THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.6093 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that though the subject plot bearing No.1300 situated in Golf Village (ACE) Township in Survey Nos.537 and 538 of Nidigonda Village, Raghunathpally Mandal, Jangaon District, is a part of an approved layout, the respondent - Sub Registrar refused to register the sale deed, dated 07.02.2023, presented by the petitioners for registration and passed an impugned order through letter in Lr.No.21 of 2023, dated 07.02.2023, refusing to register the said document. The reasons given by the respondent-Sub Registrar reads as under:
"This representation along with proposed sale deed has been presented for registration by Upputuri Gandhi, M/s. Country Club, Bangalore Limited, M/s. Zen Garden Hotels Private Limited, M/s. Amrutha Estates, M/s. Country Condo's Limited, D. Krishna Kumar Raju, M/s. Apurva Holiday Homes Private Limited, P.V.V. Prasad, K. Raghu Rama Raju, G.S.N. Raja Rao, Arkatala Shekar and K. Subramanya Raju, for plot bearing No.1300 in Gold Village (ACE) Township in Sy.No.537 & 538 of Nadigonda Village, Raghunathpally Mandal, Jangaon District, but it was not admitted for registration by the parties and the presentant requested to give reply for the MSK, J wp_6093_2023 2 registration in the shape of letter. As per the registration Act, 1908, it has to be admitted for registration.
But, based on the representation above the said proposed sale deed presented document cannot be registered in view of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.19695/2001, dt.18.05.2022, which has been communicated by Inspector General of Stamps and Registration/District Registrar, Warangal."
3. It is the specific contention of Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned letter has no application to the plots situated in an approved layout and the same was also clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No.210 of 2020, dated 28.07.2021. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
"Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 stating inter alia that pursuant to the issuance of Memo dated 26.08.2020, it was noticed that certain difficulties have been faced by the public. To obviate the said difficulties, modification of the aforesaid instructions has been issued on 29.12.2020, whereby registrations have been permitted in respect of open plots/structures, if the same have been acquired by the present owner through a valid registered document executed earlier. However it has been directed that no new plot shall be registered, unless it is approved by the competent authority or is in an authorized layout. The connotation of the word 'new plot' is a fresh plot which is brought for registration for the first time or being sold by the developers for the first time. It has also been clarified that there is no restriction on registration of plots in authorized layouts, plots regularized under earlier LRs schemes and buildings/structures covered under earlier BPS/BRS schemes.
MSK, J wp_6093_2023 3
2. Mr.Harender Parshad, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents states that there is no prohibition on alienation/transfer of individual property. The prohibition is only for registration of plots/structures registered by the developers in an unauthorized layout or structures".
4. In view of specific contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the subject plot is part of an approved layout approved by the Gram Panchayat concerned, this Court does not find any justification for the respondent-Sub Registrar in refusing to register the document presented for registration in respect of the subject plot by placing reliance on the Memo, dated 19.05.2022. 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 in passing the refusal order through impugned letter refusing to register document in respect of the subject plots by placing reliance on the Memo, dated 19.05.2022, is totally arbitrary and illegal. The Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.9248 of 2021, dated 23.08.2021 and the Memo referred in the impugned order are in respect of unauthorized construction and the plots, which are in an unapproved layout but not in respect of the plots, which are part of an approved layout. Thus, there cannot be any impediment for the MSK, J wp_6093_2023 4 respondents to register the document in respect of the plots, if such plots are part of an 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 18.05.2022, is not a ground to refuse to entertain registration in respect of the plots, if they are part of an approved layout.
6. In the light of the above, the impugned letter is set aside and respondent No.3 is further directed to receive the subject document in respect of the subject plot and also process the same, in accordance with law, by duly verifying the same as to whether it is part of an approved layout or not and take a decision thereon afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of the said document by the petitioners.
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.
____________________________________ MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J Date:03.03.2023 Note: Issue C.C. by 06.03.2023 (B/o) KH MSK, J wp_6093_2023 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.6093 of 2023 Date:03.03.2023 KH