Telangana High Court
Gmr Hyderabad International Airport ... vs State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 6 June, 2024
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ Writ Petition No.22672 of 2021
% 06.06.2024
# Between:
GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited
GMR Aero Towers, Rajiv Gandhi Intl. Airport
Shamshabad, Hyderabad & another.
Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Telangana,
Registration and Stamps Department,
Rep by Chief Secretary,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others.
Respondents
! Counsel for Appellants : Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy
^ Counsel for Respondents : Government Pleader
for Stamps and Registration
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 (2022) 3 SCC 117
2 2022 (6) ALD 510
3 2023 SCC Online J&K
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition No. 22672 of 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India declaring the action of respondent
No.2 in issuing the impugned notice dated 19.08.2021
calling upon the petitioners to pay a fine/penalty
equivalent to five times of the Registration fee of the two
deeds i.e., the Conveyance Deed and Sub-Lease deed dated
29.09.2020 within one month from the date of the notice,
without affording the petitioners with a reasonable
opportunity of hearing and without considering the request
made by the petitioner to exclude the 92 days period of
suspension of registrations imposed by respondent No.1,
while calculating four months' period provided under the
statute, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of
natural justice apart from being violative of the rights of
the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), Article 14
and Article 21 and set aside the same and consequently
direct respondent No.2 to consider the two deeds i.e., the
conveyance deed and sub-lease deed dated 20.09.2020
presented by petitioners for registration on 12.03.2021
without insisting on payment of any penalty/fine.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner
No.1 and petitioner No.2 are both represented by its CEO.
Petitioner No.1 is a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and is part of GMR Group which is
leading global infrastructure with various projects in
Airports, Energy, Transportation, Urban Infrastructure and
in sports and is maintaining the World Class Greenfield
International Airport by name Rajiv Gandhi International
Airport, Hyderabad.
3. In the year 2003, a land lease agreement dated 30-
09-2003 was executed by the State Government whereby
land admeasuring about Ac.5500 has been given on lease
by the State Government to the petitioner No.1 for the
development of the airport and for other commercial
departments for the socio economic growth of the region.
Thereafter a Concession Agreement dated 20.12.2004, was
executed with Government of India through the Ministry of
Civil Aviation, with petitioner No.1 for designing, financing,
construction, operation and maintenance of the Airport at
Shamshabad, Hyderabad.
4. It is submitted that the provision of Air Cargo
Terminal Services is one of the concessions granted under
the said agreement. In order to facilitate for providing the
Air Cargo Services at Airport, petitioner No.1 constructed
Air Cargo Terminal Building (ACT Building). Petitioner No.1
incorporated 2nd petitioner as its wholly owned subsidiary,
for providing air cargo services including warehouse
handling, build-up and breakdown ULDs, general
supervision, tracing and irregularity, management,
customs, interface etc., in an efficient manner. As a part of
the business requirements, petitioner No.1 executed a
conveyance deed dated 29.09.2020, whereby the
aforementioned ACT Building was conveyed in favour of
petitioner No.2 herein which is its wholly owned
subsidiary. Petitioner No.1 also executed a separate sub-
lease deed dated 29.09.2020, in respect of the above ACT
Building Land with rights to grant sub-lease, sub-sub-
lease etc.
5. It is submitted that as per Section 23 of the
Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity 'the Act' hereinafter) all
documents except a Will have to be presented for
registration before the concerned Registrar or Sub-
Registrar within four (4) months from the date of execution
of such document. Further, Section 25 of the Act provides
that due to any reasons mentioned therein, such executed
document could not be presented within four (4) months
but is presented after expiry of the said period, the same
will be accepted for registration provided that upto 10
times of the amount of registration fee to be paid if the
delay in presentation does not exceed four (4) months.
6. It is submitted that while so, the State Government
vide G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 07.09.2020 by exercising its
powers under Rule 5 of the Telangana Registration Rules
under the Registration Act, 1908, declared holidays with
effect from 08.09.2020 until further orders for all Registrar
and Sub-Registrar offices in the State in respect of all
registration services except three services viz., registration
of will deeds, administration of marriages and franking
services. Admittedly this was done to bring in certain
changes in the property registrations in the related process
and technical applications. It is further submitted that in
October 2020, the Government of Telangana launched a
web portal named 'Dharani' for registration of land and
property transactions. However, due to confusions on the
Dharani portal and inordinate delays, manual registrations
resumed from 09.12.2020. As such, the registration of
properties was suspended for a period of 92 days and
resumed only on 09.12.2020.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has paid
stamp duty and registration fee amounting a sum of
Rs.1,18,41,238/- vide e-challan No.404WBQ100321, dated
10.03.2021 towards the conveyance deed and a sum of
Rs.40,18,448/- vide e-challan No.904Z2P100321, dated
10.03.2021. Respondent No.2 on 12.03.2021 accepted the
said two documents for registration and assigned pending
document Nos.P-87/21 and P-81/21 on the same day.
However, respondent No.2 thereafter did not take steps for
registration of the said two documents.
8. In such a situation petitioner No.1 made a
representation on 02.05.2021 to respondent No.3 and
submitted that respondent No.1 by virtue of
G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 07.09.2020 had stopped all the
registrations until further orders as such the petitioners
could not present the deeds for registration. Petitioners
requested respondent No.3 to consider and waive the
penalty by exercising powers under Section 69(1)(d) of the
Act. The said representation was also marked to the
Deputy Inspector General (Stamps and Registration),
Hyderabad and the Sub-Registrar.
9. The petitioner further submits that as per Section
23 of the Act, four (4) months period would have ended on
28.01.2021 in normal circumstances. However, in view of
the suspension of registrations by respondent No.1 from
07.09.2020 to 09.12.2020 (92 days), the statutorily
available period of four (4) months would effectively lapse
on 30.04.2021 and that respondent No.2 while considering
the application for registration of deeds ought to have
excluded the aforesaid 92 days period in terms of the
Section 23 of the Act for the purpose of limitation. It is
further submitted that respondent No.2 accepted the
challans evidencing payment of stamp duty and
registration fees on 12.03.2021, which marks the 71st day
from the date of execution (pursuant to exclusion of the 92
days suspension period) and the same is well within the
four (4) months period provided under the Act. It is further
submitted that there was no deliberate intention on the
part of the petitioners, however on account of the decision
to stop the said registration process and implementation of
e-portal system and thereafter switching back to the old
system has in fact created confusion in the minds of the
general public. As a result of which, registration could not
be completed.
10. It is further submitted that since, no response
was received from the respondents till date, petitioner
submitted another representation dated 11.08.2021
seeking reasons for not registering the said documents.
However, the respondents vide impugned letter dated
19.08.2021 informed first petitioner that as the documents
were presented after a period of four (4) months from the
date of execution, the same is in violation of the Act and
that there was a delay of more than a month but less than
two months for presentation of documents and the
petitioner was asked to pay a penalty equivalent to five
times of the Registration Fee for the two documents.
11. It is also submitted that due to COVID-19
outbreak, the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the
limitation period in respect of various matters and owing to
the pandemic situation, the performance of even regular
activities have become impossible and even after lockdown
was lifted, most offices are functioning in a debilitated
fashion with lesser staff rendering the functioning difficult.
It is further submitted that the petitioners have received a
letter No.G3/2/2021 dated 18.06.2021, wherein
respondent No.3 communicated to the Chief Secretary to
the Government, Revenue (Registration) Department that
the issue in respect of presenting documents and proposals
for waiver of fine imposed under Section 25 and 70 of the
Act were being considered and thereafter noting the said
communication which clearly indicates considering the
request of the petitioners, the action of respondent No.2 in
issuing the notice dated 19.08.2021 without granting an
opportunity to the petitioners in providing explanation, is
being violative of principles of natural justice.
12. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has
acted in haste and utter ignorance of the fact that period of
92 days period was suspended for registrations vide
G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 07.09.2020 which was imposed by
respondent No.1 and such suspended period of 92 days
ought to have considered for calculation in addition to the
four months' period prescribed under Section 23 of Act and
accordingly respondent No.2 should not have insisted the
payment of any penalty. Questioning the same, the present
writ petition is filed.
13. This Court on 27.09.2021 has passed the
following order:
"Challenging the notice dated 19.08.2021
issued by respondent No.2 levying five times
registration fee in respect of the two documents i.e.,
conveyance deed and sub-lease deed, which are
numbered as P97/21 and P88/21, the present writ
petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated
that the petitioners have already made an
application on 02.05.2021 to respondent No.3 - the
Commissioner & Inspector General (Registration &
Stamps), requesting him to waive the penalty, and
respondent No.3, in turn, has addressed a letter to
the Chief Secretary to Government on 18.06.2021.
Learned Counsel has further stated that pending
consideration of the said application, the official
respondents may be directed to register and release
the documents submitted by the petitioners and in
the case, the application of the petitioners is rejected
or the present with petition is dismissed, the
petitioners undertake to pay the penalty as levied by
respondent No.2 vide the impugned notice dated
19.08.2021".
Recording the above undertaking given by the
petitioners, the respondent No.2- Sub Registrar is
directed to register and release the documents
bearing Nos.87/2021 and 88/2021, as per the
provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and
Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and the Rules made there
under. However, it is made clear that such
registration and release shall be subject to the final
orders likely to be passed in this writ petition and
also the orders likely to be passed by the
Government on the application of the petitioner
dated 02.05.2021. It is also made clear that the
petitioners shall not claim equities in case any
adverse orders are passed against them.
Registry is directed to make an endorsement
on the writ petition to the effect that the same shall
not be permitted to be withdrawn.
14. Thereafter, the sub-registrar/respondent No.2
has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents and
would submit that the petitioner has submitted two
documents styled as 'Deed of Conveyance' executed by
petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2 dated
29.09.2020 for processing, the same for registration in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, the
documents were examined and assigned with pending
Doc.Nos.P-87/2021 and P-88/2021 for the reason that the
said documents were presented after four (4) months of
execution and there was a delay of one (1) month but not
exceeding two months which attracts Section 23 read with
Section 25 of the Act and that since the petitioners have
submitted the said documents beyond the limitation
prescribed under the provisions of the Act and there was a
direction to the petitioners to pay requisite fine which is
equal to 5 times registration fees paid in the pending
documents as calculated in terms of Rule 38 of the
Registration Rules and also instructed to submit approved
plan to be issued by the competent authority for the
structure being conveyed under the said documents and it
was also clarified in the said notice that after complying
with the above condition the document will be referred to
the District Registrar for condonation of delay,
classification and chargeability and if any additional stamp
duty, registration fee, fine or transfer duty needs to be
paid. The petitioner instead of complying the above said
requirements, in a hasty manner, approached this Court
questioning the notice issued by respondent dated
19.08.2021.
15. It is submitted that the Government has issued
G.O.Ms.No.102, Revenue (Registration) Department dated
07.09.2020 giving effect from 08.09.2020 for undertaking
technical updates of matters relating to registrations and
processing the documents for the purpose of maintaining
all the registered transactions in a transparent manner and
easily accessible to the citizens, to update the computers,
and declared holidays for a period of 92 days and that the
Government has not given any orders regarding excluding
the number of holidays for the purpose of calculation of
limitation as prescribed under Section 23 and 25 of the Act
to enable the respondent to waive the penalty as prescribed
under the provisions Act and in the absence of the orders
issued by the competent authority, the petitioners are
liable to pay penalty amount as prescribed under the
Rules. That apart, the petitioner has not submitted the
document for registration soon after resumption of
registrations i.e., 14.02.2020 and the same are presented
on 12.03.2021 i.e., almost all three (3) months later after
the resumption of registration, as such, the petitioner was
not entitled for condonation of delay and liable to pay fine
which amounts to 5 times as per Rule 38 of the Rules and
submitted that the respondent has rightly issued the
impugned notice dated 19.08.2021 which does not suffer
any legal infirmities warranting interference of this Court.
16. It is further submitted that Hon'ble Court has
specifically directed the respondents to register and
process the pending documents subject to the final orders
likely to be passed by the Government on the application of
the petitioner dated 02.05.2021. On verification of the
petitioners' pending documents, a clarification was sought
for from the office of District Registrar, Ranga Reddy vide
letter dated 20.10.2021 as to the nature and chargeability
of the same. Thereafter, the District Registrar vide letter
dated 01.12.2021 stated that the conveyance deed is
chargeable as conveyance on sale. Thereafter, receiving
such clarification, respondents have addressed a letter
dated 15.12.2021 directed the petitioner to pay an amount
of 1.5% transfer duty and 0.1% mutation charges on
consideration of Rs.26,31,27,225/- with reference to
pending document No.88/2021, and also directed the
petitioners to pay differential stamp duty of Rs.55,600/-
and registration fees of Rs.1000/-.
17. However, the petitioner has himself represented
another representation for waiver of the fine amount and
has filed the present writ petition. It is further submitted
that the petitioner was liable to pay fine amount under
Rule 38 of the Registration Rules. Even if the petitioners'
representation is considered condoning the delay in
presentation, still the petitioners are liable to pay transfer
duty and mutation charges on both the documents as
shortfall and informed vide letter No.273 of 2021, dated
15.12.2021 and the petitioners instead of complying the
same, are disputing the nature of documents and contents
thereof and its chargeability, which requires to be
examined under Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 for determination of nature of the
document, as such the present writ petition is not
maintainable and the interim orders granted are liable to
be vacated. Respondents filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 to vacate
the interim order granted by this Court on 27.09.2021.
18. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of petitioner
Nos.1 and 2. While reiterating the submissions made in
the writ petition and in the para wise reply, it is submitted
that in pursuant to the reasonable relief being seen in the
Covid-19 situation, on 12.03.2021, the petitioners
presented the two deeds for registration and paid requisite
registration fee and stamp duty as per law and as advised
by respondent No.2 office, amounting to a sum of
Rs.1,18,41,238/- vide e-challan No.405WBQ100321 dated
10.03.2021 as provided by respondent No.2 office towards
conveyance deed and some of Rs.40,18,448/- vide e-
challan No.904Z2P100321 dated 10.03.2021 towards sub-
lease deed. The said documents were accepted and were
assigned P-87/21 and P-88/21. Inspite of paying challans
and documents being received, no steps were taken by the
respondents for completion of registration of the said
deeds.
19. The petitioner thereafter submitted
representation on 02.05.2021 and 11.08.2021 to
respondent No.2 and 3 to consider and waive the penalty
by exercising his powers under Section 69(1)(d) of the Act
and in view of the suspension of the Registration by the
respondents for a period of 92 days, respondents ought to
have considered and excluded the said 92 days period for
the purpose of calculation of four months period mentioned
under Section 23 of the Act and that the documents were
presented for registration on 12.03.2021, which marks the
71st day from the date of execution (pursuant to execution
of 92 days suspension period) and considering the same, it
would be well within the four months period and that the
demand for payment of penalty equivalent to five times of
the registration fee on the said two deeds is arbitrary and
in the absence of any orders issued by respondent No.1 on
the said issue and as such when no clarification was given,
the petitioners were constrained to file the present writ
petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS:
20. Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that
execution and registration of the documents was impacted
on two grounds i.e., surge of Covid-19 virus across the
Country on the public health and the suspension of
Dharani Portal in terms of G.O.Ms.No.102 dated
07.09.2020. He would further submit that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has took suo motu cognizance (Suo motu
Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020) of the difficulties that might
be faced by the litigants in filing
petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other quasi
proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed
under the general law of limitation or under any special
laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the
Covid-19 pandemic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
orders dated 10.01.2022 in Miscellaneous Application
No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020
directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation. The
relevant portion of the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in In Re:Cognizance For Extension of
LImitation 1, is as follows:
"1.The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored
and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated
08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is
directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of
limitation as may be prescribed under any general
or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings."
21. Learned senior counsel would submit that the
respondents ought to have excluded the 92 days period in
terms of G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 07.09.2020 and also ought
to have considered the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 that the
said period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 also has to be
excluded for the purpose of limitation as per the provisions
of the Act for receiving and registering the documents. He
(2022) 3 SCC 117
would further submit that considering both the situations,
the documents dated 29.09.2020 and the period in terms
of above G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 07.09.2020 and the orders
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing excluding the
period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purpose of
limitation, the presentation of documents are within time
and the provisions of Section 23 cannot be considered in
such peculiar circumstances and the situation prevailed at
that relevant point of time.
22. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the order of
this Court in the case of Tata Consumer Products
Limited and another v. The State of Telangana 2 in
W.P.No.15986 of 2020. In the said writ petition, the issues
were similar wherein the Country was placed under
lockdown due to Covid-19 Pandemic and in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 07.09.2020 registration of immovable
properties were stopped. The relevant portion of the said
order is as under:
"11. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order
dated 10.01.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.2
2022 (6) ALD 510
of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021
in Suo Motu Writ petition (C) No.3 of 2020
considering the impact of the surge of the virus on
public health and adversities faced by the general
public directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022 shall stand excluded from the purposes
of limitation as may be prescribed under any
general or special law in respect of all judicial or
quasi judicial proceedings.
12. In the present case, after perusing the
record, admittedly the effect of COVID-19 pandemic
caused hardship to both the parties i.e. petitioners
and the respondents and that the petitioners made
representations from time to time and there is no
negligence on the part of the petitioners. Even as per
the record, the Challan is paid on 12.03.2020 within
the prescribed period of four months from the date of
execution of the subject lease deed dated
20.11.2019, which was accepted by the Registering
Authority and thereby the registration date was
initially scheduled on 09.03.2020 but due to
declaration of holiday on the said day, thereafter the
registration dates were rescheduled from time to
time. Since the Challan was paid and registration
dates were already scheduled from time to time no
prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the
registration is carried out. In view of the same, the
petitioners' case is found to be sustainable.
13. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the submissions
made by the learned counsel on either side and the
observations made in the order dated 01.10.2020 in
W.P. No.313 of 2020 by this Court and the order
dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Miscellaneous Application No.2 of 2022 in
Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo
Motu Writ petition (C) No.3 of 2020, into
consideration, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the
writ petition with the following directions:
i) The respondents, particularly respondents
No.3 and 4, before whom the aforesaid
representations stated to have been made, are
directed either to consider the representations dated
16.03.2020, 19.08.2020 and 08.09.2020 seeking
extension of the validity of the registration of the
subject lease agreement dated 20.11.2019, coupled
with the provision of Sections 23 and 71 of the Act,
and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with
law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, or
ii) To entertain the registration of subject lease
deed dated 20.11.2019, if it is otherwise in order,
duly extending the validity of the registration of
subject lease deed and Challan bearing
No.5149659836504, dated 12.03.2020.
iii) However, it will be open to the 4th
respondent to refuse/receive the document
presented before him, if he has any other objection,
by duly assigning reasons in support of such
decision and communicate the said decision to the
petitioners."
23. Further, learned Senior Counsel has also relied
upon the Judgment of the High Court of Jammu and
Kashmir and Ladakh in the case of Wamiq Rasool Budoo
and another Vs. UT of J&K 3, wherein it has been held as
under:
"10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by virtue of
its order dated 23.03.2020 had issued direction that
the limitation prescribed under general law or
special laws whether condonable or not shall stand
extended with effect from 15th March, 2020 till
further orders. Thereafter the Hon'ble Supreme Court
vide its order dated 08.03.2021 further directed that
in cases where the limitation period expired between
15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, all the persons shall
have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021.
Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 27.04.2021 directed that the period(s) of
limitation as prescribed under any general law or
special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand
extended till further orders. Thus, it is evident that
on 22.04.2021, the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide orders dated 23.03.2020 and
08.03.2021 were in operation. Once the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has issued general directions
regarding extension of the limitation period, it was
not open for the respondent No.3 to reject the
[2023 SCC Online J&K]
application seeking condonation of delay on the
ground that no sufficient cause has been
demonstrated by the petitioners for condoning the
delay. Even no penalty can be imposed in terms of
section 25 of the Act (supra) during the Covid-19
pandemic.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed,
impugned order dated 11.06.2021 passed by the
respondent No.3 is quashed and the respondent
No.3 shall pass fresh orders in light of the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and shall
issue appropriate directions to the respondent No 4,
with in the period of 15 days from the receipt of this
order."
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS:
24. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of respondents reiterated the submissions made
in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and would
submit that the respondents had rightly issued the notice
dated 19.08.2021 demanding the petitioner to pay the
penalty/fine on the said two conveyance deeds.
25. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused
the record.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
26. The relevant dates and events to be considered
for deciding the case are:
(i) G.O.Ms.No.102, Registration (Revenue) Department
dated 07.09.2020 whereby registrations were stopped with
effect from 08.09.2020.
(ii) The documents were executed by the petitioners on
29.09.2020.
(iii) As per the counter affidavit, registrations were resumed
on 14.12.2020.
(iv) On 12.03.2021, challans are paid and documents were
submitted.
(v) Orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020.
27. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.102, dated
07.09.2020, by exercising its powers under Rule 5 of the
Telangana Registration Rules under the Act, with a view to
provide quality services to citizens for registration of
property documents proposed to bring certain changes in
the related process and technical applications and stopped
registrations in the Registration and Stamps Department
and declared holidays with effect from 08.09.2020, for all
Registrars and Sub-Registrar Offices in the State in respect
of all registration services until further orders. It is also
submitted that in the month of October, 2020, the
Government of Telangana launched a Web Portal by name
'Dharani' and due to confusions on the Dharani portal and
inordinate delays registration of properties were suspended
for a period of 92 days and were resumed only from
14.12.2020 (as per counter affidavit filed by sub-registrar,
Shamshabad). Thereafter, the petitioners presented the
said two deeds i.e., the Conveyance Deed dated 29.09.2020
and the Sub-Lease dated 29.09.2020 for registration along
with challans on 12.03.2021 before the concerned Sub-
Registrar, Shamshabad and also paid requisite registration
fee and stamp duty on the said two deeds.
28. For facility, it is relevant to extract Section 23
and Section 25 of the Act as well as Rule 38 of the
Telangana Rules under Registration Act:
"23. Time for presenting documents.--
Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24,
25 and 26, no document other than a will shall be
accepted for registration unless presented for that
purpose to the proper officer within four months
from the date of its execution:
Provided that a copy a of a decree or order
may be presented within four months from the
day on which the decree or order was made, or,
where it is appealable, within four months from
the day on which it becomes final.
25. Provision where delay in presentation is
unavoidable.--
(1) If, owing to urgent necessity or
unavoidable accident, any document executed, or
copy of a decree or order made, in 2 [India] is not
presented for registration till after the expiration of
the time hereinbefore prescribed in that behalf,
the Registrar, in cases where the delay in
presentation does not exceed four months, may
direct that, on payment of a fine not exceeding ten
times the amount of the proper registration-fee,
such document shall be accepted for registration.
(2) Any application for such direction may be
lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith
forward it to the Registrar to whom he is
subordinate.
Rule 38: The fines for delays in presentation
and appearance under Section 25 and 34 shall be
regulated as follows: When the delay does not
exceed one week A fine equal to the registration
fee. after the expiration of time allowed for
presentation or appearance. When the delay
exceeds one week but does not exceed one
calendar month. When the delay exceeds one
month but does not exceed two months. When the
delay exceeds two months but does not exceed
four months A fine equal to twice the registration
fee A fine equal to twice the registration fee A fine
equal to ten times the registration fee.
Explanations:--(1) The fine shall be levied in
addition to the proper registration fee. (2) The term
registration fee as used in this rule does not
include the fee for copying documents and
endorsements thereon or the fee payable for the
registration under Section 33 or for filing a
translation under Section 19 or fee for copies and
Memoranda of attendance at a private residence or
for the registration of a duplicate or triplicate.
29. In the case on hand, the documents were
executed on 29.09.2020 when the G.O.Ms.No.102, Revenue
(Registration) Department dated 07.09.2020 was in force.
In the said Government Order, which was issued for
providing quality services to citizens for registration of
property documents, it is stated that there was a need to
stop registrations till further orders are passed and as per
the powers vested under Rule 5 of the Telangana
Registration Rules, holidays were declared with effect from
08.09.2020 until further orders for all Registrar and Sub-
Registrar Offices in the State in respect of all registration
services under the Act. However, registration of will deeds,
administration of marriages and franking services
continued as usual.
30. As stated in the counter affidavit of respondent
No.2, registrations were resumed on 14.12.2020 i.e., after
96 days period (from 08.09.2020 to 14.12.2020).
Considering the date of (2) documents which were executed
on 29.09.2020 the limitation of four (4) months as
prescribed under Section 23, the period would expire on
29.01.2021. It is pertinent to note that the documents were
executed on 29.09.2020 i.e., during the said declared
holidays period. In the counter affidavit, the Sub-Registrar
submits that Government has not given any orders
regarding the exclusion of number of holidays for the
purpose of calculation of limitation under Section 23 read
with Section 25 of the Act. There is no force in such
submission for the reason that in a situation if the said
period which was declared with effect from 08.09.2020
goes beyond four (4) months period, and if any documents
are executed in such period, no citizen could have
registered any documents pertaining to immovable
properties which were executed from 08.09.2020 onwards
and such orders of suspension of registration in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 07.09.2020 would contravene the
provisions of Section 23 of the Act.
31. Since the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.102
Revenue (Registration) Department dated 07.09.2020 for
implementing the Dharani Portal, declaring holidays with
effect from 08.09.2020 until further orders, it is the very
action of the Government that stopped registration for the
said period. As such the respondents cannot apply the
period prescribed under Section 23 of the Act (i.e., four (4)
months) for their own action and the said period of
holidays have to be considered and excluded to meet the
period prescribed under Section 23 of the Act. Moreover,
respondent No.3 vide letter dated 18.06.2021 addressed to
the Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Registration)
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana requested
to give necessary orders for proposals for exemption of
penalty collected under Section 25. Pending the proposals,
the impugned proceeding was issued by respondent No.2
based on the clarification sought from the District
Registrar vide Memo dated 01.12.2021 which is totally
misconceived. The District Registrar had only clarified
regarding charging of conveyance deed, lease deed and
calculation of average annual rent and there was no
reference to G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 07.09.2020.
32. Earlier this Court in W.P.No.313 of 2020 dated
01.10.2020, dealt with the aspect of limitation period and
held at para 10 as under:
"...... Since there is no period of limitation to
register the document, once it was presented
before the authority concerned within four(4)
months after its execution and when it was
accepted for registration, registering the
document at a later stage i.e, on 31.08.2019
(after lapse of 22 years), cannot be faulted."
33. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
order dated 10.01.2022 has also considered the outbreak
of Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on public health and
in the peculiar facts and circumstances, had directed that
the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand
excluded for the purpose of limitation in respect of all
judicial and quasi judicial proceedings.
34. In the letter dated 18.06.2021 addressed by
respondent No.3 to the Chief Secretary to the Government,
the representation of petitioner No.1 dated 02.05.2020 was
also referred. In the said letter dated 18.06.2021, proposals
were submitted requesting exemption of penalty collected
under Section 25 and Section 70 of the Act for the period of
registration holidays on documents and the said letter was
issued in the form of reminder for issuing necessary
orders. It is pertinent to note that since the proposal is for
waiver of fine under Section 25 and Section 70 of the Act,
such benefit ought to have been also extended for the
documents executed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.102 dated
07.09.2020. It is also pertinent to note that in the counter
filed by respondent No.2 there is no reference to the said
letter dated 18.06.2021 which is still pending for
consideration. The Sub-Registrar is totally misconceived on
the clarification issued by District Registrar vide Memo
dated 01.12.2021. As such the impugned letter dated
19.08.2021 is devoid of merits and is not sustainable.
35. In view of all the aforementioned facts and
circumstances of the case and in the light of the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 in
Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 that the period
from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for
the purpose of limitation in respect of all judicial and
quasi-judicial proceedings and in terms of the orders
issued in G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 07.09.2020, and also
referring to the observations made in the order dated
01.10.2020 in W.P.No.313 of 2020, the order dated
10.06.2022 in W.P.No.15986 of 2020 and the interim order
of this Court dated 27.09.2021, more so when the request
for exemption of penalty vide letter dated 18.06.2021 is
pending before the Chief Secretary to Government and
pending representations of the petitioner dated 02.05.2021
and 11.08.2021, this Court is of the view that demanding
penalty from the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal as such
the impugned letter dated 19.08.2021 is unsustainable
and is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed.
Respondents are directed to consider the letter issued by
respondent No.3 to the Chief Secretary to Government
dated 18.06.2022 and the representations of the
petitioners dated 02.05.2021 and 11.08.2021 by taking
into consideration all the above mentioned aspects and
shall pass fresh orders within a period of two (2) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with respect
to pending documents i.e., P-87/21 and P-88/21 dated
12.03.2021 in accordance to the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and
communicate the said decision to the petitioners.
36. With the above directions, writ petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
06.06.2024
L.R.Copy to be marked.
Mrm
