Allowed

Thakur Pruthvi Raj Singh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Mar 2024WP/6880/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed for quashing the refusal order regarding the registration of document P.No.261/2022. The court held that the matter was squarely covered by a previous order in W.P.No.27525 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; refusal orders quashed; 4th Respondent directed to register and release document P.No.261/2022.

Thakur Pruthvi Raj Singh Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ I

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:6880 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thakur Pruthvi Raj Singh, S/o: Thakur Rajender Singh, Aged about 26 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.5-14411, M.G.road, Near Dr.CV Rao Clinic, Patancheru Town, Mandal and District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Commissioner and lnspector General, Registration and Stamps Department, Government of Telangana, M.J.Road, Hyderabad

¶13

The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps Depa(ment, Sangareddy District, Sangareddy

¶14

The Joint Sub Registrar -1, Registration and Stamps Department, RO (OB), Patancheru, Sangareddy District

¶15

The District Collector, Sangareddy District, Sangareddy

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records relating to and in connection with the 4th Respondent's refusal order d1.15.12.2O23 communicated vide Memo No. 628t2O24, dt.2O.O1 .2024 and quash the same and further direct the 4th Respondent to register and release the document P.No.2S1l2O22.

¶18

I I i I i I l

¶19

IA NO 10F 2024

¶20

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 4th Respondent to register document P.No.261t2O22, executed on 26.03.2022, without reference to any instructions issued by the 5th Respondent, including Lr.No. F112051/06, dt.28.01 .2017 and release the same to the Petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. ROY REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

i-tl

¶25

t I

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT PEf,ITION NO.688O OF 2024

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is filed seeking the^{following relief:}

¶29

"... ... to issze a Wit, Order or Direction^{more panTiolarLg one} in tle nature of Writ of Certbrari bg calling for^{the reards} relating to and in onnection uith the 4th Respondent's refusol order dated, 15.12.2O23 ammanicated^{uide Memo} No.628/ 2024 dated, 2O.O1.2O24 and^{quoshtLE sam.eand.} further^{direct the 4th Respondent to registerand release the} document P.No.261/ 2022 ......"

¶30

When the matter is taken up for hearing,^learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that^{the issue} involved in this writ petition is squarely^{covered by the} order, dated 04.1O.2023^passed by^{this Court in} W.P.No.27525 of 2023.

¶31

trarned counsel appearing for the^respondents has not disputed about the said^fact.

¶32

Following the said order, this Writ Petition^is allowed in terms of the order^{passedby this Court in} W.P.No.27525 of 2023, dated 04.10.2023.^{No orderas to} costs.

¶33

¶34

¶35

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶36

pending shall stand closed.

¶37

//rRUE copytt^{orr,.ro,iP,*ESjHXA}

¶38

¶39

To, SECTION OFFTCER

¶40

1 . The^principal Secre no s t a m p s ) D epa rtmenr

¶41

^ s #.i; iiJ [ ffi"U,:',X%ffJ: I U: j|",9 i'J t?:Bl o' 2. The Commissioner and tnspgct"oi denJr.ii,H"ti.tr"tion and Stamos . ?f!'Jl$;JJ h:E[:i: TT,^{er rer"} "1,"" "',^{i,r j )FB io, n voe ra ou-d-'" "'} District, Sanoarbddrr, Registration and Stamps o.jprfr ,-uii"drngareddy

¶42

The Joint Su6 Registrar _1, Registration and Sta . l3t,$E.,^Srn-g';i"ooy oi.tri.t mps Department, Ro (oB),

¶43

3o??ts313's;Fx*,H:il1'rrIji.#.ii""":f,i^:::,,r.r,hes,a,e.r

¶44

7 . Two CCs to Gp for I Telangana, at Hvder

¶45

U. ,*o CD Copies'

¶46

, ., GJP

¶47

(Along with the Order Copy dt:04.10 .2023 inw.p.No.2ZS25 of 2023)

I l I I i

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510312024

ORDER

WP.No.6880 of 2024

I
s lrlE S14I e
(o
+
o
z
o
[ 1 JUN 2021
t *
D€:; PA IC\ {€g

¶54

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT COSTS.

k(\s
@
f>,0&- "%

THE HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITIoNNO.27525 0F 2023

¶60

ORDER:

¶61

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and leamed Assistant Government pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ petition is filed questioning the refusal order passed by respondent No.4 vide Memo No.1z3/2023, dated 23.08.2023, refusing to register the pending document bearing No.P.367/2023, dated 21.0g.2023,in respect of the open plot bearing Nos.120 and 12'1, (C-BIock) an extent of 1000 square yards in Survey No.636/Zof patancheru, Sanga Reddy District.

¶62

The reasons assigned in the refusal order by respondent No.4 read as under:

¶63

"The District Collector, Sangareddy, has directed not to entertain any sale transaction on the lands transacted by the Industrial Employees Cooperative House Building Sociery vide Lr.No.Fl/2051/06, dated

¶64

28.11.2006 and 28.01.2017 read with G.O.Ms._1077,

¶65

¶66

¶67

dated 02.08.2002 and G1/866/2006, dated 07.08.2007. In view of the above, the pending document bearing No.P.367 / 2023 has been refused for registration.,,

¶68

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in W.p.No.9504 of 2020and Batch, dated 28.02.2023, and the same is not disputed by leamed Assistant Government pleader for Stamps and Regisfration. The relevant portion from the said common order reads as follows:

¶69

"In the light of the above, the impugned orders passed by the respondents in the batch of writ petitions by referring to the letters of the District Collector, Sangareddy District i.e., L.R.No.F1/2051/06, dated 28.11.2006 and 28.01.2017 and, G.O.Ms.No.1 077, dated 07.08.2007 are unsustainable and accordingly, they are hereby set aside.,,

¶70

¶71

5 Following the said common order, dated 2g.02.2023, passed in W.P.No.9604 of 2020, and the reasons stated therein, this Writ Petition is also allowed by setting aside the Lr.No.F1l205 t/2006,

¶72

¶73

28.01,.2077, issued by respondent No.5 and the Memo No.173/2023, dated 23.08.2023, issued by respondent No.4 and consequently respondent No.4 is directed to register and release the subject document presented by the petitioner for registration, without reference to Lr.No.Fl/2051/2006, dated 2g.01.2017, issued by respondent No.5 and complete the process, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of presentation of the document by the petitioner and rerease the same in favour of the petitioner, subject to the said document complying with the requirements of the Registration Ac! 190g and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. No order as to costs

¶74

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶75

Date:04.10.2023 sus

¶76

C.V. BHASKARREDDY, I

Thakur Pruthvi Raj Singh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Pruthvi Raj Singh 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

Puli Ramanujamma Vs The State of Telangana

Bujagundla Shiva Raj Vs The State Of Telangana

Bonala Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana

R. Damodhar Reddy Vs B.K. Rahul Hegde

Habeeb-e- Millat Youth Welfare Society Bhainsa Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Sadiq Shariff Vs The State of Telangana