Thota Sandeep v. Memo No. G31324712O18

Order

The present Writ Petition is Iiled aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 i.c., the Sub Registrar, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District in refusing to register and release the Sale Deed Pending Document bearing No.P.14i2024 Qated O1.1O.2024 vide Intimation of Refusal No.O7 l2Ola datcd 10.1O.2024 in rcspect of all that the ResiderrLiai Open Plot in S-y.No.4" to an extent of 200 Sq. Yards Near H.No.6-2-Po0002, situated at Power House Colony, SCCL Quarter:; Internal Road Locality, Godavarikhani of Malkapur Revenue Village, within thc limits of . Municipal Corporation Ramagundam, R-amagundam Mandal, Peddapalli ZlIla Parishad-, Peddapalli District, within Registration District i*. Karimnagarl Sub-District, Ramag.rndam on the basis of

G.O.Ms.No. 1 18 Revenue Registration Department. dated 2

28.10.2O2O and Memo No.G3l3247,t2Ol8 Dated \ 0 1.05.20 19 issued respondent No.2.

2. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, krarned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps ard Registration appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3. Perust:d the record.

3. Facts in brief as stated in the Writ l)erition are as follows: Petitioner's vendor by name Mr.Kotha Raji Redd_v purchased land admeasuring Ac. 1-10 gts., in Sy.No.42 of Malkapur Sivar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal o[ Peddapalli District by way of simple sale deed ald therea-fter hled a Civil Suit against his vendtrs which was decreed vide O.S.No.l7B4 of 1989 beforc the District Munsiff Court at Sultanabad in favour rtf petitioner's vendor. Therealter petitioner's vendor pard the stamp duty and penalty through the SBI Cr3 Branch, Karimnagar and obtained the proceedings <trcler through \ \ W. P.No.34835 of 2024 ,) File No.G1/45712021 dared 1t.O2.2O21. The vendor of the petitioner had delivered physical possession of land before the elders to an extent of Ac.00-30 gts., out of Ac.1-00 gts., in Sy.No.42 of Malkapur Sivar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Manda-l of peddapalli District to one Mr.Jangapelli Ravinder and received sale consideration. Thereafter th6 said Mr.Jangapelli Ravinder has approached the Legal Services Authority by way of Pre Litigation Case ag"iTst the vendor of the petitioner vide P.L.C.No.21O,of 2O2O and the sa_rne was compromised by way of Award passed by an orcler dated 27.O2.2021 in terms of compromise. The petitioner,s vendor has executed a registered General power of Attorney in favour of Mr.Jangapelli Ravinder vide document bearing No.2163 ol 2021 dated lg.O2.2O2l.

4. It is further submitted that due to the personal and family nece-ssities, the vendor of the petitioner had offered to sell the aforesajd property through his General power of Attorney Mr.Jangapelli Ravinder ald on coming to NVSK,J W P. No.34835 of 2024 4 know the same, petitioner approached his vendor to purchase the said property and his vendor hrts executed a sa-le deed in favour of the petitioner which was presented before respondent No.3 for registratiorr. However, respondent No.3 has refused to register the sirid sale deed and assigned pending document bearing No.p.l4/2O24 dated Ol.IO.2024 "t1.. intimation of rcfusal bearing No.O7 12024 dated lO. IO.2024 for the follouing reasons: "There is no any Nala conuersion certificctte nor approued laA out orders and. as per the G.O.Ms.No.118 Reuenue (Rellistration) Department, dated 28.10.2O2O the Tahs'ld.ars dre appointed as Joint Sub Registrars to re,7is;ter the agicttLture lands. That the Commissioner and. ln:;pector General fR&S/ Department Memo No.G3/ 32a7/ 2018 d.ated O1.05.20: 9 has instructed that u.theneuer huge lands are slrcuing in Square gards and sought to registrotion the Sub-Registrar inuariablg refer ueb land rD.4arani Portal) and fi,nd out the real otaners a.s per ) ) V NVSK,.,I W.P.No.34835 ot 2024 5 reuenue records and insist upon NALA conuersion certi|icqte of agricultural land iruto non agriculture land issued bg the competent authoritg. Therefore the document ls refused to registration under Section 71 of Registration Act, 1908."

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per G.O.Ms.No. 118 Revenue Registration Department, dated 28. lO.2O2O, respoiident No.3 was seized with power to execute the lands which are in agriculture and respondent No.3 failed to verify that the subject lands which are sought for registration are non-agriculture lands under Square yards basis but not in acreage and as such the lirst objection is not tenable and so far as the 2nd objection is concerned, learned counsel submits that the Dharani records clearly shows that the land in S5:.No.42 was converted into house sites and plots as such the question of getting Nala conversion and getting registration before the Tahsildar as per G.O.Ms.No. 11g Revenue Registration Department, dated 28.1O.2O2O and \..P.No.3,183ii oi 2024 N\ SI( 6 Memo No.G3l324Z /2OIB Dated 01.05.2C19 issued respondent No.2 is unwarr.anted

6. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.3 ought to have verihed the orrline record of Darani ,"veb land in respect of land in Sy.No.42 which clearly speaks about the nature of the land i.e., houses / house sites and that the subject property is situated in Urban agglomeration. In"view of the same, 2.d objection is also not tenable.

7. That apart the petitioner has a_lso obtained information under the Right to Information Act from the Revenue Authority i.e., the Tahsildar, Ramagundam by way of Memo dated 19.09.2023 wherein it vras informed that the land in Sy.No.42 was converted into house sites. In this factual backdrop, learned counsel sui>mits that the action of respondent No.3 is contrary to ttLe provisions of the Registration Act and that there is no prohibition in respect of the subject land for registration and that the ,I l 'l frr--- @7 NVSK,.] W.P.No.34835 ot 2O24 7 entire revenue records clearly speaks that the land is in the nature of house sites as such insisting the petitioner and his vendor to comply with G.O.Ms.No.118 Revenue Registr?tion Department, dated 28.1O.2O2O and Memo No.G3/32a7 12018 Dated 01.05.2019 issued respondent No.2 is per se illegal and arbitrary.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Revenue records 2O2O, the subject land has been shown as house sites and the status of land has already been changed to agriculture to non-agriculture, hence the provisions of the Telangana Rights in land and Pattedar Pass Books Act,2O2O do not apply and that even otherwise as per G.O.Ms.No. 118 Revenue Registration Department, dated 28.1O.2O2O, the lands are within the limits Municipal Corporation Ramagundam, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli as such respondent No.3 has got jurisdiction to entertain registrations. It is further submitted that in sirnilar Court passed several interim orders *,ffi;"r.""."1 N!'S Ii..J \A'. P \o 34835 ol 202.1 8 Writ Petition also stands on the sarne footini{ iuld prays this Court for granting similar relief.

9. A counter has been filed by respondent No.3 on behalf of respondent Nos. I and 2 on the basis oi available records. It is submitted that on verihcar.ion of the contents of the document, it was noticed tha: the link document in General Power ol Attorney vid: document No.2163 of 2O2l was registered at SRO, Peddrpalli before creation of new SRO,,Ramagundam. The saiC document was executed by Principal Sri Kotha Rajireddy irL favour of General Power of Attorney Agent Sri Janapalli Ravinder wherein the principal acquired the property through O.S.No. 1784 of 1989 court decree from the Munsiff Court, Sultanabad and the szune ls impounded t,y the then District Registrar, Karimnagar vide Proceedings bearing No.Gl/467 l2O2l dated 08.O2.2021 for ccllection of deficit stamp duty under Sections 40 and 42 c,f 1.he Indian Stamp Act and as per the proceedings, it was observed that the property belongs to agriculture land [o arr extent l \ - \ E-.-----------_- 'j.].1'- NVSK,J w P No.34835 of 2O2a 9 of Ac. 1-OO gts., situated at Janagoan Village, Ramagundam and the then District Registrar collected the stamp duty for agriculture land and the same is mehtioned in the General Power of Attorney document. However, the said document is registered under 3630 Sq yards out of Sy.No.42 situatei at Malkapur village.

10. It is further submitted that as per the contents of O.S.No. 1784 of 1989, the proceedings issued by the District Registrar, Karimnagar vide proceedings No.Glla67l2o2l O8.O2.2O21 and pLC No.2tO of 2O2O dated 27.O2.2O21 were presented before the registering authority by the executing party for verification and on verification, it was observed that neither NALA conversation certificate nor approved lay out orders were filed and as per G.O.Ms.No. 118 Revenue Registration Department, dated 28.IO.2O2O, the Tahsildars are appointed as Joint Sub Registrars to register the agriculture lands. t '\' P \o .l 1835 of 202a \\/S 10

11. It is further submitted that on pcru.sa-l of Award dated 27.O2.2O21. in pLC No.21O of 2O2O, it is observed that the petitioner therein Mr.Jangapzrlli Srinivas @ Ravinder filed a suit against his ve,rdor Mr.Kotha Rajireddy wherein the Legal Servict.s Committee, Ramagundam issued others sating that tl_re petitioner therein is the owner ald possessor of lanC ,admeasuring Ac.0-30 gts., out of Sy.No.42 situated at Mzrlkapur village, Godavarikhani and the legal heirs of the -es;pondents is not having any right or ownership over the land Lo that extent and that the executing pafty Mr.Koth.a Rajireddy nowhere cited in the document either in Gereral power of Attorney document nor in sa-le deed had rLot mentioned regardingPLC No.210 of 2O2O dated2T.O2.2O2l.

72. It is further submitted that the Gencral power of Attorney document was registered on 19.02.r2021 wherein the executing party Mr.Kotha Rajireddy rellistered rand admeasuring Ac.O-30 gts., out of Sy.No.42 s;ituated at Ja4agoan village and the Lega.l Services c)ornmittee, \ \ , / 11 NVSK,J W P.No.34E35 ot 2024 Ramagundam issued orders in favour of petitioner (General Power of Attorney agent of document No.2163 of 2O2ll on 27.O2.2O21 which means that the principal had executed the land in favour of General Power of Attorney J agent before the orders issued by the Legal Services Committee, Ramagundam. It is further submitted that as per the decree in O.S.No.1784 of 1989 wherein the subject property falling ln Sy.No.42 admeasuring Ac. 1-00 gts., situatgd at Jangoan village (as per the contents of Genera,l Power oi Attorney Document) and the document is presented as Sy.No.42 admeasuring 200 Sq yards situated at Malkapur village (as link General Power of Attorney document No.2l63 of 2021). It is further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 28.1O.2O2O, the Tahsilciars are appointed as Joint Sub Registrars to register the agriculture lancis and that in terrns of Merno bearing No.G3/324712018 dated 01.05.2019, the Commissioner a-r-rd Inspectcr General (R&S) Department instructed that whenever huge lands are showing 1n l I I J \\ P \o.3a33.1 oi 202.1 \VS 72 square yards and sought for registrar_ion, the Sub_ Registrar invariably refer web land (DhararLi portal) and find out the real owners as per revenue rer:or.ds and insist upon NALA conversion certificate of agriculture into non_ agriculture land issued by the competenl. authority and as such respondent No.3.is not authorizec. t,t register the agriculture property which do not fall within their jurisdiction. In vievr of the same, the subje ct document is refused to register unUer Section 7l of the Registration Act, 1908 ANALYSIS AND CONCLU SIONS:

13. Petitioner's vendor Mr.Kotha Raji Rt:drly claims to have purchased the subject lald irdmeasuring Ac. 1-10 gts., in Sy.No.42 of Malkapur Sivar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal of peddapalli District by way of simple sa_le deed and ther.eerfter got filed a Civil Suit against his vendors which was lecreed by the District Munsiff Court at Sultanabad vide O.S.No .17g4 of 1989 by an order dated 10.04.1990 in his favour. \ , r NVSK,J w.P.No.34835 of 2O24 13 Thereafter petitioner's vendor paid the stamp duty and penalty and the same was impounded vide proceedings issued by the District Registrar, Karimnagar O8.O2.2O21 on collection of deficit stamp duty under Sections 40 and 42 of tlne Indian Stamp Act. A perusal of decree dated 10.04.199O in O.S.No. 1784 of 1989 would revea.l that, it is a suit filed for declaration of title in respect of land in Sy.\o.42 admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts., inter alia Ac.30-01 gts., situated in Shivar of Godavarikhani village of Ramagundam manda-l which is an agricultural land and whereas in the General Power of Attorney link document No.2163 of 2O2l rn the schedule of property, is mentioned as registered under 363O Sq. yards out of Sy.No.42 situated at Malkapur village. It appears that in the suit, o.S.No.1784 of 1989. the defendants hled a consent written statement admitting the suit claim and the said suit of the plaintiff was decreed declaring the plaintiff as absolute orvner and possessor of the subject land. It is pertinent to note that \\ :'.\r 3+t 35 ol 102.1 N\ S l4 in the said suit, the defendants appeal ecl by way of consent and the Trial Court has neither g'lne into the merits of the case nor title of the defendant.s arld the suit was decreed without proper evidence and it is only based on the consent written statement' The trial Court ought to have verihed the title of the defendants who have executed the un-registered sale deed ir: favour of Mr.Kotha Rajireddy - plaintiff in the suit ln view of the same, the said decree dated 1O'04' 1990 in (f li'No' 1784 of 1989 appears to be'collusive' L4. The petitioner's vendor has execute<l a registered General Power of Attorney in favour ol Mr'Jangapelli Ravinder vide document bearing No'2163 of 2021 dated 1g.O2.2O21 . Thereafter the said Mr'Jangapelli Ravinder had approached the Legal Services Authorit-r by way of pre Litigation case against the vendor of the petitioner vide P.L.C.No.21O of 2020 and the sarne was compromised by an Award dated 27 'O2 2021 passed under Section 2I of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 ' \ T t I NVSK,J W. P.No.34835 of 2024 15 The respondents i.e., Mr.Kotha Raji Reddy - plaintiff in O.S.No.1784 of 1989 has agreed in the terms of compromise wherein in the Award daLed 27.O2.2O21, it €P was recorded that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been received by the respondents and they are ready to execute the registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioner. In the writ afhdavit, it has been submitted that only physical possession of land .admeasuring Ac.O-30 gts., has been given to Mr.Jangapalli Ravinder who is petitioner 1n PLC.No.2IO of 2O2O.

15. However, in the award dated 27.O2.2O21 the petitioner i.e., Mr.Jangapalli Srinivas @ Ravinder is recorded as the owner and possessoj of the land to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts., 1n Sy.No.42 of Malkapur Sivar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam mandal of peddapalli district and the respondent therein (executing party Kotha Raji Reddy) was ready to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner therein. It is further t \VS K. u.P.No.34835 of 202.+ t6 recorded that the respondents and his le11al heirs do not have any right or ownership over subject lzrnrl.

16. On a careful examination of the szrid proceedings and as rightly observed by the respon,lent No.3, the executlng party Sri Kotha Raji Reddy no where in the documents either in the General pow<:r of Attorney document dated 19.02.2O2I or in the sale cleed document dated 01.LO.2O24 (pending document No.F,14 of 20241 had mentioned reprding the proceedings in pLC No.210 ol 2O2O. It appears that the vendor of the petitioner is not having clear title and even as per tjre said decree dated 10.04.199O in O.S.No. 1784 of 1999, his title is not in full proof and the compromise recorded in P.L.C.No.2lO of 2O2O dated27.O2.2O2l, no d,:tails of GpA Document dated I9.O2.2O21 was menti,tned and the records do not source any va-tid title of both pctitioner and respondents therein. As such the submis:;ic,ns made by petitioners lacks merits. I NVSK.J W P. No.3483 5 of2024 17

17. Before going into the other aspects of the refusal order dated Ol.LO.2024 on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.118 Revenue Registration Department, dated 28.1O.2O2O and Memo No.G3l3247l2ol8 Dared 01.05.2019, this Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India has to ascertain the bonahdes of the petitioner. In view of the disputed questions of fact and since the very title of the parties through which the petitibner now derives title by way of I I rcgistration of pending document No.p14 of 2024 is not clear ald the conveyance of the title by way of terms of compromise rocorded in Award dated 27.O2.2O2I vide I { P.L.C.No.2lO of 2O2O is also not proper, this Court is of considered opinion that the respondents considering the disputed facts on tJle subject document i.e., pl4 of 2024 had rightly passed the refusal order as per Section 7l of Registration Act, 1908. The refusal order warrants no interference. For the reasons stated above, this writ t W P.No:l 4t135 of 2024 NVS 18 petition is devoid of merits, tails and ]S liable to be dismissed

18. Accordingly, this Writ petition is disrnissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any 1>ending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// ^3S,'iT^",[f 'AALi.YAXI To, SE

1. One cc to SRt KATTKA RAVTNDER REDDy Advocate [opuc] 2. \wo CCs to Gp FOR S- state of retangana. torrMts AND REGISTRATION ,High court for the Two CD Copies &korr,".* 1 KKS GJP Qn- \ I I HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 ../; ,\:. ' rl. , \ 0:l iEP 216 / /? i \"" \\( s, iTc.,. .c * ORDER WP.No.34835 of 2024 r DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS L- V LL a t