Allowed

Mohd. Ujala Baba v. The State of Telangana And Another

Telangana HC21 Feb 2023WP/34706/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition against the Sub-Registrar for refusing to register a sale deed. The refusal relied on an injunction order that did not cover the subject property. The Court set aside the refusal and directed registration.

What did the court decide?

Set-aside of the impugned letter refusing registration; direction to the Sub-Registrar to process and complete registration of the sale deed within two weeks.

Mohd. Ujala Baba Vs The State of Telangana And Another — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY. THE^{TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENISUDHEER KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O:^{34706 0F 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohd. Uiala Baba,^{S/o. Late Mohd.Rafeeq, Aged €bout 25 years'..Occ'} iilliX"#"'"n[""-H^{(i r-zzrseig, vs! Nasai'rattiannaramVillase} einOtaguOa,^{Hayath Nagar Mandal, RR District'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep by Principal Secretary,Revenue-ll'BRKR} Bhavan. Hvderabad

¶12

2 ii# d;.b RL;;"i;i-Jrnqron,^{Sub-registraroffice, Jangaon Town andDlskict} rii,iniiii'"-.'rrrv, 5/o^{'G1e'Lirat Saheb,Aged about 77 vears,occ} 'd;.ffi :.i1"N;'r"sI:!o.V"nxriJ.*iiJcoto-nv'Nakkalgunta,Hanumkonda Waranoal District.

¶13

4 il;h;ii;;;idi;^{Late JamalSaheb,Ased abouts6 vears' occ reacher'} H.No 5-6-'160,^{Moulali,R. R District.}

¶14

(RR 3&4 are impleaded^{as per Court Order dt 0S/09/2022 in l A' No212022</sup>}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under^{Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated ln the affidavitfiledtherewith'the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a^{writ, orderor directions more particularly writ of mandamus} declaring the^{action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the lefter No 325/2022dated} 1110812022 in^{refuseO to register the sale deed document pendingdocument No} P 213t2O22 in^{respect of petitioners property plots bearing No 12 and 13 area} admeasuring^{207.7 Sq.yds& 3g7.2 Sq'yds in Sy No'162/28 situated at Suryapet} Road, Ward^{No.6, JangaonTown, District Jangaon is arbitrary'illegal and against} to the^{principlesof registratronAct, consequentially to direct the 2nd respondentto} register the sale^{deed and document in pending documentNo P 21312022 in} respect of^{petitioners propertyplots bearing No 12 & 13 area admeasuring207.7}

¶17

Sq.yds and 397 2 S I vds in Sy No.162/28 situated at Su'yapet^{f l,rad Ward No 6,} Jangaon Town, Dist-ict Jangaon, without any^furtherdelay

¶18

lA NO:^'1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition Lrnd€ r Section 151 CPC praying that tn the circu rl:ltances statedⁱⁿ the affidavrt filed ir support of the^petition, the High Court rray b-'^pleasedto register and tc re 3ase the pending document No. P 2'13li0,12 In respect of petitioner's propert' plots bearing No.1 2 & 1 3 area admeasUr i,1 2C7 7 Sq yards and 397 2 Sq yds in Sy.No.162128 situated at Suryapet lioad, Ward^No.6, Jangaon Town, Dis.rict Jangaon^pending disposal of main writ t,,)litiorr

¶20

Counsel for the Pe ti(ioner: SRI MOHD MUMTAZ PASHA Counsel for the Rrspondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR STAMPS ANt) REGISTRATION Counsel for the R( spondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI P.RAVI KIRAN

¶21

The Court made tt e following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEDR KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.34706 of2O22

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and P. Ravi Kiran, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 a:nd 4.

¶25

Though this Court, on a request made by learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4, granted time for filing counter on 3O.O1.2O23, no counter affidavit is filed. Since the matter is of the year 2022, this Court is not inclined to grant any further time for filing counter, in view of the admitted fact situation.

¶26

This writ petition is frled seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing a letter No.32512O22, dated 11.08.2022, refusing to register the sale deed vide pending document No.213 of 2022 in respect of Plot Nos.12 and 13 admeasuring2OT.T sq. yards and 397 .2 sq. yards in Survey No.l62l2B situated at Suryapet Road, Ward No.6, Jangaon Town, Jalgaon District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶27

The said impugned letter, dated ll.Oa.2o22, was passed by respondent No.2 refusing to register the pending document

¶28

¶29

No.213 of '. O22 on thc ground that the subject mrttcr of the said document is c:overed by an order of Courr s t:ry ;lranted in I.A.No.475 of itO 19 in O.S.No.212 of 201!r, rlert: r I 1b.O9.2O19, on the file of V Additional District Judge (ll Fl.r t) Warangal at Jangaon

¶30

A col ry of the said injunction order is plar:r.,1 on record by learned co rnsel for the pctitioner. A pentsal r,. the schedule property tl erein shows thal the plot Nos 12 a rr,,l 1 3 are not included ir t)-re scheduk: to rhc said LA.No..j7;r o-.)0i9. Hence, the reason assigned by rcspondent No.2 lo:. rr:furi:.rg :o register the pendinl , doc,ument No.2 l3 cl 20I 3 is tot.rih. u ::,us1ainable.

¶31

Sri P Ravj Kiran, lcarnecl counscl appr anng or r,:spondent Nos.3 and^.., also submittecl that thc plot Nos. 11) zLnd [3 are not the subjecl malter of the order passcd in LA.N )..+7-< of 2019. It is furtt er :ontended by learncd counsel tppearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 that thcrc .tre othcr r:s;trajnt orders passed rest -aintng alienation o[ the subject pkrt ],Ios.12 and 13, but respon< ent No.2 failcd to mention thc samc ir lhe impugned Ietter while refusing registration ol thr: subjcr:t clocrrrnent.

¶32

Be th lt as it may, that is not tltc reason z :;,;igred rn the impugned l:tter, The only reason for rt:lusing r.eq:;lration of the

¶33

¶34

subject document is passing of the injunction order in I.A.No.475 of 2Ot9 in O.S.No.212 of 2OI9 and admittedly, Plot Nos. 12 and 13, which are neither the subject matter of O.S.No.2 l2 of 2OI9 , nor the subject matter of the order passed in I.A.No.475 of 2O19. Therefore, this Courr is inclined to set aside the impugned order.

¶35

The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned letter/order is set aside and respondent No.2 is directed to receive the returned document p.No.2l3 of 2022 and process the same for registration without reference to the order passed in I.A.No.475 of 2Ot9 in O.S.No.212 ot 2OI9 on rhe Iile of rhe V Additionai Districr .Iudge (lt FTC), Warangal at Jangaon, provided there are no other restraint orders and complete the same within a period o[ two weeks from the date of presentation of the document by tl_re petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶37

petition shall stand closed.

¶38

SD/-P.PADMANABHA^REPD Y ASSISTANT^RE?S/RA R

¶39

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶40

¶41

The Principal^{Secretary,Revenue-ll'BRKR Bhavan Hyderabad' State of} 2 If;531"JR".'"rar,^{Jansaon, sub-registrar orfrc."...J^'.ls3.olTownand District} 3 +ffiEcr't';6ii Fon^{SiA-r'.,rp5 nlroleorsrnarloNHrsh court for the}

¶42

a*""tEgttrua'rtH8fi^{[f l?"i8Hll.4qvocate1oeuc1} 4.q &; cc io Srii^{F nAvr KIRAN' AdvocateIoPUC]} b. Two CD CoPies

PSK.BS

I I i I i

HIGH COUR

DATED:21^10212023

ORDER

WP.No.347tl6 of²⁰²²

'
-':1
,::
0 4 l:,i

¶50

ALLOWITIG^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOU''I'^COSTS.

¶51

.i?
a'
;2 7
2:

Mohd. Ujala Baba v. The State of Telangana And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ujala Baba v. The State of Telangana And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Sudarshan Goud Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Hyd., and 4 Others

P. Babu Pears and 5 Ors. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 3 Ors.

Mir Mujahid Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Aku Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Gajjela Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana And 5 Others

Pendyala Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana