Allowed

Jangili Sattaiah v. The State of Telangana and 7 others

Telangana HC2 Mar 2023WP/2772/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court examined the Sub-Registrar's refusal to proceed with criminal prosecution against petitioners under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908. The officer cited a G.O. transferring jurisdiction. The Court held the defense unsustainable and directed action to be concluded within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent No.5 to take further action pursuant to the notices dated 19.03.2020 and conclude the same within three months of the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Jangili Sattaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

I I I

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF TMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2772 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Jangili Sattaiah, W/o Late Narsaiah, Aged about 96-years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Phanigiri village, NagaramMandal, Suryapet District, TS.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Departmenl, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶13

2- The lnspector of General of Stamps and Registration, At Hyderabad.

¶14

District Collector, Suryapet at Suryapet District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet at Suryapet District

¶16

The Sub-Registrar, Suryapet, at Suryapet.

¶17

The Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub Registrar, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District

¶18

Jangili Kishan Rao, S/o Late Mallaiah, Aged about 65-years, Occ. Agriculture, Now present, FI/o. H.No.'1-1-42216, Nehru Nagar, Suryapet, at Suryapet Distrist, Erstwhile Rl/o. Phanigiri village, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District, TS.

¶19

Jangili Srinivas Rao, S/o Late Mallaiah, Aged about 63-years, Occ. Agriculture, Now present, Fl/o. H.No.7-3-42212, Vijaypuri Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple, Vira Road Khammam, Erstwhile Fl/o. Phanigiri village, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District, TS.

¶20

,..RESPONOENTS

¶21

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.5 in not conclude the criminal prosecution against the Respondent Nos.7 and B, contemplated under section 81 , 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, vide notice No. 101lRegl2O21, dated. 19-03-2020 and anther notice No.102lReg/2020, dated. 19-03-2020, issued by the Respondent No.5 herein, on the plea of formation of the New sub-districts, establishment of officer of Sub-Regiskars and appointing Tahsildar as Joinl Sub-

¶22

Registrars under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act No.'16 of 1908) - Notification - Order^-- issued, vide GOtr/S No,1 18, dated. 28-'10-2020, is illegal, arbitrary, violative principles natural justice and against the Article 14, 19,21 and 300 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No's. 2 and 5, herein, to set-aside the illegal registered gift deeds executed by the father of the Respondent No's.7 and B without having any validity of trtle as on the date of registration in the year 1S92 standing in the name of the Petitioner herein, o( 1932 onwards till today, done by the unscrupulous^persons or vide Reg. Document No's. 525411992 and 525511992, dated. 02-11-1992 and including conclude the criminal prosecution against the Respondent No's. 7 and 8 as per the notice issued by the Respondent No.S, herein, vide notice No's.101/Reg/2020, dated. 19-03-2020 and anther notice No. 102/Re912020, dated. 19-03-2020,^{particularlyin} Sy.No.62B^to an extent of land Ac.7.05^gts, Situated at Phanigiri village,^{Nagaram [,4andal,} Suryapet District, TS, forthwith.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Respondents Respondent No.5, herein, to record the remarks in the online Encumbrance Certificates of the particular land in Sy.No.628 to an extent of land Ac.7.05 gts, Situated at Phanigiri village, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District, TS, forthwith pending disposal of Main writ petition-

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.RAGHURAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 6: AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8: --

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

l t

¶28

t I

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER^KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2772 of 2o23

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and^{Registration appearingfor the} respondents.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though respondent No.S issued notice No. 1O 1/ Registration/ 2020, and No.1O2/Registrationl2O2O, dated 19.03.2O2O, respectively, to respondent Nos.7 and 8 and others summoning them to appear before him to depose the facts and also to put them on notice and in case if they fail to appear, appropriate prosecution will be launched as per Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 19O8, no further action is being taken by respondent No.5 so far.

¶33

This matter earlier came up on number of occasions and the same was adjourned to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration to get instructions in the matter. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the written instructions received from respondent No.S are placed before this Court, wherein it is stated that though notice dated 19.03.202O, was issued, no further action is taken by respondent No.S as the jurisdiction to entertain the documents for registration relating to

¶34

¶35

I I I I

¶36

agriculture lands rx'as transferred to Tahsildar under G.O.Ms.No. 1 18, dated 28. 10.2020.

¶37

In the considered opinion of this Court, the grounds on which the respondent No.S has not taken any further action pursuant to the notice, dated 19.O3.2O2O, is wholly unsustainable. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is not taking any further action pursuant to the notice, dated 19.03.2020. Thc said notice was issued in respect of a transaction which was already taken place by the office of respondent No.S and there is no further transaction presented by the petitioner to be carried out by the Tahsildar concerned. Hence, there is r-ro^{justification} for respondent No.5 in refusing to take further action pursuant to the notice, dated 19.O3.2O2O.

¶38

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.s to take further action pursuant to the notice, dated I9.O3.2O2O, in accordance with law by putting all the parties concerned on notice and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

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

¶40

SD/.T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTJ|AR //TRUE COPY// L, SECTION OTFICCN

¶41

¶42

1 2 i[i"8i,t5,"-n!E,Fb8gtrfi FS,ot*Hio.B..AroN,Hishcourtrorthe ? 4 i::ii i{3R?i:fih3Iu$xnir,niT:,,"",.,'^"'"' two CD Copies PSK.

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

MSK,J

DATED:0210312023

ORDER

WP.No.2772 of 2023

1 HE STA 16:
2l
oo-) 0 g t,AH ?021 ''l
_il
'//
*
r)t.

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶52

I
>.,

Jangili Sattaiah v. The State of Telangana and 7 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jangili Sattaiah v. The State of Telangana and 7 others

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

M/S. Gel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad, and 6 Otrs. Vs the Sub-Registrar, R.R.Dist., and 3 Otrs.

Smt. Noorunnisa Begum Vs The Tahsildar, Asifanagar Mandal, Hyderabad.

Mr. L.P. Sashi Kumar Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Chintala Pullaiah, Vs Mr. Karnan, IAS and 2 others

Chintala Pullaiah , Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Koppula Devi Bhavani Vs The State of Telangana