The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section Petition under Section 151 Cf C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of t rr: petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the second respondent trt register the partition deed arising out of final decree in OS No. 1 16/1981 , on t e f ile of Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem for House baring No. 6-3-30, situale I in Sy No. 142, at Chinna Bazar, and second part half share in house bearr g No. 5-1-64/65 and 5-1-65/1 in Sy No. 142 situated at Cooli line, Kothagude nr Town, Khammam District, pending disposal of the main writ petition in the intr.' est of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHAR'V A Counsel forthe Respondents: Ms. T.SWETCHA, AGP FOFI ?EVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KI]MAR WRIT PETITTON N o-9770 of 2Ol5 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Rama Sharan Sharma, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Ms.T.Swetcha, Ieamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for the respondents.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 2"d respondent in refusing to register the partition deed arising out of hnal decree in O.S.No.116 of 1981 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem for House bearing No.6-3-30 situated in Sy.No.l42 at Chinna Bazar, and second part half share in House bearing Nos.5-1-64165 and 5-1-6511 in Sy.No.142 situated in Cooli Line, Kothagudem Town, Khammam District, as arbitrary'

3. Petitioner contends that originally petitioner's mother Smt.P.Lakshmikanthamma has filed suit O.S.No.16l of 1981 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem against her sister and her sister's husband for partition of the properties belonging to her late father, and the said suit was dismissed on 14- 10- 1988' Against the said dismissal, petitioner's mother preferred Appeal I \; \ 2 before the High Court vide F.A.No.856 of 1989, an 1 pending the said appeal, due to the demise of petitioner's mothe" the petitioner being the sole legal heir, was impleaded as appellz.r t, thereby the petitioner herein became plaintiff in the suit. The sr d Appeal was allowed by the High Court on 19-02-2004 and passec a preliminary decree by adjudicating the partition of the suit sch: iule property. After obtaining copy of the judgment in F.A.No.81;, , of 1989, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 20 Rule lli CPC seeking final decree in terms of the preliminary decree, and tl e said petition was allowed on 28.04.2011

4. [t is also the case of the petitioner that pr- rsuant to the preliminary decree passed by the High Court, the ma ter went back to the leamed trial Court for passing the final decre :. Since then there were as many as 1 1 Interlocutory Applicati,r rs being filed where one of them was filed for appointment o1' an Advocate- Commissioner for fixing the boundaries, which rvr r allowed and the Advocate-Commissioner has also filed his report and thereafter a final decree was passed 3

5. Petitioner contends that after passing of final d,ecree, he presented Non-Judicial Stamps worth Rs.500/- for drawing f,rnal decree. Accordingly, final decree was drawn on the Non-Judicial stampE Thereafter, stamp duty on the final decree for the purpose of registration was also paid worth Rs.49,6751- in order to facilitate the Court for registration.

6. Petitioner further contends that after passing orders in I.A.No.1 of 201 I on 08-02-201 l, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem addressed a letter dated 17-02'2011 to the Sub- Registrar, Registration Department at Kothagudem by duly transmitting the final decree passed in I.A.No.51 of 2011 to fix the stamp duty and other charges for registration and to send report on or before 09-03-20 I l. Pursuant to the report dated 09.03.201 1, the petitioner without any delay, deposited . requisite stamps on

18.03.201 1. 7 . It is the further contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 16.11.2013 rej ected to register the house property stating that final decree for partition was passed on

01.08.2007 and subsequently, I.A.No.4O4 of 2011 filed for s \ \ 4 !- \ \'r\ 'qtlEt ,-- amendment of final decree was allowed on 2t 04'2011 and submitted for registration in the office on 23'10'2) L3 and as per Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short he Act'), time for presenting the document is four months and St:' tion 25 of the Act i.e. delay in presentation (four months), the lr ne limit with penalty is over and accordingly, passed an order thal re is unable to admit the document of final decree for partition for r :gistration and re-submitting the original final decree of partitio r and original challan

8. Sri P.Rama Sharan Sharma, leamed counsel f : ' the petitioner contends that it is settled position of law that act < f Court would not prejudice anyone since, the initial delay wa i occurred on account of pendency of modification of final decr:': applications and on dismissal of the same, the Court did not war e much time in forwarding the same for registration. g. Leamed counsel for the petitioner relied on z lecision in Raj Kumar Dey and others Vs. Tarapada Dey and o herst wherein ' etR 1987 sc 2195 5 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the entire period should be excluded in computation of period available for registration under Sections 23 and 25 on the principles of Section 15 of the Lin$tation Act, 1963. The Apex Court further held that the two legal maxims, namely, (i) the law does not compel a man to do which he cannot possibly perform; and (ii) an act of court shall prejudice no man, applied, and upheld the order of the registration passed by the Registrar. Accordingty' The Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the imPugned order therein' t0. On the other hand, Ms'T'Swetcha, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents by way of counter vehemently contended that since there was a delay of beyond four months in presentation of document' the document could not be admitted and that the 2nd respondent is merely following the registration law as mentioned in Section 23 and 25 of the Act. It is further contended that Section 23 of the Act clearly mentions that a copy of decree may be presented within four months from the date on which the decree or order was made or 5 where it is appealable within four months from the c[ 1' on which it becomes final I 1. This court has taken note of respective contenti,r rs urged.

12. Admittedly, the title in dispute was settled b r virtue of the orders passed by the competent Civil Court. Howet'r r, on account of various issues, several Interlocutory Applicationl; urere pending for passing offinal decree, for which the petitioner c:.rnot be found fault with

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also categorically held that the law does not compel a man to do the impossible r nd the act of Court should prejudice no man, and this principle rpplies to the facts of the present case.

14. It is not in dispute that the entire Kothaguder Town under Sy.Nos.l41, 142 and 143 was leased out by the Gov: rrment for the purpose of establishing Singareni Collieries Corr :any Limited (SCCL). .The Govemment also issued G.O.Ms.N,t 373 Revenue (Assn.VII) Department dared 24.03.2005 for regula'ization of all the genuine occupants by collecting prescribed fee md subject to 7 fulfillment of guidelines/conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner is declared as title holder pursuant to the litigation, which became 1 5. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization of the partition deed as per the final decree in O.S.No.l16 of 1981 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem in respect of House . bearing No.6-3-30 situated in Sy.No.142 at Chinna Bazar, and ( \ second part halfshare in House bearing No.5-l-64165 and 5-l-6511 in Sy.No.142 situated in Cooli Line, Kothagudem Town, Khammam District in terms of G.O.Ms.No.373 dated 24.03.2005 and subsequent GOs subject to fulfillment of the guidelines/conditions stipulated therein. The petitioner is also at ( t liberty to make a fresh representation to the respondent authorities duly enclosing recent GOs, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of the receipt ofa copy of this order. The respondents are directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.373 dated 24.03.2005 and subsequent GOs o 8 and dispose of the same positively within a peri,r I of four (04) weeks thereafter.

16. Subject to above observations and direction, \\ .11.No.9770 of 2015 is disposed of. No costs.

17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending il .ny shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// ,. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI t ls=I11!_Ij_!9rs:ae* SECTION OFFICER \ -- z 1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, of Telangana. e rel: -iat, Hyderabad, State

2. The Sub Registrar, Kothagudem, Khammam District- 3. The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam. 4. One CC to SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA, Advocet : [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for REVENUE, High Court for the I tate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] I

6. Two CD Copies BSRYMP HIGH COURT DATED: 0911012025 ORDER WP.No.9770 of 2015 o() I * ( THE S tt Ic 20t88 lt6 + '"--=---. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS rhaN