Disposed

Kotha Mangala Sai Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Oct 2023WP/28493/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the Sub-Registrar for refusing to register a sale deed. The Court held that the Sub-Registrar has no power to refuse to receive the document for registration and issued directions to receive, register and release the sale deed if the property is not in the prohibitory list. There is no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 to receive, register and release the sale deed if the property is not in the prohibitory list and the document complies with the Registration Act and Stamp Act.

Kotha Mangala Sai Krishna Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^320e I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 28493 OF 2023

¶7

Between

¶8

Kotha Mangala Sai Krishna, S/o.^{Late Rama KrishnaRao,aged about 49} Years, Occupation. Service, R/o Sathenapalli,^{Guntur (D.T)lndia, presently} residing at # 3848, Evangelho Cir, San Jose,^{CA 95148.}

¶9

Vandanapu Suresh, S/o. Shiva Gandhi, aged^{about 51 Years,Occupation.} Service, Rl/o Sathenapalli, Guntur^{(D.T) lndia, presently residingat # U.S.A.} Represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder^Both are Sri^Namburi Sekhar s/o. Sri Nbmburi Nageswara^{Rao,aged about 55 Years, Occupation.} Business, Resident of H.No.2-2-1 109/5/1 , Bagh Amberpet,^ShivamRoad, Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500 013,

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary,^{Revenue(Stamps and} Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Sub-Registrar, Malkajigiri, Medchal^{MalkajigiriDistrict}

¶14

The Telangana State Wakf Board, Nampally, Hyderabad,^{Rep. by its Chief} Executive Officer.

¶15

,..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the HighCourt may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents^{particularly the 2nd} respondent in refusing to receive, regtster and^{release the} Sale^{Deed in respect} of Residential Open Plot No.6, admeasuring 267.00 Sq. Yards ot 223.21^Sq. Mtrs., forming Part in Survey Nos. 11, 35, 36 Part and 37 Part, situated at VENKUSA ESTATES, PHASE-Ill, Kowkoor Village,^within the^{limits of Greater} Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Alwal Circle^{andMandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri}

¶17

District, as illegal, arbitrary, against the^{provlsionsof Registration Act, in violation} of Article 300-A of Constitution^{of lndia and against all settlec principlesof law} and consequently direct the 2nd^{Respondentto receive,registr>r and release the} sale deed^presented by the Petitioner^{in respect of Residentral OpenPlotNo 6,} admeasuring 267-00 Sq.^{Yardsor 223.21 Sq.[t4trs.,forming Part in SurveyNos} 1 1, 35, 36 Part and 37 Patt,^{situated at VENKUSA ESTFTTES'PHASE-lll,} Kowkoor Village, within the limits of^{Greater Hyderabad Mun cipal Corporation} Alwal Circle and trlandal,^{l,4ed chal-MalkajgiriDistrict, without insistingno-} objection certificate^(NOC) from^{the 3rd Respondent.}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section^'151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circrrmstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to} direct the 2nd Respondent to^{receive, registerand releasr: the sale deed} presented by the Petitioner in respect of Residential^{Open Plot No.6,} admeasuring 267.00 Sq. Yards^{or 223.21 Sq. Mtrs.,forming Part in SurveyNos.} 1 1, 35, 36 Part and 37 Pa ,^{situated at VENKUSA ESTATES,PHASE-lll,} Kowkoor Village, within the limits of^{Greater Hyderabad It4unicipal Corporation} Alwal Circle and lvlandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri^{District, without insistingno-} objection certificate^(NOC) from^{the 3rd Respondent,pending disposal of main} Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner :^{MSMADHAVIPRIYA MANTENA REP.} SRI. ANJANAYULU Y

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 &^{2: SRI B DILEEP KUMAR} AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent^{No.3: SRI FARHANAZAM KHAN'}

¶22

SC FOR TS WAKF BOARD

¶23

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶24

.-7

¶25

HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.28493 of 2023

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Ms.Madhavi Priya Mantena, learned counsel who is representing Sri Y.Anjanayulu, learned counsel on record for the Writ Petitioners, Sri B.Dileep Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, who is representing Respondent Nos. 1 anci 2 anC Sri Farhan Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangala State Wakf Board, who is representing Respondent No.3.

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the Court an order in the nature ol Wit of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent No.2-Sub-Registra-r, Malkajgiri, MedchalMalkajgiri District, in receiving and registering the Sale Deed presented by the petitioners in respect of Residential Open Plot No.6, admeasuring 267.0 Sq.yxds, forming part of Sy.Nos.l1, 35, 36 Part and 37 Part of VENKUSA ESTATES, Phase-lll, Kowkoor Village, within the limits of GHMC Alwal Circle and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct Respondent No.2 to recelve, register and release the Sale Deed presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject property.

¶30

.--q

¶31

¶32

lr⁽ st...l \ I' \o tti l,)i ,,1 ll)l-l

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners contend tl-rat though the petitioncrs have complied with all the required lormalities and though the subject property is not prohibited for registration, for the reasons best known, Responde:nt No.2 is not entertaining the said document for registratior-r and therelore, necessary orders may be passed

¶34

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration states that in case, the subject propcrt. is not in the prohibitory 1ist, Respondent No.2 wouid certainly rcceive and register the document.

¶35

Learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Wakf Board submits that the property in question appears to be in prohibitory list falling within the ambit of Section 22-A ol the Registration Act, 19OB and therefore, necessary directions may be issued to the Sub-Registrar concerned to verify and proceed with

¶36

Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, reads as follows: -

¶37

"Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.-

¶38

(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to rvhich it

¶39

¶40

I )r⁽ \i-..1 \ Ir \o 2819-l .i ltll-i

¶41

¶42

relatcs is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and cndorse the rvords "registration refused" on the document; ancl, on application made by any person exccuLing or ciaiminq under the document, shall, withou L paym.n t and unnecessary delay, give him a copy ol the reasons so recorded.

¶43

(2) No registering officer shall accept for regisiration a document so endorsed unless and until, uncler the provisions hereinafter contained, the documcnt is directed to be registered."

¶44

The Sub-Registrar has no power to refuse to receive the document for registration. In case any document is presented for registration and where the Sub-Registrar finds any grounds due to which he cannot proceed with registration, he can refuse to register the document indicating the grounds for refusal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of giving directions to that effect.

¶45

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following direction:-

¶46

¶47

R espo nde nt No. 2 - Su b-Registrar, Malkaj g iri, Me dchalMalkajgii Distict, is directed to receiue the Sale Deed that wouLd be presented bg the petitioners in respect

...'.-

l)r^('Sl_. .t \ l) \o lliJt)1,)l lrlll

¶52

¶53

of Residerutial Open Plot No.6, admeasuing 267.0 Sq.gards, forrt-ting patl of Sy.1[os. 11,35, 36 Parl and 37 Part of VDNKUSA DSTATES, PLtase-III, Koukorsr Village, tuithin the limtts of GHMC Ahual Circle and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, register and release the document in case, the subject proptzrtg is not presen.t in the prohibitory list and the document presented rs ut consona rLce tuith the prouisions of the Regist ration Act, 1908 and the Indian Starnp Act, 1899. Houteuer, tn case the document is found not liable for registration, necessarA orders maA be passed narrating the grounds for rejection and communi.cate the same to the petitioners. 'fhere sh.all be no order as to costs

¶54

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶55

closed.

¶56

SD/.A"V.S.^P AD ASSISTANT^REGI /ffRUE COPY//

¶57

sEcTloN o FICER

¶58

To, '1. The Secretary, Revenue^(Stamps .^{and Regiskation) Department'} State of Telangina'^{Secretariat,Hyderabad'}

¶59

Z. ih. SrO-n"giitrar,^{Malkajigiri' Medchal Malkaiigiri District} 5. rne cnier^{"Executivecifrcer Telangana state Wakf Board, Nampally,} Hyderabad.

¶60

a. One CC to SRl.^{ANJANAYULU Y, Advocate'[OPUC]}

¶61

s. iwo ccs to^{Gp FOR STAMpsAND REGISTRAT|oN ,Highcourt for the} State of Telangana^{at Hyderabad} [OUT]

¶62

O. ON' CC^{tO SR.i FARHAN AZAM KHAN,-SCFOR TELANGANASTATEWAKF} BOARD IOPUCI

¶63

Two CD Copies

SB LS :_4,a.--

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 111012023

k
17 0[1 20n

ORDER

WP.No.28493 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

@x.t^

Kotha Mangala Sai Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotha Mangala Sai Krishna 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

Smt. Sunki Reddy Jyotsna Vs The State of Telangana

Gubba Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Saanvi Developers Vs The State Of Telangana

PeramMurahari Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Gondi Samuel Krupanand Vs The State of Telangana

Bhagavathula Uma Vs The State of Telangana