Konda Srinivas Vs State of Telangana

Konda Srinivas, s/o. Konda Rukmaiah, Aged about 50 years, occ ; Business, Rl/o. Plot No. 109 and 110 A, AgarkuttaCopertatlve Society,^'Xutaibaffy, fi/edchalmalkajgiri District.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The.commlslopglgnd..lnspector Generar Registration dnd stamps Pgpqrtr"nt,^{5-3-953, Nizam shahi Rd, MozarijahifMarket,Herzd} Estate, Risala Abdullah colony, Jam Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana sooogs.

¶14

The District Collector, Rangareddy District.

¶15

The District Registrar, Rangareddy District.

¶16

The Sub-Registrar, Sherilingampally, R.R District.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cour( may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of ftilandamus, declaring action of the respondents more particularly that of respondent No.5 in passing the refusal order No.3g/2025 dated 17.O3.2025 on the strength of letter purported to have been issued by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 on 23.01.2025 vide letter No.E1 t44l\l24, as fonruarded by the respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 under a memo dated 03.02.2025 vide memo No.141712025 is challenged in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg), 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and

¶19

i .. i'I ; i:.1 l.ltt II ili ii i^I ,l

¶20

-"consequently set aside the Lr No.E11447812024, dated 23.O1.2a25which resulted in issuing lMemo by the 4th respondent as forwarded by the 5th respondent dated 03'02'2025 vid'-' fvemo No'144912025 (lncorrectly mentioned in the refusal order as luemo No'1'11712025) and subsequently set aside the order of refusal passed by respondent No'S vide refusal order dated 17.03.2025 vide refusal order No'39i2025 which is based on the letter issued by respondent No.3 to respondent No'2 on 23'01'2025 vide tetter No.E114478/2024 as fonrrarded by respondent No'4 to responclent no'5 vide memo No. 144912025 (lncorrectty ,"ntioned in the refusar order as l\rremo No.141 712025) dated 03.02.2025.

¶21

|.A.NO:1 OF 202!

¶22

Petition undersection 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit firerJ in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct responderrt No'5 to receive, process, register and release the sale deed covered by refus;al order No. 39/2025 dated 17-03-2025 without referring to the memo issued by respondent No.4 to respondent No.5 0n 03-02- 2025vide memo No' 1 417t2o2s arrd Lr.No .E1t4478r2024, dated 23.01.2o2s.

¶23

SRisiilxilifJf+'Ni?er:^{sRr B.MAyuRREDDY, sENroRcouNSEL} FoR

¶24

the Respondents : sRr K.MURALTDHAR REDD', AGp FoR [Eillr-lltr

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER

¶26

1

¶27

SK,.,I

¶28

il i! il lr il ti li iiil t:

¶29

: I I i,, lili Ilr ,i;il;i ,,il iii'

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.1A473 of 2025

¶33

DATED, THIS, THE^grH DAy OF JANUARY, 20/26 Between:

Sri Konda Srinivas

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenlle, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others

¶38

...Respondents

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the' respondent No.S in passing the refusal order No.39 / 2025 dated 17 .O3.2O25 basing on the letter issued by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 AS on 23 .O I .2025 vide letter No. tr | / 447 8 / 2024 , forwarded by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.S vide a Memo hio.14LT 12025 dated O3.O2.2O25 as arbitraqr and illegal and consequently sought to set

\

2

SK, J

aside the refusal order in respect of plot Nos.15 and 15-A, admeasuring to an extent of 2OO and 100 Sq.Yards respectively, situated in Sy.No.36 /ll, Phase II, s;ituated at Vinayaknagar Mutually Aided

¶45

Coope:rative Housing Society Ltd., Gopanapally Village, Sherilingamapally Mandal (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property').

¶46

I{eard Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counrsel appearing for Sri Srikanth Satari, learned Counrsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learnr:d Government Pleader for Stamps and Regist.ration appearing for the respondents.

¶47

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has purchased the subject property vide registered sale deed No. 1L39 /2024, dated O8.O2.2O23 and presented the sale deed before the respondent No.5 for registration. It was initially registered as pending

¶48

.)

¶49

SK, J

¶50

Document No.L4 12023 and thereafter refused to register the sale deed vide refusal order No.8/2023 dated L6.O2.2O23 basing on the letter issued by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 in letter No. E5 / 2 825 I 2021 dated 10 .06 .2O2 L as the subj ect property 1S listed under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The very said letter was challenged in W.P.No.16LO9l2O24 by one Dasari Rama Murthy and the said writ petition was disposed of on 19.07.2024 directing the registering authorities to register the subject property without reference to the letter No.E5/2825 /2021, dated lO.06.202l. Questioning the^{refusal order,} the^petitioner filed W.P.No.3328 /2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 06.02.2025 directing the respondents authorities to register the document presented by the petitioner as the said writ petition is covered by the orders passed by this Court on WP No.16LO9l2O24. \

¶51

it: il.l ti. 'lt: ,:i|, i",: l,:,! l':,1 1,. ,t,

¶52

4

¶53

SK, J

¶54

Pursuant to thr: orders passed by this court in wP No.3328/2025 the petitioner presented the subject docume:nt, however, the respondent No.5 refused to register the said document on the ground that the responcent No.3 issued another letter to respondent No'2 on o3.02.2o2s in Memo No. 1417 /2025, wherein just the number and date of Memo is changed but the context of the said Memo dated ro.06.2o21 is repeated in text i, the Memo dated 23.or.2o2swhich is nothing but an e:ttempt to overreach the orders passed by this court in wp Nos. t6rog/2024 and, wp No. 3s2g/202s and sought a direction to the respondent authorities to receive, register and release the subject document presenterl by the petitioner without reference to the refusal or-der No.39/2025 dated 12.O3.2O25.

¶55

4' The learned senior counser for the petitioner in support of his contentions placed reriance on the following Iudgments:

5

SK, J

.: ,j iii iii 1i

K.Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar q.nd othersl

¶60

Joint Collector, Ranga Reddg District and another Vs. D.Alcrsing Rao & Others2

¶61

3 Sirigiri Poona.mmq Vs. The State of Telang,o.nd, rep. bg its Prlncipal Secretary, Revenue Department (Registration .and Statryts), S ecretarlat, H g de r ab^qdg

¶62

The learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration basing on the counter fiied by the respondent No.3 would submit that as per Khasara Phanai for the year 1954-55, the iand admeasuring to an extent of Ac.46O.O7 guntas, situated in Sy.No.36, situated at Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally

¶63

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is the Government land and classified as 'Chinna Kancha Sarkari" and therefore the said property was included in the list of Prohibitory Property under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, to avoid any transactions over the said land. Subsequently, in the year tg6o-61 an

¶64

t 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740

¶65

2 (2015) 3 SCC 695

¶66

3 Unreported Judgment of this Court (DB) in WP No.3777 of 2025 dated 1O.O2.2O25

¶67

6

¶68

SK, J

¶69

exterrt of Ac.14O.10 guntas was assigned to various persc)ns and Laoni Izafa was granted through Faisal Patta during the year 196l-62 in favour of the assignees and narnes of the assignees were brought on record in Pahani for the year L962-63 and as per the cond:.tions of the said pattas the assigned lands are heritable but not alienable. The purchasers of the assigned lands have converted the Government land into plots in contravention of the conditions of assignment and provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 , as such the said .landsr are liable for resumption under the above Act.

¶70

The learned Government Pleader would further subrrrits that as per Pahani for the year 1963-64 of Gopanapally Village, it is evident that an extent of Ac.5.31 guntas in Sy.No.36 lA/ Ll has been assigned to one Slmt.Saleena, who had sold the said land in favour of others through GPA holder Sri D.Narsing Rao. The

¶71

SK, J

¶72

then Deputy collector and the Mandar Revenue officer have resumed the said lands in Proc.No.B/2S4512OO3 and hence the said land vested with the Government. In order to protect the interest of Government land and to avoid any illegal transactions, as per the directions of this Court in W.A.Nos .343 l2OtS, 232 /2OL2 and 352 I 20 L3 dated 23 .I2.2O LS and the officialrespondents have included the subject lands in the prohibitory property under Secton 22-A (Ll (b) of the Registration Act, 1908 in the earlier letters and also latest letter vide No. E I / 447 8 / 2024 dated 23 .o L .2o2s . Upon which the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District has issued Memo to Sub-Registrar, serilingamapally along with other Sub-Registrars vide Memo No. 1417 12025 dated O3.O2.2O25 communicating the list of prohibited property sent by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶73

8

¶74

SK, J

¶75

7.^'Ihe learned^{Government Pleaderwould further} subrr it that, with^{regard tosubject property is} concllered", one^{D.NarsingRao, G.P.A Holder of original} assignee of smt.saleena^{has sold out the subjectland} ad me:asuring to^{an extent of 1 00 Sq'Yards in plot} No.1:;lA, in Sy.No.36/^{11 in favour of Ramchander Rao} vide Registered^{Deed No.499} 11985^{dated 29.O1.1985} and rrlso another^{extent of 20o sq.Yards in Plot No. 15} in S),.No .361^{1 1 in favourof one Rajaiah vide registered} SaIe deed No.599/^{1985 dated 29.O1.1985,who in turn} have sold the^{land infavour of the M/ s.Magna} ' Deve:lopers, represented by its Managing Partners thro ugh registered^{sale deed No.9678 12016 dated} 3 0 . 0 7 .2O 16 and^{97 66} I^{20 16dated 30 .07 -2O 16} respectively.^{Now, the petitioner has presented the} sale Deed document^{in respect of the subject land} adrr.easuring to an^{extent of 3OO Sq'Yards and} pres;ented before the^{Respondent No.5 for registration}

: I I I t

9

SK, J

but the s€une has been refused based on the letter issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to the Commissioner & Inspector General, Stamps and Registration vide letter No.E L I 447812024 dated 23.O1 .2025.

¶80

The learned Government Pleader would further submit that, the subject land in question is part and parcel of the Government land in Sy.No.36 I Al l I of Gopanapally Village, Serilingamapally Mandal, which was resu.med back by the then Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal as the original assignee Smt. Saleena has sold out the sarne in contravention of the Rules prescribed under T.S. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 and hence the Registrar, Serilingampally has rightly refused to prcpess the registration presented by the petitioner as \ the same is Government land and there are no merits and requested to dismiss^{the writ petition.}

¶81

10

¶82

SK, J

¶83

The learned Government pleader in support of

¶84

their contentions relied on the following Judgments:

¶85

7, Joint Collector, Ranga Redd.g District and. another Vs. D.Narsing Rao and othersa

¶86

2, Ahmed Autad Bakhragba Vs. Gouernment of Andhra Pradesh, r€p. bg its Secretary, Reaenue Dep artmen\ Secretariat, Hg derabad s

¶87

Reaenue Diuisonal OfJicer, Cheuella Division & and others Vs. Mohd.Sageed Ather & others 6

¶88

After hearing both sides and on perusing the

¶89

record, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner is questioning the impugned refusal order No.3912025 dated 17.O3.2O25 issued by the respcndent No.5 on the ground that the subject prope:rty is in the prohibitory watch register as the entirr: Survey No.36 of Gopanapatly Village is Government land as communicated by the District

¶90

I (201s) 3 SCC 695

¶91

s Unreltorted Judgmt:nt (DB)

¶92

Passed by this Court in WA No.219 of 2OO8 dt.2:;.o9.2023

¶93

6 Judgnrent in Civil Appeal Nos.lg lB-1922 Dt.O2 01 .2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

I

11

SK, J

Collector, Ranga Reddy vide letter No.E L / 4478 12024 dated 23.O1.2025 and the sarne was forwarded by the Respondent No.4/District Registrar, Ranga Reddy vide letter No. 14 17 I 2025 dated 03.02.2025.

¶98

1 1. The contention of the petitioner is that earlier when the respondent authorities have refused to register the document in respect of the subject survey number presented by some other person, in respect of the property in Sy.No.36lLl of Gopanapalli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, on the similar letter, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner vide WP No.3328 of 2025 and the said writ petition was allowed on 06.02.2025, directing the Registering Authority to receive, register and release the subject document presented by the petitioner therein, without reference s to the impunged refusal ordeg. In spite of the s€une, again the Registering Authority refused to register the

¶99

It I I I I

¶100

t2

¶101

I I , I ItI I i I I i ! i I

¶102

SK, J

¶103

document presented by the petitioner and the same is arbitrary and illegal

¶104

L2. Further contention of the petitioner is that, Survey No.36/ 11 of Gopanapalli Viilage is not in the proh lbitory list as per the letter No. E I I 447 g I 2024 datecl 23.01 .2025 issued by the District collector, Ranga Reddy. In spite of the sarne, the respondent authorities, without verifying the the same, refused to regist-er the document presented by the petitioner.

¶105

On the other hand the contention of the .Resprtndents is that, entire Survey No.36 of Gopanapalli village is in the prohibitory watch register and the vendors of the vendor of the petitioner namely smt.fialeena was assigned Government land to a.n extent of Ac.5.01 guntas in Sy.No.36 / Al 11 and the sarne was sold by her in favour of various persons through GPA Holder in contravention of the conditions

¶106

*-/ of asr;ignment and provisions of A.p.Assinged Lands

¶107

13

¶108

SK, J

¶109

(Prohibiton of Transfers) Act, lgrT and in view of the same, the said land was resumed back vide Proc. No. B / 2545 / 2 003 and thereby the said property belongs to the Government.

¶110

On perusal of the impugned refusal proceedings, there is no mention about the resumption of the subject land of smt.saleena, vend.or of the vendors of the petitioner. onry by filing counter, the respondent authorities have stating the same. In the earlier round of litigation also the respondent authorities have not raised this issue before this court. In view of the sarne, the respondent authorities cannot improve their case by firing counter, os held by the Honble supreme court of India in JI[.s.Gill vs. the Chief e1.r,ctton Commtsstoner',

¶111

The Judgment relied on by the 1earned senior counsel for petitioner in K,Gopi vs. sub-Reglstrar

¶112

(1978) i SCC4OS

¶113

l4

¶114

SK, J

¶115

and others (supra 7) squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is as under:

¶116

"15. "The registering officer is not concerned with the title held b.v the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has anr, titlc. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of rvhich he has no titlc. the registerirrg olficer cannot refuse to register the documcnt if all the procedural <:ompliarrces are made arrd the necessar)' stamp dut.r' .ls w'ell as regislra[ion cl-rnrges/fce arc paicl. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property u,hich he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authoritv is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, tl're document must be regrstered. The execution and rcgistration of a document have the effect oi transferring only those rights, if an.v, that the exccutant posscsses. lf the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registerecl document cannot elfect an1, transfer.

¶117

t6. As per the contention of the respondents, an extent of Ac.li.O1 guntas of land in Survey No.3tilA/ 1 1 was assigned to Smt.Saleena, vendor of the vendors of the petitioner, but the petitioner is

¶118

15

¶119

SK, J

¶120

claiming the land in sy.No.36/lr. There is no specific boundaries are mentioned by the District collector in the prohibitory list with regard to the property claimed by the petitioner. In view of the same, if the respondents wants to evict the petitioner from the subject property, they can proceed as per the procedure contemplated und.er law. without doing so, the respondent authorities cannot decrare that the property claimed by the petitioner is Government land. In the letter No. E 1 / 447 8 I 2024 , dated 23.or .2o2s addressed by the District collector, there is no mention about the survey number 36 / Lt, but mentioned as sy.No.36 /Al L 1 and other sub-Divisions. In view of the s€une, the registering authorities cannot refuse to register the document rrresented by the petitioner on the ground that the subject property is in the prohibitory watch register.

¶121

t6

¶122

SK, J

¶123

L7. in view of the above finding, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impunged refusal order No.39 l'.2O25 dated 17 .03.2025 and the Registering authorities are directed to receive, register and release the sutlject document presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 19OB and Indian stamps Act,¹⁸⁹⁹ without reference to the impunged refusal order. It^is made clear that, if the registering authority has other objectic,n, they a::e at liberty to pass appropriate order recordirrg the reasons and communicate the same^to the petitioner. tt is also made clear that^{this order} does not preclude the respondent authorities^from evictinE, the persons who are in^{possessionof the land} 1n Sy.No.3 6 / Al Ll of Gopanapally Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District in} contravention of Telangana Assigned Lands

t7

SK, J

I

(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, L977 by^{following due}

¶128

procedure. No order as to costs.

¶129

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,^{pending in this}