THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
I.A.No.3 OF 2022
IN/AND
WRIT APPEAL No.462 OF 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
This order will dispose of both I.A.No.3 of 2022 as
well as writ appeal No.462 of 2022.
2. We have heard Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant; Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy,
learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner; and
Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) for respondent Nos.2 to 7.
3. Writ appeal No.462 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.9162 of 2019 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner. In the writ petition, appellant was arrayed as respondent No.7. By the order dated 03.01.2022, learned Single Judge took the view that since the higher authorities prima facie 2 found evidence of fraud played by the executant while executing fraudulent document No.9087 of 1992, dated 10.08.1992 (sale deed), official respondents were directed to conduct enquiry under Section 82(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 and thereafter to take necessary action for launching prosecution against the concerned expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
4. This Court vide the order dated 20.07.2022 had admitted the appeal for hearing and passed an order granting interim suspension of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.01.2022.
5. For vacating the said order dated 20.07.2022, respondent No.1 has filed I.A.No.3 of 2022.
6. Respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner had filed the related writ petition for a direction to the official respondents for cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.9087 of 1992 dated 10.08.1992 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar as being 3 fraudulent. Case of the writ petitioner as projected in the writ petition was that her husband late Mohammed Mohinuddin Ali had purchased plot No.22 admeasuring 267 square yards situated at Meerpet Village, Jillelguda Gram Panchayat, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal in Ranga Reddy District (referred to hereinafter as 'subject property') from one Ch.Malla Reddy through registered sale deed bearing document No.4525 of 1990 dated 07.04.1990. Mohammed Mohinuddin Ali died on 23.01.2015 leaving behind him his widow i.e., the petitioner and four daughters as his legal representatives.
7. When the writ petitioner intended to sell the subject property, she applied for encumbrance certificate. On receiving encumbrance certificate, she came to know that the subject property was fraudulently sold by some unknown persons impersonating her late husband under an allegedly fraudulent registered sale deed bearing document No.9087 of 1992 dated 10.08.1992 in favour of the appellant.
4
8. Having come to know about the aforesaid fraudulent sale deed, writ petitioner made a representation dated 28.03.2019 before the Sub- Registrar, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District to cancel the fraudulent sale deed No.9087 of 1992. However, the request of the writ petitioner was rejected by the District Registrar on 20.04.2018. It was thereafter that respondent No.1 had submitted a representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps on 14.06.2018, on the basis of which District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District was directed to enquire into the matter and to submit a report. In the meanwhile Principal Secretary to the Government of Telangana in the Revenue Department had directed Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps on 08.10.2018 to conduct enquiry and to submit report. In terms of the above direction, Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted report dated 23.10.2018. While the Deputy Inspector General opined that unilateral cancellation of sale deed was not permissible, 5 nonetheless the parties to document No.9087 of 1992 should be prosecuted as it was fraudulently obtained.
9. It was at that stage that the related writ petition came to be filed. Appellant being respondent No.7 in the writ petition contested the same and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the pleadings as well as materials on record, learned Single Judge framed the following issues for consideration:
(1) Whether the registration authorities have the competence to register a deed for cancellation of a registered document unilaterally without the consent of the rival party? and (2) Whether the registration authorities have the competence to take action against the persons who had played fraud on the authorities in getting a document registered?
6
11. In so far issue No.1 was concerned, learned Single Judge vide the order dated 03.01.2022 after referring to Rule 26(i)(k) of the Telangana State Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908, as well as the decision of the Supreme Court held that for cancellation of registration, the aggrieved party has to approach the competent civil court. Therefore, this prayer of the first respondent/writ petitioner was declined.
12. However, in so far the second issue pertaining to competence of the registration authorities to take action against those persons who had fraudulently got a document registered, learned Single Judge referred to Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 and issued the impugned direction vide the order dated 03.01.2022.
13. While learned Senior Counsel for the appellant strongly argued that the impugned direction is unsustainable in as much as without a conclusive finding of fraud by the competent Court, learned Single Judge could not have directed the official respondents to launch prosecution. Such a direction is wholly unsustainable 7 and therefore liable to be set aside. In the course of his argument, learned Senior Counsel submits that in so far the direction of the learned Single Judge relegating the respondent No.1 to civil court, appellant has no grievance. Appellant has grievance only with regard to the direction issued in so far the second issue is concerned.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Single Judge was fully justified in issuing the impugned direction. It is clearly evident that the appellant had played fraud and by fraudulent means, obtained registration of document No.9087 of 1992 dated 10.08.1992. No case for interference is made out and therefore, writ appeal should be dismissed.
15. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court.
16. We have already noted the two issues framed by learned Single Judge for consideration. Question for consideration before the learned Single Judge was 8 whether document No.9087 of 1992 dated 10.08.1992 was a fraudulent sale deed, registration of which was obtained fraudulently and whether any direction could be issued to the concerned authorities for cancellation of such registered document.
17. Learned Single Judge held that on the point of cancellation of a document, the party who wants to cancel the same has to institute a civil suit for cancellation of such document or for seeking re-conveyance from the vendee. Therefore, learned Single Judge relegated respondent No.1 to the competent civil court to work out her remedy. Neither the appellant nor respondent No.1 has raised any grievance as to the above decision of the learned Single Judge.
18. Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides for imposition of penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translation, impersonation etc., in any proceedings under the Registration Act, 1908. Section 82 reads as under:
9
"82. Penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translation, false personation and abetment:- Whoever -
(a) Intentionally makes any false statement, whether on oath or not, and whether it has been recorded or not, before any officer acting in execution of this Act, in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act, or
(b) Intentionally delivers to a Registering Officer, in any proceeding under Section 19 or Section 21, a false copy or translation of a document or a false copy of a map or plan; or
(c) Falsely personates another and in such assumed character presents any document, or makes any admission or statement, or causes any summons or commission, to be issued, or does any other act in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or
(d) Abets anything made punishable by this Act;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine, or with both."
19. Thereafter, learned Single Judge from a careful analysis of the factual matrix held that the original executant of the document was not in the country at the time of so called registration which was evident from the endorsement made in the passport of the said person. Learned Single Judge noted that the authorities had prima facie found evidence that a fraud was played by the executant and vide letter dated 23.10.2018 addressed by 10 the Deputy Inspector General to the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, District Registrar was called upon to take necessary action under Section 82(c) of the Registration Act, 1908. It was in the above factual backdrop that learned Single Judge directed the authorities to conclude the enquiry and take necessary action for launching prosecution against the culprit.
20. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. While remedy for cancellation of the alleged fraudulent sale deed is to approach the competent civil court, parallelly for punishing the persons responsible for impersonation etc, the statute provides for a remedy in the form of Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 which we have already extracted above. All that learned Single Judge has done is to direct the concerned authority under the statute to carry out the statutory mandate. One cannot have any valid objection to such a direction of the learned Single Judge.
11
21. That being the position, we are of the view that stay granted by this Court on 20.07.2022 is liable to be vacated and is accordingly vacated. Consequently, I.A.No.3 is allowed and writ appeal No.462 of 2022 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 07.11.2022 Pln