The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ, more particularly writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus, duly declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for regularization of the property of his share as per final decree proceedings in OS No. 116 of 1981 on the file of Senior Civil Judge court at Kothagudem, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents to regularization of the property of the petitioner as pei the final decree, in OS 1'16i198'l , in accordance with GO Ms No. 373 of 2005, in the interest of justice. sI lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou'1 Tlay be pleased to direct the respondents to regularization of the property of th: petitioner as per the final decree, in OS 116/1981, in accordance with GO Ms N: 373 of 2005, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. RAMA SHARANA SHAF I lA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. T. SWETCHA, AGP FOtL ?.EVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER l( THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.31805 of 2018 ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of petitioner for regularization of the property of share as per final decree in O.S.No.1l6 of 1981 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, as arbitrary.

2. Petitioner contends that originally petitioner's mother Smt.P.Lakshmikanthamma has filed suit O.S.No.16l of l98l 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 I 4- l0- I 988. Against the said dismissal, petitioner's mother preferred Appeat before the High Court vide F.A.No.856 of 1989, and pending the said appeal, due to the demise of petitioner's mother, the petitioner being the sole legal heir, was impleaded as appellant, thereby the petitioner herein became plaintiff in the suit. The said Appeal was allowed by the High Court on 19-02-2004 and passed a preliminary decree by adjudicating the partition of the suit schedule property. 2 After obtaining copy of the judgment in F.A.No.8j( of 1989, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 20 Rule 1t OPC seeking final decree in terms of the preliminary decree, and t I : said petition was allowed on 28.04.2011.

3. It is also the case of the petitioner that pJ'suant to the preliminary decree passed by the High Court, the m r t,:r went back to the leamcd trial Court for passing the final decr: : Since then there were as rnany as I I Interlocutory Applicati,r rr; being filed where one of them was filed for appointment o1 rn Advocate- Commissioner for fixing the boundaries, which rv r allowed and the Advocate-Commissioner has also filed his repor t and thereafter a final decree was passed.

4. Petitioner contends that after passing of fir r decree, he presented Non-Judicial Stamps worth Rs.500/- fo . crawing final decree. Accordingly, final decree was drawn on tlr, Non-Judicial stamps. Thereafter, stamp duty on the final decree f rr. the purpose of registration was also paid worth Rs.49,6751- in o.r er to facilitate the Court for registration. 3

5. Petitioner further contends that after passing orders in I.A.No.1 of 201 I on 08-02-201 1, 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.5l of 2011 to fix the stamp duty and other charges for registration and to send report on or before 09-03-2011. Pursuant to the report dated 09.03.201 1, the petitioner without any delay, deposited requisite stamps on

18.03.201 I

6. It is lurther the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 16.11.201I rejected to register the house property stating that final decree for partition was passed on 0 I .08.2007 and subsequently, I.A.No.404 of 201 I filed for amendment of final decree was allowed on 28.04.201I and submitted for registration in the office on 23.10.2013 and as per Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act'), time for presenting the document is four months and Section 25 of the Act i.e. delay in presentation (four months), the time limit with penalty is over and accordingly, fifled an order that he is unable to 9 4 admit document of final decree for partition for regist a.tion and re- submitting the original final decree of partition and original challan.

7. Sri P.Rama Sharan Sharma, learned counsel fo .lre petitioner contends that it is settled position of law that act cf (lourt would not prejudice anyone since, the initial delay wa l ,)ccurred on account of pendency of modification of final decr:, applications and on dismissal of the same, the Court did not wastr rnuch time in lorwarding the same lor registration.

8. Leamed counsel for the petitioner relied on a I ,r:ision in Raf Kumor Dey and olhers Vs. Taropadt Dey and othzrst wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the entire pe i rd should be excluded in computation of period available for rel;. ;-ration under Sections 23 and 25 on the principles of Sectr r 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Apex Court lurther he I lthat the two legal maxims, namely, (i) the law does not compr a man to do which he cannot possibility perform; and (ii) an iLr t of the court shall prejudice no man, applied, and upheld th: order of the 'AIR tg87 sc 2 t95 5 registration passed by the Registrar. Accordingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the impugned order therein.

9. On the other hand, Ms.T.Swetcha, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 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 respondent authorities are 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 where it is appealable within four months from the day on which it becomes final.

10. I have taken note ofrespective contentions urged' 1 l. Admittedly, the title in dispute was settled by virtue of the orders passed by the competent Civil Court. However, on account of various issues, several lnterlocutory Applications were pending for passing offinal decree, for whictftfrnetitioner cannot be found fault with. i E{r.t . /,1 I ,l t !t T I 6

12. The legal maxims as by the Hon'ble Suprem,: Oourt in Raj Kumar Dey (supra) apply in the facts of the present c rse.

13. It is not in dispute that the entire Kothagude r Town under Sy.Nos. 14 1 , 1 42 and 143 was leased out by the Gov : rtrnent .for the purpose of establishing Singareni Collieries Cor r rrrny Limited (SCCL). The Govemment also issued G.O.Ms.N,r 173 Revenue (Assn.VII) Department dated 24.03.2005 for regtrl ,r ization of all the genuine occupants by collecting prescribcd lee nd subject to fulfillment ol guidelines/conditions. Admittedly, t r : petirioner is declared as title holder pursuant to the litigation, ,rhich became final.

14. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate t,r direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for r,:r .rrlarization of the property as per final decree passed in O.S.No. ri of ,1981 the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothaguderr in terms of G.O.Ms.No.373 dated 24.03.2005 and subsequent ( ()s subject to fulfillment of the guidelines/conditions stipulatec therein. The petitioner is also at liberty to make a fresh repre'u rLtation to the respondent authorities duly enclosing recent GOs, r ithin a period 7 of two (02) weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents arJ directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.373 dated

24.03.2005 and subsequent GOs and dispose of the same positively within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter'

15. Subject to above observations and direction, W.P.No.31805 of 2018 is disposed of. No costs'

16. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// Sd/- U. S SISTANT TRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Departme B. R. Ambedkar Secretariat Building, Secretaria Hvd rabad. Th State of Telangana, Dr

2. The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem , Kothagudem Town District.

4. One CC to SRI P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies PVUMP -j! . ,i. 'a;:: iii:;, d;'i. HIGH COURT DATED:0911012025 HE Si t 1 o.J ,,, * a\ ?1r z. * 'r( ORDER WP.No.31805 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS b