Disposed

D. Vijaya Laxmi, Secbad v. Secy Revenue Dept, Hyd and 3 Ot

Telangana HC21 Nov 2024WP/13250/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Sub-Registrar to register a sale deed after a refusal based on Government land claims. Noting the document was registered following an interim order and parallel litigation remains pending regarding the Government's claim, the Court disposed of the petition without costs, granting parties liberty to seek appropriat

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs; liberty granted to parties to seek appropriate remedy subject to outcome of related petition WP No. 19106 of 2010.

D. Vijaya Laxmi, Secbad Vs Secy Revenue Dept, Hyd and 3 Ot — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I^s2s5 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEIMBER rWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 13250 0F 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

P,^{Vli?Vr.Laxmi. ^.r.i o: Sri D.Venkateswarlu.} Aged 39^years. Occp: Housewife, R/o Plot No. 189-8, Dhanaiaxmi Colony, VandnO* Uiili, S""rnO.,,raU-ail6""

¶10

,..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 f$:s#:*?,:t!iff3l.:;11:" rep bv its Secretary' Revenue Department

¶13

2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 The District Registrar, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The Sub-Registrar., Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to lssue an appropriate writ, order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ lVrandamus directing the Respondent No.4 to register the sare Deed dated. 1011112006 pertaining to property in prot bearing No. 72 admeasuring 187.70 sq.yards in survey No.7414, in ir//s. Vyjayanthi cooperative Housing Society Ltd., (Mahendra Hills), Marredpaily, Secunderabad Cantonment, secunderabad executed in petitioner favour by her vendors sri p.A. Lawerence and P.A. stanisraus after decraring the refusar endorsement No. 1 1gi07 dated 2610912007 of the Respondent No.4 as iilegar, arbitrary and unconstitutionar, and release the said document to the petitioner.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20 13(WP MP. NO: 16270 0F 2013\

¶19

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 direct the Respondents 3 and 4 to receive and register the sale deed dated 1ot1112006 pertaining to property in plot bearing No.72 admeasuring 187.70 sq.yards in survey No'74/4, in 4,4/S. Vyjayanthi co-operative Housing society Ltd. ( tvahendra Hills) Ivlarredpally, Secunderabad Cantonment, Secunderabad.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR

¶21

counsel for the Respondents: Gp FoR srAMps AND REGrsrRATroN

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

dtI

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHITAVAN KUMAR

¶25

WRIT PETI'I'ION No.13250 of 2013

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

lt is the case of the petitioner that the Registering Authority has refused to register the subject document on the ground that the State Government is ctaiming the subject property as'Government land' in LGC No.167 of 1997. Aggrieved by the action of the Registering Authority in not registering the subject document, the^present writ petition is fil,ed.

¶29

This Court granted interim order on 29.04.7013, directing the Registering Authority to receive and process the subject documents, subject to the outcome of WP No.19106 of 2010 fited by the State Government against the order passed by Speciat Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 in LGC No.167 of 1997 .

¶30

Today, wlren the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in^pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court on 29.04.2013, the Registering Authority

¶31

¶32

¶33

have registered the subject property and further submits that in view of interim order passed by this Court no further orders are required to be passed in this Writ petition.

¶34

Learned Assistant Government pteader for Stamps and Registration woutd submit that the subject matter in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Wp No.11653 of 2013, dated 23.07.2024, and the relevant paragraphs Nos.6 to 9 reads as under:

¶35

"6. Learned Assistont Government^pleoder for Stomps ond Registrotion would submit thot counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 i.e., District Collector, Hyderobad, and the Parogroph No.8 reods as:

¶36

'lt is submitted thot o comprehensive lond cose wos filed by the then l"landol Revenue Officer, Morredpolty ogoinst the (7) Societies and os well os some of individual plot owners of Sy.No.74 of lAarredpally (paigah) viltage in L.G.C, No.167/97 in the Spl.Court under L.G(p) Act, 19g2. The Hon'ble Spl.Court, under A.P.L.G.(p) Act dismissed the LGC No.167/97 on 18-03-2010. Aggrieved by the some, the then ltRO, tvlarredpolly tvlandal filed Wp No.19106/2010, before the Hon'ble High Court ond the some is pending. The Hon'ble Spl.Court dismissed the LGC on erroneous grounds without properly oppreciating the evidence of Govt. ond as such writ petition has been filed chollenging the some. Thus the LGC judgment hos not become finol. Further submitted thot the titigation between the parties and the Govt. hos not reached to its logicol end. Under such circumstonces it con't be soid thot Govt. have lost its claim. As such the interest ol Govt. still subsists. ln view of the above the interest of Govt. thot subsists in the subject lond witt be jeopardized if this W.P. is allowed. Hence it is liable for dismissol.,

I I

I \

I /

Learned Assistont Government Pleader would submit that subject matter wos eorlier odjudicoted by the Spl,Court under A,P.L,G.(P) Act, 1982, vide LGC No.167 of 1997, however the soid LGC No.167 of 1997 has been dismissed on 18.03.2010. Aggrieved the some, the ltlondal Revenue Officer, llarredpolly Mondol, filed WP No.19106 of 2010 before this Court ond the Hon'ble Division Bench hos heord and reserved for orders.

¶43

Leorned Assistont Government Pleoder would further submit that mony porties have filed writ petitions on the similar issue ond obtained interim order and thereafter the respondent authorities have received, registered ond released the documents therein, however foirly submits thot in most of the coses, the respondent outhorities have not filed counteroffidovit and the counter-affidavi t filed in this writ petition may be odopted in oll these similor pending writ petitions, as the issue involved in otl the pending writ petitions is one ond the some ond pray this Court to dispose of all the pending writ petitions, granting tiberty to oll the concerned porties to seek appropriote remedy, subject to the outcome of the order. which would be poss in WP No.19106 of 2010.

¶44

Recording the submission mode by the learned counsel on either side ond in view of the fact that the subject document is registered in pursuont to the interim order, this Court deems it oppropriate to disposed of the writ petition gronting liberty to both the porties to seek appropriate remedy, in accordonce with low, subject to the outcome of the order which would be pass in WP No.19106 oI 2010, if so otherwise aggrieved."

' n

rrr

I I

¶49

6' Learned counsel for the petitioner fairty submits that simitar order may be pass in this writ petition.

¶50

7' Recording the above submission made by learned counset on either side and the reasons atike in Wp No.1.1653 of 201 3, dated 23.07.2024, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in terms of order passed in Wp No..l 1653 of 201 3, dated 23.07.2024, granting tiberty to both the parties to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with taw, subject to the outcome of the order which would be passed in Wp No..19106 of ZO1O, if so otherwise aggrieved.

¶51

lt is made ctear that mere registration of the document does not confer title on the subject property and it is atso made ctear that this order woutd not have any bearing on att those matters where titte/rights of the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision / appea [s for adjudication and in any other case this order atso does not prectude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of taw.

¶52

Accordingty, this writ petition is disposed of . Miscettaneous

¶53

apptications, if any pqnQing, shat[ stand closed No order as to cost. SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶54

¶55

ECTION OFFICER

¶56

ECTION To, 1. The Secretarv. Revenue .Department. A. p. secretariat, Government of ^^{a1d[rapraoe3h. Hyderabaci.}

¶57

;2. Ihe District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 3 The District Resistrar Hi;;;G;^"or"ririii rirr,[Eiloro. 4 The The S-ub-RegisIrar.. Bowenpaf f v, Setunoliri,li'v, Setunoliri,li'Setunoliri,li'

¶58

4 The The S-ub-RegisIrar.. Bowenpaf f v, Setunoliri,li'v, Setunoliri,li'Setunoliri,li' 5 one cc to Sri oiaa vi;aya ku;;;'iljff;i;ibpuct H.ofr c;;"il;f,; st"t; orrerangana, at t lffif"Bl"ro",t i"'Revenue, 7. Two CD Cooies r J .lb, GJP--]*

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11112024

ORDER

1 c J 4
(.) 11 FIB i0fi oz
* D€' pAi c I

¶64

WP.No.13250 of 2013

¶65

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶66

WITHOUT COSTS

¶67

@
*p -,
ffi-

D. Vijaya Laxmi, Secbad v. Secy Revenue Dept, Hyd and 3 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Vijaya Laxmi, Secbad v. Secy Revenue Dept, Hyd and 3 Ot

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

Turgaga Balakrishna Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Secunderabad., Vs Secretary, Revenue Department, Secunderabad and 2 Others

Mudike Srinivasulu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

R.Satyanarayana,Hyd,and 2 Vs Govt.of Ap,Prl.Scy,Rev,Hyd,and 4

Srinath Dhanwantary, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. R.Lalithamma Vs The State of Telangana.