Allowed

Suchith Kondadasula, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jan 2024WP/371/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition without costs, directing the Sub-Registrar to receive and register a sale deed submitted by the petitioner, subject to compliance with the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Court emphasized that reasons for refusal must be recorded under Section 71.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.3 to receive, process, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of Plot No.2/A, provided the document complies with the Registration Act, 1908 a

Suchith Kondadasula, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO TFIOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 371 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Suchith Kondadasula, S/o.Late.Sri.K. Balaji Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occupation . Software Engineer, Rl/o.H.No.5-8-184, Kishanpura, Hanumankonda, Warangal District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Telangana State Wakf Board, Nampally, Hyderabad, rep by its Chairman.

¶13

The District Registrar, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Sub Registrar., Bowenpally Secundrabad.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent i.e., The Sub Registrar, Malkajgiri, Medchal - Malkajgiri Dstrict, in refusing to receive,^process, register and release the Sale Deed presented by the^petitioner in respect of Plot No.2/A, admeasuring 2O6.50 Sq.yards. ot 172.50 sq.Mts., in Survey Nos.8, 9, 1^1, '12 and 13, situated at Trimulgherry, Secunderabad Cantonment, in the Layout of The Mahalaxmi Narasimha Swamy Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Trimulgherry, Secunderabad Cantonment, Telangana State, as iHegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and also in violation of Registration Act, 1908, besides in violation of Principles of Natural

¶17

¶18

Justice and consequently direct the respondent no.3 herein to receive, process, register and release the sale Deed presented by the petitioner, in respect of plot No.2/A, admeasuring 206.50 Sq.yards. or 1lZ.SO sq.Mts_, in Survey Nos.g, 9, 11, 12 and 13, situated at rrimurgherry, Secunderabad cantonment, in the Layout of The Mahalaxmi Narasimha Swamy Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Trimulgherry, Secunderabad Cantonment, Telangana State. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶19

' Petition Under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 herein to receive, process, register and release the sale Deed presented by the petitioner in respect of prot No.2/A, admeasuring 206.50 Sq.yards. or 172.50 sq.Mts., in Survey Nos.B, 9, 11, 12 and.l3, situated at rrimulgherry' Secunderabad cantonment, in the Layout of rhe Maharaxmi Narasimha Swamy Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Trimulgherry, Secunderabad cantonment, Terangana state, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s B.SHIRISHA

¶21

counsel for the Respondent Nos.l, 3 & 4: sRr B.DTLEEP KUMAR, AGp FoR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

¶24

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.37l of 2o24

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

' Heard Ms.B.Shirisha, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri B.Dileep Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, who is representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶29

Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4_ Sub-Registrar, Bowenpa.lly, Secunderabad, in refusing to receive and register the sale deed presented by the petitioner. in respect of plot No.2/A admeasuring 206.50 square yards in Sy.Nos.8, 9, ll, 12 and 13 situated at Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, the present Writ petition is filed.

¶30

lrarned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document presented by the petitioner for registration was not entertained by the Registering Authority for the reasons best known to it. Learned counsel also states that no reasons were assigned for not entertaining the document that was presented for registration by the petitiole! which is against the provisions of the

CVBR. J Wp 37 I _2024

¶35

Registration Act, 1908 and therefore, a direction to the appropriate authority to entertain the document for registration may be issued.

¶36

4 . Learned Assistant Government pleader for Stamps

¶37

and Registration submits that necessarSr orders in that regard may be given.

¶38

Section 71 of the Registration Act, 190g, reads as

¶39

follows:-

¶40

"Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.-

¶41

(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub_ district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No.2, and endorse the words "registration refused" on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.

¶42

(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a docu.ment so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered."

CVBR, J tNp'371_2024

, t

I I

The Registering Authority is not empowered to refuse registration of document/s except under the circumstances mentioned under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules made thereunder. Also, as per the version of the petitioner, no reasons were assigned for not entertaining the document which was presented for registration by them. Therefore, this Court is of the view that directions as prayed for have to be given to the public authority directing it to perform its function as required under law.

¶49

In the said circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3-Registering Authority to receive and register the document^presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, in case, the said document comply with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act,^1899. The Registering Authority can refuse to register the document in case, the said docurnent is^{prohibitedfor} registration under any of the provisions of law, Rules^or Regulations made thereunder. However, the^reasons assigned thereof and the decision taken shall^be

-1

*,-,91![;i

communicated to the petitioner in writing. There shall be

¶55

no order as to costs.

¶56

8 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶57

closed

¶58

SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASS]STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶59

SECTI OFFICER

¶60

¶61

The Principal Secretary, (Revenue), Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶62

The Chairman. Telanoana. State Wakf Board, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶63

The District Registrar]Hyderabad.^-

¶64

fhe^{S^u^b Regstrar, Bow6npally, Secundrabad.}

¶65

Two CCs to Gp FOR REVEN0E, High Court for ttre State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT1

¶66

One CC to M/s. B.Shirisha, Advocate tOpUCt

¶67

One CC to Sri Farhan Azam Khan, ntvocai6 1OeuC1

¶68

a. Two CD Copies

BSd^-'

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810112024

ORDER

WP.No.371 of 2024

1 r{E sTAfe
(
?
o 1 2 JAli 202{ o
*
t 9EsPATo

¶76

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶77

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶78

rn
v<br>tr' (<br>

Suchith Kondadasula, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suchith Kondadasula, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Saif Vs The State of Telangana

K. Srinivas Tittu Vs The State of Telangana

Sneha Yarlagadda Vs The State Of Telangana

N. Sunil Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and 2 Ors.

Mohd Bilal Vs The State of Telangana

Vijaya Lakshmi Gade Vs The State of Telangana