Partly allowed

Mohammed Mukram Pasha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Jul 2023WP/17858/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana granted permission to the Writ Petitioner to withdraw the petition seeking a writ of mandamus for registration of a sale deed, with liberty to file a fresh petition, subject to conditions regarding costs.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the Writ Petition subject to conditions, with liberty to file a fresh petition.

Mohammed Mukram Pasha Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^320e ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17858 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Mukram Pasha, S/o Late lt/ohammed Abdul Shabbir Ahmed Aged 38 years Occ. Business R/o H.no 20-3-993/1, Shahgunj, Tagrari Nika, Shahgunj, Hyderabad , T.S.

¶9

...WRIT PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep By lts Principle Secretary, Department of (Revenue), Stamps And Registration, T.S. Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The District Registrar, Registration And Stamps Rangareddy District, Hyderabad,

¶13

3 The Sub Registrar Office, Chevella, Rangareddy.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe 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 Respondent No 3 in nonentertaining and non-initiating to conduct the registration on the petitioners property having open plot in survey no. 22711,22711 and 227 al3, plot no.59, admeasuring 100.s( yards, equivalent to 83.6'1 Sq.Mtrs Plot No. 60, admeasuring 100.Sq Yards, equivalent 83.61 Sq.Mtrs Total admeasuring 200.Sq Yards, Situated at KURVAGUDA village H/o Kaulur village, shabad mandal Rangareddy district and more fully described in the scheduled of property annexed hereto having purchased registered sale deed document No. 209/2015 Daled 191112015, Registered ar SRO Chevella And without having any valid prohibitions by any court or^government is highly illegal ,arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of

¶16

Article 14,15 21 anr lll0A of constitution of india and also Violzrtiorr of pnnciples of natural justioc arid clnsequentially direct the respo rdc,nt r 1.3 to r€rceive the document anc onle t; in the reqistration on the petitioners i)r )pely having open plot in survelz nct .2'.7.1,22711 and 227a13, plot no.59, admets rrirg 100.sq yards, equivalent to 33.,i'1 Sq.Mtrs Plot No. 60, admeasuring^'1 CC.S,qYards, e quivalent 83.61 Sq.Mtrs To al arlmeasurlng 200.Sq Yards, Situated at^(r.JR/AGLIDA village H/o Kaulur vrllage s rabad mandal Rangareddy district

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition un(ler Section 151 CPC praying that rn tle ctr()u nstances stated in the affidavit file,d in s.tt,port of the petition, the High Court mal,t:e pleased to direct the respondenl nc .:l tc receive the document and entertain ttre rec istration on the pelitioners properly raving open plot in survey no. 22711 ,227t1 afi 227a13, plot no.59, admeasurinE^'00.sq yards, equivalent to 83.61 13 1.',4trs; Plot No. 60, admeasuring 100.Sr Y,irds, equivalent 83.61 Sq.Mtrs^'[otal irc^-neasuring 200.Sq Yards, Situatel :rt^{'(l..lRVAGUDA} village H/o Kaulur village , shabad mandal Rangareddy d istrrc;t

¶19

Counsel for the Peti :icner: SRl. MD FASIUDDIN

¶20

Counsel for the Res rondents: SRI B. DILIP KUMAR GP FOF STAMPS AND

¶21

REGISTRATION

¶22

The Court made the l'ollowing: ORDER

¶23

¶24

I I

¶25

HONBLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR 9UMALATHA

¶26

WRIT PE TITION No.17858 oF 2023

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This Writ PetitioO is filcd seeking the follor,,,,ing substantive relief:

¶29

"to issue an appropriate Wrjt, Order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ ol Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in not registering the sale deed presented by the petiriorrcr in rcspect of open Plot Nos.59 and 60, admeasuring LOO square yards each, totalling to 2OO square yards, located in Sy.Nos.227/ 1 and 22Ta/3 of Kurvaguda Village, I{/o.Kaulur Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without having any valid pr<-rhibitions by any Court or Government, as iJlcqal and arbitrary ancl consequently, to direct respondenL No.3 to rcccrve and register the said document in respect of the subject property."

¶30

Sri Md.Fasiuddin, learned cor_rnsel for the petitioner, seeks permissi,on to withdraw the Writ petrtion with a liberty to file a fresh one.

¶31

Permission, as prayed for, is accordcd

¶32

¶33

/)i ( ,' .l Il /'., \ \ )1 ,'.'l

¶34

.+. l'iLe i1 Petitiotl^{is dismissed as u itlldra i r'Libertv} "V 1S grartccl o filcr tr^{ircsh Writ Petitiotr stlLj( ot to thc} provisl(r1ls^{:r llrt} No or-rlc'L^{as to costs}

¶35

J ,\s ,e-luel,^{p('nclingmiscellaneou;zrlryl cations' tf}

¶36

anv,^{sh all sllld close (l}

¶37

:;D/. C 'RP,VEEN^KUMAR ASSISlANT^REGISTRAR r l\ //TRUE^COPY// s;idflroru^oFFlcER

¶38

To, 1 one CC to St l^{IVD FASIUDDIN Advocate tgf9l.L..} 2 rwo cc; ro^{( D FoR s rn#pt'Ai'i6'nEtldinnrt'oN'Ilit:h c'ourt for the} State of Telrn^Lana [OUT] 3 Two CD CoPit^s KKS GJ

HIGH COUR]

DATED:1 2107 ,t11023

ORDER

WP.No.17858 of 2023

,-1=
/is'./.\tt- S]A 14:
I
r r r\jB ztrIl
<br>:..
\i
i_
= -.----l)-'

¶44

DISMISSING'-}{E WP AS WITHDRA rAfN WITHOUT COISTS

¶45

('. 'b)
,{tr
I .1
.>
5

Mohammed Mukram Pasha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Mukram Pasha 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

Vankudoth Krishna, Vs Prl.Secy., Forest dept., State of T.S.

M/s Sree Varaaha Infra Developers Private Limited Vs the State of Telangana and 3 Others

Syed Shah Hadi Hussaini Vs the Govt Ofa.P., Rep by Its Prl Secy.,Rev Dept., and 5 Others

Mir Asad Ali Khan Vs The State of Telangana

M.Arougya Raju Vs The Telangana State Waqf Board

Mohammed Mukram Pasha Vs The State Of Telangana