Allowed

Gaddam Satya Goud v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC4 Apr 2022WP/956/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court allowed the petitioner's challenge against the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed. The Court held that despite the land being shown in square yards in the sale deed, revenue records and the Dharani Portal confirm it is agricultural, rendering a NALAC Certificate unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Refusal order dated 09.09.2021 set aside; Respondent No.4 directed to register pending document No.265 of 2021 within 4 weeks.

Gaddam Satya Goud Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

IMONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:956 OF 2022

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Gaddam Satya Goud, S/o Late Narsa Goud, Aged about 43 years, Occ.Business, R/o H.No 4-70, Naspur Village Mancherial District Pin 504302.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Stamps Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner and I G of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶12

The District Registrar, Adilabad, Telangana

¶13

The Sub-Registrar, I,4ancherial, Mancherial District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of The Respondents No 4 in refusal to register the sale deed (refusal no 17 of 2021 dated 09-09-2021 in Book No 2 ) and The Refusal to considerThe APPEAL No 5 of 2021 vide orders dated 20-09-2021 by.The Respondent t No 3 basing upon the remarks and report of The Respondent No 4 vide. Lr No 74912021 dated 26-10-2021 as illegal, invalid and arbitrary and u nco nstitutro na I and consequently set aside the same, and direct The Respondent No 4 to register the sale deed (Pending Document No 26512021) on RePresentation of the same before Respondent No.4 in favour of The Petitioner by assigning a regular registered document number to the same.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.V.SRINIVASA RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{B. VIJAYSEN REDDY} WRIT PETITION No.956 OF^2M2

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This writ petition is filed^{to declare action of respondent} No.4 - the Sub^{Registrar, Mancherial,Mancherial District,in} refusing registration of the^{sale deedbearingdocument} No.P.No.265 of 2021^{and RefirsalNo. 17 of 2021 of Book II dated} 09.A9.2021 vide^{RetusalLr. No.666 of 2021 dated 09'09'202I} (Book No.2) dated 09.09.2021^{and dismissalof Appeal No'5 of} 2O2l vide order^{dated 20.09.2021passed by the appellate authority} i.e., respondent No.3^{- the DistrictRegistrar,Adilabad,Telangana,} as being i1legal, arbitrary^{and unconstitutional.}

¶22

The case ofthe^{petitioner is that he is ownerand pattadar} of the land admeasuring^{4477 squateyards (Acs'0-37guntas) in} Survey No.393/A^{situated in the outskirtsof NaspurVillageand} Mandal within^{the Naspur Municipality,Mancherial Distlict} (hereinafter referred to^{as 'subjectproperty').}

¶23

¶24

(i) Originally, one^{BudagajangamRajaiah, grandfather of} the vendor of the^{petitioner, was owner of the subject land' His} name is still continuing^{as pattadar and possessor in respectof the} subject land in the^{records.Even after the death of Rajaiah, his} only son Kodadi^{Sambaiah was not brought on recordas legal heir} and Rajaiah's^{name has been continuing till now' Kodadi} Sambaiah died on^{20.11.2005. The Tahsildar,Jaipur Mandal} issued farnily member^{certificate dated 25'10'2010 in favour of} Kodadi Sambaiah's^{wife and son Kodadi Shantammaand Kodadi} Srishailam respectivelY.

¶25

(ii) The subject land^{was sold by KodadiShantamma and} Kodadi Srishailam.in^{favour of the petitioner in 2015 by receiving} valuable sale consideration^{and possessionwas handed-over to the} petitioner. However, due^{to ill-healthand demiseof the Smt'} Kodadi Shantarnma,^{the petitioner'svendor Mr' KodadiSrishailam} alone executed^{and presentedthe sale deed for registration on} 06.09.202l after receiving^{balance sale considerationfrom the} petitioner.

¶26

.,)

¶27

(iii) Respondent^{No'4 having verified contents of the} document,Satisfledlrimselfwiththesame,calleduponthe petitioner to^{pay stamp duty and registrationfee' totallingto} Rs.i,70,700/-,^{and the samehave beenpaid by the petitioner'The} sale deed^{was received by respondentNo'4 on 06'09'2021'} Respondent^{No'4 having completed entireprocess of registration} on 06.09.2021,^{did not register the document and kept the same} pending by^{assigning pendingdocument No'265 of2021'} Thereafter,^{respondentN'4 refused to registerthe documentby} endorsing^{on the documentas refusalNo.17of 202i(Registration} Refused)^{and issued letter bearing No'666 of2021 dated} 09.09.2021.

¶28

(iv) Respondent^{No 4 passed the refusal order on the pretext} of not^{producingNALACertificate requiredfor non-agricultural} landsandtheinstructionsissuedbyrespondentNo.2-the Commissioner^{and lnspector General' Registration and Stamps'} Hyderabad,^{Telangana, vide Circular dated 26'08'2020 in File} N o.G2 I^{257 I 201 9 and clari fi cationthereofd ated29' 12'2020'}

¶29

¶30

(v) The petitioner approached the appellate authority, respondent No.3 - the District Registrar, Adilabad, Telangana, by iiling Appeal No.5 of 2021 under Section 72 of the Registration Act 1908. Respondent No.4 issued Merno No.Gl l35lllAppeal/}5l 2021 dated 25.09.2021 communicating rhat the subject tand pending document No.26512021 relates to non-agricultural land and to register such land, NAIA Certificate is required and the same is not annexed to the document.

¶31

Heard Mr. D.V. Srinivas Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue and learned Assistant Governrnent Pleader for Stamps and Registration, and perused the material on record.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner has subrnitted that the certificate issued in Memo No.G2 1257l2ol9 dated 26.08.2020 and further clarification thereof dated 29.12.2020 are contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act 1908, and were set aside by a Division Bench of this Court by the order dated23.0B.2O21 in W.p. No.9248 of 2021. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 failed to appreciate rhat

¶33

¶34

the subject^{land admeasuting 4477 squareyards (Ac'0-37guntas)} in Survey^{No.393/Ais a singleunit and was not dividedinto plots'} The subject^{land is kept fallow'Actually, it is an agriculturalland'} however,^{due to inadvertence,it was shown as openlandand the} land was^{shownin square yard basis as 4477 sqtare yards instead} of showing^{it in acreagebasis as Ac'0-37 guntas' Sincethe subject} land was^{shown in squareyard basis,respondentNos'3 and 4} assumedthatitiSconvertedintonon-agriculturalpurpose.The patta in respect^{ofthesubject land in the revenuerecords is still in} the name^{of BudagajangamRajaiah and itis their ancestral} property. There^{was no conversionof the subject land at any point} of time.^{Thus, treating the subject land as non-agricultural one} merely because^{it is shown as openland in the saledeed and extent} was shown^{in squareyard basis, is inappropriateand arbitrary'}

¶35

The^{learned counsel for the petitioner furtherclarified} that in the^{averments in paragraph No'3 of the affidavit'it is} inadvertently^{stated that the land remained as non-agriculturalland} for all^{practicalpurposes'In fact' the land is reflectedas} agricultural^{land in the revenue records and DharaniPortal'The}

¶36

¶37

nature of the land is still agriculture. In the impugned refusal order dated 09.09.2021 passed by respondent No.4, he has taken two objections. The first objection is regarding NALA conversion. The second objection is relating to instructions of the Comrnissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Department vide Memo No.G2l257l20l 9 dated 26.08.2020 and GZ I 257 I 20 1 9 dated 29. 1 2.2020.

¶38

So far as the second objection is concerned, the same is covered by the order of a Division Bench of this Court in W.p. No.9248 of 2021 dated Z3.OS.2OZI. Challenging the same, the Government has preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19695 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and so far no order was granted therein. Insofar as first objection is concemed, it is the specific asseftion of the petitioner that extent of the subject land is inadvertently shown in 'square yards, basis, and the land was neither converted into non-agricultural purpose nor divided into plots by making layout. The total extent is Ac.0-37 guntas. Except recitals of the sale deed, there is no other document and material available with the respondents' authorities to come to the

\ I

conclusion that the subject land is a non-agricultural land and it was converted into non-agricultural purpose. The digital pahani filed by the petitioner at page No.30 of the material^papers annexed to the writ petition substantiates contention of the^petitioner that the subject land is still recorded as patta in the name of Budaga.jangam Rajaiah. It was clearly mentioned in the sale deed that patta in respect of the subject land stands in the natre ol Budagajangam Ra.jaiah, grandfather of the petitioner's venclot' Merely because the subject land is sold on square^yard basis,^it cannot be inferred that the subject land is put to non-agricultulal purpose. Thus, it has to be presumed that the subject land which is owned by the grandfather of the petitioner's vendor continues^{to be} of agricultural in nature without change in usage. Thus, refllsal order dated 09.09.202\ taking objection that NALA cedificate required for registration of the document is unsustainable

¶43

7.^{Therefore, the writ petitionis allowed. The refusal order} vide Lr.No.666 ol 2021 dated 09.09.2021 issued by respondent No.4 is set aside. Respondent No.4 is directed^{to process,register} and release the pending document No.265 of^{2021 within a period}

¶44

¶45

of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

No order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶48

pending in the writ petition stand closed.

¶49

Sd/- T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY' c)D

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Stamps Department, State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶54

The Commissloner and I G of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶55

The District Registrar, Adilabad, Telangana

¶56

The Sub-Registrar, Mancherial, Mancherial District.

¶57

One CC to SRI D.V.SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate IOPUC]

¶58

Two CCs to the GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. Iour]

¶59

Two C.D. Copies.

¶60

One Spare Copy.

r IVIRC .{\, Y,{

HIGH COURT

DATEO:041O412022

ORDER

WP.No.956 ot 2022

1 HE SI1
( JA
oo 12 HAY 2t??
L)
+ o a ( , .rC.

¶67

OISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶68

Gaddam Satya Goud v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaddam Satya Goud v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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

Shravanthi Dubba Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Dadi Odelu Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Parikipandla Thirupathi Vs The State of Telangana

A. Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana

Yerram Uttam Vs The State of Telangana

Yadavalli Anjali , Anjamma and another Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others