Smt.Kandala Manju Bhargavi vs State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2772 Tel

            HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                 SRI M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
                                        AND
           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

                      WRIT APPEAL No. 443 OF 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao)

      This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dt. 02.09.2021 in

I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.20460 of 2021.


2.    The main contention raised by the appellants in the Writ Petition was

that on the basis of a Memo No.G2/257/2019, dt. 26.08.2020 issued by the

2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent cannot refuse to register and release the

sale deed of the appellants already given a pending registration document

Nos.118 to 126 of 2021.

3. The appellants had relied upon an order passed by this Bench on

23.08.2021 in W.P.No.9248 of 2021 before the learned Single Judge.

4. Having noticed the same, the learned Single Judge on 02.09.2021

passed orders in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.20460 of 2021 as under:

"Having regard to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9248 of 2021, dated 23.08.2021, the official respondents are directed to receive, process, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioners vide pending document Nos.118 to 126 of 2021, without reference to Memo No.G2/257/2019, dated 26.08.2020 issued by respondent No.2, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the petitioners complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899.

However, any such registration shall be treated as a provisional one. It is made clear that mere registration of the documents does not confer any title to the property. The petitioners shall not claim equity in case any adverse orders are passed against them. If any proceedings/suit/appeal are pending between the executant of the document/Government or any other interested party, the registration of the ::2::

document will be subject to the result of that proceedings/suit/appeal. It is also made clear that this order does not preclude the Government/District Collector to take appropriate steps as warranted by law and to assert its title."

5. This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the second paragraph of the

order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that when the 2nd

respondent has been held to have no jurisdiction under the provisions of the

Registration Act, 1908 to issue the said Memo referred to in the order passed

by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.08.2021 in W.P.No.9248 of 2021

prohibiting registration in relation to any property, it is the duty of the 3rd

respondent to accept the document presented by appellants for registration,

register it and then release it and he cannot refuse to do so, and the learned

Single Judge, therefore, ought not to have imposed the limitations on such

registration making it merely provisional by stating that it does not confer

any title.

7. We completely agree with the contention of the learned counsel for

the appellants. If the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to issue the Memo

as per our order dt. 23.08.2021 in W.P.No.9248 of 2021, the learned Single

Judge ought not to have imposed the restriction which he did in the second

paragraph of his order.

8. Though the learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents filed a counter in the Writ Petition referring to G.O.Ms.No.111,

dt. 08.03.1996, the said G.O. would apply only in respect of granting ::3::

construction permissions near Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes and at

has no relevance as far as registration is concerned.

9. In any event, without challenging the order passed by the learned

Single Judge insofar as he directed registration of the documents and release

to them, in the appeal filed by the appellants questioning the second

paragraph of the order, such a contention ought not to have been raised.

10. Similar principle would equally apply to the other contention raised

by the State with regard to the land being agricultural land.

11. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The second paragraph in the

order dated 02.09.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.20460 of 2021

insofar as the learned Single Judge imposed restriction on the appellants for

getting the registration of the abovementioned documents, is set aside in

toto. It is, however, made clear that such registration will abide by the result

of the Writ Petition.

12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Appeal shall

stand closed. No costs.

______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, ACJ

______________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J

Date: 24.09.2021.

ES