WP/24668/2004 of SMT. H.SUBHADRA Vs The Sub-Registrar, on 31 December 2004

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION NO.24668 OF 2004

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forRegistration and Stamps and with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at thestage of admission.

The petitioner states that he purchased house bearing No.8-2-293/82/NL/15A & 15Bin Sy.Nos.125 and 126 of Yousufguda village admeasuring an extent of 600sq.yards from A.V.G.Krishna Murthy and D.Subramanyam, who originally wereallotted the said plots by M/s.Vijaya Co-operative House Building Society Limited(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) in whose favour the Government hadalienated the land by registered Deed dated 13.4.1994. The said individuals, thepetitioner states, having received the sale consideration, executed Agreement ofSale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession on 19.11.2004 before theSub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, and that on paying the required stamp duty andregistration fee, the said document was also admitted. It is the grievance of thepetitioner that even though the first respondent admitted the document andregistered the same, but failed to return the same, and without giving anyendorsement in writing orally informed her that he had received telephonic ordersfrom his higher-ups not to release the document. It is this action of the first respondent, which the petitioner seeks to challenge in this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 104 ofA.P.Rules, framed under the Registration Act,1908, the document registered shallbe returned on the date of its admission itself, and it cannot be withheld or detained.

The learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submitted thatas the allotment made to the original allottee was cancelled, the original allotteeissued legal notice not to register the document, and in those circumstances, thehigher-ups issued instructions to the first respondent not to release the document,and more so when there were civil disputes between the original allottee and thesociety pending.

Originally the Society allotted the plots in question in favour of Sri K.GopalReddy, and when the allotment was cancelled, he filed a writ petition inW.P.No.5995 of 2004, and against the order dated 19.2.2004 passed therein holdingthat the unilateral cancellation of sale deeds is void, the Society filed writ appeal inW.A.No.972 of 2004, and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated11.10.2004, while allowing the writ appeal, observed as follows:

Conclusion

It is unnecessary to reiterate that the registering authority is not under any statutory obligationto make an enquiry whenever a cancellation deed is presented for registration for the purpose ofsatisfying himself as to whether for good reasons the document has been presented or not. Law doesnot impose any such obligation on the registering authority nor there is any provision enabling him tomake any such enquiry. The dispute is essentially between the appellant and the writ petition, which isrequired to be resolved in a properly constituted common law proceeding.

Pursuant to the above, it appears the original allottee sent a legal noticedated 18.11.2004 to the first respondent not to register the plot in favour of thirdparties, and when the document was presented on 19.11.2004, the first respondentconsidering that there were legal issues involved in transfer of the plots, kept thedocument for detailed examination, and while so, he appears to have telephonicorders from higher-ups not to release the documents. It is under thesecircumstances, the first respondent, even though admitted the document andregistered it, failed to return it to the petitioner.

In W.P.No.1953 of 2002, the petitioner therein questioned the action of theJoint Collector in issuing Circular to all the Mandal Revenue Officer not to issue any ‘No Objection Certificate” for the purpose of registration and also the Sub-Registrarsnot to entertain any documents for registration of lands in respect of the lands withinthe district without prior approval of the District Collector. By order dated 11.12.2003,this Court while allowing the said writ petition, and directing that any documentpresented for registration shall be processed and dealt with as per the provisions ofthe Indian Stamps Act and the Registration Act, inter alia observed and held thus:

In the impugned circular, the Joint Collector took exception to the issuance of no objectioncertificate by the Mandal Revenue Officers and he ultimately directed the Mandal Revenue Officersnot to issue any no objection certificate for registration purpose or otherwise in respect of lands in thedistrict without prior approval of the District Collector. A direction was also issued to all the Sub-Registrars not to entertain any documents for registration of lands in the district without prior approvalor in the absence of no objection from the District Collector. In a way the circular brings all thetransactions in respect of lands in the district to halt. For such an exercise, the respondents musthave specific power under any relevant statute. The circular has no reference to any provision of lawunder which it is issued.

As long as any person holds title to the property, the respondents do not have any power ofjurisdiction to prevent the same from being transferred. It is not as if there is no provision of law toprotect the properties of the Government. in case, any individual is found to be in possession ofGovernment land, the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act enables the revenue authorities toevict the persons in unauthorized occupation. Similarly, proceedings can be initiated under theprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, where a person is found to be inpossession of Government land without legal entitlement. The Joint Collector has chosen the courseaction which is not permissible in law.

The Registration Act does contain a provision enabling the Government to prohibit transfer inrespect of any lands. Such prohibition, however, is to be imposed by issuing a notification underSection 22 (A) of the Registration Act,1908. The Government has not chosen to issue a notificationunder that provision in respect of lands held by the petitioner. Viewed from any angle, this Court doesnot find any basis for the impugned circular.

A Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment dated 10.9.2001, passed inW.A.No.1390 of 2001 also took an exception to such a practice being adopted bythe revenue officials in the matter of registration.

The law as it stands today is that unless there is a notification issued by theGovernment under Section 22(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 prohibiting transfer oflands mentioned therein, neither registration of the document can be refused nor canit be detained after its admission and registration. It is admitted by the learnedGovernment Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents that no notificationunder Section 22(a) of the Registration Act was issued by the Governmentprohibiting alienation of the lands in question. When such is the case of therespondents, it was not proper on the part of the first respondent to detain thedocument after admitting and registering it, and more so on the instructions of hishigher-ups, who even could not have issued such instructions having regard to thefact that in W.A.No.972 of 2004, the Division Bench of this Court by its judgmentdated 11.10.2004, had held that the dispute was purely between the original allottee and the society, which could be resolved in a properly constituted common lawproceeding.

In the above view of the matter, the action of the first respondent in detainingthe document No.374 of 2004, executed by A.V.G.Krishna Murthy andD.Subrahmanyam in favour of the petitioner, without releasing it after admitting andregistering the same, cannot be sustained, and it is accordingly declared to beillegal and arbitrary. The first respondent is directed to release the document to thepetitioner.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.

31.12.2004.

Note:

Issue C.C. today

(BO)

mdaa/svv/ksr

Copy to:

1 The Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

2 The Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, R.T.C. Cross Raods, Hyderabad.

3. Two C.Cs to Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps, High Court ofA.P., Hyderabad (OUT).A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).

4. Two C.D.copies.