020 and 29.L2.2O20 issued by the respondent - the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana; Letter No.45lTPlNMC/2019 dated 01.11.2019 issued by the respondent - the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,

¶30

Nizampet to the respondent - the Sub Registrar. Quthbullapur,^Ranga Reddy District, and similar letters, if any, issued by the various Municipal Commissioners in the State;

¶31

(ii) the Sub Registrars in the State shall make an endorsement at the reverse side of the first page of the document referred in direction No.(i) that registration so done is subject to outcome of SLp (Civil) No.19695 of 202t filed by the State Government before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and

¶32

(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 Zone / Plots having less than 30 feet road width access, the Sub Registrar shall make an endorsement informing / cautioning the purchasers that risk is involved in purchase of such plots; such transactions are hit by relevant statutory provisions; that registration of the same ls subject to outcome of orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.19695 of 2O2t. To that effect, an endorsement shall be made on the reverse side of the first / second page of the document and also in the encumbrance record, website etc,

¶33

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶34

]n the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶35

,: .. ._1

¶36

SD/-M.MANJULA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR (-v)

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal^{Secretary, Revenue (Stampsand Registration Department)'} secretariai^{Buildings, State of Telangana'Hyderabad'}

¶41

2 if',ru Cor.i..ioneland^{lnspector General'Registration and Stamps"} r"[.grn,^{Strte,Office ,ii-e-sse, NizamShahi Road' Mozamjahilt/larket'} Uu.u"irtutu,^{Risala Abdullah,Jam Bagh, Hyderabad'Telangana'}

¶42

?) i6" oi.tri"t^{Registrar, Revenue(Registiation and Stamps) Department,} Hyderabad^District.

¶43

1. ifi"l"i"t Sub-Registrar,^{Banjara Hills' Hyderabad'Telangana'} 5.6 Two O." CC CCs i" to Snl^{GP FOR G"ULAN/ nEVEftf RABBANI, Uf , High Court for AdvocateIOPUCIthe State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶44

7 . Two CD CoPies B . One SPare^CoPY.

¶45

TR f.N<

HIGH^GOURT

DATED:22t0212022

ORDER

i1E sI4r s
iJ3 24 MAR 2022 I'
.:/
a
- _i/

¶50

WP.No.5724^{of 2022}

¶51

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶52

.w
il

Mohd. Mustafa v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Mustafa 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

Janagama Kistaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Tricolour Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Yedla Narasimha and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Gonela Yellaiah Vs the State of Telangana

V. Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Konduru Padma Vs The State of Telangana