G.M.S.Raju, vs V. Seshagiri Rao,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1403 Tel

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                         AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
                                W.A.No.327 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Senior

Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.Rahul Reddy, learned

counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

2. This appeal is directed against the order

dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing

of W.P.No.24352 of 2021 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ

petitioner.

3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition

seeking a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Stamps and

Registration, Quthbullapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

(respondent No.2 herein) to register document No.P 85/2021

dated 27.02.2021 whereby the land admeasuring 4282 square

yards or 3580 square meters forming part of Survey

Nos.254/10, 254/6, 254/5, 254/4, 255/1 and 255/5 situated ::2::

at Bowrampet Village, Dundigal-Gandimaisamma Mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District (briefly 'the subject land'

hereinafter), was sold by the vendors to respondent No.1.

4. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 04.10.2021

disposed of the writ petition in the following manner:

This writ petition is filed challenging the Intimation of Refusal No. 48/2021, order dated 01.03.2021, whereby the respondent No.3

- the Sub-Registrar, Quthbullapur, has refused to register the document presented by the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is squarely covered by the orders of this Court, dated 20.09.2021 in W.P. No. 21656 of 2021, whereby this Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned refusal intimation, dated 01.03.2021 and directed the Sub-Registrar to receive and process the document, without reference to the reason shown in the refusal order, dated 01.03.2021. The learned Government Pleader has not opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

::3::

Following the orders, dated 20.09.2021 in W.P. No. 21656 of 2021 and for the reasons stated therein, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned Intimation of Refusal, dated 01.03.2021, is set aside. The respondent No.3, the Sub-Registrar, is directed to receive, process the sale deed dated 27.02.2021 and register the same without reference to the reason shown in the refusal order dated 01.03.2021, if there are no other sale deeds executed earlier in respect of the very same subject property, subject to compliance of all other requirements for consideration in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. However, if the Registering Authority has any other objection for refusal of the document presented before him, he shall assign the reasons in support of such decision and communicate the said decision to the petitioner.

5. By the aforesaid order, dated 04.10.2021, learned Single

Judge has directed the Sub-Registrar to receive and process the

sale deed dated 27.02.2021 and to register the same subject to

compliance of all requirements under the Indian Registration ::4::

Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. If for any event

registering authority has any other objection for refusal of

registration of the document presented before him, he was

directed to assign reasons for taking such a decision and also

to communicate the same to respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

6. Appellants have assailed the aforesaid order of the

learned Single Judge dated 04.10.2021 on the ground that they

have a claim over the subject land and in this regard, they have

filed a suit being O.S.No.111 of 2018 on the file of XVI

Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri

seeking a declaration, decree of partition and perpetual

injunction. The suit is stated to be pending. They have

questioned the very basis of the sale deed in respect of which

direction was issued by the learned Single Judge to the Sub-

Registrar for registration.

7. On 16.03.2023, we had passed the following order:

We are prima facie of the view that since the learned Single Judge had disposed of the related ::5::

writ petition in the absence of the appellants, though according to us they are necessary parties, the matter should go back to the file of learned Single Judge for a fresh decision.

At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that he would like to obtain instruction as to whether following the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the document in question has been registered or not.

On his request, list on 24.03.2023 under the same caption.

8. Today, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits on

instructions that the sale deed in question has been registered

by the Sub-Registrar (respondent No.2).

9. Be that as it may, we feel that since the appellants are

necessary parties to the writ proceedings, they should have

been heard before the impugned direction was issued by the

learned Single Judge.

::6::

10. That being the position, we set aside the order

dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No. 24352 of 2021 and remit the matter back to the file

of learned Single Judge having roster to rehear W.P.No.24352

of 2021. It would be open to the appellants to file necessary

application for their impleadment in the said writ proceedings.

11. It is clarified that registration of the sale deed in

question would be subject to outcome of W.P.No.24352

of 2021.

12. This disposes of the writ appeal. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

stand closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 24.03.2023 LUR