Telangana High Court
Smt Tattipalli Komuramma vs The State Of Telangana on 25 April, 2025
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ W.P.No.1353 of 2019
% 25.04.2025
# Between:
Smt.Tattipalli Komuramma, W/o.Sri T. Illaiah,
aged about 42 years, Occ: House wife,
R/o.H.No.3-13-44/107, Surya Nagar,
Hyderabad
Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others
Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sri N. Bhujanga Rao,
learned counsel for petitioner
^Counsel for the respondent(s):
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue for R-1 to R-4
Learned Government Pleader for Sales Tax for R-5
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. 2024 (1) ALT 272
2. 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407
NVSK,J
W.P.No.1353 of 2019
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.1353 of 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
prayer:
"to direct the respondents holding that the impugned
notice Lr.No.346/SRO Kapra/2018 dated
26.11.2018 as illegal arbitrary and depriving her
rights to get the property bearing plot No.90 in
SY.No.100, Baba Nagar, Mallapur Village, Uppal
Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, admeasuring
120 Sq,Yards or 100.32 Sq Metrs out of 433.39 Sq.
Yards with a plinth area of 900 sq feet with Rcc Roof
and in violation of Sec 27 of Andhra Pradesh
Revenue Recovery Act of Act II of 1864 and section as
well as registration Act and consequently direct the
respondents to register the document pending
P48/2018 dated 26.11.2018 of Sub Registrar in
respect of admeasuring 120 Sq Yards are
100.32 Metrs out of 433 39 Sq yards with a plinth
area of 900 Sq feet with RCC Roof pending disposal
of the writ petition."
2. Heard Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Sales Tax appearing for respondent No.5.
Perused the record.
NVSK,J
3. Facts in brief are as follows:
Petitioner submits that she purchased the subject
property from one Mr.Chevella Raju through his
registered Agreement Of Sale - cum - General Power of
Attorney holder Mr.Bellamkonda Venkaiah,
S/o.Bellamkonda Venkaiah S/o.B.Yanadri by paying
entire sale consideration of Rs.11,10,000/- as mentioned
in sale deed dated 23.10.2018. Petitioner's further case is
that after paying Registration charges together with
Stamp Duty and other Miscellaneous charges, the
petitioner along with her Vendors presented the
Document for Registration of the Sale Deed dated
23.10.2018 before the Respondent No.4 and the same
was received and kept pending vide Document
No.P.48/2018.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request on
22.11.2018 to respondent No.4 to register the aforesaid
sale deed and in reply respondent No.4 had issued
impugned letter dated 26.11.2018 refusing to register the
NVSK,J
sale deed and informed the petitioner with regard to the
attachment of the property, which was Published under
Gazette Notification issued by the then District Collector,
Rangareddy District vide No.30 dated 08.07.2015 vide
Lr.No.D/4/No.03/2018-19, dated 25.08.2018 notifying
the Attachment of the property of one M/s.Subnil
Packing Machines Private Limited comprising of open Plot
No.90, Survey 100, Mallapur, Babanagar, Ranga Reddy
District. (hereinafter called as 'subject property /
scheduled property')
5. It is further submitted that the said notification was
issued by the Respondent No.2 in view of non-payment of
taxes by the said M/s.Subnil Packing Machines Private
Limited for an amount of Rs.1,94,68,553/- and that
though several steps were initiated, Government was
unable to collect arrears of taxes and thereby, having no
other alternative to the recourse, the Provisions of A.P.
Revenue Recovery Act, were invoked.
NVSK,J
6. It is further submitted that subsequent to the
issuance of the aforesaid attachment of the property vide
notification No.30 dated 10.07.2015, the Assistant
Commissioner (Sale Tax) Musheerabad Circle, Hyderabad
- respondent No.5, had addressed a letter dated
25.08.2018 to Respondent No.4 intimating about the
Attachment of the property for non-payment of arrears of
taxes of Rs.1,94,68,553/- and steps were initiated for
collection procedure under Revenue Recovery Act, 1864
and requested to stop registration or change of title. It is
further submitted that though the Respondents have
issued the notification the same was not published and
have not complied the requirements of Section 27 of A.P.
Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. For Ready reference Sec. 27
of the Act is extracted as under:
"The attachment shall be effected by affixing a
notice thereof to some conspicuous part of the
land. The notice shall set forth that unless the
arrears, with interest and expenses, be paid
within the date therein mentioned, the land will be
brought to sale in due course of law. The
attachment shall be notified by public
NVSK,J
proclamation on the land and by publication of the
notice in the District Gazette."
7. It is further submitted that M/s.Subnil Packing
Machines Private Limited had purchased the subject
property under a Registered Sale Deed vide Document
No.10485 of 2004 and had mortgaged the property by
obtaining loan from Andhra Bank, SME Nacharam
Branch, Hyderabad and the said loan was repaid and
Mortgage was released. Thereafter, the said M/s.Subnil
Packing Machines Private Limited had executed a
Registered Sale Deed on 18.08.2017 vide Document
No.3452 of 2017 for an extent of 120 Sq.yards out of 433
Sq. yards to one Mr.Chevella Raju. Then the said
M/s.Subnil Packing Machines Private Limited had also
executed another Registered Sale Deeds in favour of
Mr.Alkapalle Venkanna, Mr.Gunti Mallesham and an
Agreement of Sale Cum- General Power of Attorney in
favour of Mr.Tattipalli Ilaiah and Registered Sale Deed in
favour of Mr.Gudumakhtla Bal Reddy vide Document
NVSK,J
Nos.3453/17 3454/17, 3159/17 and 5400/17,
respectively.
8. Thereafter, the said Mr.Chevella Raju, alleging to be
the owner and the Possessor of the land had executed a
Registered Agreement of Sale cum- Power of Attorney in
favour of Mr.Bellam Konda Venkaiah vide Document
No.1245/18, dated 05.03.2018. Basing on the said
Agreement of Sale -cum-General Power of Attorney,
Mr.Chevella Raju representing Mr.Bellam Konda
Venkaiah, had sold the said property to the petitioner by
sale deed dated 23.10.2018, which was presented for
Registration and the said Document, was kept pending
vide Document No.P.48/2018. Thereafter, impugned
letter No.346/SRO KAPRA/2018 Dated 26-11-2018 was
issued to the petitioner.
9. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the
respondents having allowed and accepted various Sale
transactions and regularized series of documents, as
NVSK,J
mentioned supra and at this juncture cannot refuse to
register the Sale Deed in respect of the property
purchased by the petitioner. It is the further submitted
that the petitioner is a bonafide Purchaser of the
Scheduled Property and keeping the sale deed pending
vide Document No.P.48/18 would deprive the petitioner's
claim over the subject property and amounts to
discrimination as far as the sale transaction of the
petitioner is concerned. Questioning the same, petitioner
filed the present Writ Petition.
10. A counter has been filed by respondent No.5 stating
that one M/s.Subnil Packing Machine Private Limited,
was registered under the provisions of Telangana Value
Added Tax Act, 2005, and is on the rolls of respondent
No.5. The said M/s.Subnil Packing Machine Private
Limited fell in arrears of tax and penalty to the
assessment order 15.06.2015 was made under the
provisions of VAT Act for the period 2011-12 to 2014-15,
raising a tax demand of Rs.43,85,573/- and penalty
NVSK,J
order dated 13.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.10,96,384/- and
under the CST Act assessments for the period 2006-07 to
2011-12, raising a demand of Rs.1,39,61,500/-, as such,
the total tax due from the dealer was Rs.1,94,68,553/-.
11. It is further submitted that in spite of repeated
demands, M/s.Subnil Packing Machine Private Limited
did not pay the arrears and the company had immovable
property in Plot No.90, Sy.No.100, Mallapur, Babanagar,
RR District to an extent of 433 Sq. yds., and the said
immovable property was within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (DCTO), Nacharam
Circle. In view of the same, the respondent authorities
have initiated recovery proceedings by invoking the
provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 by issuing
Form No.I (Distraint Order) on 17.03.2015 to the dealer
M/s.Subnil Packing Machine Private Limited. As there
was no response, the DCTO issued Form No.IV (demand
prior to attachment of land & Building) dated 18.03.2015
and Form No.V (Notice of attachment) dated 25.04.2015,
NVSK,J
which was published in Ranga Reddy District Gazette on
08.07.2015. It is further submitted that when there was
no response Form No.VII (Notice of sale of land) was also
issued on 27.02.2016 and the same was served on
04.03.2016.
12. It is further submitted that in order to defraud the
Tax Department, the said M/s.Subnil Packing Machines
Private Limited executed an Agreement of Sale-Cum-
General Power of Attorney with possession in favour of
one Ms.Tattipalli Ilaiah vide Document No.3159 of 2017
dated 29.07.2017 in respect of the land admeasuring 433
Sq. Yards (Plot No.90) in Sy.No.100 situated at Baba
Nagar, Mallapur, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri
District and the said Mr.Tattipalli Ilaiah, who is GPA
holder and the dealer of M/s.Subnil Packing Machines
Private Limited, is very well aware of the fact that the
subject property has been put to attachment under
Section 27 of the Revenue Recovery Act and the same
was also issued in Gazette Notification dated 10.07.2015.
NVSK,J
In view of the same, the very execution of Agreement of
Sale-Cum-General Power of Attorney with possession in
favour of Mr.Tattipalli Ilaiah by M/s. Subnil Packing
Machines Private Limited, is only to defraud the Revenue
Department.
13. It is further submitted that execution of all
registered sale deeds is an Act of continuation of
defrauding the revenue authorities and all the aforesaid
transactions are admittedly made subsequent to the
publication of Gazette notification dated 10.07.2015,
which was issued in terms of Revenue Recovery Act.
14. It is further submitted that when the Department
observed the said illegal transactions, respondent No.5
had issued a letter dated 25.08.2018 to Respondent No.4
intimating the attachment of scheduled property for non-
payment of arrears of taxes of Rs.1,94,68,553/-. During
the said period Mr.Chevalla Raju through his GPA holder
i.e., Mr.Bellamkonda Venkaiah had made one more
NVSK,J
attempt in executing the sale deed in favour of
Mr.Tattipalli Komuramma (petitioner herein) towards the
land admeasuring 120 Sq. Yards in Plot No.99 in
Sy.No.100 situated at Baba Nagar, Mallapur, Uppal
Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District that too when the
said land is under attachment in terms of Section 27 of
Revenue Recovery Act and also Gazette Publication
issued in Form No.5 vide notification dated 10.07.2015.
15. It is further submitted that as per Section 26 of the
VAT Act, the property of defaulting VAT dealer by
operation of law is subject to first charge of the tax due or
any other sum payable by him under the Act. Section
27(1) of the VAT Act places on the defaulting dealer the
onus to prove that the transfer was not with an intention
to defraud revenue. The person who has purchased
property from a defaulting dealer must be held to have
constructive notice of the charge in view of Section 26 of
the AP VAT Act and any transfer of the subject property,
by defaulting dealer is void and the revenue is entitled to
NVSK,J
recover VAT even for the assessment period subsequent
to the transfer of the property.
16. It is further submitted that as per Section 27(1) of
the TVAT Act without using express words, in effect,
provides that the charged property can be brought to sale
in enforcement of the charge even at the hands of a
bonafide transferee without notice of the charge unless
the defaulting dealer discharges the onus and proves that
the transfer of property was not with the intention to
defraud revenue. It is only if the defaulting dealer proves
that transfer of the property which is subject to first
charge under Section 26 of the A.P. VAT Act, is not with
the intention to defraud revenue, would the transferee be
entitled to claim title over the subject property for,
otherwise, such transfer of property is void. Where
property has been transferred and the defaulting dealer
who has transferred the property which is subject to a
statutory charge under Section 26 of the A.P. VAT Act,
does not discharge the onus of proving that the transfer
NVSK,J
was not with the intention to defraud revenue, a person
who has purchased such immovable property from the
defaulting dealer, cannot claim any protection
17. It is further submitted that respondent No.5 had
complied with all the ingredients / requirements
stipulated in Section 27 of the Revenue Recovery Act and
once a notification is published in the Gazette, it cannot
be contended that one has no notice of the contents of
the publication. It is further submitted that the person
who has purchased property from a defaulting dealer
must be held to have constructive notice of the charge in
view of Section 26 of the AP VAT Act and any transfer of
the subject property, by defaulting dealer is void and the
revenue is entitled to recover VAT even for the
assessment period subsequent to the transfer of the
property. It is settled law that publication in the Gazette
is deemed to be notice to all concerned and a letter to the
sub-Registrar is only to avoid further litigation and to
save innocent purchasers.
NVSK,J
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION :
18. On a perusal of the impugned letter / rejection order
dated 26.11.2018, communicated to petitioner it would
reveal that the Sub-Registrar, Kapra, Medchal-Malkajgiri
district - respondent No.4 has issued the said order based
on the attachment order issued by the District Collector,
Ranga Reddy District - respondent No.2 vide Gazette
Notification vide No.30, dated 08.07.2018 with reference
No.Mubd/D4/No.:03/2018-19 dated 25.08.2018 which
was communicated by the Assistant Commissioner (S.T.),
Musheerabad - Circle, Hyderabad - respondent No.5,
wherein it was informed to respondent No.4 that the
scheduled property was under attachment and thereby by
noting the details of the communication, the said
document was Kept pending vide P.No.48/2018 dated
23.10.2018.
19. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to
Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, which deals
NVSK,J
with 'Prohibition of Registration of certain
documents'. The relevant portion of Sections 22-A (1) (e)
of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows:
"(1) The following classes of documents shall be
prohibited from registration, namely
(a) ... ... ...
(b) ... ... ...
(c) ... ... ...
(d) ... ... ...
(e) any documents or class of documents
pertaining to the properties the State Government
may, by notification prohibit the registration in
which avowed or accrued interests of Central
and State Governments, Local Bodies,
Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable
Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal
Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax
Laws and others which are likely to adversely
affect these interests."
20. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Inveeta
Technologies Private Limited and others v.
NVSK,J
Government of Andhra Pradesh1 had upheld the
validity of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. At
paragraph No.28 of the aforesaid order a reference was
taken to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in
Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary vs. Revenue Department 2,
which has dealt with various Clauses of Section 22-A of
the Registration Act, 1908. For the purpose of the present
case, relevant Clause-vi in paragraph No.28 is extracted
for reference:
"... ...
(vi) While dealing with clause (e) of Section 22A(1)
of the Act, it was held that the provision should be
given fair, pragmatic, commonsense and purposive
interpretation so as to fulfil the object of the
enactment. The provision intends to cover not only
attached property but also the property in which
Central and State Government is having avowed
and accrued interest."
21. In Paragraph No.30 of the aforesaid common order
a further reference was taken to paragraph Nos.155 and
2024 (1) ALT 272
2 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407
NVSK,J
156 of a Full Bench decision in Vinjamuri Rajagopala
Chary's case and the relevant paragraph No.156 (vi) is
extracted for facility:
156. We, thus, summarize our conclusions and issue
directions as follows : -
.........
(vi) The properties covered under clause (e) of Section
22-A shall be notified in the official gazette of the
State Governments and shall be forwarded, along
with the list of properties, and a copy of the
relevant notification/gazette, to the concerned
registering authorities under the provisions of
Registration Act and shall also place the said
notification/gazette on the aforementioned
websites of both the State Governments. The
Registering authorities shall make available a
copy of the Notification/Gazette on an application
made by an aggrieved party.
22. Respondent No.4 has issued the rejection /
impugned letter, dated 26.11.2018 on the basis of
notification issued by respondent No.2 vide No.30 dated
08.07.2015 with reference to proceedings
No.Mubd/D4/No.:03/2018-19 dated 25.08.2018 issued
NVSK,J
by respondent No.5. As such the impugned notice, dated
26.11.2018 refusing to register the pending document is
in accordance with the provisions of Section 22-A(1)(e) of
the Registration Act, 1908 and also in terms of Rule 242
of the Registration Rules under the Registration Act,
1908, which reads as under:
"242. The Registering Officer shall refuse to
register any document relating to a property
which is included in the lists furnished under
Rule 238, 239, 240 and in the lists notified by the
Government under section 22-(A)(1)(e) or section
22-A(4)."
23. That apart, it is further to be noted that in the
pending document (i.e., sale deed dated 23.10.2018)
vide P.48/2018, the petitioner is only a buyer and one
Mr.Chevella Raju is the vendor / seller of the petitioner.
Whereas the said vendor of the petitioner had never
challenged the action of respondent No.4 in keeping the
said document pending. It is pertinent to note that in the
sale deed dated 23.10.2018, the vendor claims his
NVSK,J
ownership by virtue of registered document
No.3452/2017 dated 18.08.2017. The said document is
registered subsequent to the notice of attachment dated
10.07.2015 issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy
district in accordance to Section 27 of the Andhra
Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. At this juncture, it
is also relevant to refer Article 300-A of the Constitution
of India extracted for reference:
"Article 300A in Constitution of India
300A. Persons not to be deprived of property
save by authority of law"
24. The vendor of the petitioner as on the date of
execution of the sale deed dated 23.10.2018 has no better
right / title to convey the property to the petitioner. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Sharma v. Kotak
Mahindra Bank Ltd., and others 3 at paragraph No.27
held that until registration is effected, ownership is not
transferred, which is extracted for reference:
3 2024 SCC Online SC 4589
NVSK,J
"27. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882, defines a "sale" as the transfer of
ownership in exchange for a price that is either
paid, promised, or part-paid and part-promised.
This provision further describes the manner in
which a sale is effected. It stipulates that, in the
case of tangible immovable property valued at one
hundred rupees or more, the transfer can be made
only through a registered instrument. The use of
the term "only" signifies that, for tangible
immovable property valued at one hundred rupees
or more, a sale becomes lawful only when it is
executed through a registered instrument. Where
the sale deed requires registration, ownership
does not pass until the deed is registered, even if
possession is transferred, and consideration is
paid without such registration. The registration of
the sale deed for an immovable property is
essential to complete and validate the transfer.
Until registration is effected, ownership is not
transferred."
25. The document as claimed by the vendor vide
registered document No.3452/2017 dated 18.08.2017 is
not a valid transfer as it is against the provisions of
Section 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act,
1864. The petitioner document is only received by the
respondent No.4 and assigned pending P.No.48/2018 and
the said document is not registered and released and
without registration of the document, the petitioner
NVSK,J
cannot get right over the property as such the petitioner
has no right to question the impugned letter dated
26.11.2018 issued by respondent No.4. The vendor /
seller of the petitioner never questioned the impugned
letter dated 26.11.2008. It is further to be noted that
Article 300A of the Constitution of India can be invoked
only by the owner of the property and as on the date of
filing the Writ Petition, petitioner is not the owner of the
subject property. The petitioner ought to have taken steps
against her vendor in terms of the Agreement of Sale Deed
dated 23.10.2018 (P.No.48/2018). On this ground also
the writ petition deserves dismissal.
26. In view of the same, the petitioner ought to have
approached competent Court of law for redressal of her
grievance in terms of agreement dated 23.10.2018.
Instead of seeking such remedy, filed the present Writ
Petition questioning the impugned rejection letter, dated
26.11.2018 issued by respondent No.4. In view of the
same, this Court observes that the Impugned notice
NVSK,J
Lr.No.346/SRO Kapra/2018 dated 26.11.2018 warrants
no interference. The respondents have rightly followed the
due process as contemplated under the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908 and relevant Rules and A.P.
Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and provisions of TVAT Act,
2005. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is
devoid of merits, fails and is liable to be dismissed.
27. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
April 25, 2025
Note: LR copy to be
marked. B/o.PN
