Allowed

Saanvi Developers v. The State Of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Oct 2023WP/28144/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the inaction of the Sub-Registrar in registering sale deeds for 11 flats, claiming violation of constitutional rights. The High Court directed the Registering Authority to receive and register the deeds if they comply with applicable laws and verify building approvals.

What did the court decide?

Direction to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioner, subject to compliance with the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and verification of approved layout and constru

Saanvi Developers 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

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 28144 oF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Saanvi Developers, Represented by its lt4anaging partner Sri Sudi Srinivas leddy^{S/o. S.NarsimhaReddy, Aged about 45-years,Occ_ Business, Fl/o.} H- No.8-2, Hema Nagar, Boduppal Village, I,4edipally lr,ilandal, Ir4edcha l-fuialkajgiri Diskict. Presently Residhg at H-No.9-96/ l 7/1 , Saanvi Castle, Street No..l , Huda lgIpi^{Cglo.ny, OPP. NTR Statue, Boduppat, I/edipailyA.4andat, tVedchat-} IValkajgiri District-500092.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Of_Telangana, lepresented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue p.eO4ment (Stamps and Registration), Telangana Secretariat,-Hyderabad

¶12

The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶13

3 The Sub-Registrar, Narapalli, At Narapalli, Ir,4edchal- lr/alkajgiri District. 4 The District Registrar, [\r]edchal-trrlalkajgiri District.

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitutron of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the inaction of respondent No.3 in not receiving, registering and releasing the sale deeds presented by the petitioner in respect of 'I 1 Flats Nos ,'1 ) Flat No G8, 2)Ftat No. c9, 3)Ftat No.107, 4)FIar No.1O8 S)Ftat No.109 6)FIat No.207 7)Flat No.208 8)Flat No.209 9)Ftat No.307 10)Ftat No 308 and 1'1 )Flat No.309 of Saanvi lris constructed on Plot Nos_1 1,12,13,14,15 and 16 total admeasuring 900 Square Yards in Survey No.6 situated at Miyapur Village, Boduppal Municipal Corporation, Medipally t\rlandel, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, is illegal and unco nstitutional violation of Article 14 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia

¶16

, I I

¶17

lA NO:1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass interim directions on the respondent No.3 to receive, register and release the deed of sale deeds presented by the petitioner in respect of .1 1 Flats Nos ,1) Flat No G8, 2)FIat No G9, 3)Flat No.107, 4)Flat No.108 5)Flat No.'109 6)Flat No.207 7)Flat No 208 8)Flat No. 209 9)Flat No.307 10)Flat No 308 and 1'l )Flat No.309 of "saanvi lris" constructed on Plot Nos 1'1 ,'1 2,13,14,15 and 16 total admeasuring 900 Square Yards in Survey No.6 srtuated at lvliyapur Village, Boduppal Municipal Corporation, Medipally lVlandal, Medchal- It/alkajgiri District, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KONGALA MOHAN GOUD

¶20

Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.28144 of 2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

l. Heard Sri Kongala Mohan Goud, learned counscl for thc Writ Petitioner as rvell as Sri B.Dilecp I(umar, lcarnecl Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps zrrrd Registration. u,ho is representing Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the Court an order in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declarinq the irractior-r of Respondent No.3 Sub-Registrar, Narapalli, N{edchal Malkajgiri District, in receiving, registcring and relcasing thc .tlale Deeds presented by the petitioncr in respect 0i ll lrlatts vrz., (ll Flat No.G8, (2) Flat No.G9, (3) Flat No.107, (4) Piat No.10B, (5) Flat No.109, (6) Flat No.2O7, (7) Flar No 2O8, (B) Flar No.2O9, (9) Flar No.307, (1O) Flat No.308 and (11) FIat No.309 of " SAANVI IRIS", constructed on Plot Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, total admeasuring 9OO Sq.yards, located in Sy.No.6 of Miyapur Village, Boduppal Municipal Corporarion, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as illegal ancl consequently to direct Respondent No.3 to reccive and

¶28

¶29

Dt^(\t.1 rY P Na 28)ti .l 't))J

¶30

¶31

Learnccl cor-LnseI^{for the petitioner submitsthat the Sale} Deeds presented^{b-v the petitionerlor registratiotr werc not} entertained by the^{RegisteringAuthority for the reasons best} knorvn to it. Learned^{counsel also statesthat no reasonsarc} assigned lor not^{elltertainingthedocumentsthata-re} presented for registration^{by the petitioner rvhich is agzrinst} the provisions of the^{Registration Act, l90B and tt'rerefore,} a direction to t}-re^{appropriate authoritytoent.rrtain} the cuments lor registration^{maybe issued}

¶32

Learned Assistant Government^Pleader for St amps and tration submits that necessary^orders in that regard may n

¶33

ction 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, reads as

¶34

asons for refusal to rcgister to be recorded.-

¶35

ery Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, xcept on the ground that the property to which it relates ls not siluate within his sub-district, shall makc all ordcr of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his

¶36

¶37

Booi< No- 2, and enciorse Ltre words ,,regrstration refused,, on the docunent; and, on application madc by aD\ Dersorl exccuting or claiming under the document, shali, .vrthout pal,ment :rnd unnccessary delay, give him a cop\ of the rcasons so rccorded.

¶38

(2) No registenng o{Iiccr shall accept for registr.ation a document so endorscd unless and until, undcr thc provisions hereinafter contained, the document rs directcd to bc registered.,,

¶39

\ \

¶40

6 The Registering Authority is not empowered ro refllse registration of document/s except under the circllmstances mentioned under the Registration Act, 190g an ci ihe RLrles made there. under. AIso, as per the version of the petitioner, no reasons are assigned for not entertaining the documents rvhich are presented for registration by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that directions, as pral,ed for, have to be given to the public Authority directing it to perform its function as required under law.

¶41

7 Hence, the Writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:

¶42

Registering Authqitg is d.irected. to receiue and. register the Sale Deeds presented. by the petitioner in respect oJ. the subject properta in case, the said. d-ocuments comprg with the prouisions of the Registration Act, j9O8 and the

¶43

¶44

¶45

lttdian^{Statnp Act, 1899. The RegisteringAuthoritllis czlso} directed^{to uerifu uhether the subjectpropeftg is present} irt Lhe^{approuecl lagout and uhether the constn'ction rs} based^{on an approuedplan' ln case the reqistrations} canftot^{be cariecl out' rLecessaryorders of rejection shatl} be^{passed and the dectsion taken shall be communicated} b the Petitioner^{in turtttrtg''lrcreshallbe no orcler as to}

¶46

costs

¶47

Miscellat-reor-rs^{petitions pending' iIan1"shall stand}

¶48

closed.

¶49

SD/- MOHD.^ISMAIL ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶50

//TRUE^COPY'I q,

¶51

SECTION^OFFICER

¶52

to'', The Commissioner^{and lnspectorGeneralof Registration and Stamps'} '+il:siBi3;'"".'ffi I' The District^Registrar t: ?:33Jii35?:?i fl^{r,i:H"ffi ,t":tft,'k*[:i:.'"",} Telangana [OUTI 6. Two^{CD CoPies}

TVIBC^ PSKA/..---

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1011012023

.:\
1E 0[T2m
.:.:l- a-\ .-
-!
ORDER

¶57

WP.No.28144 of 2023

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

4
rD

Saanvi Developers v. The State Of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saanvi Developers 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

G. Krishna Kumari Vs G. Ashok Babu

Sri. M. Ravinder Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dommeti Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sunki Reddy Jyotsna Vs The State of Telangana

Gubba Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Karnam Veena Vs The State of Telangana