Mangali Srinu Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Mangali Srinu Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petitions disposed of by directing Respondent No.4 to consider the documents filed with Applications Nos. 2500058488, 2500058653, 2500058594 and 2500058774 together with the objections of Mangali Raghavender, Rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 and the VRO report; if the objections fall within the five Rule 58 categories, Respondent No.4 may conduct enquiry; otherwise he must entertain the sale deeds presented and release them if otherwise in order; if not inclined to accept the request, he must pass a reasoned order and communicate its copy to the petitioners; the entire exercise to be completed within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the failure of Respondent No.4 (Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Koilkonda Mandal) to register the sale deeds in the Dharani Portal / Bhu Bharati Portal pursuant to Applications Nos. 2500058488, 2500058653, 2500058594 and 2500058774 in respect of Sy.No.277/A/A is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution, and whether a mandamus ought to issue directing registration. +1 more

Court's answer

Rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 deals with 'enquiry' before registration: it forms no part of a Registering Officer's duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against registration based on the ground that the executant party had no right to execute the document; however, he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated in clauses (a) to (e), namely (a) parties appearing or about to appear are not the persons they profess to be, (b) the document is forged, (c) the person appearing as representative, assign or agent has no right to appear in that capacity, (d) the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party opposing registration, and (e) the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic.

Ratio / Principle

If the objection submitted by Mr. Mangali Raghavender falls in any of the five Rule 58 categories, Respondent No.4 can conduct an inquiry and seek a report from the VRO with regard to the ground position.

Key takeaways

If the objection submitted by Mr. Mangali Raghavender does not fall in any of the five Rule 58 categories, Respondent No.4 cannot conduct any inquiry.ratio¶67
Both writ petitions are disposed of directing Respondent No.4 to consider the documents filed by both petitioners along with Application Nos. 2500058488 (printed in the order as 2500058188), 2500058653, 2500058594 and 2500058774 respectively, the objections submitted by Mr. Mangali Raghavender, Rule 58 of the Telangana Registration Rules, and also the report of the VRO.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petitions (W.P.Nos.22316 & 22356 of 2025) by Mangali Chandrappa and Mangali Srinu, each claiming balance extent Ac.0.24 guntas (after selling Ac.1.13 guntas each) in Sy.No.277/A/A, Koilkonda Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, challenged the action of Respondent No.4 (Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar) in not registering their sale deeds in the Dharani Portal / Bhu Bharati Portal pursuant to pending Applications Nos. 2500058488, 2500058653, 2500058594 and 2500058774, in the wake of an objection by Mangali Raghavender that the petitioners have no land there and a supporting VRO report. Holding that Rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 confines pre-registration 'enquiry': a Registering Officer need not enquire into the validity of a document or attend to protests that the executant had no right to execute it, but must consider objections only on the five enumerated grounds (identity of parties, forgery, want of representative capacity, executing party not really dead, minority/idiocy/lunacy), the Court (K. Lakshman, J.) disposed of the petitions directing Respondent No.4 to consider the documents filed with the said applications along with the objection, Rule 58 and the VRO report; to conduct enquiry only if the objection falls within the five categories, otherwise to entertain and release the sale deeds if otherwise in order; and, if declining the request, to pass and communicate a reasoned order — the whole exercise within two weeks of receipt of the order's copy, without costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF T+LANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXIH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUqICE^K.LAKSHMAN

WRIT PETITION NOs: 2231 & 22356 0F 2025

W.P.No.22316 OF 2025

Between:

Manqali Chandrappa, S/o. Balakistaiah,^Aged Fbout^{64 years, Occ. Agriculture,RJo} H Nd 1 -32, Baswiirur Village, Devarkadra^{Marldal, lrlahabubnagarDistrict}

...PETITIONER

AND

1 The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Principal Sqcretary,Rerrenue} Department, Dr. B.-R.Ambedkar^{Telang{naSecrelariat, Tank bund Road,} Hyderabad.

2 The District Collector and Magistrate,^{MFhabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District} The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{MahabtllbnagarDivision, Mahabubnagar} District.

The Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, (oilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

...RESPONDENTS

petition under Articte 226 of the Collstitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to lssue an Appropriate writ, order^{pr Directionin the nature of a writ of} Nlandamus under Article 226 of^{lhe Con$titutiondeclaring the action of the} Respondents herein more^{particularlyRespo[dentsNo.4 herein in not registering} the Sale Deeds in Dharani^Portal /^{Bhu lBharatiPortal in pursuance to the} Application No. 2500058488 in respect^of lendee^{/ MangiVenkata Swamyand} another Application No. 2500058653^{in respect of Vendee / Khader Pasha,in} respect of Sy. No. 277tAtA, to an extent^of Ac^{O-24 gts. (Ac.0-'l5 gts plus Ac 0-} 09^gts. ) situated at Koilkonda^{village, Koilk$nda Mandal, MahabubnagarDistrict,}

------Y

is illegal, arbitrary, unfair, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14,21 and 300A of constitution of lndia and also contrary to the provisions of Act, 9 of 2020 and Act, I of 2025 and consequenfly direct the Respondents more particularly Respondents No. 4 herein , to register the sale Deeds in Dharani portal / Bhu Bharati Portal in pursuance to the Application No. 250005g4g8 in respect of Vendee / Ivlangr Venkata swamy and another Application No. 250005g653 in respect of Vendee / Khader Pasha, in respect of sy. No. 277lAlA, to an extent of Ac. o-24 gts. (Ac 0- 1 5 gts prus Ac. 0-09 gts. ) situated at Koirkonda Viilage, Koilkonda ltilandal, [,4a habubnaga r District.

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents more particularly Respondents No. 4 herein to register the Sale Deeds in Dharani Portal / Bhu Bharati portal in pursuance to the Application No. 2500058488 in respect of Vendee / Mangi venkata Swamy and another Application No. 2500058653 in respect of Vendee / Khader pasha, in respect of Sy. No. 277lAlA, to an extent of Ac. O-24 gts. (Ac. 0-1 5 gts plus Ac. 0_09 gts ) situated at Koilkonda Village, Koitkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

counser ror the Petition"'

' ,t"Ti,1Ai*3XJi3i,_r, vAMSHT KRT'HNA

counsel for the Respondents No.1to4: SRr L.RAVTNDER, AGp FoR REVENUE

W.P.No.22356 OF 2025

Between:

l\4glSrti^{Srrnu,S/o. Batakistajah.Aged about} 48^years, Occ Agriculture, R/o H.No.2-43. Parpalty Village. KoitkondiMandal, Mahablbnagar Districi

..PETITIONER

AND

The State of Telangana, Represented by its principal Secrerary, Revenue Department, Dr B^"R Ambedtar reranga;a S"iiJi5i"iranr. r,ir"a noaJ,Hyderabad.

2 The District collector and I\4agistrate, IVlahabubnagar, [,4ahabubnagar District

---iz

J The Revenue Divisional Offi District. cer, Mahfbubnagar Division, Mahabubnagar

The Tahsitdar and Joint Sub_Registral, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the C{nstitution of lndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fired th(rewith, the High court may be preased to lssue an Appropriate writ, order or pirection in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Articre 226 0t rhe corfstitution decraring the action of the Respondents herein more particurarry Resp$ndents No.4 herein in not registering the Sale Deeds in Dhar App caton No zsooosssll:":1r:.:T ffi:: :"Jil:[:ffii"i:; another Apprication No. 250005g774 in respect of Vendee / Khader pasha, in respect of Sy No 277rArAA, to an extent of Ac. o-24 gts. (Ac. 0-.15 gts prus Ac. o- 09 gts. ) situated at Koirkonda virage, Koirkonda Mandar, Mahabubnagar District, is illegal, arbitrary, unfair, discriminatory and in fiotrtion of Articre 14, 21 and300-A of Constitution of lndia and alr of 2o2 5 a nd c o n se q u e n,,, ::,::i,rJ:^j :^: fj:;: "J: :' ;":.ffi' :: J::::,: No 4 herein to register the sare Deeds in Dharani portar / Bhu Bharati portar in pursuance to the Apprication No. 250oo5g$g4 in respect of Vendee / Sarman Shareef IVd. and another Application No 500058774 in respect of Vendee / Khader Pasha, in respect of Sy. No.277tN , to an extent of Ac. O-24 gts. (Ac. 0_ 15 gts plus Ac. 0-09 gts.) situated at K llkonda Village, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

lA NO: 1 oF 2025

Petition under section 'r 51 cpc prayinp that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondents more particurarry Responderfrts No. 4 herein to register the sare Deeds in Dharani po,.ar tBhu Bharati portar in pursuance to the Apprication No. 2500058594 in respect of Vendee / sarman $hareef Md. and another Apprication No. 2500058774 in respect of Vendee / Khlder pasha, in respect of Sy. No. 277lAlAA, to an extent of Ac. 0-24 gts. (Ac. g_15 Sts + Ac. 0_09 gts.) situated at

Koilkonda Village, Koilkonda f\4andar, IVlahabubnagar District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KONDA|PALLY VAMSHI KRISHNA counsel for the Respondents No.1to4: sRr L.RAVTNDER, AGp FoR REVENUE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

wRt't PETI TION Nos.22 16 AND 2 2356 oF 2025

ORAL o RDER

lleard Mr. Ii. Arlun Rao, I eqmed counsel rcpresenting Mr. K Vulrrshi Krishrrir. leumcd eounscl lip r the pctitioncr in both the urit pctitions and Mr. I . Ravindar. Iearne{ Assistant Gor,emment plcadcr fbr llcr r. n u,.. appcaring on hchalf ol'thc rcf pondents.

Per it ion cr in W.p No 22316 ol' 202-5. Mr. Mangali ('handrappa. is clainring that hc is thq absolutc owncr and posscssor of thc Iand a<imcasurin-e z\cs. I.37 gu]ntas in Surve.v No.27 T terec r>l Koilkonda \zillagc and Mandal. Mahfbubnagar District. rvhcreas. thc pctitiorrcr in W'.1,. No.22356 of 2025, VIr. Mangali Srinu, is claiminp righl ovcr thc land [() an extent of.Acs. I .37 guntas in Survey. No.277iotcs

ol' rhc r cn sanre r illu.-qc. Both ol.thcnl har.e sold an cxtent ol.Acs.l. li guntas cach and balarrce land is Ac.0.2[ guntas. ln respect of the said Ac.0.l-l guntas ol' lund. rheir nanles u'ere also ntutatcd in revenuc rcc.rds and iatcst patradar passbook-c ur.ir-titre dceds *ore arso issucd in thcir lavour. In proof of thc samc. tlrcy have filcd copics of larcst pattadar passbook_cunr _tit le deecis.

KI.J \, t, \os t:lt6 & l:li6ot lo:i

Thc pcritioners har c soltl thc said lancl to N4r. Mangi Vcnkata Swami'. Mr. Khadcr l)asha. It4r'. Mlr. Salrran Srrarccr'a,d Khacrer Pasha. rcspcctivell^.l'he r har.c arso hrxrkcri sr.t a,d on completion or- thc said . rcgistration- rcsp.nclcnt No.-l is ,.t rcturnins thc salc rleeds_ I'hcrc{brc. challcnging thc said action ol'rcspondcnr No.4. thc pctirioncrs filt:d the prescnt rvrit pctil.ions.

Whcrcas. Mr. L. Ilar inclcr. learlcd Assistant Govcntment

Plcader lor Rc'enuc. .n i:rst.uctirrs. rr ould suhrnit th.t though land in Sun,e1 No.277,'A,1,{ is har int rrr ctrcnt .l Acs.l.J_l gll,tas stood in the name ol farhcr o{ thc petitioncr.s. i\4r. tjalu Kistaiah. he is in actual possession ol' an cxlcnt ol' Acs.l.l6 _cunrus. AIicr his demisc. the pctitioners succccdccl t0 thc saitl c\tcnt of' Acs.2.l(r guntas.^.l.he pctitioners har e soltl rhc said Iurrrl to \4r. I)antiu li.anqaiah. Mt.. Maneali Narayana and Mr. Mangali She kcr. I hcrctorc. lhe peririoners do not have an1, land in thc said sun cr rrrrnthcr. Mr. [tagh a i,crrrlc:r S/o Mangali Shckar has subrlitrcd an obiccrion l)ctirion l() rcsp()n(icnt No.4 stating that thc petitioncrs rlo nol har c arrr land in Survcr No.277lA/A. On rcccipt ol thc said oh jcctions. rcsJrt,ndcnt N,r..1 souqhr a report liom VRA...$ ho in turrr subrrrittecl a rcport stating tltat thc petitioners havc no

.,)

KLJ U P No\ 2l il6 & llljar oi:arlj

land at alI and thev are nol in^possessio n of thc land in the afbrcsaid two sun,cy numbcrs I

As discussccl above. to^sho I that the petitioners hcrein^are

or.vners and^{posscssors of the land admpasuring Acs. 1.37guntas eachin} i Survey No.277,'errel and Sun cr No.277,ftrlu.^{resPcctivety.thcy have liled}

copies olold^{pattaclarpassbooks.'l-he1} Ilhave^{soldthe landto an cxtent of} I Acs.1.l3 guntas cach and. thcrcforc. ba{ance^{land is Ac.0.24guntas each.} ln respcct of'thc said r\c.0.2'l eullms^o land. their names were mutated. latest pattadar passbooks-cum-^{title dcc{s rvere also issued.}

As discusscd supra, Mr^{L. Ravinder. learned Assistant} Govemment Plcader firr^{Rcr cnucs} qbrnitted that one Mr. Mangali i Raghavendcr has submitted oblcction^p P^{tition to respondentNo-4 stating} I that th.e petitioncrs^d{) not^{havcan1' lan} qI in thc afbresaid survev numbcrs 'l herefore- he sought lirr report liom thq VRO i 7. Rule - 58 of thc^.l'elangana ulcs under the Registration^Act, + I 1908, deals n'ith^'enquir-r' bclirrc regist fation' Thc same is rclevant and

extractcd as undcr

''58. It ltrrrns no parl of'a Reg f^{stering Officcr's dutyto} enquire into the valiclity of^{a d} locument^{brought to him} fbr rcgistration or to attcnd^t p any rvrittcn or verbal

4

Kl .l \' \or :llla,d:llli6ol 102)

protest against thc rcgistration ol- a doculller)t bascd on thc lround tlrar the crccritinlL panr had no rie,ht to execute the docuurcnl: but hc is bound to consider objections raiscd on anv of the gr,.runds stirted bclotr,:

a. that thc parlics appcaring or ahotrt k) irppcar bctbre him are not thc lleisons thc\ profcs: ur be:

b. that the documenl is lbrged:

c. lhal lhc pcrson appcarirt! Js a rcnr(:!r)tirli\e. assign or agcnt. has no rieht to appeal in that capaciry-i

d. that the erecutinI j]art]' is irot reallr tlcarl as alleged by the parti rroplling lbr regislration: or

e. thai the executing partv is r rninor or an iriiot or a lunatic.''

Therelbre. if objcction submiucd bi Mr. Mangali ltauhe',.ender talls in any of the afbresaid fivc categolies, respondent No-4 can conduct inquiry. seek a report fiorn the VI{i rvith regartl to thc^ground position. lf the objection submitted bv Mr. IViangali [{aghavcnclcr docs not lall in any of the albresaid five categorics. responclcnt No.J ctrrrr.tot. conduct any lnqulry

ln the light ol the afirrcsaid discrrssion. thi. rvrit pctition is disposed ol dirccting rcspondent No.,l to e orrsidcf tlle d().ul'nents liled by both the petitioners uirle Application Nos.2500058188. 2500058653, 2500058594 and 2500058774. respcctively' and the objcctions submittcd b1, Mr. l'4angali Raghavcnder. Rule - .i ti ot'the [-elanuana Iiegistration Rules, l90tt and also thc report ot- VRL If the ob.jecrilns subrnitted by

KI. J $ l' )(,\ llllo& ::ii6 ol:0:i

the said Mangali Raghavcnder^{arc fallifig in anv of thc atbresaid five} (05) categories, rcspondent No..l can cofrduct cnquiry,^{othcnvise. he has} to entertain the albresaid salc dccds^{presentedby thc petitioners, if the} samc are othenvise in orclcr. hc hus to 1cl.'ase^{thc same.If respondent} No.4 is not inclincd to accepl thc rcquesf nradc^{b1'the pctitioners.he has} to pass a reasoned ordcr hr assigning^{r$asons andcommunicatca cop)} of the said order to the^{pctitioners hcrein. Ilorrevcr. hc shallcomplete} the cntire exercise u'ithin tso^{((.)2)rteeks tiomthe date of receipt of} copy of this ordcr. In thc circumstancI^{s o1'the case. therc shall bc no} order as to costs

As a sequel thcreto. trtiscellanco!i^{pctlttons. II' any. pendingin} both the writ pctitions shall^{starrd closcel.}

SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE CO qYlt

SECTI OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Deparlment, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, State of Ttilangana, Tank'UuhO ncjaa, ffyderabad.

2 The District collector and [\rragistrate, Mai'rabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District Divisionat Officer, Mahabuf nagar Division, Mahabubnagar

|[ir[i"""r"

4 The Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Kpitkonda tMandal, Mahabubnagar District

One CC to SRI KONDAIPALLY One CC to SRI KONDAIPALLY CC to SRI KONDAIPALLY to SRI KONDAIPALLY VAI,,ISHI

One CC to SRI KONDAIPALLY One CC to SRI KONDAIPALLY CC to SRI KONDAIPALLY to SRI KONDAIPALLY VAI,,ISHI [nrSnrvn,^{Advocate. tOpUC]}

6 T_wo CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High C $urt^{for the Stateof Telangana}

tourl

Two CD Copies. BSK (n'

PVL

HIGH COURT

DATED:2610812025

CC TODAY

--i---:-:'.-=,.
,.:>... 'i liE li i
/j"'.' .: '1 rI
(j
O 2 i[P 2025 z.
.12 -Pi
u
a

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.2231G & 22356 of 2O2S

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

01,rl ff (Xq^{1</sup> t).\}

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the failure of Respondent No.4 (Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Koilkonda Mandal) to register the sale deeds in the Dharani Portal / Bhu Bharati Portal pursuant to Applications Nos. 2500058488, 2500058653, 2500058594 and 2500058774 in respect of Sy.No.277/A/A is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution, and whether a mandamus ought to issue directing registration.¶16
The court held
Rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 deals with 'enquiry' before registration: it forms no part of a Registering Officer's duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against registration based on the ground that the executant party had no right to execute the document; however, he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated in clauses (a) to (e), namely (a) parties appearing or about to appear are not the persons they profess to be, (b) the document is forged, (c) the person appearing as representative, assign or agent has no right to appear in that capacity, (d) the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party opposing registration, and (e) the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic.ratio¶58
2.
Whether, in the face of the third-party objection by Mangali Raghavender and the VRO report, Respondent No.4 could conduct an enquiry before registration otherwise than on the five grounds enumerated in Rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, and what directions and timeline should govern disposal.medium confidence¶61
The court held
Both writ petitions are disposed of directing Respondent No.4 to consider the documents filed by both petitioners along with Application Nos. 2500058488 (printed in the order as 2500058188), 2500058653, 2500058594 and 2500058774 respectively, the objections submitted by Mr. Mangali Raghavender, Rule 58 of the Telangana Registration Rules, and also the report of the VRO.ratio¶68