Telangana High Court
Arvind Jasti, Secunderabad vs Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyderabad ... on 24 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.P. No.26139 of 2013
ORDER:
Questioning the action of the respondents, Registering
Authority, in refusing to register the Plot bearing No.85 admeasuring
238.76 square yards in Sy.No.74/4 in M/s.Vyjanthi Cooperative
Housing Society Limited (Mahendra Hills) Marredpally Secunderabad
Contonment, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the subject
property") on the ground that the subject property is claimed by the
Government in LGC No.167/1997, the petitioner filed the present writ
petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the subject
property from his vendor by paying sale consideration amount and
thereafter executed a sale deed and submitted for registration before
the respondent No.4, Sub-Registrar, Bowenpally, Hyderabad,
who refused to register the same on the ground that it is a
Government land. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
Government had filed LGC No.167 of 1996 claiming the subject survey
number as it is a Government land and the same was dismissed on
18.03.2010 by the Special Court. Thereafter, the Government filed a
writ petition in W.P. No.19106 of 2010 that was heard and reserved
for orders by the Division Bench of this Court.
NVSK, J
4. The learned counsel would further submit that this Court on
06.09.2013 in WPMP. No.32295 of 2013 passed interim direction to
the Registering authority to register the subject document without
reference to the claim of the Government that it is Government land
and the registration shall be subject to the result of this writ petition.
He would further submit that in pursuance to the said interim
direction the subject document was registered and since the cause in
the present writ petition has been served no further orders are
required to be passed.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Stamps and Registration Sri H.Rakesh Kumar while acceding to
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner would
further submit that many number of writ petitions have been filed on
similar issue wherein no separate counter affidavits have been filed
however, in similar writ petition 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 all the similar matters and the present writ
petition is one among similar pending writ petitions and requested to
dispose of the present writ petition with a liberty to either of the
parties to pursue their remedies as available under law subject to
outcome of the W.P. No.19106 of 2010, which is pending for orders
before the Division Bench of this Court.
NVSK, J
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and
perused the material made available on the record.
7. The counter affidavit stated to have been filed in W.P. No.11653
of 2013 by the respondent No.2, District Collector therein, is taken on
record as the counter affidavit has been filed as an adopted one in the
present writ petition. In the said counter affidavit at para No.8 stated
as under:
"8. 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 LGC.
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."
NVSK, J
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
recording the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side
that subsequent to the interim orders passed by this Court,
subject document has been registered and no further cause would be
survived for further adjudication, this writ petition is disposed of with
a liberty to either of the parties to pursue their remedies as available
under law subject to outcome of the W.P. No.19106 of 2010, which is
pending for orders before the Division Bench of this Court.
9. However, it is made clear that mere registration of the document
does not confer any title on the subject property and 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 would not
preclude the parties in asserting their rights before the competent
Court of law.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 24.07.2024
LSK
