Allowed

Kotagiri Shailaja v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jan 2024WP/503/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by relying on a previous order in W.P.No.18066 of 2023 which directed the Registering Authority to receive and register a sale deed subject to compliance with the Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Registering Authority to receive and register the document in case it complies with the Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Kotagiri Shailaja Vs the State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 503 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

KOTAGIRI SHAILAJA, Wo Mahesh. Hindu aged about 50^years, Occ. House Hold, R/o H.No 5-2-225, Korutla, Village and Mandal. ",,.n"n1LPltJlliLr*

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Registration and Stamps), Secretariat. Burugula Ramakrishna Bhavan, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad.-PlN 500021^.

¶12

The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, , Mojham Jahi, (M.J.)Market road, Near Karachi Bakery, Nampally, Hyderabad. 500017.

¶13

The District Registrar of Stamps and Assurances, , Karimnagar^District.At Karimnagar.

¶14

The Sub-Registrar, , Gangadhara. Karimnagar District.

¶15

The District Collector, , Karimnagar District. At Karimnagar.

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer, , Kalimnagar.

¶17

The Tahasildar, Kothapalli Mandal. Karimnagar District.

¶18

...RES,.NDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring^proceedings of the 7th respondent^{No. B/1582/2018} daled 26-07 -2018 and consequential action of the respondent^{No.4 in not} receiving and issuing challan for registration of Sale deed document^{of the writ} petitioner herein executed over her residential plot purchased vide Sale Deed document No.5308/2005 daled 28-O4-2005, under the^{guiseof said proceedings} of the respondent No.7, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to contrary^{to section} 17,22 A and section 71 of lndian Registration Act read with Rule 58^{of T.S.(A.P.)} Registration Rules, and consequently direct the respondents^{herein to receive} and admit the Sale deed docurnent of the writ^{petitioner herein pertainingto her} residential plot bearing No.B admeasuring 902 square^{yards situated in} Sy.No.127, of Rekurthy Village and Gram Panchayath,^{Kothapalli mandaland}

¶20

¶21

District and Zirra Parishad Karimnagar and now within Municipar corporation of Karimnagar, by setting aside the proceedings of the 7th respondent No. B.1158212018 dated 26-07 -2018, in the interest of justice

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶23

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents herein to receive and admit the Sare deed document of the writ petitioner herein pertaining to her residentiar prot bearing No.g admeasuring 902 square yards situated in Sy.No..l27, of Rekurthy Village and Gram Panchayath, Kothapafli mandar and District and Zi|a parishad Karimnagar and now within Municipar corporation of Karimnagar, as per section 71 of rndian Registration Act, by suspending the proceedings of the 7th respondent No.81158212018 dated 26-07-2019, pending disposar of the above main writ petition, in the interest of justice

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURENDRA DESAT

¶25

Counsel for Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

{

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO.503 0F 2024

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respective parties submitted that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18066 of 2023, dated t2.O2.2023 and therefore, the present Writ Petition may be disposed of in terms of the said order.

¶33

In view of the above submissions, this Writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order, dated 12.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.18O66 of 2023.

¶34

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous

¶35

applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶36

¶37

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSTSTANT REGTyIRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶38

SECTION%FFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

1 The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Registration and Stamps), Secretariat. State of Telangana, Burugula Ramakrishna Bhavan, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad.-PlN 5O0O21 .

¶41

2 The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, , Mojham Jahi, (M.J.)Market road, Near Karachi Bakery, Nampally, Hyderabad 5000'17.

¶42

3 The District Registrar of Stamps and Assurances, , Karimnagar Diskict. At Karimnagar.

¶43

4 The Sub-Registrar, , Gangadhara. Karimnagar District.

¶44

5 The District Collector, , Karimnagar District. At Karimnagar. 6 The Revenue Divisional Off,rcer, , Karimnagar.

¶45

7 The Tahasildar, Kothapalli Mandal. Karimnagar District.

¶46

I8 One CC to Sri Surendra Desai Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] (Along with a copy of Order dated 12.O7.2023 in W.P.No.18066 of 2023)

10 Two CD Copies

MBC

t
HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910112024

ORDER

WP.No.503 ot 2024

1 H E s Tt
I
q
oo
1 2 JAft 2024
oz
,t,
t -k
D€ PATc lr ..,-o

¶54

@
'{n
\7

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶56

WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

HON,BLE DT. JUSTTCE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶58

WRIT PETITION No.18O66 OF 2o23

¶59

ORDER:

¶60

Heard Sri Surendra Desai, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Sri B.Dileep Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, who is representing Respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

¶61

Aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the 7th respondent-Tahsildar, Kothapalli, Karimnagar District uide No.B/1582/2018, dated 26.07.2OI8 and the consequential action of the Registering Authority in refusing to receive and register the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of residential plot admeasuring 3 13 square yards, located in Sy.No.129 of Rekurthy Village and Gram Panchayat, Karimnagar District, the present Writ Petition is ftled.

¶62

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale deed 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

¶63

¶64

DT CSL, J W.P.No.l8066 of 2021

¶65

presented for registration by the petitioner, which is against the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 arrd therefore, a direction to the appropriate authority to entertain the document for registration may be issued.

¶66

l,earned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submits that necessar5r orders in that rega_rd may be given.

¶67

Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, reads as

¶68

follows:-

¶69

"Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.-

¶70

(l) 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.

¶71

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

¶72

¶73

Dr CSL. J W.P.No.l8066 of 2O23

¶74

-v

¶75

6, The Registering Authority is^{not empoweredto refuse} registration of document/s except under^{the circumstances} mentioned under the Registration Act,^{1908 and the Rules} made thereunder. AIso, as^per the^{versionof the petitioner,} no reasons were assigled for not entertaining^{the document} which was presented for registration by^{her. Therefore,this} Court is of the view that^{directions,as prayedfor, have to be} given to the Public Authority directing^{it to perform its} function as required under^law.

¶76

Hence, this Writ Petition^is disposed^{of with the} following direction:-

¶77

Registering Authortty is^{directed to receiue and} register the doanment^{presentedbg tte petitioner in} respect of the subject land in^{case, the saiddocument} complies uith the^{prouisionsof the RegistrationAct,} 1908, and the Indian^{Stamp Act, 1899. TLe} Registeing Authoitg^{can refuse to regi.ster the} document in case, the^{documentis prohibited} for registration under ang of^{the prouisionsof latu,Rules} or Regulations made^{thereunder.Howeuer, the}

¶78

¶79

Dr CSL. J w.P.No.lE066 of 2023

¶80

reasons assigned thereof and^{th-e decision takenshalL} be communicated to^{the petitionerin wnting.There} shall be no order as to costs.

¶81

Miscellaneous petitions^pending, if^{any, shallstand} closed.

¶82

DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR^SUMALATHA

¶83

Dt.t2.o7.2023 ysk

Kotagiri Shailaja v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotagiri Shailaja 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

Navulla Malla Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sai Charan Amberkar Vs The State of Telangana

Suchith Kondadasula, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. T. Seetamma Vs State of Telangana

S. Sunny Edward Vs The State of Telangana

Pithani Subramanyam Vs The State of Telangana