WP/20181/2007 of Laxminarayan Goyal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through it secretary on 27 December 2007

Conclusion

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.20181 of 2007

Heard Sri Mayur representing Sri Vijaysen Reddy, learnedcounsel representing the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleaderfor Revenue representing respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Jagan MohanReddy, learned counsel representing respondents 3 and 4.

2. The 2[nd] respondent filed the counter affidavit.

3. At the request of the counsel on record, the writ petition itself isbeing disposed of finally.

4. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents in refusing to register the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, dated 05.09.2007, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutionaland consequently direct the 2[nd] respondent to register the document ofagreement of sale-cum-GPA, dated 05.09.2007.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred thatthe petitioner entered into an agreement of sale-cum-General Power ofAttorney with M/s Mohd. Babu Miya and Mohd. Rahmatullah, who arethe sons of late Shamsher Khan, R/o. 3-26, Nagireddyguda,Moinabad, Ranga Reddy District in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1-23 guntas out of the total extent of land admeasuring Ac.2-16 guntas inSy.No.415, 416 and 420 of Manchverla (V), Rajendranagar (M), RangaReddy District, dated 05.09.2007, by paying the entire agreed sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. The said Mohd. Babu Miya andMohd. Rahmatullah are the owners of land and issued pattedar passbook under the provisions of R.O.R. Act. It is also stated that thepetitioner presented the said agreement of sale-cum-GPA forregistration, before the 2[nd] respondent, by paying the required stampduty and registration charges for Rs.52,080/- vide bank challanNo.35587 dated 05.09.2007 at State Bank of Hyderabad,Rajendranagar. Further, it is stated that the 2[nd] respondent refused toentertain the document for registration on the ground that M/sSmt.C.Latha Reddy and another have obtained interim suspension ofthe order of mutation granted in favour of the petitioner’s vendor, by theMRO, in file No.E/4781/1998, dated 20.07.1999, and pattedar passbook No.195804. The suspension order dated 20.08.2007 inproceedings No.C/3018/2007 was furnished to the petitioner by the 2[nd]respondent.

6. Further, in the affidavit, it is averred that the action of the 2[nd]respondent in refusing to entertain the registration of agreement ofsale-cum-GPA dated 05.09.2007 presented by the petitioner is illegal,arbitrary and unconstitutional. Under Rule 58 of the A.P.Rules underthe Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter for short referred to as “theRules” for the purpose of convenience), the registering authority doesnot have any authority to decide the title of the parties. The registrationof a document can be refused only if there is bar under statute foralienation of the lands, sought to be sold, as in the case of assignsland, government land etc., which are notified under Section 22-A ofthe Amended Act. The registering authority cannot refuse to entertaina document for registration on the ground of pendency of civil dispute. The registering authority has got limited jurisdiction in the matter andmainly its duty is to collect requisite stamp duty and registration

charges. Any adverse decision in the appeal said to have beenpreferred by the rival claimants under Section 5(5) of the R.O.R. Actwill bind vendor and consequently the petitioner. The registration ofthe document will not create any new right in favour of the petitioner. Despite registration, the document will lose its significance, ifotherwise, the petitioner’s vendor is held to be not having title to theland, as it is fundamental principle of law that no person can convey abetter right than what he has. It is further stated that if the petitionerwaits until conclusion of the appeal proceedings before the R.D.O.,then for no fault of him, he has to pay more stamp duty and registrationcharges, if there is any enhancement in the market value of theproperty, for which there is proposal by the Government in near future. As the petitioner’s transaction is in accordance with law and there isno embargo for registration of his agreement of sale, the 2[nd]respondent is duty bound to register the document. The 2[nd]respondent is refusing to register the document for extraneousconsideration. If interim directions are not issued to the 2[nd] respondentto register the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, dated 05.09.2007, thepetitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Thus, in suchcircumstances, the petitioner, having no other alternative remedy,approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent-Sub-Registrar,Registration and Stamps Department, Rajendranagar, Ranga ReddyDistrict, several averments had been denied. It is stated that nodocument was presented to this respondent for the purpose ofregistration. However, an enquiry was made by some one with regardto the registrability of the land in Survey No.415 and 416 ofManchirevula village, Rejendranagar Mandal and he was informed of the objection and also a copy of the same was given to the person whocame for enquiry. It is also averred that this respondent received arepresentation by one C.Latha Reddy, w/o. C.R.Reddy, and oneGayatri, w/o. Kesi Reddy, bringing to his notice that they are theabsolute owners of the land in the survey numbers and they are theowners of it and further they brought to his notice the orderNo.C/3018/2007, dated 20.08.2007, of the Revenue Divisional Officer,Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District to the effect that the passbooks issued in favour of Mohd. Babumiya are suspended pendingdisposal of the appeal before the authority. Further, it is stated that asper Rule 58 of the Rules, the Sub-Registrar is expected to consider theobjections raised on any of the grounds mentioned thereunder. However, in the instant case, since no document was presented forregistration, there was no occasion for this office to verify theobjections received vis-à-vis the agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A.purported to have been executed by one Mohd. Babumiya in favour ofthe petitioner.

8. Rule 58 of the A.P.Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 reads as hereunder:- “It forms no part of a registering officer’s duty to enquireinto the validity of a document brought to him forregistration or to attend to any written or verbal protestagainst the registration of a document based on theground that the executing party had no right to executethe document; but he is bound to consider objectionsraised on any of the grounds stated below:

(a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be; (b) that the document is forged;

(c) that the person appearing as arepresentative, assign or agent, has no right to appear inthat capacity; (d) that the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party applying for registration; or (e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic.”

9. The applicability or otherwise of invoking Rule 58 of the Rulesaforesaid need not be considered in the light of the specific standtaken in the counter affidavit that no document as such had beenpresented.

10. In the light of the same, the writ petition is disposed of givingliberty to the petitioner to move appropriate writ petition at theappropriate stage. No order as to costs.

Dt.27.12.2007v v

_________________

(P.S.NARAYANA,J)