The High Court · 2025

Order

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "to direct the respondents Lnlding that the impugned notice Lr.No.346/ SRO Kapra/ 2O18 dated. 26.11.2018 as illegal arbitrary and depiuing ter ights to get tle propertg bearing plot No.9O in SY.No. 1O0, Baba Naga4 Mallapur Vitlage, Uppat Manda| Medchal Malkajgii Distict, admeasuring 120 Sq,Yards or 100.32 Sq Metrs out of 433.39 Sq. Yards uith a plinth area of 9OO sq feet uith Rcc Roof and in uiolation of Sec 27 of Andlva pradesh Reuenue Recouery Act of Act II of 1864 and section as utell as registration Act and consequentlg direct the respondents to register the document pending P4B/2018 dated 26.11.2018 of Sub Registrar in respect of admeasuing 120 Sq yards are 100.32 Metrs out of 433 39 Sq gards with a plinth area of 900 Sq feet with RCC Roof pending disposal of the u.trit petition."

2. Heard Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Sales Tax appearing for respondent No.S. Perused the record. NVSK,J v,.p.N ,. 353 of2019 3

3. Fzrc:s tr brief are as follows: Pe:titroner submits that she purchzrsecl ttre subject property fiom one Mr.Chevella Raju by a rr:gistered Agreemenl, Of Sa-le - cum - General Pole:r o1 Attorney holder N4r.Bellamkonda Venkaiah, S/o.Beliernkonda VenkaiiltL S/o.B.Yanadri by paylng enlil'e sale conside,ration of Rs.11,10,OO0/- as mentit>ner1 in sale deed d'ate<l 23.10.2018. Petitioner's further cast: is that after par.inl Registration charges together wit,lL Stamp Duty emd other Miscellareous charges, the petitioner along 'with her Vendors presented thc D'octr.raent for RegistrrltiorL of the SaIe Deed dated 23.1C.2018 lt:fore the Respondr:rrt No.4 and the same was received end kept pendinll 'zirle Document No.P.48 /2018.

4. Thert,:zdter, the petitioner made a retprest on

22.11.2'078 to respondent No.4 to register l.he aforesaid sa,le dt:e,l nnd in reply respondent N,r.4 had issued impugr:.ed 1:tter dated 26.II.2018 refusing to resister the sa-le de.ec. iand informed the petitioner with regerrd to the NVSK,J w.P-No.1353 of 2019 4 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/ N o.O3 / 20 18- 19, dated 25 -Oa.2OLB notifving the Attachment of the property of one M/s.Subnil Packing Machines Private Limited comprising of open Plot No.9O, Survey 10O, Mallapur, Babanagar, Ranga Reddy District. (hereinafter called as 'subject property I schedule 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 arrea-rs of taxes and thereby, having no other alternative to the recourse, the Provisions of A'P' Revenue Recovery Act, were invoked. I M/SK,J \r'.P.rr" ) t353 0f 2019 5

6. It is further submitted that subsequerLt to the issuan<:e of r-he aJoresaid attachment of the ltrollcrtlr vide notificatirrn No.30 dated 10.O7.2OlS, the Assistant Commi,;sioner (Sale Tax) Musheerabad C;rck:, HyCerabad - resporrdt:nt No.5, had addressed a [ett,)1, dated

25.O8.2Ot8 to Respondent No.4 intimating abcut the Attachnrent of the property for non-pa5,nn,:nt of iurears of taxes of Rs.1,94,68,553/- and steps wr:re inilirrted for collecticrn p'ocedure under Revenue Recovery l,ct, 1864 and requt:sted to stop regularization or chalge of title. It is further s'rbmitted that though the Respondents have issued 1.h,: rrotification the sarne was not publir;t.ed and have not ,:r:,rnplied the requirements of Section 27 of A.p. Revenur: Iler(:overy Act, 1864. For Ready refert:ncr: Sec.27 of the Ar:t is extracted as under: "Thcz atta,chment shall be effected by aJ-ftxi t1t a notice Urereof to some conspicuous pan oJ the lanct.. Tl .e notice shall set forth that un,less the errean's, utith interest and expenses, tte ,oeid, uLith.in tt.e date therein mentioned, the iarul u,ll be brou.gritt to sale in due course of law.,,"he attct':hm,ent shall be notified by .p,L)tlic NIVSK,J W.P.No.1353 of 2019 6 proclamation on the la.nd and bg pubtication of tlrc notice in the Distict Gazette."

7. It is further submitted that M/s.Subnil packing Machines Private Limited had purchas-bd the subject property under a Registered SaIe Deed vide Document No.1O485 of 2OO4 and had mortgaged the propert5r by obtaining loan from Andhra Bank, SME Nacharam Branch, Hyderabad and the said loan was repaid and Mortgage was released. Thereafter, M/s.Subnil Packing Machines Private Limited had executed a Registered Sale Deed on 18.O8.2OI7 vide Document No.3452 of 2077 for an extent of l2O 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 Ma,llesham and an Agreement of Sale Cum- General Power of Attorney 1n favour of Mr.Tattipalli Ilaiah and Registered Sa-le Deed in favour of NVSK,J \,,I.F.N >. 1353 of 2019 1 Mr.Gu<lurnrkhtla Bal Reddy vide Documcnt Nos.l)453/ 17 3454 I )7, .3159 / L7 and 54OO / 17, respectively

8. Thereirfter, the said Mr.Chevella Rajrr, lr:ing the owner aed the Possessor of the land hact ell( cuted a Registerr d Agreement of Sale cum- Powor of Al.torney in favour cf N4r.Bellam Konda Venkaiah vide l),lcument No.1245,r l.ll, dated O5.03.2Oi8. Basing ,rn the said AgreerrLe.:rt. of Sale -cum-General Po'* er of ltttorney, Mr.Che:vr:llir Raju represen.ting Mr,Bellarrr Konda Venkaia,lr, rad sold the said property to the pelitioner by sale dr:eC dated 23.10.2018, which was l)resiented for Registraliolr and the said Document, was <ept pending vide f)ocument No.P.48/2018. Therezrfte.:, .rrpugned letter I'lo.ii,l6lSRO KAPRA/2018 Dated 26 lI-2118 was issued tc the petitioner.

9. The' r:rain grievance of the petitioner is [hat the responCe:nts having allowed and accepl.ed valious SaIe transa<:tion s and regularized series of docurn:nts, AS i I i i i I I I I l I I I I I{VSK,J W.P.No.1353 of 2019 I mentioned. supra, at this juncture cannot refuse to register the SaIe Deed in respect of ttre property purchased by the petitioner' It is the further submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide hrrcha'ser of the Writ Sched.ule Property and keeping the sale deed pending vide Documentt No.P.48/ 18 amounts to depriving 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 sarne' petitioner hled the Present Writ Petition'

10. A counter has been frled by respondent No'5 stating that one M/s.Subnil Packing Machine Private Limited' was registered und'er the provisions of Telangala 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' 2}ll-12 to 2Ol4-15' and penalty raising a tax demand of Rs'43,85 '5731- NVSK,J ,\.P.I o. 1353 of20l9 9 order cal,ec 13.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.10,1)6 ,,,.iti4/_ and. under th,: OST Act assessments for the period 2r))6_07 to 2Oll- 12, r:ising a demand of Rs.1,39,61,50r)/_ ir.s such, the total !a): due from the dealer was Rs. 1,94,6g S53/_.

11. It is; further submitted that in spite of repeated demancs. i\I/s.Subnil packing Machine priyatr, Limited did not pal'the arrears and the company harl inrrnovable propert].rn Plot No.90, Sy.No.1OO, Maflapur, Babanagar, RR Distri,:t to an extent of 433 Sq. yds , ancl tite said immovaltl,: property was within the territorial juris,diction of the D3tr,Lrt1. Commercial Tax Officer (DCTO), N;r<:haram Circle. In vir:w of the same, the respondent authorities have initiat_r:d recovery proceedings by invokirrg the provisiorLs oI the Revenue Recovery Act, 1364 by issuing Form No.I (Distraint order) on rr.o3.2o15 to thr: dearer M/s.Subnil I)acking Machine private Limitect. ls there was no response, the DCTO issued Form No.lV (rk:mand prior to attac,.rment of land & Building) dated tg.()i,.2ols and Forrn IVo V (Notice of attachment) dated 25.0.+.201S, NVSK,J W.P.No.1353 of 20 19 l0 which was published in Ranga Reddy District Gazette on

08.07.2015. It is further submitted that when there was no response from M/s.Subnil Packing Machine Private Limited, Form No.VII (Notice of sale of land) was a,lso issued on 27.02.2016 and the same was served on

04.o3.2016. L2. 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 SaIe-Cum- General Power of Attorney with possession in favour of one Ms.Tattipalli Ilaiah vide Document No.3159 of 2Ol7 dated 29.O7 .2017 in respect of the land admeasuring 433 Sq. Yards (Plot No.90) 1n 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 NVSK,J 1V t'.t\ o.1353 of 2019 11 was altio issued in Gazette Notification drrtecl I Ct.t)7.2015. In vieu, o1' lhe same, the very execution of Agr,:r:ment of Sale-Crrro -(]enera-l Power of Attorney with 1:os:;t'ssion in favour of N{r.Tattipa,lli Ilaiah by M/s. Subnil Packing MachirLe,; I\-ivate Limited, is only to defra.ud thc Revenue Departmerr t

13. It is further submitted that erecrrticn of a-11 registe;'e,l sale deeds is an Act of corLtinrration of defraurlin5l the revenue authorities ald all the irforesaid transa<:tion s are admittedly made subsectuerrl to the publiczLtion of Gazette notification dated l[t.t)7.2015, which ',v:rs issued in terms of Revenue Recovery ,A.ct. L4. It is lirrther submitted that when the I)cpartment observ<:d these said illegal transactions, responCent No.5 had iss;ued ;l letter dated 25.08.2018 to Resoondent No.4 intimalir.g the attachment of schedule propertl,' for non- payment ol arrears of taxes of Rs.1,94,68,5537 -. During the sail period Mr.Chevalla Raju ttrrough his GPA holder NVSK,J W.P.No.1353 oI20 19 12 i.e., Mr.Bellamkonda Venkaiah had made one more attempt 1n 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 Mafkajgiri District that too when the said land is under attachment in terms of Section 27 of Revenue Recovery Act and a-lso Gazette Publication issued in Form No.5 vide notihcation dated 10.07.2015.

15. It is further submitted that as per Section 26 of t}:.e VAT Act, the property of defaulting VAT dealer by operation oflaw is subject to first charge ofthe tax due or any other sum payable by him under the Act. Section 27(l) 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 properQr from a defaulting dealer must be held to have constructive notice of the charge in view of Section 26 of the AP VAT Act ald any tralsfer of the subject propert5r, l . l I I I I i i I NVSK,J '!.1' I o.1353 of 2019 l3 by defa.ulting dealer is void and the reverlue is ,,:ntitled to recover \/A'I even for the assessment periocl sr rl)sequent to the traLrrsrler of the property. L6. It is; f;rther submitted that as per Ser:tiorr 27(l) of the TVAI Act without using express rvorrls, 1n effect, provide s that the charged property can be brou5r,lLt to sale in enfc,rr:errent of the charge even at the herrLds of a bonafic e transferee without notice of the chargr: unless the defrlr-:.1t.ing dealer discharges the onus an,1 p.^crves that the trans;fer of propert5r was not with the inlention to defraucl r'evenue. It is only if the defaulting tlealer proves that tr,lnsf:r of the property which IS sulrjec t to lirst charge urder Section 26 of tLre A.P. VAT Acr-, is, not w'ith the inte:nti,rn to defraud reventle, would the ira:rsrferee be entitled [c, claim title over the subject propr:rty for, otherrn isr , such transfer of propert5r is voir [. Where propertF has been transl-erred and the defaulting dealer who has tr',rnsferred the propert5r which is sulljoct to a statutory charge under Section 26 of the A.p. \AT Act, NVSK,J W.P.No.1353 of 2019 14 does not discharge the onus of proving that the transfer was not with the intention to defraud revenue, a person who has purchased such immovable property from the defaulting dealer, cannot claim any protection L7. It is further submitted that respondent No.S 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 calnot be contended t'llat one has no notice of the contents of the publication. It is further submitted that the person who has pr.rrchased 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 ev<ln for the assessment period subsequent to the transfer of the propert5r. It is settled law that publication in the Gazette is deemed to be notice to all concerned and a letter to the NVSK,J \i.I).1o.1353 of 2019 15 sub-Regis1.r'ar is only to avoid further litigatic,r. and to save innocr.r-rt purchasers. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION :

18. Oe a perusal of the impugned letter / rejecrt.on order dated 116. i 1.2018, communicated to pelitioner, it would reveal r-hat the Sub-Registrar, Kapra, Medchal-Ntalkajgiri district - rr:spondent No.4 has issued the sai,1 older based on the atta:hment order issued by the Distr-ict Ooliector, Ranga Reddy District - respondent No.2 vide Gazette Notilication vide No.30, dated 08.07.2018 u,ith leference No.Mutrd/D4 lNo.:O3/2018-19 dated 25.08.2otr3 which was colnlnLnicated by the Assistant Commis;sionor (S.T.), Musheerzrbird - Circle, Hyderabad - rt:spondr:nt No.5, whereir. it tas informed to respondenr_ Nc.,4 _hat the schedule of property was under attachment and thereby by notinlJ .he details of the communicatirtn., 1.he said documenr- rvas Kept pending vide p.No.48/2018 dated

23.tO.20)8. NVSK,J W.P.No.l353 of 2019 16

19. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, i908, which dea-ls \Mith 'Prohibition of Registration of certain doc-uments'. The relevant portion of Sections 22-A (Ll (e) of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows: "(1) The following closses of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namelg (a) (b) (c) ...--- ... (d) (e) dnA documents or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State Gouernment mag, bg notification prohibit the registration in which auoraed or accrued interests of Central and State Gouernments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached bg Ciuil, Criminal Reuenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Lauts and others rthich are likelg to aduerselg affe ct the s e inter e s t s. " NVSK,J !\'. P.l. o 1353 of 2019 t7

20. A Ji.zrsion Bench of this Court in lV'/:;.Inoeetq. Technologies Priaate Limited and otl\ers a Goaernment of Andhra Prq.desht had u:t.reld the validit5'of ilection 22-A of the Registration r\ct, 1908. .At paragrilph No.28 of the aforesaid order a r-efer-t:nce was taken tr, r.he F\11 Bench judgment of t,eis rlourt in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary vs. Revenue Delrerrtment2, which has lealt with various Clauses ol Sectic,r: 22-A of the Re5Jistrrrtion Act, 1908. For the purpose of tl.rr: present case, r:k:vzurt Clause-vi in paragraph No.2ti is t:xtracted for refe re nce : (ii) Ilhile dealing with clause (e) of Section )2A(1) of ih.e Act, it was held that the prouisiott ;ho,rld be giu,zt t 1-air. pragmatic, commonsense oncl ou r,xtsiue irtterpre\alisn so as to fulfil the c,bjer:t r,f the enttctit',.ent. The prouision intends to couet- not onlg attu:l.ed propertg but also the prope,rtg ir,. ,,t hich C'ettrttl. and State Gouernment is hauinq oi'cwed anr.l a:craed interest. " ' zoz+ 1ty u,t z'tz 2 2016 (2) .\L) 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC Online Hyd,4O7 NVSK,J W.P.No. 1353 of 2019 18

21. In Paragraph No.30 of the a_foresaid common order a further reference \Mas taken to paragraph Nos.155 and 156 of a Full Bench decision in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary's case ald the relevant paragraph No.156 {vi) is extracted for facility:

756. We, tLuts, summarize our conclusions and issue directions as follous : - (ut) The properties couered under clause (e) of Section 22 A shall be notified in the offtcial gazette of tLe State Gouernments and shall be forutarded, along utith the list of properties, and a copg of the releuont notification/ gazette, to the concerned registeing authorities under the prouision s of Registration Act and shall also place the said notifi"cation/ gazette on th,e aforementioned uebsites of both the State Gouemments. The Regi.steing authoities shall make ouoilable a copy of the Notification/ Gazette on an application made by an oggieued party.

22. Respondent No.4 has issued the rejection I impugned letter, dated 26.1 1.2018 on the basis of notification issued by respondent No.3 based on the NVSK,J V.t'.1 o 1353 of 2019 l9 notice of altachment issued by respondent ltlo.l'i. As such the inrpupned notice, dated 26.1I.2O18 re,frrsing to registe.' t.he pending document is in acc,trdancr: with the provisiirrls of Section 22-A(l)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908 an,1 rllso in terms of R.ule 242 of the Rr:gfstration Rules rrr.de,r the Registration Act, 1908, which reads as under: "i'4.2" The Registeing Officer sha.ll ,efi-,se to regislet' ang doanment relating to a prolcerty tuhi:h is included in the lists funt,ished, under Rrtle 238, 239, 240 and in the lists notified o1/ the Gouentment under section 22-@)(1)(e) <>r section c'.>-At4l "

23. Ttrat rrpart, it is further to be noted th,at in the pendinll rlcrr:ument vide P.48 120 18, the petil.ioner is only a buyer anc one Mr.Chevella Raju is the venclor / seller of the pet.ti,cner. Whereas the said vendor of the petitioner had neizer :hallenged the action of respon<lenr_ No.4 in keeping the said document pending. At this j-rnctrre, it is a-lso rel,:vant to refer Article 300-4 of the Ccnstitution of India, nh;.ch reads as under: ; I I I NVSK,J W.P.No.1353 of 20l9 20 uAtticle 3OOA in Constitution of Ind,ia 3OOA, Persons not to be d.epriaed of propertg sante bg authoritg of law,, 2+. Hontrle Apex Court in Sanjay Sharma v Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., and others3 at paragraph No.27 reads as follows: "27 Fcdip+--5{of the Transfer of property Act, 1882, defi.nes a ,,sale" as the tiansfer of ownership in exchange for a price that is eithir p^aid, promised, or part-paid and. part_promised.. This prouision further d.escibes the ianner in which a sale b effected.. It stipulates that, in the case of tangible immouable propertg ualued at one hundred rupees or more, the transfer can be mad.e onlg through a registered. instrument. The use of the term "onlg" signifies that, .fo, tangiblb immouable propertg uqlued" at one hundred *1n." or more, a sale becomes lauful onlg uhen it is executed through a registered instrument. Where the sale deed requires registration, ounership does not pass until the d.eed. is registered., euen 6 possesslon is transferred, and. consid.eration is p.aid without such registration. The registration of the sale deed for an immouable propertg is essential to complete and ualidqte the lransfer. Until registration is effected, ownership is not transferred." 3 2024 SCC Online SC 4589 7 NVSK,J \\r.P.l o 1353 of 2019 21

25. Thc petitioner document is only re<:eiv,,:<l by the respondr:r:11 No.4 and assigned pending P.No.48,i 12018 and the said document is not registered and rel,:irsed and withou t rr:gistration of the documenl., the lretitioner cannol g,et right over the propert5r as such the petitioner has no riqht to question the impugned lei.ter dated

26.I7.'.2{ 1t, issued by respondent No.z[. 'l'he ',,endor / seller cf the petitioner never questioned the i.rrpugned letter ,1ate,l 26.11.2008. It is further to tre rxrted that Articie 300A of the Constitution of Indizr ce,r-i t,e invoked only b'r .:h.t: owner of the property and as cn the date of filing this \Vrit Petition petitioner is not the or,r,ner of the subjec'- f)r,3perty. The petitioner ought to have ti{len steps agains.- eis, vendor in favour of the Agreemerrr- of Sale Deed cla':ec, 23.1O.2OI8 (P.No.a8/2018). OrL thir; ground also the '"1,r t. petition deserves dismissa-l.

26. Ir .riew of the same, the petitioner ougLrt to have approactLec competent Court of law for reclres s a_l of her grievanco. lnstead of seeking such remecly, the lretitioner NVSK,J W.P.No.1353 of 2019 22 filed the present Writ petition questioning the impugned rejection letter, dated 26.ll.20lg. In view of the same, this Court observes that the respondents have rightly followed the due process as contemplated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 190g and relevant Rules and A.p. Revenue Recovery Act, lg64 arrd 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. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K, AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE (For His LordshiPs Kind P .SHRAVAN KUMAR N. erusal) To, '1 . 11 LR Copies 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

4. One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5 6 Hyderrabir'l IOUT] Two C'ls; to GP FOR REVENUE' High Couft for the lstate of Telangana at Two C ls to GP FOR SALES TAX' High Court tor ttre S:ate of Telangana at Hydt -t \ {( rre ba 1 [OUT] \ti) : D t-otrle9' 1) a \ &s. I { t , , HIGH COUFIT DATED:2510412025 ORDER WP.No.135li of 2019 c (.) r) (f' 1tl .111,,1 26 J)c. 3"tt re +o DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOLIT'C:OSTS l-- be^