Allowed

ChJayanth Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Apr 2024WP/7214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that a notification merely inviting objections cannot justify refusal of registration. The Court relied on its earlier common order, declared the impugned Gazette Notification illegal, and recalled the condition prohibiting further conveyance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Gazette Notification R.R. No. 83 was declared illegal, arbitrary, and bad in law. The petitioner is directed to register the documents, and the prohibition on further conveyance is recall

ChJayanth Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

: I i I I)

¶2

t^3255l

¶3

H GHt OURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} I AT HYDERABAD I (Special Original Jurisdiction) i

¶4

TJ ESDAY, THE SECOND DAY^{OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFOUR I pRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO:7214OF 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ch.Jayanth^Kumar,SI Ch Naravana. Aqed about^{49 years, Occ. Pvt.Empbyee,} FYo.H.No.6-295, Sura^rA m Colony, Quihbullapur^{Mandal,Medchal Malkaigiri Districl'} Telangana State

¶9

......PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Te ngana, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary (Stamps and} Reqistration), Sdcretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶12

The District^{R"gf,trrr,lr/edchal-Malkajgiri District'}

¶13

The Sub-RegistJr,^{Quthbullapur' Medchal-Malkajgiri District'}

¶14

The Collector,^{ULo"nrt-Urttajgiri District.}

¶15

The Tahasilanar]^{Qutnuutlapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District}

¶16

..,..RESPONOENTS

¶17

petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia^{prayrngthat in the} circumstances^stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Wflt, Order or direction^{more particularly one in the nature of} Writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe action of Respondent No 3 ie} '^{The Sub-} Registrar.Quthbullapur,lVledchal-MalkajgiriDistrictinrefusingtoreceiveand register the ttlemorandum^{of Deposit of Title Deeds presented by the petitioner in} respect of all^that I^{the House bearing No' 06- '123l4Part(WestSide} Part), admea suring^{40 Square Yardsor33.44 Square Meters'havingplinth area of} 100 Square Feet^{ACC Roof in SurveyNo 107, Situated at Prayankanagar'} Suraram Colony,^{Suraram Vallage,Quthbullapur Mandal' under GHMC Circle'} Medchal- t,4alkajgiri^{District, Telangana State, on the basisof prohibitory list}

¶18

I under section 22-A of Registration Act as per the 1 . Ranga R:ddy District Gazette l Notification R.R. No. 83, communicated by Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vide File No. E51473O12013/Outhbullapur/Suraram, dated 2 5-09-2013, 2. Deputy Collector I and Tahalsildhar Quttlbullapur Mandal, File No. B I 583 I 20 1 i,., d ated 1 7 -O2-2O1 2 I and 3. Gazette Notifibation No.134, dated 10-03-2005 an,l G.O.Ms No. 296, Revenue (Registratio l),^gth March 2005 communicated by Commissioner and lnspector General Revenue and Stamps), Hyderabad vide File No. G1/4661/2005,'Dt .02 7 -2OO5, as illegal, arbitrary, in violaticn of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of Constitu ion of lndia and also in vrolation of Re,listration Act, 1g0g, besides in violation o{ Principles of Natural Justice and conr;equenfly direct the Respondent 't No. 3 to lreceive I and register the Memorandum of Deposit of rifle Deeds presented by the petitioner in respect of House bearirg No.06-123/4part (West Side Part), admbasuring 40 Square I yards or 33.44 Sq,are Meters, having plinth area of 1 00 S[uare Feet ACC Roof , in Survey Nc - 1 07. Situated at Prayankanagar, Suraram Colony,suraram Village, euthbullapur Mandal, under GHMC circle, Medchal-Markajgin District, Telangana State., vrithout reference of l 1. Ranga Reddy District Gazette Notifrcatron R.R.No.g3, communicated by Joint collector, Ranga Reddy videFile No E5t413otz01 3/euthbullapur/Su raram, dated 25-09-2013, 2. Deputy' I colrector and ralrasrrdhar euthbullapc r Mandal, File No. 8158312012, dated 17-02-2012 i and 3 Ga,/etre Notification No. 134, dated 10_032005 and G.O.Ms No. 296, II Revenue {Registration. l), gth March 2OO5 communicated by Commissioner and lnspector General (Revernue and Stamps), Hyderabad vide Fite Nb. G1/4661/2005. Dr o2-07-2005

¶19

I.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition Under dection r 51 cpc prayrng that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in slpport of the petrtion, the High court n'ay be pleased to direct the RespondentlNo. 3 to recerve and register the l\4emorandum of Deposit l of ritle Deeds presentbd by the petitroner rn respect of all that the House bearing No. 06-123/4Part (WAst Side Part). acinreasuring 40 Squar€ yards or 33.44 Square Meters, havinl plinth area of 100 Square Feet ACC Rcrof, in Survey No. 107, Situated at Prayarnkanagar, Suraram corony, Suraram vrlage, euthbullapur Mandal, under GHMC Circle, Medchat-t,4alka1giri District, Telangana State..

¶21

¶22

,. { without the reference Jr , *rnn" Reddy Dislrict Gazette Notification R.R. No. 83, communicated by I Joint I Collector, Ranga Reddy vkJeFile No. I Est4T3ol2ol3lQuthbullapur/Suraram, dated. 25-09-2013, 2. Deputy collector and I Tahalsitdhar Quthbullalur Mandal, File No. Bts13lzo12, dated 17-02-2012 and 3. I Gazette Notification Nb. 134, dated 10-03-2005 and G.o.Ms t{o.296, Revenue (Registration. l), 9th March 2005 communicated I by commissioner and lnspector General (Revenue anJ sta.ps;, Hyderabad vide Fire No. G1lzt661/2005, Dt. 02O7-2OOS pending disprjsal of the writ petition.

|.A.NO:2 OF 2024

Between:

The State of TelAngang I R9O by its^principal Secretary (Stamps and Registration), Sdcretariat, Hyderabad.

¶27

The District RegiLtrar, Medchat-Matkajgiri C}iskict.

¶28

The Sub-RegistAr, Quthbuttapur, Medchat-Malkajgiri District.

¶29

....PETITIONERS/RESPONOENTS

¶30

NOS.1,2&3tNW.P

¶31

AND

¶32

Sri Ch.Jayanth Kumar, S/o Ch Narayana, Aged about 49 years, Occ. pvt. Employee, Ryo.H.No.6-295, S-uraram Colony,^{-euthOullapur} Mandil, frleO"t ai Malkajgiri District, Tetangana State.

¶33

.,.,..RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER

¶34

The Collector, Medchat-Matkajgiri District.

¶35

The Tahasildhar; Quthbultapur Mandal, Arledchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶36

.....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT

¶37

NOS.4&5INW.P

¶38

Petition Under Section 15 j CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitl I filed in supporl of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Order passed on 19.O3.2O24 in W.p.No.7214 of 2024.

¶39

Gounsel for the Petitijner : SRI T.V.SRIKANTH

¶40

Counsel for the Res nts : AGP FOR REVENUE

¶41

The Court made the *:; ing ORDER

¶42

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KI'IUAR trI.P. No.7214 of 2o24

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the Registering Authorities in refusing to register the subject documents based on the Gazette Notihcation R.R. No.83, dated 25.O9.2O13.

¶46

2' The learned counser for the petitioner would submit that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarery covered by the common order dated 22-03 '2024 passed in w.p. Nos.9645 ot 2o2r and w.p. No.263s3 of 2023 by this court- The rearned counsel wourd further submit that this court, while granting interim order dated 28.04.2021in w.p. No.g645 0f 2021 had 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 tlris court, while granting interim order dated 22.og.2o23, had prohibited the parties from proceeding with further conveyance of the property except on obtaining required permission lrom this Court.

¶47

It is further submitted that in the present writ petition this court, while granting interim order dated rg.03.2023, had directed the Registering authorities to register the subject documents with one of the conditions that the parties are prohibited from proceeding with further conveyance of the subject property except on obtaining required permission from 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/ Regisrering authority no counter has been filed.

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

At this juncture, it is significant to note that the I)ivision Bench of this court vide its common order dated rg.ro.2023 passed in w p. No.2g3oo of 2oo7 and batch had deart with the validity of Sectio. 22-A ot the Act as incorporated in the Registration Act, rgog and the Amended .Act, 19 of 2oo7 with effect from 20.06.20o7 and had upheld the validir.r of rhe section 22-A of the Act.

¶52

7- Having gone through the material made avairable on rhe record and the submissions made by the learned counse ()n either side, it is essential and necessary to excerpt the relevant parzr Nos.:23 to 32 of the common order dated 22.03.2024 passed in W_p. Nos 9645 of 2O2l artd 26353 of 2023 by this Court, which reads as under.

¶53

"23. From a perusal of the Notifrcation in R.R. No.g3. darcrl 2) O9.2O13, the subject lands were notified under Section 22_A (l )(a) tor the yrurposc oI Section 22-A(1). It is only a notice given inyrring rllcctrcns and suggestions on the above proposal from all persons $ho.rre lrkcl| to be affected thereby for being taken into consideratron t)r. rtrc (jovcrnment. The details of the properties mentioned in the anncxur-e jtatcs lhat the subject lands are Government lands.

¶54

Section 22-A (t) (e) of the Act manifests rhat an\ docualcnts or class of documents pertaining to the properties, the Srate C;ovcrrr[lcnt rnat, by notilication prohibit the registration rn which avo*.cd .r .rc(.rue(r rrrterests of Central and State Governments, Local Bo<iies. E(lucatlonal, Cultr.rral,

i J I I I

Religious and Charitabl€ Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal, Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Ta.:{ Laws and others which are likely to adversely allect these interest.

¶59

Section 22_A (2) reads as under:

¶60

"(21 For the purprose of Clause (e) of sub_section (1), the State Government shall publisl ru, de scription r r-;*;:'' ::::il.:"Tr" T:' :: ".,::":T j":;1: concerned in the manner as may be prescribed:

¶61

It is pertinent to n( chary (supra) paras r 56 ;::':;il::. ffi :::::'ffi ":.^""T: the Clause (v) no notification is contemplated under sub_section (2) of Section 22-A with respect to the properties falling under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (l) of Section 22_A. As per Clause (vi), the properties covered under clause (e) of Section 22-A shall be notified in the oflicial Ga"rtte of the State Governments and shall be fonvarded, 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 Govemments.

¶62

The subject lands in these rvrit petitions as per the Notification in R.R.No.83 in Fite No.E5/4730120t3/ euth bu ltapur/ euthbullapur, dated 25,O9.2O13, which according to the District Collector u.ere classified as Govemment lands and a Notification iUas issued calling for objections/ suglqestions before placing for prohrt)itions. Section 22_A (l) {e) and (2) stipulates that if any lancl rs clzrssrfied and determined as Government land, the Government shall pLrblish an ofllcial Gazette notification after obtaining reasons for and full descriptron of properties fumished by the District Collector concerneci in the manner as prescribed. In the case on hand, the respondents havc not follou,ed the provisions of Section 22-A(l)(e)(2) and the guidelines rssued l>r.the Full Bench in the case of vinJamuri RaJagopala chary (suprar r'herein ar para 156 held that the authorities are obliged to follorv Clausc (vi) for rhose properties covered under crause (e) of section 22 A ot th" Act, ll.hereby such rands have to be notified in the omcial Cazefte of the State. The Notification in R.R. No.83 dated 2S.O9.2013 communicated b_t.the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vide File No. ES/473Ol20l3 / euth bu at)ur/ eu r h bullapur, dated 25 Q9'2o13; Deputy collecror and rahasildhar, euthburapur Mandal, File

¶63

¶64

No.B/583/2012, dated 17.O2;2O12 and the Gazette Nctification No.134, dated 10.03.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.292, Revenue (Registration-l), 9tr' March 2O05 communicated by the Commissioner and Irrspector Ceneral (Revenue & Stamps), Hyderabad vide File No.Gl l4tt6l l2OO5, dated 02.07.2OO5 are not in accordance with the provisions oI the Sectron 22-A (1) (e) and 22 (lll2) and also as per Clause (vi) of the guidelines issued in the case of VlnJaEuri R4regopala Chary (Supra) and the same cannot be the basis for denying for registration of the subject proper.ties.

¶65

Further, the Tahsildar vide File No.B/583/2012, Llated 17.O2.2O12 had notified the particular property as the Government land and requested the Sub-Registrar not to register any deed of :onvevance. The District Collector on 25.09.2013 had issued prelimioary notilication catling for objections and the said notification was found to be defective bv this Court in W.P. No.19069 of 2014 dated 25.08.2014.

¶66

It is also pertinent to note that in the counter liled rn W.P. No.26353 of 2023 prohibiting transfer/registration that sub,;equenr to the Notification in R.R. No.83 dated 25.09.2013 the answe-ing re:;ponclents have not taken any steps in notifying in the official Gazett( of State Government in terms of the guideline No.(vil issued by t1e l'ull Bench in the case of VinjaEurl Rajqgopala Chary (Supra).

¶67

As such, the Notification in R.R.No.83 in File No E5 I 47 .)O I 20 13 / Quthbullapur/Quthbullapur, dated 25.09.2013, is onI z notrcc Bn,err for inviting objectrons ald suggestions and this cannot lrc the bzrsrs for refusal for registration of the subject properties. In vi:rv of tlrc s.rotc, Gazette Notification in R.R. No.83, dated 25.O9.2013, c{)mnluI rcaLed bJ the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vide File No.E5/.t7.]0i 20 I3/ Quthbullapur/Gajularamaram, dated 25.09.2013, 2) Deputy C()llecror. & Tahsildar Quthbullapur Mandal, File No.B/583/2012, dired l, O2'2O12 and the Gazette Notihcation No.134, dated l1) O3.2O05 and G.O.Ms.No 292, dated 09.03.2005 are not in consonancc o thr: 1,1s1,151en5 of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 19O8 and 22-A( I )(e) and C lause (\ r) ot the guidelines and the same cannot be referred frrr thc Prrrpose of den-ving registration of the subject properties. Conseclr. enth, rcfcrencc madc vide in File No.E5/4730/ 2013/ Quthbullapur/ Gal u aranra-arrr, and File No. E5 / 473Ol 2013/QuthbuUapur/Quthbullapur, (iared 25 09.2O13 atrd Filc No.B/58312012 dated 17.O2.2Ot2 of the Tahsil(tirr, eurt.,bu apur

¶68

¶69

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

¶70

Accordingly, W.P. Nos.9645 of2021 and 26353 ot 2023 are allowed.

¶71

¶72

This Court on 22.09.2023, white directing the Registering authority to receive and process the document without reference to the letter dated 17.02.2012, 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 rs made clear that since these writ p€titions (W.P. Nos.9645 of 2021 and 26353 of 20231 are allowed, the condition that was imposed to the effect that not to resort to further conveyance of the subject property is hereby recalled. The Registering Authorities are directed to make necessary changes in the records,

¶73

It is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer title on the subject property and it is also made clear that this order would not have any bearing on all those matters^\vhere title/rights of the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision/ appeals for adjudication and in any other case this order also does not^{preclude the} parties in assertitrg their rights before a competent Court of law. There shall be no order as to costs."

¶74

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.o3.2024 passed in W.P. Nos.9645 of 2O2l and 26353 of 2023 by this Court.

¶75

It is made clear that in the present \t'rit^petition this^Court, while granting the interim order dated 19.O3.2023, thc condition stipulated that the parties are prohibited from proceeding uith^further conveyance^of the subject property except on obtaining^{requiredpermission.} from^this

¶76

¶77

Court is hereby recalled and consequentJy, the Registt:ring authorities are directed to make necessary changes in tl.e records. Tht:re shall be no order as to costs.

¶78

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any Jrending, shall stani

¶79

closed.

¶80

¶81

SD/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /

¶82

//TRUE COPY// ^,. u

¶83

SECTION OFFICER

¶84

1 Il,"^fl,l_"'p:l^{S,etretary,.(Stampsand Registration), Se(:retariat, Srate} of r erangana at Hyderabad.

¶85

2 The Distrrct Regi'strar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶86

3 The Sub-Registrhr, euthbultapur, Ved6nat_tttatt<iiqiri Di:;trict. 4 The Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶87

5 The TahasildharJ euthbullapui-ir/andal, Medchal_Malkai(trri District. 6 Two CCs to Gp FoR REVENUE, r'nn'Court i"i't'dJSrii" or Tetansana ar Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶88