Allowed

B. Rama Raju, v. Commissioner and Inspector General

Telangana HC18 Nov 2024WP/8863/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Memo issued by the Inspection General of Registration acting on a CID protest letter. The Court held that such letters do not comply with Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908, as the Police are not authorized authorities under the Act to prepare prohibition lists, and thus set aside the memo.

What did the court decide?

The impugned letter dated 13.01.2009 and consequential Memo dated 29.01.2009 issued by the 1st respondent are set aside; registering authorities shall not act on such third-party letters.

B. Rama Raju, Vs Commissioner and Inspector… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^325s I

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N,V.SHR,A,VAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8863 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

'l . B. Rama Raju, S/o B. Ramlinga Raju, Fl/o. plot No. 12S4lA, Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills, -uydei'abad - 33- 3333

¶9

Jubilee Hills, -uydei'abad - 33- 3333

¶10

2 p T91a Rgj.g, S./o, B. Ramlinga Raju, Business, Rlio. plot No. 1254lA, Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 33

¶11

1. Smt B Nandini Raju, W/o. B. Ramlinga Raju, Housewife. - RJo. plot No. 1242, Road No.62, Jubilee Hills. Hyderabad - 33

¶12

...PETIT|ONERS

¶13

¶14

1 C-ommissioJler AND Inspector General, Registration and Stamp, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad.

¶15

Crime lnvestigation Department, Govt. of A.P. Rep by its Director General of Police, Hyderabad.

¶16

Dy. Superintendent of Police, ClD, EOW, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RES,ONDENTS

¶18

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 writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order, or direction to issue a writ, order or direction, one more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in purporting to take note of a request made by the 3rd respondent in tetter c.No. 3036/c4lclDl2oog dated 131-2009 and in issuing consequential lMemo No. G1/655/12009 dated 29-1-2009 as illegal, arbitrary, unco nstitutional and in the breach of natural justice and set aside the said Memo issued by the 1st respondent.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. N O: 11612 OF 2009)

¶20

Petition under Section^'15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to issue interim orders suspending the operation of Memo No. G 1/655/.1 2009 dated 29-1-

¶21

2009 issued by the^.lst resppndent herein, pending the disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s RUBAINA S KHATOON Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI N.NAVEEN KUMAR, AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Gp FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN^KUMAR

¶25

Writ Petition No.8853 of 2OO9

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.1 in purporting to take note of a request made by respondent No.3 in letter C.No.3O36/C4 lCIDl2OO9 dated 13.01.2009 and in issuing consequential Memo No.Gl/655/2009 dated 29.O1.2OO9 as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the said Memo issued by respondent No.^1.

¶28

Facts giving rise to filing this writ petition is that the pctitioners claims to be absolute owners and possessors of certain properties merely related to B.Ramalinga Raju^{who was} the promoter, Director and Chairman of Satyam Computer Services Limited. It is submitted that the petitioners are in no way concerned with the functioning of the said Company and they were never involved in the affairs of the said Company^and do not hold any post in the said Company. It is^further submitted that with regard to the various actions undertaken by the said B.Ramalinga Raju for shoring up the revenues and profits of Company, a crime has been registered by CID in Cr.No.2 of 2OO9 for the offences under Section^{720-8,4O9,42O,} 468, 471 ar,d 477-A of Indian Penal Code, 186O^{on a complaint} made by one investor contending that the complainant had

¶29

I I

¶30

invested amounts for the purpose of purchasing shares. Thereafter, an Investigation has been undertaken in pursuant lo the complaint and the petitioners though not directly concerned with the investigation of accused company, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are seeking to prevent the enjoyment of petitioners, right over their properties in violation of constitutional guarantees. It is reiterated that the petitioners are wholly unconnected with any other allegations of Sathyam Computer Services Limited and no part of company funds were diverted to the petitioners.

¶31

Thereafter, respondent No.3 appears to have addressed a letter to respondent No.1 about the registering of case against First accused including Mr.B.Ramalinga Raju and respondent No.3 requested respondent No. 1 to ensure that all transactions including transfer of properties owned by the accused in respect of immovable properties owned by the accused need to be stalled as required under the ongoing investigation. Subsequently, respondent No.3 requested respondent No.1 to issue instructions to field ofhcers of the Registration Department not to affect any transactions including transfer, etc., of the immovable properties of the family members of the accused including those of the petitioner. A copy of the said letter was not addressed to any of the affected persons including the petitioners. Responding to the said request, respondent No.l

¶32

issued Memo No.Gl/655/2009 dated 29.O1.2OO9 transmitting^a copy of the said letter to all the District Registrars and SubRegistrars in the State informing them not to affect any transactions relating to the accused and their famiiy members till passing of further orders.

¶33

It is submitted that no notice has been issued to the petitioner before acting on the request made by respondent No.3 and no explanation has been called for from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the present impugned order exceeds jurisdiction. Learned counsel would submit that the po'*'ers of an Inspector General, Stamps and Registration Department are stipulated under Sections 69 and 70 of Registration Act, 1908 which provides that the Inspector General cannot issue instructions to the District Registrars and Sub-Registrars not to discharge their statutory duties particularly on request made by respondent Nos.2 and 3, and whereas such action can be initiated only under Section 22(A) of the 1908 Act and the State Government can issue appropriate directions^prohibiting the registration of such documents. Aggrieved by the said action of respondent ofhcials, the present writ petition is filed.

¶34

¶35

Heard Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶36

It is pertinent to note that the impugned letter dated 13.01.2009 was issued by Deputy Superintendent of police, CID, Hyderabad to the Inspector General, Stamps and Registration i.e., respondent No.1 herein stating that a case has been registered against B.Ramatinga Raju, Chairman of Satyam Computer Services Limited, Director, Auditor and gthers on a complaint of Ms.Leena Mangat at Crime Investigation Department, Hyderabad on 09.01.2O09 urde Cr.No.2/2OO9 for the offences under Section l2O-8, 4Og, 42O, 468, 471 and 427_ A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in which the details of the accused and their family members are furnished. In the said letter, it was informed that the transactions including transfer of properties owned by the accused need to be stalled as required under ongoing investigation and as such requested to issue instructions to the Field Officers of the Registration Department not to affect any transactions of the immovable properties which stand registered in the name of the accused and their family members.

)

I I I

In the mem6 issued by respondent^{No. 1, a reference} was made to a let[er of Deputy Superintendent^{of Police,} Hyderabad dated 13.O1.2009 which has been transmitted^{to all} the Deputy Registrars and Sub Registrar in the^Stateand requested not to affect any transactions^{relating to the accused} and their family members till further orders in^{the interestof} public.

¶41

Learned counsel for the^petitioner submits that to^the extent of attachments made to the Government^{properties,the} investigation is completed and the matter is^{sub-iudice before} this Court. However, the properties^were standing in^{the name} of the petitioners. Learned counsel^would further^submitthat said orders were precluding the^{petitionersfrom their rights in} deaiing with the subject properties.

¶42

It is to be noted that no counter afhdavit^{has been filed} by the respondent officials till date.^{Learnedcounsel for the} petitioners draws attention of this Court to an^{order of the} Division Bench of this Court in W,P.No.28643 & botch^dated 13.12.2021 wherein a similar issue fell for consideration^and the Division Bench of this Court rrled that an^Inspectorof Police, Crime Investigation Department is not an^authority prescribed under Section 22(Al of the 1908^{Act, for preparation}

¶43

¶44

I I

¶45

of list of properties to be communicated to Registering Authorities for incorporating the same in the list of prohibited properties. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: "14. Admittedly, the letters addressed by the respondent No.4 are not falling und.er ang of the clauses mentioned under Section 22_A of the Act of 1908, nor procedure enuisaged_ there under is followed^before issuance of impugned. letters, as such, the respondent 1vos.5 ,o 9 are under no obligation to act upon such letter and d-eng transactior"Ls in re,spect of the properties of the petitioners. TLte respondenl .lVos. S to 9 haue d.cted_ illegallg and included the properties of the petitioners in tl.Le list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act.^,lhe 4th respond-ent_ Inspector of Police is not an^,authoitA' prescibed. in Section 22-A of the Act of 190g for preparation of list of properties to be communicated. to the registering authorities i.e., respondent .lVos.S to g, fo, incorporat tg tLre same in ttrc list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act.

¶46

In uiew of foregoing discussion and reasons, the impugned letters dated 1g.01.2021 ad.dressed bg the 4th respondent to respond.ents_Sub_ Regrsrrars of different areas of the State of Telangana and State of And.hra pradesl4 are set aside. Houeuer, this order uill not preclud"e the respondent No.4 from taking action against the petitioners/ properties belongs to the petitioners, in accordance u.tith law.

¶47

¶48

¶49

Accordingly, all the Wit Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as fo cosfs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if ang, pending in these wit petitions, shall stand disposed of."

¶50

1O. Similarly, this Court in W,P.No.37O4 of 2O24 dated. O2.O4.2O24, wherein similar issue fell for consideration, this Court heid as follows:

¶51

"12. In the case on hand, the Registeing authoitg refused to register the subject propertA based on the letter dated 15.03.2021 addressed bg the Inspector of Police. In terms of the aforesaid. order of the Diuision Bench and the guidelines issued by the Full Bench, as per directions (iu), the Registeing authoitg cannot act upon the letters issued bg anA authoitA other than the offrce of the autltoities mentioned in the said guidelines. Hence, the impugned letter of refusal date 25.01.2024 is not in accordance u,tith the guidelines prescibed bA tLLe Full Bench. In uietu of the same, the impugned refusal letter dated 25.01.2024 is liable to be set aside and is accordinglg set aside. The Sth respondent, Sub-Registrar, is directed to register the subject doanment in respect of propertg bearing Flat No.202 in Second Floor of Murugan Enclaue on Plot No.676 in Sg.Nos.100, 1O1 & 1O5 situated at Quthbullapur^uillage and mandal, Medchal - Mal$.ajgin District, tuithin a peiod of three ueeks from^{the date of receiptof a copA of this order,}

¶52

¶53

subject to corfipliance of proubions of the Indian Registration Act, 19O8 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899."

¶54

In the case on hand, only a letter has been issued by respondent No.3 to respondent No.1 uide letter dated 13.01.2009 stating that a case has been registered against B.Ramalinga Raju, Chairman of Satyam Computer Services Limited, Director, Auditor and others on a complaint of Ms.Leena Mangat at Crime Investigation Department, Hyderabad on 09.01 .2009 urde Cr.No .2l2OO9 for the offences under Section l2O-8, 4O9, 42O, 46a, 477 and 477!A of lr,drar] Penal Code, 1860, in rvhich the details of the accused and their family members are f,rrnished. This Court is of the firm view that the said letter cannot be the basis for prohibiting the subject lands from registration for the reason that the same were not listed in the prohibition list as prescritred under Section 22(Al of the 1908 Act and the similar letters issued were already set aside in the above cited^judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the impugned letter dated 13.O1.20O9 and the consequential Memo dated 29.O1.2OO9 are hereby set aside. The Sub-Registrar concerned shall not act upon such third party letters.

¶55

¶56