Telangana High Court
Karam Venkaesh And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 30 June, 2021
Bench: P Naveen Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
********
WRIT PETITION NO.10178 of 2021
Between :
Karam Venkatesh, s/o. Karam Bazar,
Aged about 40 years, occu: Business,
r/o.6-72, Brundhavan Colony,
Balaji Nagar, Thirumalagiri,
Hyderabad and another.
.... Petitioners
and
The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl. Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others.
.... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 30.06.2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : No
may be allowed to see the Judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : No
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
PNR,J
W.P.No.10178 of 2021
2
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.10178 of 2021
%30.06.2021
# Karam Venkatesh, s/o. Karam Bazar,
Aged about 40 years, occu: Business,
r/o.6-72, Brundhavan Colony,
Balaji Nagar, Thirumalagiri,
Hyderabad and another.
... Petitioners
Vs.
$ The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl. Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others.
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A.P.Suresh
Counsel for the Respondents: Asst.Government Pleader for
Revenue for respondents
1 to 3,
Mr. T.V.Kalyan Singh, counsel
for
Respondent no.4.
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2020 (3) ALD 139 (TS)
PNR,J
W.P.No.10178 of 2021
3
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.10178 OF 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:
"to issue a Writ order or direction especially in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd
respondent in not registering the Sale Deed presented to
him through Dharani Portal by the petitioners for the
agricultural property admeasuring an extent of Acres 5.30
guntas comprised in Survey No.528/Ruu and 528A
situated at Bibinagar Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri
Bhuvanagiri District, having TD-cum-Pass Book
No.T30060090496, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to
Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar
Pass Books Act, 2020 (Act No.9 of 2020) and also violative
of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India
and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and
proper under the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard A.P.Suresh, learned counsel for petitioners, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3,
and Sri T.V.Kalyan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
3. First petitioner claims that he is the owner and in possession
of agricultural land to an extent of Acs.5.30 guntas in
Sy.No.528/Ruu, and 528A of Bibinagar Village and mandal in
Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri district. He was issued passbook-cum-title
deed. He offered to sell this land to the second petitioner for
valuable sale consideration and sale deed was executed on
12.11.2020. In compliance of the Indian Registration Act, 1908
(Act, 1908), and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act, 1899),
petitioners applied through DHARANI web portal for registration of
the sale deed. The parties were asked to appear on 27.01.2021 at
12.30 p.m. Accordingly, petitioners appeared and submitted all
PNR,J
W.P.No.10178 of 2021
the documents in support of the claim of ownership by the 1st
petitioner. However, the Tahsildar refused to register the
document without assigning reasons. Seeking to declare the
action of the Tahsildar in not registering the sale deed presented
by the petitioners as illegal and contrary to Section 5 of the
Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (Act 9
of 2020), this writ petition is filed.
4. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the property
is a private property and is not included in the list of prohibited
properties under Section 22-A of the Act, 1908. There is no
prohibition on dealing with the property by any statutory
provisions. That being so, the Tahsildar cannot refuse to register
the document submitted before him in compliance with all the
statutory formalities.
5. Fourth respondent has a different story to the entire claim of
the petitioners.
5.1. According to the 4th respondent, Peraboina Venkataiah,
Peraboina Swamy and Peraboina Chandravasu are the owners of
the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.15.26¼ guntas in different
survey numbers. They agreed to sell the land to the 4th respondent.
An agreement of sale was executed on 16.05.1994 after receiving
full sale consideration. They have also executed registered General
Power of Attorney in favour of Sri N.Gopal Naidu, in his capacity as
Director of 4th respondent-company, the father of first petitioner.
It appears, Mr. Gopal Naidu resigned as Director of 4th respondent-
company. Alleging that he was trying to alienate the company
properties, the 4th respondent-company instituted O.S.No.9 of
PNR,J
W.P.No.10178 of 2021
2004 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir praying
to grant perpetual injunction restraining N.Gopal Naidu from
alienating, transferring or creating any charge or mortgage etc.
over company's properties. On 30.04.2005 the Senior Civil Judge
granted injunction order restraining N.Gopal Naidu from
alienating, transferring, mortgaging, creating any charge or lien
over petition 'A' to 'D' schedule lands till the disposal of the suit.
The list in these schedules also contains the land in issue in this
writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, N.Gopal Naidu filed C.M.A.No.543
of 2005 in this Court. By order dated 17.06.2011, the said C.M.A.,
was dismissed, affirming the view taken by the trial Court.
5.2. That being so, alleging that the owners failed to execute the
registered sale deed in accordance with the terms of the agreement
of sale dated 16.05.1994, the 4th respondent filed O.S.No.88 of
2005 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Bhongir seeking to grant
decree of specific performance of sale agreement. The said suit was
decreed on 28.04.2006 directing the defendants 1 to 3 to execute
registered sale deed within six months from the date of judgment.
The suit schedule land is the one in issue in this writ petition. As
the sale deed was not executed as per the decree,
4th respondent-company filed E.P.No.5 of 2017 and the same is
pending consideration of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.
6. According to the learned counsel for 4th respondent, once
civil litigation is pending and an injunction order is granted
preventing alienation, no alienation can take place. Further, in
view of the decree passed in the suit for specific performance, the
original land owners cannot deal with the property in any other
PNR,J
W.P.No.10178 of 2021
manner except complying with the decree and to execute sale deed.
Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court
in T.Ganesh v. State of Telangana and others1, wherein this
Court held that once an injunction order is made by the trial Court
or this Court, the deeds of conveyance or any other document
affecting the property in issue cannot be entertained even if
registering authority is not a party to the proceedings.
7. Several other contentions are also urged, but the Court is
not recording and dealing with those contentions as the issue is
confined as to whether the registering authority is justified in not
registering the deed of conveyance of the petitioners.
8. From the pleadings in the writ petition and the affidavit of
the 4th respondent filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2021, it is
apparent that on the same subject matter, suit is pending and
another suit is decreed in favour of 4th respondent. In the pending
suit an injunction is granted, which according to the learned
counsel for 4th respondent, is still in operation.
9. Ordinarily, whenever a document is presented for
registration in compliance of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the registering authority has to
receive, process, register and release the document. He may refuse
to receive/register, if the property in issue, on which registration is
sought, is included in the list of prohibited properties under
Section 22-A of the Act, 1908. He may also refuse to register the
document if some litigation is pending and civil Court or High
Court passed interlocutory order affecting the transactions in the
2020 (3) ALD 139 (TS)
PNR,J
W.P.No.10178 of 2021
concerned land. He can also refuse to register a document if the
document is not in compliance with the provisions of Rule 26 of
the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, and if any
objections are raised as per Rule 58.
10. Rule 262 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act,
1908 requires the Registering Authority to examine the document
presented for registration to ensure that all the requirements
prescribed in the Act and the Rules are complied with and list out
instances referable to various sections. According to this provision,
the registering authority can verify whether a person, who
executed the document and presented before him, is entitled to
present himself, and execute the document affecting a property.
This provision is referable to Sections 32 and 40 of the Act 1908.
As per Section 32 of the Act, 1908, the executant/representative of
the document should be physically present.
11. Rule 58 though couched in a negative terms, but also
requires the registering authority to consider objections raised on
any other ground mentioned in the Rule.
12. This being the statutory environment in which the
registering authority should act when a document is presented for
registration, going by the provisions of the Indian Registration Act,
1908 and the Rules made there under, it is seen the Act, 1908 and
the Rules are silent on the course to be adopted by the Registering
Rule 26-(i)(b) of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908:
"Rule 26. (i) Every document shall, before acceptance for registration, be examined by
the Registering Officer to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and in
these rules have been complied with, for instance:
(a) xxxx
(b) that the person is entitled to present it (Sections 32 and 40)
PNR,J
W.P.No.10178 of 2021
Authority if litigation is pending on the landed property on which a
document is presented before him for registration. To fill the gaps
in the statutory provisions and to give effect to the intendment of
the scheme of the Act or the Rules, Government notified Standing
Orders to guide the Registering Authority. The Standing Order
219(b)3 requires the Registering Authority to refuse to register a
document for registration if High Court or any other civil Court
restrained a person from alienating the property and such order is
brought to the notice of the registering officer. In addition the
Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps
also issued circular instructions to guide the registering officer.
13. In T.Ganesh (supra), the Court considered the precedent
decisions on the scope of power of registering authority refusing to
register a document presented before him on the ground that a
restrained order of this Court or a Civil Court is operating and
scope of power to issue circular instructions by the Commissioner
and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. In Circular
Memo dated 10.03.2010 issued by the Commissioner and
Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, the registering
authority was instructed not to entertain and register a document
affecting a property on which an injunction order of a civil Court
and/or interlocutory order of the High Court is operating. The
validity of the Circular was tested before this Court. Having regard
"S.O. 219 - An order restraining a person from alienating certain property does not
operate as a prohibition to the registering officer against the registration of a document
executed by such person effecting such property,
(b) "If the Andhra Pradesh High Court or any other Civil Court restrains a person from
alienating a property and if such orders are brought to the notice of the Registering
Officer or served on the Registering Officer, the Registering Officer is estopped from going
ahead with the Registration".
PNR,J
W.P.No.10178 of 2021
to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court
held that it is within the competence of the Commissioner and
Inspector General of Registration and Stamps to issue circular
instructions. The decision of the registering authority not to
register the document on the ground that an injunction order is
operating on the same property is held valid.
14. In the case on hand, there are two hurdles, insurmountable
as they are, petitioners need to cross to hold the action of the
registering authority in not registering the document as illegal.
15. Firstly, the injunction order granted by the Senior Civil
Judge at Bhongir on 30.04.2005 in I.A.No.93 of 2004 in O.S.No.9
of 2004 restrained N.Gopal Naidu from alienating, transferring,
mortgaging, creating any charge or lien over petition 'A' to 'D'
schedule lands till the disposal of the suit. In schedule 'A' list of
properties, land to an extent of Acs.10.38¾ guntas in Sy.No.528 of
Bibinagar village is also included. In schedules 'B' to 'D', there are
several other survey numbers. Thus, the land covering various
survey numbers included in the list in schedules 'A' to 'D' to the
injunction order cannot be alienated. C.M.A.No.543 of 2005 filed
against the order in I.A.No.93 of 2004 in O.S.No.9 of 2004, dated
30.04.2005 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
17.06.2011. Secondly, in O.S.No.88 of 2005 where the original
pattadars as well as N.Gopal Naidu were the defendants, the suit
for specific performance was decreed in favour of fourth
respondent covering the subject property. It appears from the
schedule appended to the proposed sale deed, dated 12.11.2020,
PNR,J
W.P.No.10178 of 2021
it is the same land which was agreed to be sold by the original
pattadars to the 4th respondent.
16. According to the 4th respondent, representation was made to
the Tahsildar and the Joint Sub-Registrar informing them the
injunction order and the decree and to invalidate the claim of the
petitioners.
17. From the reading of the Standing Order 219(b), the circular
instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector General of
Registration and Stamps, and the view taken by this Court in
T.Ganesh (supra), it is clear that once the registering authority
comes to know that there is an injunction order imposing restraint
on alienation etc., of a landed property, it is sufficient for him to
refuse registration of a document.
18. Having regard to the litigation inter parties, provisions of the
Standing Order 219(b), the instructions of the Commissioner and
Inspector General for Registration and Stamps and the law on the
subject, I do not see any error in the decision of the registering
authority in not registering the sale deed presented before him by
the petitioners. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. It is made
clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits and parties
are at liberty to prosecute civil law remedies. Pending
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
Date: 30.06.2021
Kkm
PNR,J
W.P.No.10178 of 2021
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.10178 OF 2021
Date: 30.06.2021
kkm
