Telangana High Court
Mohammed Khadeer, vs State Of Telengana on 12 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.8219 of 2015
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents. With their consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the Registering Authority has refused to register the subject document on the ground that the State Government is claiming the subject property as 'Government land' in LGC No.167 of 1997. Aggrieved by the action of the Registering Authority in not registering the subject document, the present writ petition is filed.
3. This Court granted interim order on 26.03.2015, directing the Registering Authority to receive and process the subject document, subject to the outcome of WP No.19106 of 2010 filed by the State Government against the order passed by Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 in LGC No.167 of 1997.
4. Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the interim 2 order passed by this Court on 26.03.2015, the Registering Authority have registered the subject document and further submits that in view of interim order passed by this Court no further orders are required in this Writ petition.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration would submit that the subject matter in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in WP No.11653 of 2013, dated 23.07.2024, and the relevant paragraphs reads as under:
"6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration would submit that counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 i.e., District Collector, Hyderabad, and the Paragraph No.8 reads as:
'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 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 3 Govt. that subsists in the subject land will be jeopardized if this W.P. is allowed. Hence it is liable for dismissal.'
7. 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 the same, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally Mandal, filed WP No.19106 of 2010 before this Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench has heard and reserved for orders.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that many parties have filed writ petitions on the similar issue and obtained interim order and thereafter the respondent authorities have received, registered and released the documents therein, however fairly submits that in most of the cases, the respondent authorities have not filed counter- affidavit and the counter-affidavit filed in this writ petition may be adopted in all these similar pending writ petitions, as the issue involved in all the pending writ petitions is one and the same and pray this Court to dispose of all the pending writ petitions, granting liberty to all the concerned parties to seek appropriate remedy, subject to the outcome of the order which would be pass in WP No.19106 of 2010.
9. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel on either side and in view of the fact that the subject document is registered in pursuant to the interim order, this Court deems it appropriate to disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to both the parties to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, subject to the outcome of the order which would be pass in WP No.19106 of 2010, if so otherwise aggrieved." 4
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that similar order may be pass in this writ petition.
7. Recording the above submission made by learned counsel on either side and in terms of order passed by this Court in WP No.11653 of 2013 dated 23.07.2024, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to both the parties to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law, subject to the outcome of the order which would be passed in WP No.19106 of 2010, if so otherwise aggrieved.
8. 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.
9. 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 SU