Telangana High Court
Sachin Patha vs The State Of Telangana on 10 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.Ps. No.9881, 9939, 9952 and 9963 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Writ Petitions No.9881, 9939, 9952 and 9963 of 2024 have been
filed seeking to set aside the Memo No.146, 145, 186 and 187 of 2023
dated 15.03.2023 and 12.04.2023, respectively, wherein and whereby,
the 3rd respondent, Sub-Registrar, Champapet, refused registration of
the Pending Documents No.P-60, 59, 84 and 85 of 2023, respectively,
intimating the petitioners that as per Section 22-A(1)(a) of the
Registration Act 1908 the survey numbers of the property comes
under Government Land besides there is no NALA proceeding and the
subject land falls under unauthorised layout.
2. Since the issues fell for consideration in all these writ petitions
are common, whereby impugned Memos concerning the pending
documents are questioned, as such, all these writ petitions are taken
up for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by way of this
common order.
3. It is to be noted that in W.Ps. No.9881, 9939, 9952 and 9963 of
2024, wherein the impugned Memos issued are pertaining to the Sale
Deed Documents dated 04.02.2023, 04.03.2023 and 01.04.2023,
respectively.
NVSK, J
2 W.P. No.9881, 9939, 9952 & 9963 of 2024
4. It is the case of the petitioners that on the earlier occasion they
filed W.Ps. No.1739, 1736, 7357 and 7324 of 2023 aggrieved by the
action of the 3rd respondent in refusing to receive, register and release
the documents submitted by the petitioners for registration in respect
of the land admeasuring 14,520 sq.yds., 4,840 sq.yds., 4,840 sq.yds.,
and 4,840 sq.yds., respectively, which is part and parcel of land in
Sy.No.99/1/5 of Mamidipalle village of Balapur Mandal, Kandakur
Revenue Sub-Division, Ranga Reddy District, without assigning any
reasons and the same were disposed of by this Court on 23.01.2023
and 16.03.2023, respectively, with a direction to the Registering
Authority to receive, register and release the subject document,
subject to the petitioners complying with the provisions of the Act,
1908 as well as the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 leaving it open to the
Registering Authority to refuse the document presented,
if he has any objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such
decision and communicate the said decision to the petitioners.
Subsequently, the petitioners upon execution of the documents and
after duly paying the requisite challans have submitted the subject
documents for registration and completed the entire registration
procedure. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent took it upon himself and
issued the impugned Memos dated 15.03.2023 and 12.04.2023,
respectively refusing registration of the pending documents.
Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ
petitions.
NVSK, J
3 W.P. No.9881, 9939, 9952 & 9963 of 2024
5. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, Sub-Registrar, Champapet,
while denying the writs averments, had filed separate counters/vacate
affidavits in all these writ petitions, (For the sake of convenience,
averments made in counter/vacate filed in W.P. No.9939 of 2024 are
taken note), inter alia, stating that a sale deed was executed on
04.03.2023 by ZAL MANECK FOUNDATION represented by its Trustee
Sarosh Sam Bastawala in favour of Sarika Kuchimanchi affecting an
extent of 4840 sq.yds., in Sy.No.99/1/5 of Mamidipalli village,
Balapur Mandal, Kandukur Revenue Division, Ranga Reddy District
and was presented before the 3rd respondent for registration which
was initially kept pending as P.No.59 of 2023. On scrutiny of the
document, it was noticed that the schedule property was notified
under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioners
were informed refusal of registration vide impugned Memos dated
15.03.2023. The documents were refused registration under Section
71 of the Registration Act, 1908 and further submitted that the
petitioners without availing alternative remedy of appeal under
Section 72 of the Registration Act, have chosen to invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by way of filing the present writ petitions.
6. It is further submitted that in G.O.Ms. No.786 Revenue (Regn.I)
Department, dated 09.11.1999, a notification was issued under
Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 in which Sy.No.99/1
(Acs.2131.38 gts.,) and 99/2 (Acs.15.23 gts.,) of Mamidipalli village
NVSK, J
4 W.P. No.9881, 9939, 9952 & 9963 of 2024
were classified as Government Land and 99/1/5 (Acs.125.00 gts.,)
as per Dharani Website is classified as Government land. Presumably
only Sy.No.99 was in existence and later it was sub-divided into 99/1
and 99/2 and there was no such survey number i.e. 99/1/5 in
Mamidipalli village. In the absence of the documentary evidence such
as Pahani/Adangal/Dharani to show that the Sy.No.99/1/5 was
bifurcated, it can be concluded that the petitioners have mentioned
sham and fictitious survey number 99/1/5 to usurp the land either in
Sy.No.99/1 or 99/2.
7. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioners
themselves got the value of the property assessed and paid the
registration charges. Therefore, the averments made that the
3rd respondent assessed the stamp duty etc., are incorrect.
It is further submitted that Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration
Act, 1908 lead to the conclusions that the registration of a document
is a solemn to be performed in the presence of Registering Officer
whose duty is to ensure that proper persons are before him with
proper photos for identification. Further, the signatures have to be
verified and that will be presumed to be in order and duly done.
A certificate endorsed on the deed under Section 60 is a relevant piece
of evidence in order to prove its execution. When once an
endorsement is made, as stipulated in Section 60, registration is
completed and that the document so registered shall have to be
returned to the person who presented for registration or to such other
NVSK, J
5 W.P. No.9881, 9939, 9952 & 9963 of 2024
person as he has nominated in writing in that behalf on the receipt
mentioned in Section 58 (2) as provided under Section 60, 61 of the
Registration Act, 1908. Unless a certificate of registration is added
under Section 60, it cannot be said that document was registered in
consonance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
8. It is further submitted that mere payment of stamp duty shall
not be construed as if the document was registered and therefore it is
not true to say that the impugned document was registered as per the
provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 as such the averments of the
petitioners are based on surmises and conjectures. Further,
for registration of the documents affecting any property which is not
prohibited shall get NALA approval and in the absence of the same,
it could be construed as unauthorised layout and cannot be
registered.
9. It is further submitted that the catena of judgments quoted by
the petitioners are not applicable and have no bearing on the present
issue involved in these writ petitions and the provisions of Section 35
of the Registration Act, 1908 were scrupulously followed insofar as
presentation of the document and admission of the execution by the
executants before the Registering authority i.e. the 3rd respondent are
concerned. Since the certificate of registration was not issued under
Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, it cannot be said that it was
registered and after examination of the document it has come to light
that the schedule property was prohibited under Section 22(A) of the
NVSK, J
6 W.P. No.9881, 9939, 9952 & 9963 of 2024
Registration Act, 1908. Eventually, it is submitted that the petitioners
have not approached this Court with clean hands and these writ
petitions deserve to be dismissed with costs.
10. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri B.Mayur Reddy appearing
for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader
Sri H. Rakesh Kumar appearing for the respondents, who made their
respective submissions substantiating their case, and perused the
material made available on the record.
11. Having perused the impugned Memos, it is noticed that the
subject documents have been refused for registration on the ground
that the survey numbers of the subject property comes under
Government land and NALA proceedings have not been furnished.
Along with the counter/vacate affidavit, a copy of the Dharani
Integrated Land Records Management System, Government of
Telangana, is enclosed, as per which in the land details search,
Sy.No.99/1/5 has been assigned Khata No.1200, and in Sy.No./Sub-
Division No.99/1/5, the name of the Pattadar was shown as Houses,
Roads Schools and the nature of the land is classified as Government
Land/Sarkari. Further, the transaction status was shown as “Survey
No/Sub-Division No.is marked prohibited for transaction”.
12. On a perusal of the sale deed dated 04.03.2023, the name of
Vendor is shown as “ZAL MANECK FOUNDATION, (A trust established
under the Last Will and Testament of Late Zal Rustumji Bastawala &
NVSK, J
7 W.P. No.9881, 9939, 9952 & 9963 of 2024
Late Maneckbai Zal Bastawala of Hyderabad India dated
22nd September, 1956)”, who is petitioner No.2 in the present writ
petitions. In the recitals, it is recited that the lands in Sy.No.99 of
Mamidipally village, and Sub-Divisions thereto, now Balapur Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District was purchased by the ancestors of the Vendor
under a registered sale deed executed on 14th December, 1956 vide
document No.947 of 1956, of Book-I, Volume VI, Pages 80, in the
office of the District Registrar, Nizam Shahi Road, Hyderabad Deccan.
The ancestors of the Vendor, executed a joint will and testament on
22nd September, 1956 under which this along with other properties
belonging to the family were placed under a trust and after the death
of the Second Testatrixes, on the 9th of September, 1973, and with the
death of all the original trustees, the signatory of the Vendor herein,
was co-opted as a trustee of the foundation on 27th of May, 1980 and
the Vendors are the exclusive and absolute owners in possession of
the land admeasuring 4840 Sq.Yds., in as is where is condition,
amongst other lands in Sy.No.99/1/5 in Maidipalle village of Balapur
Mandal, (previously Saroornagar Mandal), Ranga Reddy District.
13. Further, the petitioners did not file the link document of
registered sale deed executed on 14th December, 1956 vide document
No.947 of 1956, of Book-I, Volume VI, Pages 80, in the office of the
District Registrar, Nizam Shahi Road, Hyderabad Deccan.
NVSK, J
8 W.P. No.9881, 9939, 9952 & 9963 of 2024
14. On a meticulous scrutiny of the details/recitals mentioned in
the sale deed dated 04.03.2023 and the land search from Dharani
Website filed along with counter filed by the respondent No.3
wherefrom, it is noticed that the name of the Pattadar is shown as
Houses, Roads Schools for Sy.No.99/1/5, which has been classified
as Government land/Sarkari and prohibited for transaction.
It appears that there is a dispute of identity and title of the subject
document/property. More so, the petitioners have filed only list of
prohibited properties at para No.10 of affidavit (as far as relevant and
printable) maintained by the Registration Department is extracted for
their convenience. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that since the said land has not been shown in the
prohibited properties annexed in the material papers and there was no
reference of subject land, this Court may direct the registering
authority to release the registered subject documents.
15. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners ought to have filed
copy of the entire details of Dharani land details search at the time of
filing of the writ petition. The Dharani lands details are available
online to public but the petitioners have extracted the relevant portion
as per their convenience. There is an ambiguity in the details
furnished in the sale deed dated 04.03.2023 and the details
mentioned in the Dharani land details search in respect of the land in
Sy.No.99/1/5, which is classified as Government land/Sarkari and
prohibited for transaction. It is also pertinent to note that in the
NVSK, J
9 W.P. No.9881, 9939, 9952 & 9963 of 2024
counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that the petitioners have
mentioned sham and fictitious survey number 99/1/5 to usurp the
land either in Sy.No.99/1 or 99/2. However, as per the extracts of
Dharani Sy.No.99/1/5 has been shown in the name of Houses,
Roads, Schools in the column of Pattadar and classified as
Government land/Sarkari.
16. In view of the above discrepancies in identity and title of the
subject property, which cannot be decided by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India based on the affidavits, the refusal
Memos issued by the respondent No.3 warrants no interference.
Earlier based on furnishing such partial details, this Court passed
common interim order dated 30.04.2024 directing the respondents to
release the subject documents. However, the respondent No.3 by
filing the entire land details search in their counter had brought out
true facts noticing the same, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petitioner had not approached with clean hands and mislead
this Court.
17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side,
these writ petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
NVSK, J
10 W.P. No.9881, 9939, 9952 & 9963 of 2024
18. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 10.06.2025
LSK