Allowed

Sri Ramesh Morisetty v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Apr 2024WP/5228/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal to register a document based on defective notifications under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The court held that preliminary notices without official Gazette publication were invalid and set aside the refusal.

What did the court decide?

The preliminary notification, associated File Numbers, and refusal orders are set aside; the Registering Authorities are directed to make necessary changes in records and release the document.

Sri Ramesh Morisetty Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5228 OF 2021

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

Sri Ramesh t,4orisetty, S/o Late lt4. Padmaiah, Aged about 55^{years, Occ. Business,} R/o H.No. 3-147129111, Srinivasa Housing Society, Road^No. 3,^{NizampetVillage,} Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

2 The District Registrar, Medchal- Malkajgiri District.

¶14

J The Sub Registrar, Qutbullapur, Medchal - Malkajgiri^District.

¶15

4 The Collector, Medchal^- Malkajgiri District.

¶16

The Tahasildar, Quthbullapur Mandal,^{l\rledchal-lr,4alkajgiriDistrict.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,} the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue Writ, Order or direction more^partlcularly one in the^{nature of} Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd^{respondenti.e., The Sub} Registrar, Qutbullapur, Medchal - Malkajgiri^{District,in refusing to register and} release the Pending Document No.^P.8212021 ,^{dated2510212021} ,^{vide lntimation} of Ref usal No. 4512021, dated^2510212021 on^{the ground that the Petitioner} property i.e, House No. 3-1 0/36, with built up area of 200 sq.ft^{of A.C.C., on Plot} No. 322, land admeasuring^{112.22 sq.yards.,in Sy.No.270, situated at Rajiv} Gandhi Nagar, Bachupally^{Village, Nizampet MunicipalCorporation, Bachupally} ttrlandal (Previously Quthbullapur^{Mandal), Medchal- MalkajgiriDislrict, is in}

¶19

prohibitory list under section 22-A of Registration Act as per the 1. Ranga Reddy District Gazette Notification R.R.No.83, communicated by Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vide File No.E5/4730i 2013/Quthbullapur/ Nizampet, dated 2510912013,2. Deputy Collector and Tahasildar Quthbullapur lvlandal, File No. B158312012, dated 1710212012 and 3. Gazette Notification No.134, dated 1010312005 and G.O.tvls.No.292, Revenue (Registration.l), 9th l/arch 2005 communicated by Commissioner and lnspector General (R and S), Hyderabad vide File No.G1/4661/2005, Dt.O2lO7l20O5, is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14, 2'1 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and also in violation of Registration Act, 1908, besides in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to rcgister and release the Pending Docunrcnt No. P.B2l2O21 , daled 2510212021 by setting aside the lnlimation of Refusal No. 45/2021, dated 25t0212021 .

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

Petition under Section 151 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 register and release the Pending Document No. P.8212021, dated 2510212021 by suspending the refusal order passed by respondent no.3 vide lntimation of Refusal No.4512021 , daled 2510212021 .

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

:-P I +.'

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶27

W.P. No.5228 of 2021.

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition has been f-rled challenging the action of the Registering Authorities in refusing to register the subject documents based on the Gazette Notification R.R. No.83, dated 25.09.2013.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject matter of this u.rit pctition is squarcly covercd by the common ordcr dated 22.O3.2021 passed in W.P. Nos.9645 ot 2O2l and W.P. No.26353 of 2023 by this Court. The learncd counsel would furthcr submit that this Court, while granting interim order dated 28.04.2021 in W.P. No.9645 of 2O2l }:.ad stipulated a condition not to resort to further conveyance of the subject property without leave of this Court and similarly in W.P. No.26353 of 2023 this Court, while granting interim order dated 22.09.2023, had^prohibited the parties from proceeding with further conveyance of the^property except on obtaining required permission from this Court.

¶31

lt is further submitted that in the present writ petition this Court, while granting interim order dated 04.O3.2O21, had directed the Registering authorities to register the subject documents with one of the conditions that petitioner is directed not to resort to further conveyance of the subject property without leave of this Court. Subsequently, in pursuance of said interim order, the Registering authorities have registered the subject documents and as on today, on behalf of the respondents/ Registering authority no counter has been filed.

¶32

¶33

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Stamps and Registration did not dispu te the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record.

¶36

At this^juncture, it is signihcant to note that the Division Bench of this Court vide its common order dated 19.1O.2023 passed in W.p. No.283O0 of 2OO7 and batch had dcalt witl-r rhe validity of Sectron 22-A of thc Act as incorporated in tl-rc Rcgistration Act, 19O8 and the Amc,dcd Act, 19 of 2OO7 with effect from 2o.06.2007 and had upheld the validitl ol. the Section 22-A of the Act.

¶37

Having gone through the material made available on the record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it is essential and necessary to excerpt the relevant para Nos.23 to 32 of the common order dated 22.03.2024 passed in W.p. Nos.9645 of 2O2l and 26353 of 2023 by this Court, which reads as under:

¶38

"23. From a perusal of the Notification in R.R. No.g3, datcd 25.O9.2Oj_3, the subject lands were notified under Section 22-A (1)(al for rhe purpose of Section 22-A(1). It is only a notice given inviting olrjections and suggestions on the above proposal from a1l persons who ar.e likely to be affected thereby for being tal<en into consideration by the Government. The details o[ the properties mentioned in the annexure states that the subject lands are Government lands.

¶39

Section 22-A (1) (e) of the Act manifests that any documents or class of documents pertaining to the properties, the State GovernrDent mav, by notification prohibtt the registration in which avowed or accr ued interests o[ Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educatiorral, Cultural,

¶40

¶41

t
:,'-i

¶42

Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal, Revenue Courts and Dlrect and lndirect Ta-x Laws and others which are likely to adversely affect these interest.

¶43

Section 22-A (2) reads as under

¶44

"i.2) For the purpose of Clause (e) of sub-section (l), the State Government shall publish a notification after obtaining reasons for and full description of properties furnished by the District Collectors concerned in the manner as may be prescribed."

¶45

It is pertinent to note that in the case of VinJamurl RaJagopala Chary (Supra) paras 156 had sumrnarize<l and issued directions. As per the CIause (v) no notification is contemplated under sub-section (2) of Scctio|r 22 n \,ith rcspect to the properli(-'s falhng under clatrses (a) to {d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A. As per Clause (vi), the properties covere<l undcr clause (e) of Section 22 A shall be notified in the official Gazette of the Stale Governments and shall be forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the relevant notification/ Gazette, to the concerned registering authorities under the provisions of Registration Act and shall also place the said notification/ Gazette on the websites of both the State Governments.

¶46

The subject lands in these writ petitions as per the Notification in R.R.No.83 in File No.E5l4730 I 2013 I Quthbutlapur/Quthbullapur, dated 25.O9.2013, which according to the District Collector rvere classihed as Government lands and a Notification was issued calling for objections/ suggestions before placing for prohibitions. Section 22-A (1] (el and (2) stipulates that if any land is classified and determined as Government land, the Government shall publish an official Gazette notification after obtaining reasons for and full description of properties furnished by the District Collector concerned in the manner as prescribed. In the case on hand, the respondents have not followed the provisions of Section 22-A(1)(e)(2) and the guidetines issued by the Full Bench in the case of VinjaEuri Rajagopala Chary (Supra) wherein at para 156 held that the authorities are obliged to follow Clause (vi) for those properties covered under Clause (e) of Section 22-A of lhe Act, whereby such lands have to be notified in the ofhcial Gazette of the State. The Notification in R.R. No.83 dated 25.09.2013 communicated by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vide File No. E5 / 4730l 2013/ Quthbullapur/ Quthbullapur, dated 25.O9.2O13; Deputy Collector and Tahasildhar, Quthbullapur Mandal, File

¶47

¶48

No.B/583/2012, ciated 17.O2.2O12 and the Gazette Notification No.134, dated 10.O3.2OO5 and G.O.Ms.No.292, Revenue (Registration I), 9'r' March 2O05 communicated by the Commissioner and lnspector Gencral (Revenue & Stamps), Hyderabad vrde File No.G1/46t;1/20O5, dated O2.O7.2OO5 are not rn accordance with the provisions of thc Section 22-A (1) (e) and 22 llll2l and also as per Clause (vi) of the guidelir.res issued in the case of VinJamuri Rajagopala Chary (Supra) and the strme cannot be the basis for denying for registration of the subject properties.

¶49

Further, the Tahsildar vide File No.B/583/2012, datcd 17.02.2012 had notihed the particular property as the Government land and requcsted thc Sub-Rcgistrar not to register any dced of convcl.ancc. The District Collector on 25.09.2013 had issued preliminrLrv notillcation calhng for objections and thc said notificatron rvas found to l)c de[ective l)v this Court in W.P. No. 19069 of 20l4 dated 25.08.2014.

¶50

2A. It is also pertinent to note that in the counter Iilcd in W.P. No 26353 of 2O23 prohibiting transfer/ registration that subsequent to the Notihcation in R.R. No.83 dated 25.09.2013 the answering respondents have not taken any steps in notifying in the official Gazette of State Government in terms of the guideline No.(vi) issued by the Full Bench in the case of VinJamurl Rajagopala Chary (Supra).

¶51

As such, the Notification in R.R.No.83 in File No.E57/473Ol2Ol3l Quthbullapur/Quthbullapur, dated 25.09.2013, is only a notice^given for inviting objections and suggestions and this cannot be the basis for relusal for registration of the subject properties. In vreu of the same, Gazette Notification in R.R. No.83, dated 25.09.2013, communicated by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vrde File No.ESl4730l2O13/ Quthbullapur/Gajularamaram, dated 25.09.20 13, 2) Deput,r' Collector & Tahsildar Quthbullapur Mandal, File No.B / 583 / 20 72, d.aLc(l ],7.O2.2O 12 and the Cazelte Notification No.134, dated 10.03.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.292, dated 09.03.20O5 are not in consonance to the provisions of Section 22-A of th.e Registration Act, 1908 and 22-A(1)(e) and Clause (vi) of the guidelines and the same cannot be referred for tlre purpose of denying registration of the subject properties. Consequently, reference made vide in File No. E5 /4730/ 20 13/ Quthbullapur/ Gaj ular.amaram, and File No. E5/ 473Ol2O 13 / Quthbullapur/ euthbullapur, dated 25.O9.2Ot3 and File No.B/ 583 /2012 da|ed t7 .O2.2Ot2 of the Tahsitdar, euthbuttapur

¶52

u /

¶53

¶54

Mandal, are declared as iltegal, arbitrary and bad in law and are hereby set aside.

¶55

Accordingly, W.P. Nos.9645 of 2021 and 26353 of 2023 are allowed

¶56

This Court on 22.O9.2023, rvhile directing the Registering authority to receive and process the document without reference to the Ietter dated 17.O2.2O12, and the Notification in R.R. No.83 dated 25.09.2013, had directed the petitioner not to resort to further conveyance of the subject property without leave of this Court. In this regard, it is made clear that since these writ petitions (W.P. Nos.9645 o{ 2O2l and 26353 of 2023) are allowed, the condition that was imposed to the effect that not to resort to htrther conveyancc ol the subject l)ropertl rs hercbS, recalled. The Registcring Authorities are directcd to makc necessary changes in the recor-ds-

¶57

It is madc clear that mcre rcgistratron of thc document does not confer title on the subjcct property and it is also made clear that this order would not have any bearing on all 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 aFo does not preclude the parties in asserting their . rights before a competent Court of law. There shall be no order as to costs-"

¶58

Since the issues involved in this writ petition are similar to those that have been considered by this Court in the common order dated 22.03.2024 passed in W.P. Nos.9645 of 2O2l and 26353 of 2023 and for the reasons alike, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the common order dated 22.03.2024 passed in W.P. Nos.9645 of 2027 and 26353 of 2023 by this Court.

¶59

It is made clear that in the present writ petition this Court, while granting the interim order dated 04.O3.2021, the condition stipulated that the petitioner is directed not to resort to further conveyance of the subject property without leave of this Court is hereby recalled and

consequently, the Registering authorities are directed to make necessary

¶64

changes in the records. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶65

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pcnding, shall stand

¶66

closed.

¶67

SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGIgfRAR //TRUE COPY/'

¶68

¶69

SECTION OFFICER

¶70

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretary (Revenue),Secretariat' State of Telangana'} Hvderabad.

¶71

The District^{Registrar, Medchal- MalkalgiriDstrict}

¶72

fh" SrO Regislrar,^{Qutbullapur,tt/e!9hal- lVlalkalgiriDistrict'}

¶73

The Colleclor,^{lt4edchal - t/alkajgiri Districl'}

¶74

S. ff.r" irf,iiildar,^{Quthbullapurlviandal,lVledchal-lVlalkalgirl^Dl?1rlqt} 6 o;; ctto Sni'rAilKA^{RAvINDER REDDY'Advocate tqPUCl} - - ;. i;;^-cb, t. op^{ron REVENUE,High court for the state of Telangana} tourl

¶75