Syed Irshad Ali vs The State Of Telangana

Telangana High Court

Syed Irshad Ali vs The State Of Telangana on 3 May, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
                   WRIT PETITION No.12696 of 2024
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

"to declare the inaction of the respondent No.3 in receiving, registering and releasing of the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the Plot Bearing No.60, in Survey No.231, 234, 235 and 236/1, admeasuring 267.00 Square.Yards or equivalent to 223.21 Square Meters, situated at "KUNDAN NAGAR COLONY" Puppalguda Village, under Manikonda Municipality, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction, violation of Sec 71 of Stamps and Registration Act and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to receive, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the Plot Bearing No.60 in Survey No.231, 234, 235, and 236/1, admeasuring 267.00 Square Yards or equivalent to 223.21 Square Meters, situated at "KUNDAN NAGAR COLONY" Puppalguda Village, under Manikonda Municipality, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State ."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot Bearing No.60, in Survey No.231, 234, 235 and 236/1, admeasuring 267.00 Square.Yards or equivalent to 223.21 Square Meters, situated at "KUNDAN NAGAR COLONY"

Puppalguda Village, under Manikonda Municipality, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having acquired the same through sale deed dated 30.01.2008. It is further submitted that the petitioner with an 2 intention to sell the subject property executed the sale deed and approached respondent authorities with the subject document enclosing the challan vide receipt, dated 01.04.2024, however Registering Authorities are refusing to receive and process the subject document basing on the status quo order dated 23.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.383 of 2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 23.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.383 of 2021, which reads as under:-

Having regard to the fact that status-quo order was granted in IA.No.265/2015 in OS.No.541 of 2015 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad on 23-09-2016, which order was operating till 08-11-2019, when IA.No.107 of 2018 was allowed vacating the injunction order and dismissing the IA.No.265 of 2015, balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners/appellants.

Hence, status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained in respect of the suit schedule property, by the parties.

Learned counsel submitted that the above said suit was instituted in the year 2015 and further submitted that neither the petitioner nor his vendor is a party in the suit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the interim order dated 21.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.4502 of 2024, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to a judgment of this Court in the case of Kagitala Venkata Chalapathi Rao & others v. Sabarunnisa Begum & others' and the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:

"17. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised a specific contention that no interim order can be granted against the person, who is not a party to the suit, placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in P.M. Aboobucker v. K.Kunhamoo and Others (3rd supra), wherein the Madras High Court held as follows: "......However, if I may say so with respect, I find myself in complete agreement with the principle that underlies the second sentence in the passage I have extracted above, that an interim relief granted during the pendency of a suit should not be of greater scope than what could be granted in the suit itself, after the party has established his right in the suit to that relief. In my opinion, that would be a very relevant factor to be taken into account in deciding whether a Court should or even 'could grant such an interim relief, especially so when the person against whom the interim injunction is sought is not a party to the suit, and against whom no relief could be granted in the suit itself."

20. Thus, the person who is a party to the suit alone is entitled to claim injunction or similarly injunction can be granted against the party to the suit, but not against the third party who is not on record.

21. In Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. and Ors. V. Pramila Sanfui and Ors.8 the Apex Court held that It is a well settled principle of law that either temporary or permanent injunction can be granted only against the parties to a suit. Further the purported consent order in terms of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure is only binding as against the parties to the suit. On close analysis of Rules 1 and 2 of Order )(XXIX of CPC, it is clear that interim order can be granted only when defendant threatens to damage, alienate, sa/e, remove or dispossess the plaintiff from the property, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit. An injunction can be granted when the property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree. So the language used in the provision is clear that when the property is likely to be alienated or attempted to be alienated by any party to the suit, an interim injunction can be granted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in similar set of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has granted interim order in W.P.No.2773 of 2023, W.P.No.22056 of 2023, W.P.No.33288 of 2023 and the copies of the said orders are filed along with the material papers of the writ petition.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has placed a copy of instructions stating as follows: "It is submitted' that as per the prohibition register of this office, Sy.Nos.236/1 & 237 of Puppalaguda Village are prohibited by virtue of orders in I.A.No.265/2015 in O.S.No.541/2015 dated 08.06.2015 passed by V Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar and I.A.No.l of 2021 in C.M.A.No.383/2021 dated 23.12.2021 by the Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and in addition to the above mentioned orders in 1.A.No.253/2021 in O.S.No.242/2021 V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar."

Having regard to the above, the petitioner herein, the land owner or his predecessor-in-title, are not parties either to 4 C.M.A.No.383 of 2021 pending before this Court or to the suit in O.S.No.541 of 2015 or O.S.No.242 of 2021 pending before the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, there shall be an interim direction to the respondent - registering authority to receive, register and release the document submitted by the petitioner, if it is otherwise found to be in compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject property is not included in the prohibitory list and further submitted that it is duty bound on the part of the respondent authorities to receive, register and release the subject document and if the respondent authorities are not registering the subject document, they shall assign reasons for refusal.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent has not disputed to the above submission and fairly stated that the respondent authorities will follow the procedure contemplated under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the Act, 1908').

Section 71 of the Act reads as follows:

Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.--

(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situated within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words "registration refused" on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.

(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the 5 provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered."

8. Recording the above submission made by learned counsel on either side and without going into merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing registering authority to receive, register and release the subject document, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is open to the Registering Authority to refuse to register the subject document, by specifically assigning the reasons in terms of Section 71 of the Act, 1908 and communicate the said decision to the petitioners.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

_________________________________ JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 03.05.2024.

SU