Telangana High Court
Mansoor Sadruddin vs The State Of Telangana on 12 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.31589 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents. With their consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
"to pass an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.3 while refusing to receive and register the Sale Deed Dated 23.10.2024 presented by the Petitioners in respect of Residential Flat No.402, on Fourth Floor (PTIN No.1181004893) bearing GHMC No.10332/9/15/18 in the building known as Padmavathi Enclave admeasuring 800 sft together with 5.09%undivided share of land admeasuring 35 63 sq yds constructed on Plot Nos.4 and 15 Sy No.74/12 situated at East Marredpally Secunderabad on the basis of LGC No.167/1997 as illegal arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to receive and register the Sale Deed Dated 23.10.2024 presented by the Petitioners pertaining to the above property thereby to release the same in accordance with law."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property and now intends to sell the subject property in favour of petitioner No.2 and accordingly petitioners 2 Registering Authority to register the sale deed along, but the Registering Authority are refusing to receive and process the subject property without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that many writ petitions were filed seeking registration of the documents in respect of the lands in Sy.No.74 at East Marredpally, Secunderabad, and this Court had directed the registering authority to receive, register and release the documents presented in respect of the land in Sy.No.74 at East Marredpally, Secunderabad and sought to pass similar order.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration while acceding to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that many number of writ petitions have been filed on similar issue wherein no separate counter affidavits have been filed however, in one of the writ petition i.e., in W.P. No.11653 of 2013, which was disposed of on 23.07.2024 by this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed and the averments mentioned therein may be read/adopted as a counter averments in the present writ petition and has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraph of the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No.11653 of 2013, which reads as under:
"It is submitted that a comprehensive land case was filed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally against the (7) Societies and as well as some of individual plot owners of Sy.No.74 3 of Marredpally (Paigah) village in L.G.C, No.167/97 in the Spl.Court under L.G(P) Act, 1982. The Hon'ble Spl.Court, under A.P.L.G.(P) Act dismissed the LGC No.167/97 on 18-03-2010. Aggrieved by the same, the then MRO, Marredpally Mandal filed WP No.19106/2010, before the Hon'ble High Court and the same is pending. The Hon'ble Spl.Court dismissed the LGC on erroneous grounds without properly appreciating the evidence of Govt. and as such writ petition has been filed challenging the same. Thus the LGC judgment has not become final. Further submitted that the litigation between the parties and the Govt. has not reached to its logical end. Under such circumstances it can't be said that Govt. have lost its claim. As such the interest of Govt. still subsists. In view of the above the interest of Govt. that subsists in the subject land will be jeopardized if this W.P. is allowed. Hence it is liable for dismissal."
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that subject matter was earlier adjudicated by the Spl.Court under A.P.L.G.(P) Act, 1982, vide LGC No.167 of 1997, however the said LGC No.167 of 1997 has been dismissed on 18.03.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally Mandal, filed WP No.19106 of 2010 before this Court and the same has been heard and reserved by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that since in similar writ petitions this Court by way of interim order had directed the registering authorities to receive, register the documents presented before them, without reference to the claim of the Government that it is Government land and in pursuance to the said interim direction the documents therein were registered and since the cause in those writ petitions has been served this Court had disposed those writ petitions, granting liberty to all the 4 concerned parties to seek appropriate remedy, subject to outcome of the W.P. No.19106 of 2010, which is pending for orders before the Division Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed this Court to dispose of the writ petition by passing similar order as passed in those writ petitions.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has not disputed the same.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and recording the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the registering authority to receive, register and release the subject document, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that the registration of the subject document is subject to outcome of the W.P. No.19106 of 2010. It is also made clear that if either of the parties are aggrieved by the orders to be passed in W.P.No.19106 of 2010, liberty is granted to parties to pursue their remedies as available under law.
10. It is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer title on the subject property and it is also made clear that this order would not have any bearing on all those matters where title/rights of the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision/appeals for adjudication and in any other case this order also does not preclude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of law.
5
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to cost.
______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR,J 12.11.2024 SHA