Mr. Linoala Sreenivas Rao v. 1. The State of Telangana'

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to register the sale deed vide registering, processing and releasing the sale deed presented which is numbered Bk-1 , cs No.7742 ot 2o22 which is pending vide ps3l2o22, dated 31 .o3.2022 with regard to the Petitioner property i.e., villa No.6 with a built-up area of 2312 sq. Fts constructed in the land admeasuring an extent of 265 sq yards situated at Gardenia Grove, Sy. No. 2241P, 225tp,23olp, Srinagar Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy, Telangana. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt E.VENKATA SIDDHARTHA Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR STAMpS & REGTSTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No:18284 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Fleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record. With their conSent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondents No.3 i.e., Sub-Registrar, Maheshwar, Ranga Reddy District in not registering, processing and releasing the Sale Deed presented which is nr-rmbered Bk-l; CS.No.7742 of 2022 wkticl:. is pending vide P53/2022, dated 31.O3.2022 with regard to the petitioner property i.e., Villa No.6 with a built-up area of 2312 square feets constructed in the lald admeasuring 265 square yards situated at Gardenia Grove, Sy.No.224 lP, 225/P, 23O/P, Srinagar Village, Maheshwaram Madal, Ranga Reddy presented before respondcnt No.3 as illegal and arbitrary and sr(,J W.P.No.78284 of 2O25 requested to direct the respondents to release the documents presented by the petitioner.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in conneeted matters, the respondents reiied on the Memo No.G3l825l2O2l, dated 09.LL.2021 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana and Memo of the Hyderabad l\4etropolital Development Authority (HMDA) 1n Lr.No. t689 /2 /P /HMDA/ORR/ ST/2010, dated 02.tt.2o2I for releasing the documents and those I\4emos are considered in the common order passed by the Division Bench of tl+is- Court in W.A.No.834 of 2022 and batch, dated 03.03.2025 and set aside the said memos of the HMDA. In spite of that, the respondenl-s have not released the documents of the petitioner and kept pending and reqrrested to direct the respondents the release the same.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Starnps and Registration has not disputed the submission made by the learned Counsei for the petitioner sr(,J w.C.NoJaZe+ o7 ZO25 with regard to the disposal o[ W'A'No'834 dated 03.03.2025 and-+equested to pass appropriate orders' l of 2022 and batch' In view of the submissions made by both sides' it 5. clearly shows that rn spite of setting aside the Memo No.G3/S25l 2021, d,ated' Og'll'2021 and letter of the HMDA in Letter No.1689l2lPlHMDA/ORR/ST/201O' dated 02.ll.2O2l by the Division Bench of this Court passed orders in W.A.No.834 of 2022 and' batch, dated 03'03'2025' the respondents are not registering and releasing the document of the petitioner. - In view of the above eircumstances,ttre writ_petiti€ais 6 disposed of by directing the Registering Authority to process' register and release the document No'P53/2O22' dated 31.03.2022 presented by the petitioner subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Act' 1908 as well as the Indian StamP Act, 1899 in view of disPosal of W.A.No.834 of 2022 and batch, dated 03'03 '2025' It will be open to the Registering Authority to refuse the document presented before him, if he has any objection' by duly I t 4 SK.J w.P.No,18284 of 2ois asslgnlng reasons in support of such decision a',d communicate the said decision to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed alty opinion gn merits of the case as to the entitlement of the petitioner to gct the subject document registered. There shall be no order as to

7. The Registry is directed to alnex copy of the common order in W.A.No.g34 ot 2022 ald batch, dated 03.03.2025 along with this order. 8. Miscellaleous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR (-v SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary (Stamps and Registration) Hyderabad, Telangana, State of Telangana.

2. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy, District, Telangana. 4. One CC to SRI E.VENKATA SIDDHARTHA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BSR BS i t_:.:1 .ri -{:".1".rl&},I5ryfry.: :il.-:.f . ir-* -Ez =-;ffi I HIGH COURT DATED: 0910912025 / ORDER WP.No.18284 ot 2025 .., '. \'i 'i .: i \ :-:':-1 :i1. - 14 [[T 2025 !'// / i1. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS s THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND . THE HON'3LE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL Nos.834 of .2022 27O of 2O23 and WRIT PETITION No-36324 of 2O2L COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chtef Justice Sujog Paut) Sri Sheri Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.834 of 2022, Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana, appearing for Ms.D.Madhavi, learned Stalding Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.27O of 2023, respondent No.4 in W.A.No.834 of 2022 and. respondent No. 1 in WP.No.36324 of 2027, Sri S.-Niranjan Reddy, learned. Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Rusheek Reddy K.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.A.No.27O of 2023 and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K.Prithvi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.36324 of 2021.

2. On the joint request, the matters being connected analogously heard and decided by this common order.

3. W.A.No.27O of 2023 and W.A.No.834 of 2022 assail the common order of learned Single Judge passed in LA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 in/ and WP.No.369O9 of 2O2I on 30.1 I.2O22. 2

4. W.A.No.270 of 2023 is filed by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Deveiopment Authority (H.M.D.A.) by contending that the learned Single Judge was not justif;ied in allowing W.P.No.36909 of 2021.

5. W.A.No.834 of 2022 is frled by those appellants, who fiied implead petitions viz.,I.A.Nos.l and 2 of 2022 befor:e the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge in para No. 17 of the impugned order permitted them to avail other remedy available to them, while clismissing the I.As. Factual back ground:

6. The admitted facts before the Writ Court r.vere that the H.M.D.A and respondent Nos.l to 3 in W.A,No.270 of 2023 entered into a 'Development Agreement' on 28.01.2008. As per this agreement respondent Nos.l to 3 were required to pay "Development Premium amotrnt" in certain stages. The relevant portion of the Development Agreement reads thus: Sl.No Payment Milestone 1 2 ?> Simr.rltaneous with signing of Develo ment Within one (1) calendar month from the Developer receiving written approvals from HUDA for this DPR Within one (1) calendar rnonth from the Developer achieving the Financial Ciosure for the Pro ect. 1n Amount Rs.Crores 25.O

25.O

25.O _:t_ ,trl J 4 Within month from the. Zero Date. one (1) calendar

7. Indisputedly, reSpondent Nos.1 tb 3 only paid frrit siig; amount of Rs.25.00 crores to H.M.D.A. and did. not make the payment of remaininf thiee instalments.in totar.Rs.75 crores. 8: The H.M.D.A. by communication .d.ated OS.l1.2O2I requested the Commissioner and Inspector Genera_l of Stamps and Registration Department, Hyderabad, to take appropriate action to save the Government money. In this communication, it was also informed that the contract of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 stood terminated by notice dated 3O.Oa.2O2I.

9. Upon receiving the aforesaid communication from H.M.D.A., thb office of Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad by communication dated 09.11.2021 informed the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, to take necessary action for protecting the government interest in properties. The communication dated go.og.2o2t became subject matter of the challenge before the Writ Court.

10. The sheet-anchor of the argument of learned counsel the petitioner before the Writ Court was that the only enabling provision under The tndian Registration I r .,} 4 :]: Act, 1908 (for short "the Act") is Section 22-A w}:,ic}:. deals with prohibition of registration of certain documents. The reason on the strength of which the impugned order was passed does not fall within the ambit of Section 22-A. 1 1. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition for the reason that communication of H.M.D.A. dated 05.11.2O21 became foundation for not registering the properties is outside the ambit and scope of Section 22-A of the Act. Aggrieved, W.A.No.27O of 12023 is frled by H.M.D.A

12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.A.No.270 of 2023 at the outset submits that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are ready to pay remaining Rs.75 crores within thirty days from today and a written undertaking is provided to the Court to that effect and a copy of cheque No.240483, dated 04.04.2025, for the said amount is also enclosed therewith.

13. Learned Advocate General iairly submits that only short coming of non-payment of Rs.75 crores which became reason for non-registration is now over and therefore, he has no objection if the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is not interfered with and secondly, the cancellation of contract 5 which became the subject matter of chqLlenge in Wp.No.36324 of 2027.can be inteifered with. - t4 Learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.g34 of 2OZ2 submits that the question of title and other -civil.disputes are involved and therefore, the ordei of learned Single Judge is not correct whereby he did not allow the implead petitions and instead permitted the present appellants to avail other remedies.

15. No other point is pressed by the parties

76. We have heard the parties.

17. So far W.A.No.834 of 2022 is concerned, it is arising out of para No.17 of the'impugned order of learned Single Judge, whereby his applications for impleadment was not entertained.

18. It is noteworthy that lis before the learned Single Judge was limited to the singular question whether for non-pa5rment of Rs.75 crores and on the strength of communication dated OS.LI.2O2| of H.M.D.A., the Inspector General of Registration was justified in issuing the communication dated Og.ll.2O2l and whether such 6 communication can be reason to invoke power under Section 22-A of the Act.

19. The quesrion of title ald other civil disputes etc., were not the subject matter of writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has not allowed the implead applications and permitted the implead petitioners to avail other remedy available to them under the Law. No fault can be found in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. In other words, in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Moninder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissionerl, the validity of an order or an action must be judged on the basis of the reasons mentioned therein. The same cannot be improved by fiting a counter affidavit in the Court. Admitteclly, before the Iearned Single Judge, the singular reason for not undertaking the exercise of registration was non-payment of Rs.75 crores by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the communication of the H.M.D.A dated 05. 11.2027, which became the singular reason for issuance of impugned communication dated 09.lI.2O2I The lis before the learned Single Judge was not related to any title/civil dispute. Hence, the learned Single Judge has confined '(tgze) t scc +os 7 himself to the question of non-registration and permitted the appeltants to avail remedies available to them.

20. As noticed above, the offer and r.rndertaking of paying Rs-75 crores by respondent Nos.1 to 3 is duly accepted by the H.M.D.A. Thus, as agreed, the singular reason for non_registration does not survive and therefore, inaction of registration was .ightty interfered with.

21. In w.P.No.36324 of 202r, the cancerlation of the contract is subject matter of challenge ald admittedly, singular reason for such cancellation was also non-payrnent of Rs.75 crores. In view of the aforesaid undertaking and upon showing satisfaction by the learned Advocate Genera-l appearing for H.M.D.A., as agreed we deem it proper to set aside the impugned . notice dated 30.O8.2O2L in W.p.No.36324 of 2O2I.

22. In view of the forgoing discussion, the Writ Appeal Nos.27O of 2023 and 834 of 2022 are dismissed. The question regarding the ambit and scope of section 22-A of the Act win remain open to be decided in an appropriate case. However, it is made clear that the appella,ts in w.A.No.834 of 2022 can avail an the possible remedies available to them regarding grievances highlighted before 8 the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition No.36342 of 2O2l is allowed and the impugned notice dated 3O.O8.2O21 is set side. No costs' Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

03.03.2025 Nvl SUJOY PAUL, ACJ RENUKA YARA, J