Disposed

Sri.Avusherla Venu Gopal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 May 2025WP/5034/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed for a plot in Asbestos Hills Colony. Following an earlier order in W.P.No.3303 of 2025, the court set aside the refusal order and directed the Sub-Registrar to reconsider the document per departmental circular instructions.

What did the court decide?

Refusal Order No.107/2023 dated 10.02.2023 set aside; petitioner may present the document within two weeks; Sub-Registrar directed to consider it in accordance with law.

Sri.Avusherla Venu Gopal Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF^MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WR lT PETITION NO: 5034 OF²⁰²³

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri.Avusherla Venu Gopal, S/o: A. Yadaiah,^{aged about36- years, O-cc. Pvt-} Employee, Ryo H.No.25-39/4, Cherial^{Village and ltrlandal,Siddipet'} Telangana District-506 223

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, represented by^{its Principal SecretaryS-tamps and} Registration Department, Secretariat^{Buildings, Hyderabad-500063}

¶13

2 The commissioner and inspector General of^{Stamps andRegiskatio} Department, O/o 5-3-g53,Registration^{Bhavan,.4th and 5th Floor, NizamShahi} Robd, Osmangun.i, M.J.Market, Hyderabad,^{Telangana500001}

¶14

3 The Distrlct Registrar, Medchal Malkajgiri^{District, O/o Prasanth Nagar,} Kukatpally, Kukatpally Mandal,^{IVIedchal Malkajgiri District-500072}

¶15

4 The Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally, Medchal^{tVlalkajgiriDistrict-s00072}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the^{constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,^{more particularlyonein} the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring^{the actionof the 4th respondent herein} passed refusal order dated 10.02-2013 vide No.107/2023^{of P.1312013/Refusal} order No.02/23 in respect of the^{Plot bearingNo.'1196on a land admeasuring100} Sq.yards or 83.61 Sq.Meters^{in Sy.Nos.348to 351,3521part, 357/part and358} part, situated at Asbestos hills colony, Jagathgirigutta,^{Kukatpally village, the then} Balanagar Mandal,^presently under^{Kukatpally Mandal,the then R.R'District} presently under Medchal Malkajgiri District as illegal,^{arbitraryand contrary to the} provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 consequently^{set a side the order dated}

¶18

10.02.2023 vide Nc.1^'-712023 of P.13l2013lRefusal Order No.0:1/211 and directed to the 4th Respondr:n to register and release the same by issuing r,:gular number to the petitioner.

¶19

tA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition unde' l iection 151 CPC praying that in the c;ircumstzLnces stated in the affidavit filed n s Lrcport of the petition, the High Court may re pleased to directed to the 4th t :sspondent to register and release the Sjal.r Deed dated 09.02.2023 by issr- in, regular number in respect of the House plot bearing No.1196 on a land adr-s25gr1nt 100 sq.yards or 83.61 Sq.Meters in Sy.Nos.348 to 351 , 3521paft, 3!i','tt irrt and 358 part, situated at Asbestcs hills colony, Jagathgirigutta, Kukal rally village, the then Balanagar Mandal, presently under Kukatpally lVanda, t re then R.R. District presently under lr,4edc:hal Malkajgiri District pending dispor r:l of the above Writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petiti :ner: SRI G. VENKAT REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Resp rndents: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRAI ION

¶23

The Court made the f, rllowing: ORDER

¶24

Page 7 ofj SKJ

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITIoN No-5O34 OF 2o23

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Govcrnmenl- pleader for Stamps & Registration, appearing for the respondents. With the their consent, this writ petition 1S being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶28

2 Learncd cotrnsel for the petitioner subrnits that the issue involved in ttris writ perilion is squarcly covered by the order passcd by Lhis Courl in W.p.No.3303 of 2025 dated 06.02.2025 and requeste<l to pass sirnilar order in this writ petition.

¶29

Learned (iovernment pleader for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the submission made by the learned counscl for the pelilioner with regard to the disposal of the W.p.No.33O3 ot 2025 dated 06.O2.2C25 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶30

: I l lt

¶31

Poge 2 of 3 sK,l .;r;agii i,t

¶32

In vieu of thc order^passed in^{W.I).N'r-33O3of} 2025 d,atcd O^{,.O2.2025and for the rearlons rlentioned} therein, thLs ,i,'rit^{petition is disposed of, sr--t.ing aside} the refi-rsal o-r1er No.lO7 12023^{of P-L:l/2A21/Reftrsa-l} Order No O2l 7''..1023, dated 1O.O2.2023.^{The petitioner} is at liber':l'r t.o approach respondent^{N() 4 withthe} subject docurnent within^{aperiod of t,()'2) weeks} frorn the <lcr r of rcceipt of copy^{of thisr'rder and} thereafter', r'.: lpondent No.4^{is directed to consicler the} petitioner's, c )se and shall pass orders^{by ftlllowing the} circr.rlar instl tictions issr,red^{by the Cornrnissioner and} Inspector C r:nera1 of Registration^{aI-r:1 Stamps,} Telangana. I{yderabad uid.e Circttlar Merno No.G3/912'.2 2024, dalcd 12.Oa.2024^anct 'strictlyⁱⁿ accordanct:^r,'ith law, AS expeditiously €r.s possible, preferably, uvithin a period of two^{(2) weeks, sr-rbjectto} the petitiorr( I' complying with the^{provisio'es of the} Indian Regjstr-ation Act, 19O8, and Indian lSt,ernps^Act, 1a99. It is; e 1so open to the Registering .r\uLthority to rbfi.rse to r,.--qr s;ter the subject docurnenr-, by specifically assigning tr r reasons in terrns of Sectiotr 71 of the

¶33

? / I I

¶34

Page 3 of3 sKl

¶35

Act, 19O8 and cornmunicate the said decision to the petitioner.

¶36

It is rnade clear that rrrere registration of the document does not confer title on the subject^property ard it is also made clear that this order would not^have any bearing all those matters where title/rights of^the partres are pending before the authorities eitherⁱⁿ revision/appeals for adjudication and in any other^case this order also does not preclude the^parties in^asserting their rights before a competent Court of law.

¶37

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed^{of. No} order as to costs.

¶38

7 Registry is directed to annex copy of the^{order in} W.P.No.33O3 of 2025 dated 06.O2.2025^{along with this} order.

¶39

Miscellaneor-rs petitions, if any,^{pending in this}

¶40

writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶41

SD/-N. SRIHARI DEPUTY^{REGI ST} //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶42

To, 1. The^{PrinciPal Secretary, StamP s and Registration} part ment, Secretariat 2 The Buildings, commissioner^{The Stateand of Telangana, insPector General Hyderao bad-500063f StamPs an} d Regsth Floor, istration^NizamShahi Dep artment,^{O/o 5-3-953,Registration Bhavan, 4th and} na 500001 Road, Osmanguni,^{M .J.Market, HYderabad, Telanga} olo Prasanth^Nagar'

¶43

1. The^{District Registrar,Medchal Malkajg iri District,} Kukatp^{ally,KukatpallyMandal, MedchaI Malka'|glrlDistrict-500072} tMalkaigrrl^{District-500072}

¶44

1. The^{Sub-Reqistrar. Kukatpallv' Medcha}

..,5r*t

-:r&r

-,F::+t

--l

One CC to Sri tl. Venkat Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs tc, G:'for Stamps And Registration, High Ccurt for the State of Telangana, ert^{I yderabad} [OUT]

¶54

Two CD Ccpie;

¶55

(Along with the Cop r of Order dated 06.02.2025 ln W.P.No.3303 OF 2025)

ctN'

-r.,..:..r,tta1*

. .':

i l I I I i I I l I I I! I I I t I

i II I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 105t2025

ORDER

WP.No.5034,rf 2023

e sl A I
€<br>o^
(
(
I J
2 I t1A\ 2[25 i/C,
.a-
.t
=---

¶69

DISPOSING^()F THE^{WRIT PETITION}

¶70

WITHOUT C0STS

¶71

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶72

WRIT PETITION No.33O3 of 2o25

¶73

ORDER

¶74

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:

¶75

"to issue order tuit or directian more panticularlg one in tlle nature of WRIT OF M NDAMUS declaing the actian of the Respondent No 3 in refusing to register the document No P195/2O24 in^respect oJ^alL that of house beaing No 44249 in Plnt No 49 situated at Sg No 348^to 351 352/part and 358/part admeasuing 142 84 Sq Yds or 119⁴² SqMtrs sttuated at Asbesros Hills CoLong JagadiOtrigutta Kukatpatly utllage under GHMC Circle Limits KukatpaLlg Mandal^Medchal Mdkajgirt Distict Telangana state a.s communicqted uide Letter^I{o 37/ SRO/ Kukatpatlg/ 2O25 dt 08 01 2O25 e-s iLlegal arbitrary^and uiolatiue of furuTamentd rights under Article 14^ctnd 21^{qnd30OAoJ the} Constttution of Indta and consequentlg direct^{the Respondent} No 3^to receiue register and release the said document submitted bA^the Petitioners here[n"

¶76

The brief facts of the case are that^{the petitioner No.1 is being} represented by its Secretary, E. Mallikarjun^{Yadavand petitionerNo.2} is the original a-llottee of plot No.49 admeasuring^{142.84 square yards} or 119.42 square meters. The^{said plot was developed in a private} layout vide Plan No.67O4 |MP.2/HUDA{84^{dated03.05.1989approved} by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. It^{is submittedthat} originally the said land^{was allottedby M/s. Hyderabad Industries} Limited (for Short "HIL") being^{represented by its General Manager} (Personnel). Thereafter, the^petitioner had^{constructeda houseon the} said plot and a H.No.4-4-49.

¶77

¶78

The bzL<:l< ground facts are that in the year 1980. tlLe workers of HIL (formerl.r IJ ,.terabad Asbestos Cement Products Lir iit^id) registered a society b1, tta :ne "Hyderabad Asbestos Cernent Workerri Cooperative Housing Socit:tLimited". The main objective was to acq rire lard ald allocate hou st' rlots to its members for constructio;r rf residential houses. Thr: si d HIL acquired Ac.52.00 acres ol' land ir Sy.Nos.348, 349, 350, :i:; 1 (Part), 352 (Part) and 358 (Part) at K:katpa1ly for Rs. 10,4O,OO(1,/with sole aim of providing house -o its workers. Thereafter. 1L r: said Asbestos Cement Workers Co-op,:rzrtive Housing Society LirrLi:e I made a representation to :he 1lo\ ernment on 25.01.19812 ttr lrant of exemption under Section 20 (l )^(a) of the Urban Land (Ceilinq a : d Regulationl Act, 1976 for the e:xcess vrlcant land of Ac.52.00. Th: rovernment thereafter examined tb.e reqr-re:;t of the land holders and prz nted exemption under Section 20 (1) {a o1- the said Act and issued c,rCi r vide Memo No.337/UC.ll/82-5 dated 6.16.1984, and directed the :r luisition^{of the surplusland and its trimsferto the} Hyderabad. IJ rb ,.n Development Authority for lay-out pre paration and plot allotment 1,o genuine society members. The g,rvr,rrnment vide G.O.Ms.No.92ll rlated 01.08.1986 issued an order ol u,,llotting iand admeasurinSi .r c:.52.O0 in the said survey numbers t I Hyderabad Industries Lim t.ed for providing residential accommoriation to its workers, benel .-ing approxim ately 1,364 workers as per the list furnished to thr goveinment on free of cost, in relaxation of the orders

¶79

¶80

issr.red in G.O.Ms.No.840, Revenue, dated 16.06.1982, subject to the following conditions. The same are extracted as under:

¶81

That the land is allotted to M/s. Hyderabad Industries Ltd only for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to their workers ard it sha.ll not be sold or alienated to any other person-

¶82

The Hyderabad Industries Ltd, sha allot the plots/houses only to its workers as per the list furnished to Government.

¶83

That the Hyderabad Industries Ltd/allottee workers shall insure that construction of the houses is completed within a^period of three years from the date of this order.

¶84

That the Hyderabad Industri.es Ltd/allottee workers shall not alienate the houses so constructed to any other person for a^period of ten years from the completion of construction of houses.

¶85

5- That the Hyderabad Industries/allottee^workers may however mortgage the land/plots without possession to any finalcial^other institutions only for the purpose of raising funds for the construction and for no other purpose.

¶86

ald that the Hyderabad Industries Ltd, shall^{be responsible} to the Government for complying^wittL the^{above conditions.}

¶87

Learned counsel for the^petitioner draws^{attention of} this^Court to letter dated O8.O2.2O11 issued by Hyderabad^{IndustriesLimited} wherein the said company had handed over entire alfairs of^the ASBESTOS HILLS Colony to HIL^{EmployeesMutuallyAidedCo-op} Housing Society Limited represented^{by Mr. T. Swamy, S/o T. Mallaiah} and Mr. E. Mallikarjun, S/o E.^{Maisaiah by taking reference to} G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 27.01.1982.^{The said letter was issued by the} then General Manager-HR in the^{name and style of "To Whom so ever it} may concern" and authorized,^{Mr. T. Swamy, S/o T' Mallaiah and Mr.} E. Maltikarjun, S/o E. Maisaiah^{to maintain the affairs of the Asbestos}

¶88

¶89

Hills Colony an I the relevant portion of the said letter is extracted as

¶90

under

¶91

llr \ r)^- of the above, Mr. T. Swamy and Mr. E. MaLli <ar un whose signaturelj ar r Cepicted below, may represent the holsing socii)ty as per the co,lser.1 .i the members of the society before the G, )vernment authoritie s iv L r:h may include Reglst.ration authorities and d3 t re needful Iike regrster iIl r the plots aLlotted to the eligible workers as^pe r C .O.No.923 dated 01.03 ,)86 in Sy.Nos.348 to 351, 352 (p), 357 (p) artC 358 (p) situatecl at Kl lratpalli, Hyderabad. They are empowered to is';ue allotment letters 1o .l- e r.lotted workers or to their legal heirs, members of he society who are r:n' ployees of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. And Ttrird party registratic n s , the allottey Employee is no more alive altl :he r are also authorizerl^-, execute sa-le deeds, etc- on behalf of th: llyderabad industries Lt I Employees Mutually aided Co-operative Ho isi )g society Ltd."

¶92

Learned : lunsel for the petitioner sub;lits th rt the HIL represented b.r. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Workers Cooperative Housrng Societ. Limited has allotted the land tc, the pe titioner vide allotment lettt:: clated 22.O1.1990 i.e., plot No.49 :rdm e:rsr tring 142.84 sqlrare yards or 19.42 square meters.

¶93

Learned )]Lrnsel for the petitioner further sullrrrits that on 04.11,.202,1 th, petitioner presented the allotment ietter dated 22.01.1990 ,1rlr r paying challan for an amount of Rs 3,1,2,8OO1- for registration be'1 rre the Sub-Registrar, Kukatpa-11v ir rer,,pect of the subject prop3r'tr . Thereafter, the Sub-Registrar, Kukatpal ly, MedchalMalkagiri Dis;tn:t received and kept the document pendinSr by allotting No.P195/20!lt and issued a refusal lettebearing No. 37l SRO/ K d :atpally / 2025 dated O8.O 1.2025. tn th<: r, :fusal letter,

¶94

¶95

it is mentioned that the said letter of allotment was refused for registration for the reason that M/s. HIL has no authorization powers to execute Sale Deed in favour of allotees in the absence of Delegation of power by Government or Hyderabad Industries Limited and further held that Under Section 34 of the Registration Act, the executants have no right/power to execute the document from Asbestos Colony, Hyderabad Industries Limited. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is hled.

¶96

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to clause 5 (a) of the G.O.No.923 dated 01-08.1986,^which reads as under:

¶97

"5 (4). That the Hyderabad Industries Ltd/allottee workers shall not alienate the houses so constructed to any other person for^a period of ten years from the completion of construction of houses".

¶98

In view of the above, learned counsel for the^petitioner submits that the said stipulated period of 10^years as^{envisaged abovehas been} completed, since the allotment letter was dated^{22.01 .199O, the} petitioner/ex-worker of HIL now seeks registration of^{the said property.} Further, the learned counsel for the^{petitioner has drawn attention of} this Court to the Memo dated 05.02.2025^{wherein a copy of the} similarly registered letter of^{allotment bearing documentNo.8233of} 2025 dated O1.O8.2O24 registered^{before theSub-Registrar,} Kukatpally, was filed.

¶99

¶100

The iearr r:d Assistant Government Pleader appea ring for the respondents rr: rlrted no instructions and seeks to 1;aLss^appropriate orders.

¶101

HavinSl :r rrsidered the above facts and circu;nstartce s. this Court deems it appr:1 r'iate to set aside the refusal order No.O I o[ 2025 dated O8.O1.2025 ruc :his writ petition is allowed. Peti:ioner is at iiberty to approach re:;po^-dent No.3 with the subject document^wir hin a^period of two (2) wee'tr s from the date of receipt of copy of thls order ald thereafter, rr:sp rndent No.3 is directed to consider the petitioner's case and shall pass; .,rders by following the circuiar instructiorrs issued by the Commisr;ioi rr and Inspector General of Registration lnd Stamps, Telangana. Ilr,c. r:rabad uide Circr;lar Memo No.Gi}/912',21'2024, dated 12.O8.2O2,+ anr strictly in accordance with law, as expr:ditiously as possible, prr:f:r r trly, within a period of two (2) weeks, sr rbject to the petitioner conrp^,i'ing with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 19O8, and Inrlir r Stamps Act, 1899. It is also open t,r thr: Registering Authority to re use to register the subject document, bv specificaliy assigning the r : asons in terms of Section 71 ol the Ac,t, 1908 ald communicate t}^r: said decision to the petitioner.

¶102

It is maclt clear that mere registration of the docurnr:nt does not confer title or: t : e subject property and it is also made ck,ar that this order would n:,1. have any bearing on all those rlatters where title/rights c,f t1 Le parties are pending before the zruthorit es either in

¶103

¶104

revision/appeals for adjudication and in any other case this order also does not preclude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of law.

¶105

1 1 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs

¶106

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha1l stand closed.

¶107

JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶108

Date:O6.O2,2()25 VRKS*/LSK

Sri.Avusherla Venu Gopal v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Avusherla Venu Gopal 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

Smt.Manikyamma Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Manikyamma Vs The State of Telangana

Vadde Padma Vs The State of Telangana

Avusherla Venu Gopal Vs State of Telangana

Sri Mulajob Laxma Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

Sri D.Ellaiah Alias E.Ellaiah Vs State of Telangana