Allowed

Smt. Parimi Ratna Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Aug 2024WP/2542/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the refusal to register documents based on preliminary notifications under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, holding that the notifications were defective for failing to comply with statutory requirements and Full Bench guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; refusal to register set aside; directing authorities to register and release the pending document.

Smt. Parimi Ratna Kumari Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:^{2542 OF 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Parimi Ratna Kumari,^{Wo: P L Prasnna,} Aged about 52 years, Occ. House Wife,^{R/o. 102, lkon Tower Sri} Bagh Colony, Kondapur, SerilingampallY, HYderabad. ..,PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Principal Secretary(Revenue),} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

The District Registrar,^{Medchal- Malkajgiri District.}

¶12

The Sub Registrar, Qutbullapur,^{Medchal - Malkajgiri District'}

¶13

The Collector, Medchal -^{MalkajgiriDistrict.}

¶14

The Tahasildar, Quthbullapur^{Mandal' Medchal-Malkajgiri District'}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226^{of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue writ, order or direction more^{particularly one in the nature of Writ} of Mandamus declaring^{the actionof the 3'd respondent i.e., The SubRegistrar,} Qutbullapur, Medchal -^{MalkajgiriDistrict, in refusing to register and releasethe} Pending Document No. P.18412020,^{vide lntimationof RefusalNo.BB/2020,dated} 07-08-2020 on the^ground that the^{Petitionerproperty i.e., Plot No.82 admeasuring} 200 Sq.Yards in Mahadevapuram^{Enclavein sy.Nos.303 and 308/1 , situated at} Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur^{Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, is in} prohibitory list under section 22-A of Registration^{Act as per the 1. Ranga Reddy} District Gazette Notification R.R.No.83,^{communicatedby Joint collector, Ranga} Reddy vide File No.E5/4730/ 2013/Quthbullapuri^{Nizampet, dated 25-09-2013,2.}

¶17

¶18

Deputy Collector and Tahasildar Quthbullapur^{Mandal, File No.B,158312012,daled} ,/ 17-02-2012 and 3. Gazett6^{NotificationNo.134, dated10-03-2005and} G.O.Ms.No.292, Revenue^{(Registration.l),9th March2005 communicatedby} Commissioner and lnspector^{General(R and S), Hyderabadvide File} No.G1/4661/2005, DI.O2-07-2005,^{is illegal, arbitrary,in violation of Articles14, 21} and 300-4 of constitution^{of lndia and alsoin violationof Registration Act, '1908,} besides in violation of^{Principlesof NaturalJustice andconsequentlydirectthe} respondents herein to register and^{release the Pending DocumentNo'} P.1B4|2O2O, dated 06-08-2020^{by setting aside the lntimation of Refusal No.} 8812020, dated 07-08-2020.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct} the respondent no.3^{herein to register and release the PendingDocumentNo.} P.18412020, dated 06-08-2020 by^{suspendingthe refusal order passedby} respondent no.3 vide lntimation^{of Refusal No.BB/2020, dated 07-08-2020pending} disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI KATIKARAVINDER REDDY}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP^{FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION} The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶24

w.P. No.2542 of 20121

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the Registering Authorities in refusing to register the subject documents based on the Gazette Notification R.R. No.83, dated 25.09.2O13.

¶27

The learned counsel for the^petitioner wouid submit that^{the subject} matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the common^{order dated} 22.03.2024 passed in W.P. Nos.9645 of 2O2l and W.P. No.26353 of 2023 by this Court. The learned counsel would further submit that this^Court, while granting interim order dated 2a.O4.2O21 in W.P. No.9645 of 2O2l^had stipulated a condition not to resort to further conveyance of the^subject property without leave of this Court and similarly in W.P. No.26353 ol 2023 this Court, while granting interim order dated 22.09.2023, had^prohibited the parties from proceeding with further conveyance of the^{propertyexcept} on obtaining required permission from this Court.

¶28

It is further submitted that in the^present writ^petition this^Court, while granting interim order dated O8.O2.2O21, had directed^{the Registering} authorities to register the subject documents. Subsequently, in^pursuance of said interim order, the Registering authorities have registered the^subject documents and as on today, on behalf of the respondents/Registering authority no counter has been filed.

¶29

i:t.

¶30

¶31

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Stamps and Registration did not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

5 Heard the iearned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record.

¶33

6- At this juncture, it is significant to note that the Division Bench of this court vide its common order dated lg.lo.2o23 passed in w.p. No.2B30o of 2oo7 and batch had dealt with the validity of Section 22.A of the Act as incorporated in the Registration Act, 19og and the Amended Act, 19 of 2oo1 with effect from 20.06.2007 and had upheld the validity of the section 22-A of the Act.

¶34

Having gone through the material made available on the record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it is essential and necessary to excerpt the relevant para Nos.23 to 32 of the common order dated 22.03.2024 passed in w.p. Nos.964s of 2o2r and 26353 of 2O23 by this Court, which reads as under:

¶35

"23. From a perusal of the Notification in R.R. No.83, dated 2S.Og.2Ol3, the subject lands were notilied under S ection 22-A (1)(a) for the purpose of Section 22-A(1). It is only a notice given inviting objections and suggestions on the above proposal from all persons who are likely to be affected thereby for being taken into consideration by the Government. The details of the properties mentioned in the annexure states that the subject lands are Government lands.

¶36

Section 22-A (1) (e) of the Act manifests that any documents or class of documents pertaining to the properties, the State Government may, by notificitidr prohibit the registration in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural,

¶37

¶38

Religious and Charitable^{{nstitutions,those attached by Civil, Criminal,} Revenue Courts and Direct^{and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are} likely to adversely^{affect theseinterest.}

¶39

Section 22-A^{(2) reads as under}

¶40

"(21 For the^{purpose of Clause (e) of sub-section(1), the State} Government shall^{publisha notification after obtainingreasonsfor and} full description of^{propertiesfurnished by the DistrictCollectors} concerned in the^{manner as maybe prescribed."}

¶41

It is pertinent to^{notethat in the case of VlnJamurlRajagoPala} Chary^{(Supra) paras 156 had summarizedand issueddirectionsAs per} the Clause^(v) no notification^{is contemplatedunder sub-section(2) of} Section 22-A with^{respectto the properties falting under clauses(a) to (d)} of sub-section⁽¹⁾ of Section^{22-A.As per Clause(vi), the properties} covered under clause^{(e) of Section22-A shall be notified in the official} Gazette of the^{State Governmentsand shall be forwarded, along withthe} list of properties, and^{a copy of the relevant notiflcation/Gazette, to the} concerned^{registeringauthorities under theprovisionsof RegistrationAct} and shall also^place the^{said notification/Gazetteon the websites of both} the State Governments.

¶42

The subject lands^{in thesewrit petitionsas per the Notificationin} R.R. No.83 in File No.E5 /47³⁰ I²⁰¹³ I Quthbullapur/ Quthbullapur,^dated 25.Og.2O13, which according^{to the District Collectorwere classified as} Government lands and a^{Notificationwas issued callingfor} objections/suggestions^{beforeplacingfor prohibitions.Section 22-A (1) (e)} and (2) stipulates that if^{any land is classified and determined as} Government land., the^{Government shall publish an offlcial Gazette} notification after obtaining^{reasonsfor and full descriptionof properties} furnished by the District^{Collector concerned in the manneras prescribed'} ln the case on hand,^{the respondents havenotfollowedthe provisionsof} Section 22-A(1)(e)(2)^{andthe guidelines issued by the FullBenchin the} case of VlnJamurl^{RajagopalaChary(Supra)whereinat para 156 held} that the authorities are^{obliged to follow Clause (vi) for those properties} covered under^{Clause(e) of Section22-A of the Act, whereby such lands} have to be notified in the official^{CazeLte of the State.The Notificationin} R.R. No.83 dated 25.09.2013^{communicated by the Joint Collector,Ranga} Reddy vide File No.E5/4730/^{20 13} / Quthbullapur/ Quthbullapur,^dated 25.09.20h3t^{Deputy Collector and Tahasildhar,} Quthbullapur^{Mandal, File}

¶43

¶44

¶45

No.Bl5A3/2O12, dated 17.O2.2O 12 and the cazette Notification No.134, dated 10.O3.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.292, Revenue (RegistrationJ), 9e March 2005 communicated by the Commissioner and Inspector General (Revenue & Stamps), Hyderabad vide File No.Gt /4661120O5, dated O2.O7.2OOS are not in accordance with the provisions of the Section 22-A (1) (e) and 22 {Ll(21 and also as per Clause (vi) of the guidelines issued in the case of Vinjamuri RaJagopala Chary (Supra) and the same cannot be the basis for denying for registration of the subject properties.

¶46

Further, the Tahsitdar vide File No.B/583/2012, dated 17.e2.2OL2 had notified the particular property as the Government land and requested the Sub-Registrar not to register any deed of conveyance. The District Collector on 25.09.2013 had issued preliminary notilication calling for objections ald the said notillcation was found to be defective by this court in w.P. No.19069 0f 2014 dated 25.08.2014.

¶47

2A. It is also pertinent to note that in the counter filed in W.p. No.26353 of 2023 prohibiting transfer/ registration that subsequent to the Notification in R.R. No.83 dated 25.09.2013 the answering respondents have not taken any steps in notifying in the ollicial Gazette of State Government in terms of the guideline No.(vi) issued by the Full Bench in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary (Supra).

¶48

As such, the Notifrcation in R.R.No.83 in File No.E5/473O l2!t3l Quthbullapur/ Quthbullapur, dated 25.09.2O13, is only a notice given for inviting objections arrd suggestions and this cannot be the basis for refusal for registration of the subject properties. In view of the same, Gazette Notfication in R.R. No.83, dated 25.09.2013, communicated by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vide File No.E5/473 O l2Ol3l Quthbullapur/cajularamaram, dated 25.09.2013, 2) Deputy Collector & Tahsildar Quthbullapur Mandal, File No.Bl383l2}t2, da.'rd tZ.O2.2Ot2 and the Gazelte Notification No.134, dated 10.03.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.292, dated 09.03.2005 are not in consonance to tlle provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and 22-A(l)(e) and Clause (vi) of the guidelines and the same cannot be referred for the purpose of denying registration of the subject properties. Consequently, reference made vide in File No.E5/4730/2013/ euthbullapur/ Gajularamaram, and File No.E5/4730l20 13/Quthbullapur/euthbuttapur, dated 25.Og.2OL3 and File No.B/583/2012 dated t7.O2.2O12 of the Tahsitdar, euthbullapur

I \

., . I I l t

. ',.: ,;

,.t
1..'

Mandal, are declared as illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and are hereby set aside.

¶55

Accordingly, W.P. Nos.9645 of 2O2l ar,d 26353 of 2023 are allowed

¶56

This Court on 22.09.2023, while directing the Registering authority to receive and process the document without reference to the letter dated 17.02.2012, and the Notifrcation in R.R. No.83 dated 25.09.2013, had directed the petitioner not to resort to further conveyance of the subject property without leave of this Court. In this regard, it is made clear that since these writ petitions (W.P. Nos.9645 of 202\ atd.26353 of 20231 are allowed, the condition that was imposed to the effect that not to resort to further conveyance of the subject property is hereby recalled. The Registering Authorities are directed to make necessary changes in the records.

¶57

It is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer title on the subject property and it is also made clear that this order would not have any bearing on all those matters where title/rights of the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision/appeals for adjudication and in any other case this order also does not preclude the parties in asserting their rights belore a competent Court of law. There shalt be no order as to costs."

¶58

8, ...: Since the issues involved in this writ petition are similar to those that have been considered by this Court in the common order dated 22.03.2024 passed in W.P. Nos.9645 of 2027 and 26353 of 2023 and for the reasons alike, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the common order dated 22.03.2024 passed in W.P. Nos.9645 of 2021 and 26353 of 2023 by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶60

\ To,

¶61

SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i/TRUE COPY// SECTId$OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶62

The District Regrstrar Medchal. Malkajgrfl District.

¶63

The Sub Regisirar, Qutbullapur, Meoc6it - Malkajgiri District. 4. The Collector, Medchal - Malkajgiri District. 5. The Tahasildar, Quthbullapur NIandal, N4edchal-Malkalgiri Distri ct 6. One CC to Sri Katika Ravind-er 1"-"' t:'Beddv, Advocate IOPU.9L _ -l)\rr*^-*r

¶64

.# 7

¶65

Two CCs to GP for Stamps and Registration, High Court foi the State of Teiangana, at
Hyderabad [OUT]
8. Two CD Copies
TJ
GJ
q

HIGH GOURT

DATED:1 310812024

ORDER

WP.No.2542^{of 2021}

1 E S'TAI
-?
C)
g rt 30 oEs 2o2r
a)E.Sn,r,1

¶74

ALLOWING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶75

R*row

Smt. Parimi Ratna Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Parimi Ratna Kumari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dandu Shirisha Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Yelisetti Shobhan Babu Vs the State of Telangana

Smt. kafeezunnisa Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Smt Thirupuru Pooja Vs The State of Telangana

Sri.Vaddanam Srinivas Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Kasimahanthi Kishor Kumar Patnaik Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others