WP/21381/2016 of Peddi Reddy Eashwara Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By its Secretary, on 30 December 2022

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the refusal proceedings of the 3[rd]Respondent, Joint Sub Registrar, Kadapa, dated 30/01/2015 refusing to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners dated 8[th]December, 2014 after having received the stamp duty and registration charges as illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and apart from being violative of the petitioners rights under articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and pass ….”

2. The case of the petitioners is that they have purchased a plot of 217.81 yards in Sy.no.81/2 in Chinna Chowk village of Kadapa Municipal Corporation Area on 08.12.2014 and approached the 3[rd] respondent for registration of the same. Initially, the 3[rd] respondent gave a pending No.141/2014 in respect of sale deed presented by the petitioners. Later, on 30.01.2015, the Joint Sub-Registrar Kadapa refused to register the same on the ground that the executant is not the right owner of the property as per the link document No.845/1979. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court of India in the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of M.P and others on 26.10.2016 at para-26 has observed as follows:

“26. Section 35of the Act does not confer a quasi-judicial power on the Registering Authority. The Registering Officer is expected to reassure that the document to be registered is accompanied by supporting documents. He is not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document as such. The examination to be done by him is incidental, to ascertain that there is no violation of provisions of the Act of 1908. In the case of Park View Enterprises (supra) it has been observed that the function of the Registering Officer is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. He cannot decide as to whether a document presented for registration is executed by person having title, as mentioned in the instrument. We agree with that exposition.”

4. Learned Government Pleader has not opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, on a perusal of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and material placed on record, it is clear that the Joint Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the title/ownership of the property. Therefore, the impugned refusal order dated 30.01.2015 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned refusal order dated 30.01.2015 on the ground that the Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the title/ownership of the said property. As such, the Sub-Registrar is directed to register the document presented by the petitioneras per the provisions of Section 71 of the Act. In case the instrument presented cannot be registered, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders as required under Section 71 of the Registration Act, as it is appealable under Section 72 of the Registration Act. There shall no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

_______________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Date : 30.12.2022 GSP/PSR

56

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

(Allowed)

WRIT PETITION No.21381 of 2016

Date : 30.12.2022

GSP/PSR