Allowed

Bikkana Padmalatha Rani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Nov 2025WP/34772/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by the wife of the deceased owner challenging the refusal to register a Release Deed (Joint Rights). The Court set aside the refusal order and the impugned administrative letter, directing the registrar to register the document within four weeks, subject to compliance with registration laws.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned refusal order (Memo No.362/2025) and administrative letter; directed the respondent to register the Release Deed within four weeks subject to compliance with the Registration an

Bikkana Padmalatha Rani Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰²¹

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

"t': PRESENT t

¶5

THE HO.IOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 34772 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bikkana Padmaldthii'Rani, Wo. Late Bikkana Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occ Hou5dwife, Rl/o. H.No. 5-247, Deepthi Srinagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad, Telanganp State-S00049

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Stamps and Registrarion Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Joint Sub Registrar, Patancheruvu, Sanga Reddy.

¶13

The District Collector, O/o. The District Collector Office, Sanga Reddy^District

¶14

'4. The Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

¶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 pass an order or orders one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by : declaring the action of the 2nd respondent^{in refusingto registerthe Release deed} (Joint Rights) presented in favour of the^petitioner for registration by^passing refusal order vide Memo No.36212025^dated 16.09.2025 basing^{on the lettervide} Lr.No.B/9363/2024, Dt30.10.2024^{issued by} the^{4th Respondent as arbitrary,} illegal, contrary to taq*ialiagainst^{the Rights guaranteed by the Constitutionof} lndia and consequentially to declare^that the^{letter vide LrJ',lo.B/9363/2024,} Dt.30.1O.2024 issued by the 4th^Respondent and^{refusalorder vide Memo} No.362/2025 dated 1&tt92025^{issuedby the} 2nd respondent^{as arbitraryand} illegal and set aside ft.ie'same by^{consequentially} directing^{the 2nd respondent to}

¶17

{t I I

¶18

register the Release deed (Joint Rights) presented in favour of the petitioner for registrati on vide P"Als,Z04"of ,2025, DL29.07.2025

¶19

;..1i .ⁱ ....i lA NO: 1 oF 2025'^, ' ')i^.:i' t '

¶20

Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ig,,st pp,.Srcf the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondeiit to,rrinslOer for registration of the Release deed (Joint Rights) document vide tr:lxlo.7o4 of 2025, Dt.29.07.2025 by suspending the letter Lr.No.B/936312024, Dt.30.10.2024, issued by the 4th Respondent pending disposal of the above.writ peaition

¶21

Counsel for the #titione.. :SRl ANIRUDH SADHU

¶22

counsel for the $spondents: AGP FoR STAMPS AND REGtsrRATloN The Court made the following: ORDER

l:i' tl

SK, J W.P.No.34772 ot2025

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.34 772 of 2o25

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard learned counsel appearing^forthe petitioner, learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for} Stamps and Registration^{appearing forthe} respondents and penised the^{entire materialon} record. With their consent,^{this writ petition is} disposed of at the stage of^admission.

¶32

This writ petition^{is filed questioningthe action of} the respondent No.2 in^{refusing to register the Release} Deed (Joint Rights)^{presentedby the petitionerfor} registration by passing^{order vide Memo No.362/2025} dated L6.O9.2025 basing^{on the letter vide} Lr.No.B/ 936312024^{dated 30.1o.2024 issued by the} respondent No.4 as^{arbitrary,illegal and consequently} set aside the sarne by^{directing the respondentNo.2 to} register the Release^{Deed presentedby the petitioner}

¶33

*\ -.--'1111

¶34

¶35

SK, J W.P.No.3477 2 ol 2025

¶36

dated 29.OT .2025.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of petitioner late Bikkina Venkateswar Rao had purchased the property bearing plot No.299, Block-A admeasuring 500 sq. yards in sy.No. 135 part at Gouthami Nagar, Edula Nagulapalli Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Rangareddy District from his vendor through registered sale deed No.20423 of 2oo5 dated 06.09 .2006, Doc. No. 22g2T of 2006 dated 05. 1 o.2006 and Doc.No. 2g3s of 2oo7 dated 3,1.01.2oor and after his death, the petitioner and other legal heirs are the joint owners of the said open plot. The parents of the husband of petitioner and he. son have relinquished their undivided joint rights, r-itle and interest over the said property and execute<l a Release Deed in favour of the petitioner on l8'o7 '2025 and when the same was presented for registration, the respondent No.2 has refused the sarne

¶38

¶39

SK, J W.P.No.34772 of 2025

¶40

2025 vide impugned Memo No.362^of Letter dated L6.09 .2025 basing on^the

¶41

No.B/93 63 12024, dated 30.¹ O.2O24,^{issued by the} respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuruun-^He submits that basing on the^{similar refusalorder,} W.P.No.38 of 2025 was filed by^{the petitioner therein} and this Court vide orders^{dated10.01.2025 has set} aside the impugned letter dated^{30.1O-2O24and} requested to pass similar^{order in this writ petition} also.

¶42

On the other hand, the^{learned Assistant} Government Pleader for^{Stampsand Registration is not} disputing the orders^{passed by this court in w.P.No.38} of 2025 , dated 10.0^{I .2025}

¶43

¶44

In view of the^{above made submissionsby both} sides and for the^{reasons alike inthe order in} w.P.No.38 of 2025,^{dated 10.01.2025, the writ petition} is disposed of by^{setting aside the impugned Letter} No.B/ 9363 /2024, dated^{3O.1O.2O24 andthe}

SK, J W.P.No.34772 ot2025

¶49

respondent No.2 is directed to register the subject document in respect of subject property, &S expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) 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, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer title on the subject property and it is also made clear that this order would not have any bearing on all those matters where title /rights of the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision/appeals for adjudication and in zrny other case this order also does not preclude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court ol- law. There shall be no order as to costs. 6- Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand cloSed

¶50

L--

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR U

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55

fh" Sec.retariat Principjll..Secretary, Buildiqgs, The State Revenge Stamps of Telangaha, and Hyderab-ad. Registrarion Department,-'|-

¶56

t9.

¶57

The Joint Sub Registrpr, Patancheruvu, Sanga Reddy.

¶58

The District Collector., O/o. The District Collector Office, Sanga Reddy District

¶59

The Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. 5. One CC to SRI ANIRUDH SADHU Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

Two CCs to GP FOR STAIUPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶61

Two CD Copies

¶62

PVL LS W

¶63

L:; '.il

¶64

:; ,i;:it,;,

¶65

': l ,'li .d

I ,I I I i, Iri i

HIGH COURT

DATED i1711112025

\ \

ORDER

WP.No.34772 of 2025

r,': i'i l-r1 I
4;
6
I B3 IE nL m az
<br>t r:r i.1i r\ ,

¶74

DtsPoslNG"oE THE WRIT PETITION
. i ij,i i'
WITHOUT G.oSTS
4

Bikkana Padmalatha Rani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikkana Padmalatha Rani 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

Sri Gajula Rajamallaiah @ Rajamallu Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Divyesh Agrawal Vs The State of Telangana

Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Battu Limbaiah Vs State of Telangana

Paravastu Ramesh Vs State of Telangana

Mohd. Hamed Rizwan Vs The State of Telangana