Elka Gangaiah vs Rapolu Kamalamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 618 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
                   I.A.No.2 of 2023 in/& W.A.No.167 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

       Heard Mr. N.Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants

and Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ

petitioner.

2. I.A.No.2 of 2023 has been filed for condoning the delay

of 386 days in filing the related writ appeal.

3. Be it stated that the related writ appeal being W.A.No.167

of 2023 is directed against the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.1988 of 2021 filed by

respondent No.1.

4. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition with the

grievance that respondent No.7/Tahsildar -cum- Joint Sub-

Registrar of Stamps and Registration Department, Narketpally

Mandal, Nalgonda District (briefly 'the Sub-Registrar' hereinafter)

was not entertaining the sale deed presented by her for registration ::2::

with respect to sale of land to an extent of Acs.4.39 guntas in

Survey Nos.147/A1, 148/AA, 5/1, 147/A2 and 148/A5 situated at

Akkenepalle Village Sivar, Bajakonda Village, Narketpalli Mandal in

Nalgonda District (briefly 'the subject land' hereinafter).

5. In the said writ petition, appellants were arrayed as

respondents No.7 and 8. However, learned Single Judge after

noting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader for

Revenue that the Sub-Registrar would follow the procedure

contemplated under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908,

disposed of the writ petition in the following manner:

In view of the above made submission coupled with the provision under Section 71 of the Act, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Registering Authority to receive and process the subject document, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Act and Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It will be open to the Registering Authority to refuse/receive the documents presented before him, if he has any objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicate the said decision to the petitioner. 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 petitioner shall not ::3::

claim equities in case adverse orders are passed against her. If any proceedings/suit/appeal are pending between the executant of the document/Government or any other interested party, the registration of the documents 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.

6. From a perusal of the above, we find that learned Single

Judge had not issued any direction to the Sub-Registrar for

registration of the document; Sub-Registrar was directed to act in

accordance with law i.e., Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are two

writ petitions pending before this Court pertaining to the subject

land being W.P.Nos.14269 of 2019 and 12834 of 2020; if an

opportunity been granted to the appellants, these facts could have

been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

8. However, on a consideration of the order of the learned

Single Judge, it cannot be said that learned Single Judge had passed

an order adverse to the interest of the appellants. All that learned

Single Judge directed was that the Sub-Registrar should consider ::4::

the document presented by respondent No.1 for registration strictly

in accordance with law. It goes without saying that Sub-Registrar

being a statutory authority would consider all aspects of the matter

before passing any order on registration.

9. Adverting to I.A.No.2 of 2023 filed for condoning the delay

of 386 days in filing the related writ appeal, all that appellants have

stated in the affidavit filed in support thereof is in paragraph 4,

which reads as under:

I submit that the respondent No.1 by suppressing the above said facts, filed W.P.No.1988 of 2021 and the same is disposed of on 2.12.2021 directing the registering authority to receive and process the document presented by the respondent No.1. I submit that during the 3rd week of December, 2022, I came to know that the 1st respondent herein approached the 7th respondent herein for presenting the document and later I caused my enquiries and came to know about the impugned order. Having been aggrieved by the order dated 2.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.1988 of 2021, the present writ appeal is filed. Due to the above said reasons, I could not file the writ appeal in time and the delay so occurred is neither willful nor wanton.

10. On due consideration, we are of the view that the above

averments does not describe or constitute sufficient cause to ::5::

explain the inordinate delay of 386 days in filing the writ appeal.

Therefore, having regard to the above and also taking the view that

there is no merit in the appeal, we decline to condone the delay. IA

is accordingly dismissed.

11. Resultantly, W.A.No.167 of 2023 is dismissed as being time

barred. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 07.02.2023 LUR