Disposed

M.a.Azeem v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Mar 2025WP/17390/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a General Power of Attorney over Banjara Hills property. The court found the refusal was passed without verifying the petitioner's documents, set aside Refusal Order No.16/2024, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration within three months.

What did the court decide?

Refusal Order No.16/2024 dated 31.05.2024 set aside; matter remanded to respondents for fresh verification and orders within three months; no costs.

M.a.Azeem Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17390 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.A.Azeem, S/o. Late M.A. Waheed Age.38 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. H. No. 1 9-3-7 441 34, Ghazi Banda, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Department of Stamps and Registration, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner and lnspector General, Stamps and Registration, Govt. of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Registrar, Hyderabad (South), Hyderabad.

¶14

The Joint Sub-Registrar-ll, Hyderabad (South), Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Proceedings of the 4th respondent in Lr.No.354/RO(OByHYD(Sy2024, dt.3110512024, being Refusal Order No.1612024, whereby he refused to register and release the. document^presented by the petitioner being a Power of Attorney, dt.31 .05.2024 in respect of the property situated in Municipal Ward No.B, Block No.2, Old TS No.1 ,2,3, 4lP, Block-G, Ward No.10, on Jubilee Hills Municipality, Plot No.4, admeasuring 14036 sq.yds equivalent to 11735.49 sq.mtrs situated at JHM layout, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and to issue a consequential direction to the 4th respondent to register and release the subject document

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

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 and release the document,^,11.31 .O5.2024, described as a Power of Attorney, executed by the^petitioner in respect of the property situated in Municipal Ward No.8, Block No.2, Old TS No.1 ,2,3,41P, Block-G, Ward No.10, on Jubilee Hills IVlunicipality, Plot No.4, admeasuring 14036 sq.yds equivalent to 11735.49 sq.mtrs situated at JHI\I layout, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet tVlandal, Hyderabad, by suspending the Refusal Order No.1612024, d1.31 .05.2024 in Lr.No.354/R0(0ByHYD(Sy2024, pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MD ABDUL MATEEN QURESHI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

:r.t ttint

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶24

ltlrit Petition No. 1739O of 2o24

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition is frled to declare the proceedings of respondent No.4 in Lr.No.354/RO(OB)/HYD(S)/2024 dated 31.O5.2024 being refusal Order No.l6/2024 refusing to register and release the document presented by the petitioner i.e., power of Attorney dated 31.O5.2024 in respect of the propert5z situated in Municipal Ward No.S, Block No.2, Old TS No.1, 2,3,41p, Block G, Ward No.1O, on Jubilee Hills Municipality, plot No.4, admeasuring 14036 sq.yds., at JHM layout, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Manda-I, Hyderabad (subject propert5r) as illegal and arbitrar5r and to issue a consequential direction to respondent No.4 to register and release the subject document.

¶27

The brief facts as stated are that one Smt.Musthaq Fathima D/o.Laiq Khan claims to be the original owner of the subject property, which was sold to the father of the petitioner uiz., M.A.Waheed under a registered sale deed dated 28.06.1952. Originally the said Musthaq Fathima received the subject propert5r by way of grant from erstwhile State of Hyderabad and her narne was entered into revenue records as

¶28

,i2ii

¶29

per the proceedings of District Collector, for the year 1947. The ,.^. then Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Merno uide No.3933/Q2 164-77 dated 06.12.1967 merging the Jubilee Hills Municipality with the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and has enquired into the land assignments to various persons in the Jubilee Hills Municipalify and ratified 41 cases as rer:ommended by the Collector. As such the subject property was assigned in the name ol said Musthaq Fathima

¶30

Mr.J.Ramchander Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the proceedings of the MRO, Golconda Mandal dated 29.03.1985, plot No.4 of JFIM is not a Government land and that the Town Survey Register. pertaining to Block-G, Ward No. 10 of Shaikpet Village also shows that JHM plot No.4, admeasuring Ac.2-36 gts., belongs to Mrs.Musthaq Fathima. He would further submit that as per the :.nformation sought by the petitioner under Right to Information. Act, 20O5 dated 24.04.2018 the subject lands in TS Nos. 1.2, 3, 4/P, Block No.G, Ward No.10, JHM Plot No.4, Shaikpet Village and Mandal is not found in the list of Ceiling Surplus Lands and no possession ,ras taken under Section i0(6) of the ULC Act. He would further submitted that from all the above said facts, it is

¶31

::3::

¶32

clear that subject property belongs to Smt.Musthaq Fathima and subsequently she sold the same to the father of the petitioner and aJter the death of petitioner's father on 02.O9.2OI7, petitioner has succeeded to the subject property.

¶33

t:4,

¶34

Learned senior counsel further submits that petitioner has executed a GPA dated 31.O5.2O24 in favour of M/s.SRPV Infra hrt.Ltd., in respect of the subject land and the same was presented for registration before respondent No.4 on 21.O5.2O24. Whereas, respondent No.4 refused to register the same and issued order of refusal under Order No.16/2O24 for the following reasons:

¶35

(a) As per the Circular Memo of the Commissioner and Inspector General, dated 21.08.2012, the Principal has to produce his title deed of the propertg for giuing sale potuer through the GPA, but in the instant case the Pincipal in the subject docament has not produced ang ualid title deeds for ueification.

¶36

p) As per th.e Circular Memo dated 24.08.2021 of the Commissioner and Inspector General, the SubRegistrar has to ueifg the link documents to establish the outnership of the Pincipal in th.e document and further the Sub-Registrar has to ueifg the land holding claims through EC particulars and

¶37

¶38

,i4.i

¶39

also <:ould ueifg the prohibition particulars in the CARD module.

¶40

{c)^{As per} the Circular Memo of the Comm.issioner and Inspector General, clated 28 05.2019, it is mandatory to ueifg the ouLnership details of the propertg basing on the propertg tax identiJlcation number PTIN) mentioned- in the document, but in the instant case the executant has not produced or mentioned ang pTIN number in the document for ueification of otunership d.etails.

¶41

(d) The desciption of the schedule properlg in the document is in sufficient i.e., Reuenue Sttruey number is not mentioned in ifs, as such it is not complging uith Section 2 I of the Registration Act.

¶42

(e) The prohibition particulars of the schedule propertg cannot be ascertained ultimatelg as the reuenue surueg number of the propertg is not mentioned.

¶43

It is further submitted that as per the proceedings of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps dated 21.08.2012 in Circular Memo No.G1/Peshi /1249 l2ot2 whereby registering authorities are issued with instructions to insist for production of ppB/TD at the time o1' registration of Transfer Deeds in respect of agricultural properties, and the same would not apply to the

¶44

::5::

¶45

instalt case as the subject property is an urba-n property. As per the objection of the Sub-Registrar that description of schedule property is insufficient and not in compliance of Section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908, learned senior counsel would submit that the information obtained under RTI makes it clear and sufficient to identify the subject property. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the subject document is only a GPA and there is no transfer of property under it as such the objections raised by the Sub-Registrar in Refusal Order No.16/2O24 are not valid and are liable to be set aside

¶46

Learned senior counsel would further refer to the Memoraldum No.3933/Q2 lO4-I7 dated 06.12.1987 issued by Secretary to Government to the District Collector, Hyderabad wherein it is stated that:

¶47

"2. Accordinglg, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hgderabad has sent 11O files to the Collector of Hgderabad. The Collector has classified those files into two categoies uiz., (i) those in u-thich action regarding allotment u-tas completed and orders for^{transfer of plotsu.tereissued, (ii) those in u.thich} action regarding allotment u)as not finalized on account of non-pagment of the land ualue bg the allottee. In the case of the former cqtegory, the

¶48

::6::

¶49

Collector has cross-checked the files of the^'l'ahsil Office. The Collector has stated that in the case of Categrsry (i) aboue, i.e., the finalized list of case:;, the aboue conditions haue not been fulfilled. He is of the opinion, tha| at this distance of time, it is not proper fo insisf upon those conditions. As the parties haue paid the ualue of the plots and orders for assignments uere alreadg issued, the assignees should. be deemed to be the regular otuners o-f the plots. The number of persons to uhom land was assigned is 41. The Collector has thoroughlg scrutinized and finalized the aboue cares afier satisfging that the pattas tuere giuen regularly supported bg the Supported bg the Collector has requested for specific order docttmentary euidence regarding the line of action to be taken in respect of the aboue assignments and also in respect oJ. the pending cases.

¶50

The Board of Reuenue has recommended that orders mag be issued sethu_.nrs and incorpctrate necessary changes in the reuenue records in res,pect permitting the Collector to get the lands demarcated and rssue supplementary of the 41 cases recommended bg the Collector.

¶51

In the circumstances stated the Gouerrtrnent accept the recomm€ndation of the Board of Reuenue contained in para 3 aboue."

¶52

.:7 i,

¶53

Learned senior counsel would further refer to the Memo No.3933/Q2 I 64-17, Revenue (Q) Department dated 06.12.1967 wherein the name of Mustaq Fatima i.e., the vendor of the petitioner is shown as the allottee of plot No.4 admeasuring Ac.2-38 gts. Learned senior counsei would also refer to the Town Survey Register attested by Inspector, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad District dated 07.02. 1998 wherein the name of Mutaq Fathima was shown as the allotee.

¶54

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 i.e., the Joint Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad South, and while referring to Circular Memo No.Gl/Peshi/ 1249/2012 dated 2l .O8.2012, would submit that the Principal has to produce his title deed of the property for giving sale power through Genera1 Power of Attorney, whereas in the present case, the Principal in the subject document has not produced any valid title deeds for verification. It is further submitted that as per the Memo No.G2/257 /2019 dated 24.08.2024, the Sub-Registrar has to veriff the registered link documents to establish the ownership of the executant in the document. It is further submitted that the Sub-Registrar has to verify the land holding claims through Encumbrance Certificate particulars and also should veriff the

¶55

::8::

¶56

prohibition particulars in CARD portal. But in the instant case, . there are no registered link documents to establish the ownership of the executalts and he has^also not^mentionedthe revenue slrrvey number for verification of Encumbrance Certificate particulars and the prohibition particuiars in CARD module

¶57

It is the further submission of respondent No.4 that as per the Memo No.G7/2717 12079 dated 20.O5.2019, it is mandatory 1-o verify the ownership detaiis of the property basing on the Proper[r Tax Identification Number mentioned in the document-

¶58

Per contra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Circular Memo in Gl/Peshi/1249/2012 dated 2l.OA.2Ol2 is also not in accordance with Section 69 of Registration Act, 1908 and same cannot be the basis for passing refusal order wherein Section 69(2) states that 'the rules so made shall be submitted to the [State Gouernment] ,rSubstituted bg A.O.195O, for "Prouincial Gouernment" .l for approua| and, after theg h.aue been approued, theg shall be published in the fofficial^Gazette] fSubstituted^{bg A.O.1937,} for^{"Local Officiol}

¶59

¶60

Gazette" .1, and on publication shall haue effect as if enacted. in this Act.'

¶61

1 1. Learned senior counsel would further submit that petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to present all the relevant documents available and since respondent authorities are the custodian of records and there was also reference made in the schedule of property, the respond.ent authorities ought to have verified and pass appropriate orders rather than relying on the Circulars and pass the impugned refusal order.

¶62

Heard learned counsel on both sides. perused the record.

¶63

¶64

On a perusal of the General power of Attorney dated 31 .O5.2O24, it is apparent that the details of the subject property are given in the schedule of property. Therefore, the respondent authorities being the custodial of the documents ought to have verihed and passed orders after conducting a detailed enquiry. It is also evident that respondent authorities ,/ have passed refusal order without veri$ring the absolute sale deed executed by the said Mustaq Fathima in favour of

¶65

::10::

¶66

M.A.Waheecl uide Doc.No.1371 dated 28.06.1952 fi1ed along with the writ affidavit before passing refusal order.

¶67

1,4. In. view of the aforesaid circumstances, the refusal order in order No. 16/2024 dated 31.05.2024 rs hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent authorities to consider the matter afresh by verifying the docume nts Iiled by the petitioner in respect of the validity of the said title deeds tracing back with the records and as per the information furnished by the petitioner under RTI Act, 2OO4 dated 24.O4.201.8 and thereafter issue necessary instructions to respondent No.4 i.e., Joint Sub-Registrar - II, Hyderabad (South) to pass appropriate orders. The entire exerc ise shall be completed '*'ithin a period of three (3) months.

¶68

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of

¶69

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶70

petition shail stand closed. No costs.

¶71

To \I

¶72

SD/- T,VIJAY KUMAR REGISTRAR ilt_'_I J^Secrr ON OFFICER

¶73

//TRUE COPY//

¶74

The Princio-al Secretary_ Department of Stamps and Registration, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, T.S., Hyderabad

¶75

The Commissioner and lnspector General, Stamps and Registration, Govt. of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶76

The Districl Registrar, Hyderabad (South), Hyderabad.

¶77

The Joint Sub-Registrar-ll, Hyderabad (South), Hvderabad.

¶78

One CC to SRI IVD ABDUL MATEFry OqRESH|, Advocate tOpUCl

¶79

Two CCs to Gp FOR STAMPS AND REGtSTRAttON ,High^'Court firr the

¶80

_^{State-oJTelangana at Hyderabad} [OUT]

¶81

Two CD Copies

BM ) w

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510312025

ORDER

g ST,\ .F
(
q
J
I ?E l{Afi 2[6 5a
o,J
?
:.,!. oi:,r

¶89

WP.No.17390 of 2024

¶90

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶91

JA ,r{

M.a.Azeem v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Azeem 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Madala Sriram Bhaskar Vs The State of Telangana

Ampaty Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Kammari Venkateham Vs The Tahsildar,Regode Mandal, Medak District

A. Shankar Vs The District Collector

Smt.Jahangir Bee, Vs The District Collector

Mokala Siddavva, Nizamabad Dist. Vs the Dist Collector, Nizamabad and 3 Ot