Telangana High Court
Smt P.Sailaja, vs The State Of Telangana, on 27 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.4246 of 2015
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 4. With their consent, this writ petition is taken up
for disposal.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
"to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in refusing to register
the Sale Deed Dated 20.01.2015 presented by the petitioner in respect of
Semi Finished Residential Flat Bearing No.102 First Floor consisting of
1100 sq.ft built up area, together with undivided share of land admeasuring
49.625 sq.yds out of 397 sq.yds, situated at Shaila Vayuputra Mansion on
Plot No.12 Sy No.74/9, situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad, as
illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and consequently direct
the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to receive and register the document presented
by the petitioner pertaining to the above property thereby to release the
same in accordance with law."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the owner
and possessor of the Plot No.12, admeasuring 397 Sq.yds, in Sy.No.74/9,
situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad, having acquired the same
through registered sale deed dated 27.02.1990. The said property was
developed and the subject flat Bearing No.102, First Floor, consisting of 1100
sq.ft built up area, together with undivided share of land admeasuring 49.625
sq.yds out of 397 sq.yds, situated at Shaila Vayuputra Mansion on Plot No.12,
Sy No.74/9, situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad, fell into the share of
the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner, with an intention to
sell the subject property, executed the sale deed dated 20.01.2015 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.
4. 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.
5. 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."
6. 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.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner 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.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has not disputed the same.
9. 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 registering authority
to receive, register and release the subject document, as and when presented
by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of
three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
27.09.2024
SU
