Telangana High Court
Bapuji Srigiribapuji And 2 Others vs State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 30 December, 2022
Bench: Mummineni Sudheer Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.46564 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing
for the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the order
passed by respondent No.3 in Lr.No.186/2022, dated 07.12.2022
refusing to register the pending document vide refusal order No.5 of
2022, dated 07.12.2022, as arbitrary and illegal. The reasons given
by the respondent-Sub Registrar reads as under:
"Reasons for refusal order, dated 07.12.2022:
Vide reference cited, a Sale deed is presented for Registration
by Si Cherukula Naveen Kumar and Sri Gattadi Bhushan on
01.12.2022 and the same was kept pending duly assigning
No.08/2022.
As per the schedule of the document the property is plot
No.(65) in Sy.No.575/A for an extent of 150 square yards situated at
Basar Village and Mandal. But the plot No. (65) is not forthcoming in
the DTCP approved layout sanctioned plan and there is no link
document at all mentioned in this document which is contrary to the
Commissioner and Inspector General of (R&S) Hyderabad Memo
No.G2/257/2019, dated 26.08.2020 and 29.12.2020.
Moreover, the plot is brought for registration for first time
which come as "New plot" without DTCP layout. Thus, in absence of
approved layout sanctioned plan and without any link document the
above shown order does not permit to register the document. However
in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also imposed stay
vide Special Leave Petition to appeal (C) No.19695/2021 dated
18.05.2022.
In the circumstances shown above, the plot of the property
cannot be registered.
3. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that the Memo referred in the impugned order has no
application to the plots situated in an approved layout and the same
was also clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P (PIL)
No.210 of 2020, dated 28.07.2021. The relevant portion of the said
judgment reads as under:
"Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 stating
inter alia that pursuant to the issuance of Memo dated 26.08.2020, it
was noticed that certain difficulties have been faced by the public. To
obviate the said difficulties, modification of the aforesaid instructions
has been issued on 29.12.2020, whereby registrations have been
permitted in respect of open plots/structures, if the same have been
acquired by the present owner through a valid registered document
executed earlier. However it has been directed that no new plot shall be
registered, unless it is approved by the competent authority or is in an
authorized layout. The connotation of the word 'new plot' is a fresh
plot which is brought for registration for the first time or being sold by
the developers for the first time. It has also been clarified that there is
no restriction on registration of plots in authorized layouts, plots
regularized under earlier LRs schemes and buildings/structures
covered under earlier BPS/BRS schemes.
2. Mr.Harender Parshad, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents states that there is no prohibition on
alienation/transfer of individual property. The prohibition is only for
registration of plots/structures registered by the developers in an
unauthorized layout or structures".
4. In view of specific contention raised by learned counsel
for the petitioners that the subject plots are part of an approved
layout approved by the Gram Panchayat concerned, this Court does
not find any justification for the respondent-Sub Registrar in
refusing to register the document presented for registration in
respect of the subject plots by placing reliance on Memos, dated
26.08.2020 and 29.12.2020. Further, by virtue of Section 71 of the
Registration Act, 1908, the respondent-Sub Registrar is under
obligation to receive the document and process the same, in
accordance with law.
5. Therefore, the action of the respondent-Sub Registrar in
passing impugned refusal order refusing to register document in
respect of the subject plots by placing reliance on Memos, dated
26.08.2020 and 29.12.2020, is totally arbitrary and illegal. The
Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.9248 of 2021, dated 23.08.2021
and Memos referred in the impugned order are in respect of
unauthorized construction and the plots, which are in an
unapproved layout but not in respect of the plots, which are part of
an approved layout. Thus, there cannot be any impediment for the
respondents to register the document in respect of the plots, if such
plots are part of an approved layout and also in respect of the plots,
which were already subjected to registration on an earlier occasion.
Equally, the interim order passed in SLP (Civil) No.19695 of 2021,
dated 18.05.2022 is not a ground to refuse to entertain registration
in respect of the plots, if they are part of an approved layout.
6. In the light of the above, the impugned order is set aside
and respondent No.3 is further directed to receive the returned
document in respect of the subject plots and also process the same,
in accordance with law, by duly verifying the same as to whether
they are part of an approved layout or not and take a decision
thereon afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks
from the date of presentation of the said document by the
petitioners.
7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition
shall stand closed.
____________________________________
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
Date:30.12.2022
YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.46564 of 2022
Date:30.12.2022
YVL
