Telangana High Court
WP/46564/2022 of Bapuji , SrigiriBapuji and 2 others Vs State of Telangana and 2 others on 30 December 2022
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 46564 OF 2022 Between: '1. Bapuji @ SrigiriBapuji, S/o Laxman, aged
[ [32s6 ]]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARWRIT PETITION NO: 46564 OF 2022
Between:
'1. Bapuji @ SrigiriBapuji, S/o Laxman, aged abgut 50 years, Occ Agriculture,Rfo 9- 42, Basar, MandalBasar, Dist NirmalRfo 9- 42, Basar, MandalBasar, Dist Nirmal
2. Cheruukula Naveen Kumar, S/o Rama Goud, aged about 34 years, OccBusiness, rlo 1- 10- 83, Chandra Nagar, Nizamabad District.Business, rlo 1- 10- 83, Chandra Nagar, Nizamabad District.
3. Gattadi Bhushan, S/o Mohan Chandu, aged about 37 years, Occ Business,rlo 1- 12-77 , Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabadrlo 1- 12-77 , Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad Represented by 2 and 3 GPA holders vide regd GPAs (bearing document No3651/201 B dt 07.01.201 B)3651/201 B dt 07.01.201 B)
...Petitioners
AND
1State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue, SecretariatBuilding, Hyderabad.Building, Hyderabad.
District Registrar, Adilabad
Sub- Registrar, Bhainsa, Dist Adilabad
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order [passed ]by the 3rdrespondent in Lr No: 18612022 dt 7.12.2022 refusing to register the [pending]document vide refusal order No:S of 2022 dl 07.12.2022 as illegal, void arbitraryand violative of Art 14, 21 and 3004 of Constitution of India and Consequentlyset aside the same.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be [pleased ]todirect the 3rd respondent to receive, register and release the document viderefusal order No:S of 2022 dl07 .12.2022.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T V KALYAN SINGH
Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP FOR STAMPS AND
REGISTRATION
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JU5TICE MUMMINENI [SUDHEER KUMAR]q,RITPETITION No.46564 of 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learnedAssistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearingfor the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the orderpassed by respondent No.3 in Lr.No. 186/2022, dated 07.12.2022refusing to register the pending document uide refusal order No.S of2022, dated 07.12.2022, as arbitrary and illegal. The reasons givenby the respondent-Sub Registrar reads as under:
"Reasons for refusal order, dated Q7 .12.2Q22:Vide r€.ference cited, a Sale deed is presented lor Registrationby Si Cherukula Naveen Kumar and Sri Gattadi Bhushan onO1.12.2022 and the same was kept pending duly assigningNo.O8 | 2022.
As per the schedule of ttre document the property is plotNo.(65) in Sy.No.575/A for an extent of 150 square yards situated atBasar Village and Mandal. But the plot No. (65) is not forthcoming inthe DTCP approved layout sanctioned plan and there is no linkNo.(65) in Sy.No.575/A for an extent of 150 square yards situated atBasar Village and Mandal. But the plot No. (65) is not forthcoming inthe DTCP approved layout sanctioned plan and there is no linkdocument at aI mentioned in this document which is contrary to theCommissioner and Inspector General of (R&S) Hyderabad MemoCommissioner and Inspector General of (R&S) Hyderabad MemoNo.G21257 /2019, dated 26.Q8.2O2O and 29.12.2O2o.
Moreover, the plot is brought for registration for first timewhich come as "New plot" without DTCP layout. Thus, in absence ofapproved layou:: sanctioned plan and without any link document thewhich come as "New plot" without DTCP layout. Thus, in absence ofapproved layou:: sanctioned plan and without any link document theabove shown order does not permit to register the document. Howeverin this regard the Hontrle Supreme Court of India also imposed stayvide Special Leave Petition to appeal (C) No. 19695/2021 dated18.O5.2022.in this regard the Hontrle Supreme Court of India also imposed stayvide Special Leave Petition to appeal (C) No. 19695/2021 dated18.O5.2022.
In the circumstances shown abcve, the plot of the propertycannot be registered.
3. It is the speciflc contention of iearned counsel for thepetitioners that.the Memo referred in the impugned order has noapplication to the plots situated in an approved layout and the samewas also clarilied by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P (PIL)No.210 of 2O2O, dated 28.07 .202 1. The relevant portion of the saidjudgment reads as under:
"Counter alfidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 statinginter alia that pursuant to the issuance of Memo dated 26.08.2020, itwas noticed that certain diffrculties have been faced by the public. Toobviate the said dilliculties, modification of the aforesaid instructionshas been issued on 29,12.2020, whereby registrations have beenpermitted in respect of open plots/ structures, if the same have beenacquired by the present owner through a valid rcgistered documentexecuted eadier. However it has beer. directed that no new plot shall beregistered, unless it is approved by the competent authority or is in anauthorized layout. The connotation of the word 'new plot' is a freshplot which is brought for registration for the hrst time or being sold bythe developers for the flrst time. It has also been clarified that there isno restriction on registration of plots in authorized layouts, plotsregularizcd under earlier LRs schemes and buildings/ structurescovered under earlier BPS/BRS schemes.
2. Mr.Harender Parshad, learned Specia.l Government Pleaderappearing for the respondents states that there is no prohibition onalienation/transfer of individual property. The prohibition is only forregistration of plots/strirctures registered by the developers in anunauthorized layout or structures".
4. In view of specific contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the subject [plots ]are part of an approvedlayout approved by the Gram Panchayat concerned, [this ][Court ][does]not find any [justiflcation ]for the [respondent-Sub ][Registrar ][in]refusing to register the document [presented ][for ][registration ][in]respect of the subject Plotslacing reliance on Memos, dated I
26.08.2020 ard 29.12.2020. [Further, ][by ][virtue ][of ][Section 71 ][of ][the]Registration Act, 1908, the respondent-Sub [Registrar ][is ][under]obligation to receive the [document ][and ][process ][the ][same, ][in]accordance with [law..]
5. Therefore, the action of the respondent-Sub Registrar inpassing impugned refusal order refusing to register document inrespect of the strbject plots by [placing ]reliance on Memos, dated26.08.2020 and 29.12.2020, is totally arbitrary and illegal. TheJudgment of this Court in W.P.No.9248 of 2027, dated 23.O8.202Land Memos referred in the impugned order are in respect ofunauthorized construction and the plots, which are in anunapproved layout but not in respect of the plots, which are part ofan approved layout. Thus, there cannot be any impediment for therespondents to register the document in respect of the plots, if suchplots are part of al approved layout and also in respect of the plots,which were already subjected to registration on an earlier occasion.Equally, the interim order passed in SLP (Civil) No.19695 of 2021,dated 18.05.2O22 is not a ground to refuse to entertain registrationin respect of the plots, if they are part of an approved layout.
6. In the light of the above, the impugned order is set asideand respondent No.3 is further directed to receive the returneddocument in respect of the subject plots and also process the same,in accordance wirh law, by duly verifying the same as to whetherthey are part of an approved layout or not and take a decision thereon afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeksfrom the date of [presentation ]of the sairi document by thepetitioners.
7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed.There shall be no order as to [costs.]
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, [pending ]in this writ [petition]shall stand closed.
SD/.C.PRAVEEN KURASSISTANT REGIRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue, State of Telangana, Secretariat Building,Hyderabad.2. The District Registrar, Adilabad
3. The Sub- Registrar, Bhainsa, DistAdilabad
4. One CC to SRl. T V KALYAN SINGH Advocate [OPUC]5. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, High CourtfortheState of Telangana. [OUT]6. Two CD Copies