Dismissed

Satlakiya Preetesh, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Nov 2024WP/31788/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging the refusal to register a sale deed. The Court noted the document was already registered under an interim order and followed a precedent to dismiss the petition, granting liberty to parties to seek remedy pending another writ. It clarified registration does not confer title.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of WP No.11653 of 2013; liberty granted to parties to seek appropriate remedy pending outcome of WP No.19106 of 2010.

Satlakiya Preetesh, Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 31788 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

SATLAKIYA PREETESH, Son of Anand Kumar Verma, Aged 42 years, Occ. Business, Resident of H.No. 143, Seva Mandal, Shantiniketan Colony, East Marredpaiiy, SECUNDERABAD - 500 026.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, To Government Department of Revenue, Stamps and Registration, Secretariat, HYDERABAD.

¶12

The District Registrar of Stamps and Assurance, Nampally, HYDERABAD. 3. The Sub-Registrar of Stamps and Assurance, (tr/a rredpally), Bowenpally, HYDERABAD

¶13

...RESP.NDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF TVANDAMUS to declare the action of the Third Respondent in refusing to register the Sale Deed executed in favor of the Petitioner vide Refusal No. 8 of 2015, in respect of H.No. 143, in Survey No. 7419, admeasuring 529.65 Square Yards, situated at Seva [/andal, Shantiniketan Colony, East Marredpally, Secunderabad, pursuant to G.O.Ms. No.609 Revenue (Registration - l) Dept., dated 18-08-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and against the^provisions of law and declare G.O.Ms. No.609 Revenue^{(Registration} - l) Dept., dated 18-08-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and against the^provisions of law or in the alternative direct the First Respondent to de-notify the Lands in so far as Survey No. 7419 situated at East Marredpally from the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 609 Revenue (Registration - l) Dept., dated 18-08-2004 and Consequently direct the Third Respondent to

¶15

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(W PMP. NO: 41098 OF 2015

¶17

Petition unde. Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir,lumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour1 may be pleased to direct the Third Respondent to register and release the Sale Deed dated 25-0720'l 5 bearing P.No. 136 of 2015 without regard to the objection raised in refusal order No. 8 of 2015, pending disposal of Writ Petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. BAPI RAJU NANDURI

¶19

Counsei for the Respondents: AGP FCR STAIvIPS AllD REGISTRATION

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.31788 of 2015

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

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

¶25

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^presentwrit petition is fited.

¶26

This Court^granted interim order on 30.09.201 5^directingthe Registering Authority to receive and^process the^{subjectdocuments,} subject to the outcome of^{WP No.19106} of^{2010 fited by the State} Government against the order^passed by Special^{Court under A.P.Land} Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,^{1982in LGC} No.167^{of 1997.}

¶27

Today, when the matter^{has been} taken^{up for hearing,[earned} counsel for the petitioner^{submits that} in^{pursuanceto the interim} order passed by this Court on^30.09.201 5, the^Registering Authority

¶28

¶29

¶30

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 thjs Writ petition.

¶31

Learned ,\ssistant Government Pteader for Stamps and Registration wou:d 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 ,13.07.2024, and the relevant^paragraphs Nos.6 to 9 reads as under:

¶32

"6. Leorned ,Assistdnt Government Pleoder for Stamps ond Registrotion would submit that counter offidavit has been filed on beholf o,f respondent No.Z i.e. , District Collector, Hyderobad, and the Porograph No.8 reods os:

¶33

'lt is submitted that o comprehensive land case wos filed by the then Mondal Revenue Officer, lAarredpotly agoinst the (7) Societies and as well as some of individual plot owners of Sy.No.74 of Morredpolly (Poigah) villoge in L.G.L, No.167/97 in the Spl.Court under L.G(t>) Act, 1982. 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 same, the then IARO, lvlorredpolly lvlandol f iled WP No.1:710612010, before the Hon'ble High Court ond the some is pending.^The Hon'ble Spl.Court dismissed the LGC on erroneous grounds without properly apprecioting the evidence of Govt. ond os such writ petition hcrs been filed chaUenging the same. Thus the LGC^judgment has not become final. Further submitted thot the litigation between the porties and the Govt. hos not reached to its logicol end. Under such circumstonces it ccrn't be soid thot Govt. hove lost its claim. As such the interest of Govt still subsists.^ln view of the obove the' interest of Govt that subsistsⁱⁿ the subject lond will be^jeopordized if this W.P. is ollowed. Hence it is liable for dismissal.'

¶34

¶35

Leorned Assistont Government Pleoder would submit thot subject motter wos eorlier odiudicoted by the Spl.Court^under A.P.L.G.(P) Act, 1982, vide LGC No.167 of 1997, however the said LGC No.167 of 1997 has been dismissed on 18.03.2010.. Aggrieved the same, the Mondal Revenue Officer, Marredpally Mandal, filed WP No.19106 of 2010 before this Court^{ond the} Hon'ble Division Bench has heard ond reserved for orders.

¶36

Leorned Assistont Government Pleader would further submit thot many porties have filed writ petitions on the similor issue ond obtained interim order ond thereofter the respondent authorities have received, registered and released^the documents therein, however fairly submits thot in most of the cases, the respondent outhorities have not filed^counter- offidavit ond the counter-affidavi t filed in this writ^petition may be odopted in all these similor^pending writ^petitions,as the issue involved in oll the^pending writ^{petitions is one ond} the some and^proy this Court to dispose of all^{the pending writ} petitions, granting liberty to a[l the concerned^parties to seek oppropriote remedy, subject to the outcome of^{the orderwhich} would be^poss in WP No.19106 of 2010.

¶37

Recording the submission made by the learned^{counsel on} either side ond in^view of^the fact. that^{the subject documentis} registered in pursuont to^{the inte.rim} order,^{this Courtdeems it} appropriote to disposed of^{the writ petitiongrantingliberty to} both the porties to seek oppropriaLe remedy,^{in accordoncewith} low, subject to the outcome^{of the} order^{which would be poss in} WP No.19106 of 2010, if so^otherwise aggrieved."

I I

t I I i . j

Learned ,:ounse[ for the petitioner fairty submits that simitar order may be pass in this writ petition.

¶42

Recording the above submission made by learned counset on either side ancl the reasons atike in WP No.11653 of 2013, dated 23.07.2024, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in terrns of order passed in WP No.11653 of 201 3, dated 23.07.2024, grantrng tiberty to both the partles to:;eek appropriate remedy, in accordance with [aw, subject to the outcome of the order which would be passed in WP No.19106 of 2010, if so otherwise aggrieved.

¶43

lt is made c[ear that mere registration of the document does not confer title on the subject property and it is atso macle ctear that this order would not have any bearing on a[[ those matters where titte/rights cf the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision /appea[:; for adjudication and in any other cas,e this order atso does not prectude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of [aw.

¶44

According[y, this writ petition is disposed of. MiscelLaneous apptications, if ;rny pending , shatl stand closed. No orde

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT\REGISTRAR -t

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To, 1 The Principal^{Secretary,J6 Govsl6rnsnt Department of RevenueStamps} ,iii irijiii'i..rii"n,^{secr6lariat'HYDERABAD'}

¶49

t:a.'%tr

¶50

:p,r]Tlslffi Tnsx',1.;x,tri^;,11ffi ,r,i,i11..x3563

¶51

:iliE$3ifi

¶52

;^{j-lttt*,'r+flifffi'##td,fl :seir?Ex?ErYfirshc'u.r'r'lne} GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211112024

NE oF
.d
( \\ $t :t):
1
1$
o
r oEstr

¶58

ORDER

¶59

WP.No.31788^{of 2015}

¶60

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶61

q
/.,s
c/rPo

Satlakiya Preetesh, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satlakiya Preetesh, v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Srinath Dhanwantary, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Rodda Komuraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Rahamatulla Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Shafi, Vs The District Collector