K. Sai Ram vs Rayala Vazramma
2022 Latest Caselaw 417 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                    AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



           WRIT APPEAL Nos.373 and 375 of 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:       (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     Regard being had to the controversy involved in the

aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being

decided by a common judgment.

     The facts of W.A.No.373 of 2019 are reproduced as

under:

     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated

04.02.2019    passed      by      the      learned         Single        Judge     in

W.P.No.1957 of 2019.

     The facts of the case reveal that the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner came up before this Court stating that

she has presented a document in respect of Flat No.401,

admeasuring 1462 square feet in Sai Vamsee Projects in

Survey No.77 situated at Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and it is not being registered

by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Registering Officer, Ranga Reddy

District. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ

petition and the relevant portion of the order passed by the

learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:-

"5. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to receive and process the document presented by the petitioner without reference to the Notification dated 26.09.2013

issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. In the event the said document is found to be fit for registration, the third respondent shall complete the due formalities in accordance with law and release the document. However, if he still finds any ground to exercise power under Section-76 of the Act of 1908 and refuse registration, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that mere registration of this document would not confer title upon the property covered thereby, if it is otherwise wanting, and would not preclude the Government from taking appropriate steps as warranted by law, if it seeks to assert any right or title over the said land."

It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the

registration of the document has already been done.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before

this Court that the appellants are also having interest over

the subject property.

In the considered opinion of this Court, once the

registration has already been done, the appellants, in case

they are claiming title over the property, can certainly file a

suit claiming title/declaration in respect of the said property.

The appellants are also certainly free to file an application for

cancellation of the sale deed. However, it is made clear that

the order passed by the learned Single Judge will not create

any right in respect of the parties so far as title of the

property is concerned.

With the aforesaid observations, both the writ appeals

stand dismissed.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

03.02.2022 vs