Disposed

Smt. Dasari Sujatha and Another v. the Dist. Registrar, Hyd and 4 Others

Telangana HC6 Aug 2024WP/4868/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging refusal to register a sale deed due to pending government land claims. Court disposed of the petition noting the deed was registered under interim orders, granting liberty to parties subject to the outcome of related writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to parties to seek appropriate remedy subject to the outcome of the order in WP No.19106 of 2010.

Smt. Dasari Sujatha and Another Vs the Dist. Registrar… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

IN THE^{HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANG.ANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE SIXTH DAY OF AUG.UST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT^{PETITIONNO:4868oF 2013}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Dasari^{Suiatha,Wo D'RamReddy' Occ Household'}

¶9

Dasari^{Ram Reddy, S/o Late D MutyamReddy' Occ Busin} ESS, Road No.1,^Near

¶10

Both are residents^{of D No 19-1'13/A'Goutam Nagar'} XFsre'offii",^{Miix,;si'i, HYderabad} /

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The District^{Registrar, HyderabadDbkict' Hyderabad'}

¶14

2 The^{JorntSub-Registrar-|, R O'' Red Hills' Hyderabad'}

¶15

3 The District^{Collector, HyderabadDidrict' Hyderabad'}

¶16

4 Govt. of A^{P., Rep. by its PrincipalSecretary' Revenue Department'}

¶17

¶18

The Tahsrldar,^{Marredpally Mandal, Secunderabad'}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition^{under Article226 ol lhe Oonstitution of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated rn the affidavit fiied therewith'the High Court maybe} pleased to^{issuea writ, order or direction moreparticularly one in the natureof a} writ of^{Mandamus decraringthe action of the 2nd Respondentrn refusing to} register the^{Sale Deed d1-28 01'2013 vide proceedingsRefusal No.27l 13 dt-} 28.01 .2013^{in respect of the Plot bearing No'120in Sy No 74i6' admeasurtng} 275.00 Sq.^{Yds., situatedat East MarredPally'Secunderabad as beingarbitrary} and illegal^{and consequentlydirectthe 1st and 2nd Respondents to register the} release the^{same after due registration'} :

¶21

.A. NO: 1 OF 2013 WPMP.^{NO:6091OF 2013}

¶22

Petition under section^{151CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High courtmay be pleased to} direct the 2nd^{Respondent to registerthe Sale Deed dt:28.01 2013in respect of} thePetitionerspropertyinPlotNo,l20inSy.No-74/6admeasuring275.00Sq' Yds., situated^{at East Maredpally, Secunderabad}

¶23

Counsel^{for the Petitioner : SRI MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM}

¶24

CounselfortheRespondents:ASST.GPFORSTAMPS&REGISTRATION The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶25

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRr JUSTTCE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶28

WRTT PETMON No.4868 of 2013

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

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

¶31

lt is the case of the petitioners that the Registqring Authority has refused to register the subject documept 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 fited.

¶32

This Court granted interim order on 24.01.2013, 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.

¶33

Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the^petitioners submits that in^pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court on 24.01.2013, the Registering Authority

¶34

¶35

I l

¶36

i I I ! i i I I II I!

¶37

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.

¶38

Learned Assistant Government Pleader 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:

¶39

"6. Learned Assistont Government Pleoder for Stamps and Registrotion would submit that counter offidavit has been filed on beholf .of respondent No.2 i.e., District Collector, Hyderobod, ond the Porograph No.E reods as:

¶40

'lt is submitted thot a comprehensive land cose was filed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Morredpolly ogainst the (7) Societies ond as well os some of individual plot owners of Sy.No.74 of Morredpolly (Paigoh) villoge in L.G.C, No.167197 in the Spl.Court under L.G(P) Act, 1982. The Hon'ble Spl.Court, under A.P.L.G.(P) Act dismissed the LGC No.167197 on 18-03-2010. Aggrieved by the some, the then i4RO, lAorredpolly Mandol f iled WP No.1910612010, before the Hon'ble High Court ond the same is pending. The Hon'ble Spl.Court dismissed the LGC on erroneous grounds without properly oppreciating the evidence of Govt. ond os such writ petition hos been t'iled challenging the some. Thus the LGC^judgment hos not become finol. Further submitted that the litigation between the porties ond the Govt. hos not reoched to its logical end. Under such circumstonces it can't be soid thot Govt. have lost its cloim. As such the interest of Govt. still subsists. ln view of the obove the interest of Govt. thot subsists in the subject land will be^jeopordized if this W.P. is ollowed. Hence it is liable for dismissol.'

¶41

¶42

Leorned Assistont Government Pleader would submit thot subject motter was eorlier adjudicoted by the Spl.Cgurt under A.P.L.G.(P) Act, 1982, vide LGC No.167 of 1997, however the said LGC No.167 of 197 hos been dismissed on 1E.03.2010. Aggrieved ,the same, the lAonful Revenue Officer, llorredpolly tliondot, filed WP No.19106 of 2010 before this Coirt ond the Hon'ble Division Bench hos heord and reseryed for orderc.

¶43

Leorned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit thot many porties have filed writ petitions on the similar issue ond obtoined interim order and thereolter the respondent outhorities hove received, registered and relbosed the documents therein, however fairty subiits that in moft of lhe coses, the respondent outhorities hove not 'fdd' cwnterallidavit ond the counter-affidovit filed ,n thii.writ. W-tition moy be adopted in oll these similor pending yrit: ?etitions, os the issue involved in oll the pending writ petitions is one ond the some and proy this Court to dispose of all the Wnding writ petitions, gronting liberty 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

\ \

¶45

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

C,I

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

¶50

Recording the above submission made by learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is dispose of in terms of order passed in WP No.'t 1653 of 2013, dated 23.07.2024, granting liberty to both the parties to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with taw, subject to the outcome of the order which wourd be passed in wp No.19106 of 2010, if so otherurise aggrieved.

¶51

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

¶52

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Misce[aneous

¶53

applications, if any pending, shatt stand ctosed. No order as to cost.

¶54

SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT FEGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER

¶55

To, I The District Reqistrar' Hyderabad Distrrct' Hyderabad. i in" Joint^{Sub-RegistrarllR o , RedHrlls Hvderabad} 5 ine bl"trict^{Colleitor.Hyderabad Distrrcl Hvderabad} i. iilE^{"pri,iJpr] silili'"ivi o"rt-;anFRe'venueDepartment secretaflatBuildins,} Hvderabad.

¶56

s i6" frni,Urr,^{MarredpallyMandalSecundelqqqd.} 6 d; bti;siir^{ir,rAriESwAnARRo xuxcurntul AdvocatctoPucl} 7 Two CCs^{to Gp FoR sre'ilp6'"a'h1brsiq4,rioruHrsh'Court iD'theState of} Telangana [OUTI i<sup>\k 8. fwo CD^CoPies. BSK GJP

I I I Ii I I : l ;

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0610812024

c,( I,.ta: S14 ra
t 9
i
1i' i;it i[j1i
L-,
'\i
r'3l*t1)

¶63

ORDER

¶64

WP.No.4868^{of 2013}

¶65

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶66

0tn ffi)"1lfr\(r'{U\

Smt. Dasari Sujatha and Another v. the Dist. Registrar, Hyd and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dasari Sujatha and Another v. the Dist. Registrar, Hyd and 4 Others

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

S. Soma Sekhara Sarma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mrs. Parveen Sultana Hussain, Vs The District Collector

G. Shankar Vs Smt. M. Esther Prabhulatha, B. E. (Mech)

P. Shravan Kumar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Prem Kumar Goud, R.R. Dist Vs Dist Registrar, R.R. Dist and 2 Ot

Smt. Peddireddy Malathi Vs The State of Telangana