Disposed

Moinuddin Irfan v. Director General

Telangana HC2 Feb 2023WP/45754/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought a declaration that the Sub Registrar's inaction in considering a representation to release his property from the prohibitory list was unlawful. The Court directed the Sub Registrar to consider the pending representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Sub Registrar directed to consider the representation dated 23.11.2022 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Moinuddin Irfan Vs Director General — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD //

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYTHREE - PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR z- WRIT PETITION NO: 45754 OF 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Moinuddin Irfan, S/o Mohd Vazeeruddin, Occ. business R/o I{.No l2-2-6831,4/1, Plot No 209, Kadhambri Block, Navodaya colony, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad

¶7

...PETITIONER^Z-

¶8

AND

¶9

l. Director General, Stamps and Registrations Department Nampally., Hyderabad.

¶10

District Registrar, stamps and Registrations Department Ranga Reddy District

¶11

Sub Registrar, Stamps and registration Department, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District

¶12

...RESPONDENTS^/

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 declaring the inaction of the Respondent No 3 in considering the petitioners representations daled 2311112022 to release thc petitioners property from prohibitory list and not allowing to alienate petitioners^property in survey No 343 part and 346^part bearing open plot No 13 an extent of 225 Sq^yards or equivalent to 188.12 Sq Metres situated at nandigama Village, Mekaguda Gram Panchayat. Nandigama Mandal, Ranga Reddy District bounded North by Plot No 14. South by Ptot No 12. East by 33 feet road, West by Neighbours land

¶14

IA NO: I OF2022

¶15

Petition under Section l5l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the l{igh Court^{maybe pleasedto} direct^{the 3rd} Respondent to consider my representation dated 2--]/l^| 12022 ro release my property from prohibitory list in survey No 343^part and 346 part bearing open plot No l3 an extent of 225 Sq yards or equivalent to 188.12 Sq Metrcs situated at nandigama Village, Mekaguda Gram Panchayat, Nandigama Mandal,^Ranga Reddy District^bounded North by Plot No 14, South by Plot No^{12, Eastby} 33^{leet road, West} by Neighbours^land,

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. M MADIIAVI [.A'I'HA

¶17

Counscl for the Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND RE(;ISTRATION

¶18

The Court madc the following: ORDE,R

¶19

i I I I

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.45754 of 2o22

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of open plot bearing No.13 admeasuring 225 sq. yards in Survey No.343 Part and 346 Part of Nandigama Village, Mekaguda Gram Panchayat, Nandigama Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 18. l2.2o2l vide document No.9595 of 2O2L registered with respondent No.3. While so, when the petitioner approached the office of respondent No.3 for alienating the said property, respondent No.il refused to entertain registration of the said document on the ground that the land in Survey No.343 admeasuring Ac.O.l0 guntas is included in the prohibitory properties list basing upon the judgment and decree passed in O-S.No.74 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner clairned to have submitted a representation dated 23.11.2022 bet'ore I-espondent No.3 requesting to delete the said property from lhe list of prohibitory properties. However, thc said

¶24

¶25

representation is still pending before respondent No.3 and no orders are passed by respondent No.3. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for passing appropriate orders directing respondent No.3 to consider the said representation and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶26

On the other hand, leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submitted that if the representation dated 23. I 1.2O22 submitted by the petitioner is still pending before respondent No.3, the same would be considered by respondent No.3 in accordance with law.

¶27

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 23.11.2022 submitted by the peLitioner for deleting the subject property from the list of prohibitory properties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

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

¶29

SD/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT RECISTRAR //TRUE COPYI/

SECTI N OFT-I(]ER

To,

l. The Director General, Stamps and Registrations Departmen! Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶36

The District Registrar, stamps and Registrations Departrnent Ranga Reddy District

¶37

The Sub Registrar. Stamps and registration Departmen! Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District

¶38

One CC to SU. M MADHAVI LATHA Advocate [OPUCI

¶39

Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, SC, High Court for the State of Telangana. [O[JT]

¶40

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

MSK,J

DATED:0210212023

ORDER

{ g€ STAI€.
( .<
'J
o
21 ttg ?08 _ai
f//
-:::r:L:. iil,',i c
:--

¶46

WP.No.45754 of 2022

¶47

WP N DTSPOSED OF WITHOUT COSTS

Moinuddin Irfan v. Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moinuddin Irfan v. Director General

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

Ch.Nageswara Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Surya Group of Infra Developers Vs The State of Telangana and 11 others

G Sreenivasulu Naidu Vs State of Telangana

Canbank Factors Limited a public limited company Vs The State of Telangana

Vadai Bapu Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Chintha Surya Abhinaya Reddy Vs The State of Telangana