Mekala Shobha Rani, Secbad Vs Dist. Registrar, Hyd and 4 Ot

I,4ekala Shobha Rani, W/o: Sri Mekala Mohan Reddy, Aged about 52^years, Occ. House Wife Fl/o Plot No. 94 Road No.3, Trimurthy Colony, [Vahendra Hills, Secunderabad. 500 026.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The District Registrar, Hyderabad District Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Joint Sub-Registrar-1, R.O.Bowenpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad 3 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-

¶15

The Tahsildar, Marredpally [v1andal, Secunderabad.,

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be} pleased to nature of WRIT OF MANDAI,'IUS declaring the action of the respondents-1 and 2 in refusing to register the Sale deed dated 24-11-2010ⁱⁿ respect of the petitioners property bearing Flat Bearing No. 1/G, in Ground Floor, With Built-up Area measuring 870 Sq.feet including common area together^with undivided proportionate share of 194 Sq.Yards of land^(out of total extent of³⁸⁸ Sq.Yards) Constructed on Plot No.^'1 33 and Survey No.⁷⁴¹⁷ situated at^lvlahendra Hills. East [t/aredpally Secunderbad as being illegal, arbitrary, and^u nconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to register the said Sale^Deed forthwith in the interest of Justice.

¶18

l.A.,NO 1 0F 2016 WPMP. NO: 38994 OF 2016)

¶19

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circtrnstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court nr:ry be pleased direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed dated 24-11-2a1 ) in respect of the petitioner's bearing Flat No. 1/G, in Ground Floor, With Built-r p Area measuring 870 Sq.feet iricluding common area together with undivided prorortionate share of 194 Sq:Yards of land (out of total extent of 388 Sq.Yards) Constructed on Plot No. 133 and Survey No. 7417 situated at IVlahendra Hilk;. East Maredpally Secunderbad immediately pending disposal of the above writ 1re tition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. KISHAN

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: MS. S. SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

-------7

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.31525 OF 2016

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government^Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing^forthe respondents and perused the material on^record.

¶28

Learned counsel lor the petitioner submits^{that while} ordering Notice Before Admission, this^{Court granted} interim order on 07.O3.2O17 directing the^Registering Authorities to receive and register the^document presented by the petitioner, if it is otherwise^{found to be} in compliance with the requirements^{of the Registration} Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act,^1899.

¶29

Today, when the matter is taken up^{for hearing,} learned counsel for the^{petitioner submitsthatin} pursuance to the interim order^passed by this Court^on 07.O3.2017 , the Registering Authorities have^registered the subject documenl.

¶30

\

¶31

Learned Counsel for both sides submils that the connected matter in W.P.No.19106 of 2010 tiled by the State Government against the order in L(iO.No 167 of 1997 passecl by the Special Court under tlrc A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 19a2, Hydt:rabad, was dismissed lry the Division Bench of th.s Court on 28.O5.2025.

¶32

In view of the submissions made by botlr sides ald in view of the dismissal of W.P.No.19106 of 201O on 28.05.2025, the interim order passed by this Court on 07.O3.2O17 is made absolute. According$, the writ petition is disposed of

¶33

It is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer title on the surt_iect property and it is also made clear that this order would not have any bearing on all those matters where titlt:7 rights of the parties are pending before the authorir,ir:s either in revision/appeals for adjudication and in ar:y other case this order also does not preclude the partir:s; in asserting

)

7

J

their rights before a competent Court of law. There shall

¶38

be no order as to costs.

¶39