Allowed

Sabavat Dhari v. The State cf Telangana

Telangana HC22 Feb 2023WP/35870/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the refusal of a Sub Registrar to register a Gift Deed. The refusal was based on a letter from the Municipal Council Commissioner regarding property tax misassessment. The Court held the Sub Registrar lacked jurisdiction to refuse registration based on such a letter.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned refusal order No.1 of 2022 and directed the Sub Registrar to receive and process the Gift Deed for registration within two weeks.

Sabavat Dhari Vs The State cf Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s6 |

¶2

HIGII COURT FOR TIIE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Spccial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT ,/

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDIIEER KUMAR WRIT PE'I'ITION n-O: 35870 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sabavat Dhari, S/ o. Late. Rajya, Occ: Business,^{PJo. H.No. 2-l-86,BharartRoad,} Kamareddy, Kamareddy Mandal & District.

¶9

/' "'PETITIONER AND

¶10

The State cf Telangana, Rep. hy its Principal Secretary, Revenue,^Seoetariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commssioner of Stamps & Rcgistration, Govemment of Tclangana,^Hyderabad.

¶12

The Sub Registrar, Kamareddy, Kamareddy District.

¶13

The Commissioner, Municipitl Council, Karnareddy, Karnareddy District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 22(r of the Constitution of India praying that in^the circumstances stated in the affidavit {lled thcrovith, the lligh Court may be^pleasedto issue a writ of mandamus in dcclaring tire actir.n of thc^Respondent No. 3 in refusing^to register the Gift Deed vide., Relusal No. I of 2022 prescntcd by the Petitioner over property vide., House No. 3-l-ll9rl rvith piinth arca of 100 Sq. Feet over 500.55 Sq. yards of land situated at Wcekly Markct, Sricilla Road, Katnareddy Town & District by mentioning the Letter No. AllMCKl2022 I)1. l8-04-2022 issued by the Respondent No. 4 as illegal, arbitrary and violative ofProvision olthe Registration Act, 1908 and set-aside the Letter No. AIiMCKI2022 Dt. l8-04-2022 issued by the Rcspondent No. 4 thereby direct the Respondent No.3 to registcr thc Gifi Deed;

¶16

IA NO: I OF 2022

¶17

¶18

Petition under Section I5l CPt' pra.ving that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, thc High Court may be^pleased to suspend the Refusal No. I of 2022 Dt. 10-05-2022 passed by thc Respondent No. 3 and thereby direct the Respondent No. 3 to registcr the Cift Deed presented by the Petitioner over property vide., House bearing House No. 3- l- I l9/l u,ith pinth area of 100 Sq. Feet over 500.55 Sq. yards of land situated a. Wcckly Market, Sricilla Road, Kamareddy Town & District without reference to the Lctlcr No. Alⁱ MCIC2A22 Dt. 18-04-2022 issued by the Respondent No. 4;

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶20

:SRI. JAKKULA SRIDHAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. I to -3 : GP FOR S.NAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI. K RA.l{ MOHAN REDDY

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHE;IDR TiUMAR WRIT PETITION No.3 5870 of 2o22

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

IJear d lt:arned counsel for the pctitionr r, learned Assjstant C-io, er-nrnenl pleaclcr for Stamps and }itegir;tration appearing for rt'sltondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri K. i ilm Mohan Redd'. leeirne cl Standing Counsel appearing lbr respondent No.4

¶27

Thrs il.rr _ lte,itron is filed seeking a writ of mar-rdamus to declare rhe' ac -i, n of respondent No.3 in issuing thr imlrugned refus:r I orrlcr ltro. I of 2022, clated I O ,O5.2O22, :.t:fus;ing to registcr- tnr: Gr lt Sr:ttlement Deecl, dated 12.O4 .2O2?, pre.sented lor rcgrstr-trtior l,efore him by the petitioner on the :r.ound that rcspottdcnt Nr ..1 addres.red a Ietter in Lr.No.A1/l lCKl2022, dated 18.01.2()i2, requesting him to refuse registrttron of the propertv [-,eur rg house No.3-1-119/t situated at ,,Veekly Market, htrrna R,:.d<l,y Town, Kama Reddy District, on _lte lground that tllc sard property \ ras crroncously assessed to I)1)perty tax ancl thitt ihe sarne was delctcd from the recorcls tf the Mnnicrltzrirt',.

¶28

¶29

Assailing the said refusal order, the petitioner liled the present writ petition mainly on the ground that respondent No.3 -^{Sub Registraris} not entitled to refuse registration basing on a letter said to have been addressed by respondent No.4, as respondent No.4 is a stralger to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, the Act, 19OgJ and the action of respondent No.4 in writing a letter, dated 1g.04.2022, does not fall within any of the provisions contained in the Act, 190g.

¶30

l,earned counsel tor the petitioner also placed reliance on

¶31

a Division Bench judgment of this Court in G. Narasaiah and. another u. Stote of Andhra prq.desh and. anotherr, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, after having considered various provisions of the Act, 1908, held as under:

¶32

'To answer the question, the fall out of the refusal to entertain the document, needs to be understood in its right perspecLive which in essence, prevents the writ petitioner appellant from presenting the document for registration, obviously it amounts to refusal to register the document but without its scrutiny in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. Is such power available to the Sub Registrar, the judgment of the leamed single judge, impugned before us, does not suggest anything which could persuade us, to concede such power to

¶33

'^{201 1 (31 ALD 635 (DB)}

¶34

tht: S rb-Registrar, thus it has becomt. imp : rrrtiv: upon lr;, to examine the Registration Act., 19( ti (Act frerein rJter comprehensively, to frnd out tlle pr()..isiotl il anl therein, which would empow( r tht. Sul; Regist ar, to refuse to entertain a docurncrL. forregistr rtion on the direcLion of a functionary ( i- th(l Stitte lru t we hnd none. Amazingly the Sub Re;i.itrahas a:tr:d under the directions o[ t]re R< rr, nur: Divisic n J Officer, least appreciating that Lhe Rt r r. nur: Divisic n.:l Ofhcer is a strarger to the scrreme r l thr: Acl /Rr k:s who has no control over the Srrb Re 1 :,traar-rd hr rs no power to give a direction to him r t: t to cnlertz irr the document. The direction of , hc Rr r t:nut' [)n isio^-ri Officer is ex facie contrary to the pro\ i! Lonrj of the Act so is refusal to entertain thr d,tcrrrrenr horce \rithout jurisdiction. We rule so lrecaur;,: l-hc Sub F e{s1-ral is the statutory authot ity \ } {:) isl rL-qurr( d to act in accordalce with the mandirte r,:, thr. Acl an I not under the directions of an unauthcrizer aulhor tl'. That being the legal position, rhe !:,ub Rcgistral. has no power to refuse to cnlertair) i dot:um:rLt for registration on the direction of sonr,:onc Thc qu:s,rion is accordingly answered in the negiL r ve.,

¶35

In tl-re I ght of the judgment of the Divisio;r ti: -rcl- of this Corrrl in G, A arq.soiq.h (supra) and after having ccrr:;idt rccl thc leLtcr, drrted 1|J.04.2022, addressed by resp,lnrle r.. No.4, this Court is of tL e consiclered view that respond,:nt N t..l i:, to(itlly ern:d in placir1r reliance on the letter addrcssed br. iesPonclctrI No..4 anrl rr:fus ng registration of the subject pr()pertv, aed that

¶36

¶37

there is no^{justification} or power to place reliance on the letter addressed by respondent No.4

¶38

In the circumstances and taking into consideration the settled legal position in this regard, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned refusal order No.1 o[ 2022, dated 1O.O5.2O22, is set aside and respondent No.3 is directed to receive the returned document vide P.172 of 2022 and process the same for registration, subject to compliance of the requirements of the Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and complete the process within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of the document by Lhe petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

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

¶40

SD/-N.SRI ARI ASSISTANT REGIS RAR

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To l. The Principal Secretary, Revenue, State cfTelangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶44

The Commssioner of Stamps & Registration, Govemment of^'felangana, Hyderabad.

¶45

The Sub Registrar, Kamareddy, Kamareddy District.

¶46

The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Kamareddy, Kamareddy District.

¶47

One CC to SRI. JAKKULA SRIDHAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

One CC to SRL K RAM MOHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, I{igh Court lor thc State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶50

Two CD Copies

IIIGH COURT

MSKJ

DATED:.2210212(12.i

ORDER

WP.No.35870 of 2t2Z

,r'a:::-l-<br>,,.
l.r' l\ i r
c<br>t
,
I
a>-
il
\r
.r. ---=;/

¶57

WRIT PETII'ION IIi ALLOWEI) WITHOUTCOST]

Sabavat Dhari v. The State cf Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabavat Dhari v. The State cf Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aku Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Mohd. Ujala Baba Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Gajjela Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana And 5 Others

B. Devender Reddy Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Amrutha Sai Stone Crusher Vs State of Telangana

Nakod Sanjeev Kumar And 5 Others Vs The State of Telangana And 4 Others