Allowed

Karri Vijayalakshmi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Apr 2024WP/9117/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed this writ petition challenging the refusal to register a sale deed based on a preliminary notification under Section 22-A. Relying on a common order, the court held that the notification was defective as it did not follow the mandatory procedure for notifying government lands in the official Gazette. The petitioner was directed to receive and register the sale deed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, and the Sub-Registrar was directed to receive, process, register, and release the sale deed within three weeks.

Karri Vijayalakshmi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁵⁵¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRlJUSTICE N. V. bHRAVAN KUMAR

¶7

Between:

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 9 117 0F 2024

¶9

f!a.r,rl _Vlj.gyatqlshmi,^{Wo-Dr. K._Sivaji, Aged 67 years, Housewife,} R/o H.No.1U/52, Solvbhagya Nagar, Rep. by GpA holder yelavarthi Venkata IqTa fJis.U? @ J.V.Rgnlakrishna,^{S/o Koteswara Rao. agedSS years,} nlo H.No.47-1511, Sri Sai Colony, HMT Road, tDpL Cotonir Fost, Hy'Oeia6aO _ 5oo o3T

¶10

AND

¶11

,.pErrroNER

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretarv. Revenue Department, Secretariat Buiidinos. Hvdera'bad.

¶13

The District Registrar, Medchal I Malkaiqiri District.

¶14

| ]fe lyO-.negistrar,^{Medchat, Medchat jl/tatkajgiriDistricr.} 4. The District Collector, Medchal - Malkaiqiri The District Collector, Medchal - Malkaiqiri District Collector, Medchal - Malkaiqiri Dist-rict.

¶15

The District Collector, Medchal - Malkaiqiri The District Collector, Medchal - Malkaiqiri District Collector, Medchal - Malkaiqiri Dist-rict.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Qutubullapur Mandal, eritubullapur, Medchal _ Malkajgiri District.

¶17

Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of tndia ,r"iffil3i',,itll: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3, Sub-Registrar, Medchal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District in refusing to receive and register the sale Deed in respect of all that Plot No. 200: land adrneasuring 337.0 sq. yards in Sy.No. 22711 and, 228, situated at Bahadurpally Village, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Dundigal Municipality Medchal - Malkajgiri District basing on the protribitory list under Sec. 22-A of the Registration as per the (i) Ranga Reddy District Gazette Notification communicated by the Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District Gazette Notification R.R.No. 93, communicated by Joint collector, Ranga Reddy vide Fite No. Eil4730t2o13 dt. 2stogt2o13, (ii) Deputy collector and rahsildar, eutubullapur Mandal in File No.B/5g3 t2012 dl. 1710212012 and (iii) Gazette Notification No. 134, dt. 10/03/2005 and G.o Ms.No. 863, Revenue (Registration-l) dt. 09/03/2005 communicated by the commissioner

¶18

and lnspector of General (R and s), Hyderabad vide File No G1i4661l2005 dt. 02lo7lzoos is illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of the Registration Act and violative of Principles of natural justice and consequenfly direct the respondent No.3 to receive, process, register and release the Sale Deed in respect of all that Plot No. 200, land admeasuring 337.0 Sq. yards in Sy.No.22711 and 228, situated at Bahadurpally Village, Dundigal - Gandimaisamma Mandal, Dundigal Municipality Medchal - Malkajgiri District without reference (i). Ranga Reddy District Gazette Notification communicated by the Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District Gazette Notification R.R.No. 83, communicated by Joint collector, Ranga Reddy vide File No E5l473Ot2O13'dt.25t09t2013, (ii) Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Qutubullapur Mandal in Fite No.B/583t2012 dl. 17102t2012 and (iii) Gazette Notification No. 134, dt. 1010312005 and G.O.Ms.No. 863, Revenue (Regiskation-l) dt. 09/03/2005 communicated by the commissioner and lnspector of General (R and S), Hyderabad vide File No. c11466112005 dt. OZ\OTt2OOs

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶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 respondent No.3 to receive, process,. register and release the Sale Deed in respect of all that Plot No. 200, land admeasuring 337.0 Sq. yards in Sy.No. 22711 and 228, situated at' Bahadurpally Village, Dundigal - Gandimaisamma Mandal, Dundigal Municipality Medchal Malkajgiri District without reference (i) Ranga Reddy District Gazette Notification communicated by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Gazette Notification R.R.No. 83, communicated by Joint collector, Ranga Reddy vide File No. E51473012013 dt.2510912013, (ii) Deputy Coilector and Tahsildar, Qutubullapur Mandal in File No.B/58312012 dt. 17t0212012 and (iii) Gazette Notification No. 134, dt. 1010312005 and G.O.Ms.No. 863, Revenue (Registration-l) dt. 09/03/2005 communicdted by the commissioner and lnspector of General (R and S),, Hyderabad vide File No. G1/4661/2005 dt. OZ\OTt2OOs Counsei for the Petitioner: SRI B. SAMPATH KUMAR

¶21

Counsel for Respondents: AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶24

III.P. No.9117 of 2024

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the threshold.

¶27

This writ petition has been frled challenging the action of the Registering Authorities in refusing to register the subject documents based on the Gazette Notifrcation R.R. No.83, dated 25.09.2O13.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject matter of this writ pelition is squarely covered by the common order dated 22.03.2024 passed in W.P. Nos.9645 of 2O2L and W.P. No.26353 of 2023 by this Court. The learned counsel would further submit that this Court, while granting interim order dated 2A.O4.2021 in W.P. No.9645 of 2O2L had stipulated a condition not to resort to further conveyance of the subject properfy without leave of this Court and similarly in W.P. No.263S3 of 2023 this Court, while granting interim order dated 22.09.2023, had prohibited the parties from proceeding with further conveyance of the propert5r except on obtaining required permission from this Court.

¶29

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.

¶30

¶31

¶32

At ttris^juncture, it is significant to note that^{the Division Bench of this} Court vide its^{commonorder dated 19.10.2023passedin W.P. No.2830O of} 2OO7 and batch had dealt with^{tJ.e validity of Section 22-A of the Act as} incorporated in the^{RegistrationAct, 1908 and the Amended Act, 19 of 2OO7} with effect from 20.06.2O07^{and had uphetd the validity of the Section 22-A} of t.l.e Act.

¶33

Having gone through the material^{madeavailable on the record and} the submissions^made by the^{learned counsel oneitherside,} it is essential and^{necessaryto excerpt the relevantpara Nos'23 to 32 of the} common order dated^{22.03.2024 passed in W.P. Nos.9645of 2O2l and} 26353 of 2023 by^{this Court, which readsas under:}

¶34

"23. From a^perusal of the^{Notilicationin R.R. No.83,dated 25.09.2013,} the subject lands^were notifred under^{Section 22-A(1)(a)for the purposeof} Section 22-A(1). It is only a notice^{given inviting objectionsand} suggestions on the above^proposalfrom all^{persons who are likely to be} allected thereby for being taken^{into considerationby the Govemment.} The details of the properties mentioned in the^{annexure statesthatthe} subject lands are^{Government lands.}

¶35

Section 22-A^{(1) (e)} of the^Act manifests^{that any documents or class} of documents pertaining to the^{properties, the State Government may,by} notifrcation prohibit the registration^{in which avowed or accrued interests} of Centrat and State Govemments,^{l,ocal Bodies,Educational, Cultural,} Religious and Charitable Institutions, those^{attached by Civil, Crimind,} Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect^{Tax Laws and others whichare} likely to adversely affect these interest.

¶36

Section 22-A (2) reads as under:

¶37

"(21 For the purpose of Clause (e) of sub-section^(1), the^State Government shall publish a notilication after obtaining reasons for and full description of properties furnished by the District^Collectors bpCerned in^the manner as may be prescribed."

¶38

¶39

[t is pertinent to note that in the case of VluJamurl RaJegopala Chery (Supra) paras 156 had summarized and issued directions. As per the Clause (v) no notifrcation is contemplated under sub_section (2) of Section 22-A w.ith respect to ttr€ 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 ollicial Gazette of the State Governments and shall be.forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the rerevant notifcation/Gaze tte, to the concerned registering authorities under the provisions of Registration Act and shall also prace the said notification/Gazette on the websites of both the State Governments.

¶40

The subject lands in these writ petitions as per the Notification in R. R.No.83 in File No.E5/4 7 30 / 20 t3 / euthbullapur/euthbullapur, dated 25.09.2013, which according to the District collector were classified as Government lands and a Notification was issued ca.lling for objections/ suggestions before placing for prohibitions. Section 22_A (1) (e) and (2) stipulates that if any land is classified and determined as Government rand, the Government shalr pubrish an official Gazette notification after obtaining reasons for and full description of properties fumished by the District Collector concerned in the manner as prescribed. In the cas€ on hand, the respondents have not followed ttre provisions of section 22-A(1)(e)(2) and the guidelines issued by the Fuu Bench in the case of vi4aEuri R4Jagopara 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 the Act, whereby such lands have to be notifred in the official Gazette of the State. The Notification in R.R. No.83 dated 25.09.%)13 communicated by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vide File No.E5/473ol2o13leuthbultapur/euthbullapur, dated 25.O9.2013; Deputy Coll€ctor and Tahasildhar, euthbullapur Mandal, FiI,e No.B/583/2O12, dated 17.02.2012 and the cazette Notification No.134, dated 10.03.2OO5 and G.O.Ms.No.292, Revenue (Registration-I), 9m March 20O5 communicated by tlre Commissioner and Inspector General (Revenue & Stamps), Hyderabad vide File No.ct /a6il /2OO5, dated O2.O7 -2OO5 are not in accordance with the provisions of the Section 22_A (r) (e) and 22 (Ll(21 and also as per cLause (vi) of the guidetines issued in the case of Vlnjaraurl ReJagopala Chary (Supra) and the same cannot be the basis for dcnying for r€gistration of the subject properties.

¶41

¶42

Furthei, the Tahsitdar^{vide FileNo.Bl5a3/2O12, dated 17.O2.2O12} had notified the^{particular property as the Government land and} requested the Sub-Registrar^{not to register anydeed of conveyance'The} District Collector on^{25.09.2O13had issued preliminarynotification} calling for objections^{and the said notifrcation was foundto be defective by} this court in w.P.^{No.190690f 2014 dated25.08.2014.}

¶43

It is also pertinent to note^{that in the counterhled in W P No'26353} 'of 2023 prohibiting transfer/ registration that^{subsequenttothe} Notification in R.R. No.83^{dated 25 09.2013 the answering respondents} have not taken any steps in^{notifying in the ollicial Gaz€tteof State} Govemment in terms^{of the guidelineNo.(vi) issuedby the Full Benchin} the case of Vinjamuri^{RajagoPalaChary(Supra).}

¶44

As such, the Notification^{in R.R.No.83in File No'E5/473O} l2ol3l Quthbullapur/Quthbullapur,^{dated 25.09.2013,is only a notice given for} inviting objections and^{suggestionsand this cannotbe the basis for} refusal for registration^{of the subject propertiesln view of the sarne,} Gazette Notihcation in R.R.^{No.83,dated 25.09 -2013,communicated by} the Joint Collector,^{Ranga Reddy vide File No'ES/4730l2Ol3l} Quthbullapur/Gajularamaram,^{dated 25.09.2013, 2) DeputyCollector&} Tahsildar Quthbullapur^{Mandal, File No.B/583/2012, dated 17 O2'2O12} and the Gazette^{NotificationNo.134, dated10.03'2005and} G.O.Ms.No.292, dated^{09.03.2005are not in consonanceto the provisions} of Section 22-A of ltle^{RegistrationAct,1908and22-A(1)(e)and Clause(vi)} of the guidelines^{and the sanne cannot be referred for the purpose of} denying registration^{of the subject proPerties. Consequently,reference} made vide in File^No.ES /47³⁰ l^2Ol3 l Qrthbullapur/^{Gajularamaram, and} File No.E5/4730/20^13/ QuthbutlaPur/Quthbullapur,^{dated25'092Ol3} and File No.B/583/2012^{dated17.02.2012 of the Tahsildar,Quthbullapur} Mandal, are declared^{as illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and arehereby} set aside.

¶45

Accordingly,^{W.P.Nos.9645of 2027and 26353of 2023 are allowed'}

¶46

This Court^{on 22.Q9.2O23,while directing theRegisteringauthority} to receive and^process the^{documentwithout referenceto the letterdated} 17 .O2.2O12, and the Notification^{in R.R. No.83dated 25.09.2013,had} directed the^{petitionernot to resort to further conveyanceof the subject} property without^leave of this Court.^{In this regard, it is madeclearthat} ' -.lince these writ petitions^(W.P. Nos.9645 of 2O2l^{and26353of 20231are}

¶47

¶48

allowed, the condition that was imposed to t]:re effect that not to resort to further conveyance of the subject property is hereby recalled. The Registering Authorities are directed to make nectssary changes in the records.

¶49

It is made clear that mere registration of t.l:e document does not confer title on the subject property and it is also made clear urat this order would not have any bearing on all those matters wh€re title/rights of the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision/appeals for adjudication and in any otl:er case this order also does not preclude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of law. There shall be no order as to costs."

¶50

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 2o2r and 26353 of 2023 by this Court.

¶51

Consequently, the respondent No.3, Sub_Registrar, is directed to receive, process, register and release the sale deed in respect of prot No.200, land admeasuring 337.0 Sq yards in Sy Nos;222 /l and 22g situated at Bahadurpally Village, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Dundigal Municipality, Medcha-l-Malkajgiri District, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 190g, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899. It is a_lso open to the Registering Authority to refuse/receive the documents presented before him, if he has a,,y other objection, by duly assigrring reasons in support of such decision and communicate the said decision to the petitioner. It is made clear that mere

¶52

¶53

registration^{of ttre documentdoes not confertitle on the subjectproperty} and it is^{also made clear that this order wouldnot have any bearingon all} those matters^{where title/rightsof the parties are pending before the} authorities^{either in revision/appealsfor adjudication and in any other case} this order^{also doesnot precludethe parties in assertingtheir rights before} a competent^{Court of law' There shallbe no order as to costs'}

¶54

As a sequel,^{miscellaneousapplications' if any pending' shallstand}

¶55

closed.

¶56

//TRUE^COPY//

¶57

SD'- T,JAYAS ASSISTANT^REGIS R SECTION^OFICER

¶58

To''l . The District Registrar, Medchal - Malka'igiri Pisjricl' j -Malkajsi ri District i. +il; il;-'R;g^{iiio i, t'r"J"[jt, Medchal} 5. iii" 6iJ;i6;i6ior,^{Medchal - Malkaisiri.District} 4 The Tahsildar,^{outuouria"plT'tlia"oilo'li'o'irtp'i'M"d"hal - Malkaigiri} District. 5. il; c'c^{to Sri B Sampath Kumar Advocate [oPUCl} 6. Two CCs^{to Gp F"' sd;ipst#nEdiii.lLii.Hisn'courtfor the state of} Telangana. [OUT] 7. Two CD^CoPies MBC LS

¶59

H,GH C URT

¶60

DATED: 10t04t2024

¶61

(1 1HE S14 14:
o r<br>L.)
2 APB2024
.k *{
OpSr,ATcH ?9

¶62

ORDER

¶63

WP.No.91 17 of 2OZ4

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION}

¶65

¶66

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶67

Karri Vijayalakshmi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karri Vijayalakshmi 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

Patta Srikesava Vs The State of Telangana

Thalloju Hemanth Vs The State of Telangana

Tallaparthi Shailaja Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. K. Venkata Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

Naragoni Rohan Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Chakrahari Banuchander Raju Vs The State of Telangana