Disposed

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

Telangana HC20 Nov 2024WP/4237/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Hyderabad disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal to register a sale document involving government land. Finding the document had been registered under an interim order, the court disposed of the petition while reserving liberty to seek remedy under a pending land case.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without granting any further specific relief against the order in W.P. No. 4237 of 2013 or granting costs.

Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Secunderabad… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 4237 OF²⁰¹³

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri B.Sunil Kumar, S/o.^{B.SubhashReddy,Aged about 46 years,Occ} Business, i'io. Flat l,lc.13/8,^{Pa:'k View Enclave, Boweirpally, SecunCeiebad'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Govt. of Andhra^{Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary,RevenueDepartment, A P'} Secretariat, HYderabad.

¶12

District Registiar,^{Hyderabad District, Hyderabad}

¶13

Sub Regis[rar, Manedpally, Secunderabad

¶14

...RES'ONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or^{direction more particularlyin the nature of writ of} mandamus declaring^{the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondentsin refusingto} register the document dated^{09.08.2007 in respectof petitioners Plot admeasuring} 0g.26 Guntas equivalent^{1000sq. yards in surveyNo. 7418, situated at East} Marredpally, Secunderabad^{in survey No.7418 as illegal,arbitrary, and againstthe} provisions of law and consequently^{direct the 2nd and 3rd respondentto register} the Agreement of^{Sale-cum-General Powerof Attorney presentedby petitioner} pertaining to Plot admeasuring^{08.26 Guntas equivalent1000 sq. yardsin survey} No. 7418, situated at^{East Marredpally, Secunderabadire survey No.7418 and} release the same.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP.^{NO:5287oF 2013)}

¶17

Petition under section^{151 cPc prayingthatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct}

¶18

the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to receive and register the document dated 09.03.2007 pertaining to property in Plot admeasuring 08.26 Guntas equivalent 1000 sq. yards in survey No. 7418, situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad in survey No. 7418 and release the same pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.PRAMADA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR STAMpS & REGTSTRATTON

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{N.V.SHRAVANKUMAR}

¶22

WRIT PETITI ON No.4237 of^20L3

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard learned counse[ for the^{petitioner and learned Assistant} Government Pteader for^{Stampsand Registration appearingfor the} respondents. With their^{consent,this writ petitionis disposed of.}

¶25

lt is the case of the^{petitionerthat the RegisteringAuthority has} refused to register the subject^{document on the groundthat the State} Government is ctaiming^{the subjectproperty as 'Governmenttand' in} LGC No.167 ot 1997.^{Aggrievedby the action of the Registering} Authority in not registering^{the subject document, the presentwrit} petition is fited.

¶26

Th'is Court^granted interim^{order on 1?-.02.7013directing the} Registering Authority to^{receiveand process the subjectdocuments,} subject to the outcome of^{WP No.19106 of 2010 fited by the State} Government against the^{order passed by Speciat CourtunderA.P.Land} Grabbing (Prohibition)^{Act, 1982 in LGC No.167 of 1997.}

¶27

Today, when the matter^{hasbeen takenup for hearing, learned} counsel for the^{petitionersubmits that in pursuanceto the interim} order^{passed by} this^{Court on 12.02.2013,the RegisteringAuthority}

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

Learned Assistant Government pteader for Stamps and Registration woutd submit that the subject matter in this writ petition is squarety covered by the order passed by this Court in Wp No.11653 of 201 3, dated 23.07.2024, and the relevant paragraphs Nos.6 to 9 reads as under:

¶31

"6. Learned /ssrstont Government pleoder for Stamps and Registration would submit thot counter offidovit hos been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 i.e., District Collector, Hyderabod, and the Parogroph No.8 reods os:

¶32

'lt is submitted that a comprehensive land case was filed by the then lAandol Revenue Officer, Morredpolly ogainst the (7) Societies ond os weil os some of indivi1ud ptot 9w1eys^{of Sy.No.74af tvlarredpolly (poigah)villagein} L.G.C, No.167/97 in the Spl.Court under L.C1C1 Act,1gB2. The Hon'ble Spl.Court, under A.p.L.G.(p) Act dismissed the LGC No.167/97 on 18-03-2010. Aggriev;ed by the same, the then lilR), Marredpolly l{ondat filed Wp No.19106/2010, before the Hon'ble High Court and the some is pending. The Hon'ble Spl,Court dismissed the LGC on erroneous grounds without properly appreciating the evidence of Govt. and as such writ petition hos beeifiled challenging the some. Thus the LGC judgment has not become finol. Further submitted tiat the litigotion between the parties and the Govt. has not reachei to its logicol end. Under such circumstances it can,t be soid that Govt. have lost its claim. As such the interest of Govt. still subsists. ln view of the above the interest of Govt. thot subsrsfs in the subject tond wiil be jeopardized if this W.P. is allowed. Hence it is tiobte for dismissat.'

¶33

¶34

¶35

Learned Assistont Government^{Pleoderwould submit that} subject matter wos earlier^{adjudicatedby the Spl.Court under} A.P.L.G.(P) Act, 1982,^{videLGC No.167of 1997, however the} said LGC No.167 of^{1997 has beendismissed on 18.03.2010.} Aggrieved the some, the^{Mondol Revenue Officer,Morredpally} Mandol, filed WP No.19106^{of 2010 beforethis Court and the} Hon'ble Division Bench^{hos heardondreserved} for^orders.

¶36

Leorned Assistant Government^Pleaderwould further submit thot mony^partieshove filed^{writ petitionson the similar} issue ond obtained^{interim order and thereafter the respondent} outhorities have received,^{registered ond releosed the} documents therein,^however fairly^{submitsthot in most of the} cases, the respondent^{outhoritieshave not} filed^counter- offidovit ond the counter'affidavit filed^{in this writ petition} may be adopted in all^{thesesimilar pendingwrit petitions,as} the issue involvedⁱⁿ oll^{the pendingwrit petitionsis oneond} the some and^pray this^{Court to disposeof oll the pending writ} petitions, gronting liberty to all the^{concernedporties to seek} appropriote remedy, subiect to^{the outcomeof the order which} would be^poss in^{WPNo.19106of 2010.}

¶37

Recording the submission^{mode by the leornedcounselon} either side ond in^{view of the} foct^{that the subiect documentis} registered in^pursuont to^{the interim order,this Courtdeems it} appropriate to disposed^{of the writ petition granting libertyto} both the^parties to^{seek appropriote remedy,in accordance with} low, subject to the^{outcomeof the order which would be poss in} WP No.19106 of 2010,^{if so otherwise aggrieved."}

¶38

t I

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

Recording the above submission made by learned counsel on either side and the reasons atike in Wp No..l 1653 of 2013, dated 23.07.2024, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in terms of order passed in Wp No.1.t653 of 2013, dated 2.3.07.2024, granting tiberty to both the parties to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with taw, subject to the outcome of the order which woutd be passed in Wp No.19106 of ZO1O, if so otherwise aggrieved.

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

(

¶45

Accordingty, this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous apptications, if any pending, shalt stand closed. No order as to cost.

¶46

SDIV.KAVITHA ASSISTANT GISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER

¶47

¶48

The Secretary, Revenue Department, T.S. Secretariat. Hyderabad, Govt- of TeIangana. 2. District Registrar, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad 3. Sub R istra r, Marred^pallv. Secu nderabad

¶49

4c One CCto SRI D.PRAIMADA, Advocate toPUCl
i*" CC. t" Cp FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State
of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]
t) Two CD Copies
PSK.
GJP o-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011112024

ORDER

WP.No.4237 of 2013

ltrE s r.q 14-
0 g JAil 2u5

,!

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶57

4
//
so/tz/Aa

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Aleti Somaiah Vs The District Registrar, Nalgonda District,Nalgonda

B. Rama Raju, Vs Commissioner and Inspector General

M Rajinamma, Hyderabad Vs Prl Secy, Dept. of Revenue, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Turgaga Balakrishna Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

Mudike Srinivasulu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Vijaysree Developers, Vs The Sub-Registrar