Telangana High Court
Abhilash Sharma, vs State Of Telangana on 30 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.23922 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.Rakesh Kumar,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing
for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, this writ petition is taken up
for disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
"to declare the action of Respondent No.3 for not receiving and registering
the document pertains to house on Plot No.118, in Sy.no.74/8, to an extent
of 399 Sq.yards at Road No.9, 2nd Phase, Tirumalagiri Colony, Mahendra
Hills, Secunderabad, on par with other properties as illegal, arbitrary and
violation of principles of natural justice apart from violation of the rights
guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India
and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to receive and register the
sale deed presented by the Petitioner against the property i.e., house on Plot
No.118, in Sy.no.74/8, to an extent of 399 Sq.yards at Road No.9, 2nd
Phase, Tirumalagiri Colony, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally petitioner's
father is the owner of the house on Plot No.118, to an extent of 399 Sq.yards, in
Sy.No.74/8, at Road No.9, 2nd Phase, Tirumalagiri Colony, Mahendra Hills,
Secunderabad, having acquired the same through registered sale deed dated
29.07.1991. It is further submitted that the petitioner's father had executed a
will deed and the same was registered vide document No.96/2010 and in the
said will deed, the subject property has been given to petitioner. After the
death of petitioner's father, the petitioner made necessary applications and
requested the respondent No.4 to mutate the subject property in his name.
Subsequently, the respondent No.4 issued proceeding bearing
SCB/EP/Mutation/F/1069 dated 23.08.2021 and thereafter, the subject
property was mutated in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner is in
peaceful possession on the subject property.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, with an
intention to sell the subject property, executed the sale deed in favour of the
third party and approached the respondent No.3 for registration. However,
respondent No.3 has refused to register the subject document basing on the
ground that Sy.No.74 in Cantonment area is under prohibitory list. Aggrieved
by the same, this writ petition is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that many writ petitions
were filed seeking registration of the documents in respect of the lands in
Sy.No.74 at East Marredpally, Secunderabad, and this Court had directed the
registering authority to receive, register and release the documents presented
in respect of the land in Sy.No.74 at East Marredpally, Secunderabad and
sought to pass similar order.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration
while acceding to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that many number of writ petitions have been filed
on similar issue wherein no separate counter affidavits have been filed
however, in one of the writ petition i.e., in W.P. No.11653 of 2013, which was
disposed of on 23.07.2024 by this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed and
the averments mentioned therein may be read/adopted as a counter
averments in the present writ petition and has drawn the attention of this
Court to the relevant paragraph of the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No.11653
of 2013, which reads as under:
"It is submitted that a comprehensive land case was filed by the
then Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally against the (7)
Societies and as well as some of individual plot owners of Sy.No.74
of Marredpally (Paigah) village in L.G.C, No.167/97 in the
Spl.Court under L.G(P) Act, 1982. The Hon'ble Spl.Court, under
A.P.L.G.(P) Act dismissed the LGC No.167/97 on 18-03-2010.
Aggrieved by the same, the then MRO, Marredpally Mandal filed
WP No.19106/2010, before the Hon'ble High Court and the same
is pending. The Hon'ble Spl.Court dismissed the LGC on
erroneous grounds without properly appreciating the evidence of
Govt. and as such writ petition has been filed challenging the
same. Thus the LGC judgment has not become final. Further
submitted that the litigation between the parties and the Govt. has
not reached to its logical end. Under such circumstances it can't be
said that Govt. have lost its claim. As such the interest of Govt.
still subsists. In view of the above the interest of Govt. that subsists
in the subject land will be jeopardized if this W.P. is allowed.
Hence it is liable for dismissal."
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that subject
matter was earlier adjudicated by the Spl.Court under A.P.L.G.(P) Act, 1982,
vide LGC No.167 of 1997, however the said LGC No.167 of 1997 has been
dismissed on 18.03.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Marredpally Mandal, filed WP No.19106 of 2010 before this Court and the
same has been heard and reserved by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that since in
similar writ petitions this Court by way of interim order had directed the
registering authorities to receive, register the documents presented before
them, without reference to the claim of the Government that it is Government
land and in pursuance to the said interim direction the documents therein
were registered and since the cause in those writ petitions has been served
this Court had disposed those writ petitions, granting liberty to all the
concerned parties to seek appropriate remedy, subject to outcome of the W.P.
No.19106 of 2010, which is pending for orders before the Division Bench of
this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to dispose of
the writ petition by passing similar order as passed in those writ petitions.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has not disputed the same.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and recording
the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court deems
it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent No.3 to
receive, register and release the subject document. It is made clear that the
registration of the subject document is subject to outcome of the W.P.
No.19106 of 2010. It is also made clear that if either of the parties are
aggrieved by the orders to be passed in W.P.No.19106 of 2010, liberty is
granted to parties to pursue their remedies as available under law.
11. It is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer
title on the subject property and it is also made clear that this order would not
have any bearing on all those matters where title/rights of the parties are
pending before the authorities either in revision/appeals for adjudication and
in any other case this order also does not preclude the parties in asserting
their rights before a competent Court of law.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous
applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to cost.
______________________________
N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR,J
30.08.2024
SU
