AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this writ petition, the petitioners question the legality of the endorsement dated 4-8-1998 issued by the third respondent herein informing them that the Collector, Hyderabad District, the first respondent herein by his proceedings dated 22-10-1997 directed not to register any lands in Sy. No.1 29/67 of Banjara Hills. The said endorsement was issued by the third respondent in reply to the representation dated 3-8-1998 made by the petitioners requesting the third respondent to inform them whether they can go ahead with the purchase of stamps for registration of sale-deed in favour of Messers Reliance Builders.
It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased Ac.1.40 cents of land in old Sy. No.129/67 in Banjara Hills from one Koteswara Rao under a registered sale-deed dated 30-9-1969, that their vendor Koteswara Rao purchased a total extent of Ac.5.29 cents in the said survey number including the extent of Ac. 1.40 cents sold to the petitioners herein, under a registered sale-deed dated 23-12-1965, that ever since the land has been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and their predecessor in interest, that the petitioners entered into an agreement of sate with Messers Reliance Builders on 6-4-1996 agreeing to sell 550 Square Yards out of the said land and when they approached the third respondent with a view to get a proper sale-deed executed and registered pursuant to the said agreement, the third respondent refused to entertain any sale-deed for registration and issued the impugned endorsement dated 4-8-1998. Hence the petitioners have filed the present writ petition questioning the refusal of the third respondent to register the sale-deed and also questioning the authority of the first respondent to issue any direction to the registering authority not to register any sale-deed in respect of the said survey number.
It is the stand of the respondents as reflected in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf that the land in Sy. No.129/67 is property belonging to an evacuee which vested in the Government as per Gazette Notification No.26/51 dated 22-5-1951, that the petitioners have no valid title to the land in question and the documents relied on by the petitioners are spurious and concocted documents which do not create any valid title in their favour. It is further stated that the vendor of the petitioner who has no valid title has been selling away the valuable Government land under the guise of spurious and concocted documents and several innocent citizens are falling prey to his machinations and hence to avoid such illegal transactions and multiple sales over the said Government land, the Collector, Hyderabad District, the first respondent herein has addressed the District Registrar, the second respondent herein who in turn addressed the Sub-Registrar, the third respondent herein not to register any part of the land in Sy. No. 129/67 to protect the Government properties.
It appears from the record that the same vendor Koteswara Rao has earlier sold an extent of 2420 Square Yards out of the said survey number of one S. Ravindranath under a document dated 30-6-1969. When there was some interference from some third parties to his possession, the said Ravindranath filed a case before the Special Court under the Land Grabbing Act in L.G.C. No.195 of 1994. In the said land grabbing case, the Government filed IA No.510 of 1998 seeking to implead them as a party respondent on the plea that the land is evacuee property which vested in the Government. The Special Court however dismissed the said application on the ground that the application is belated and that the trial of the L.G.C. was practically over and that it open to the Government to file a separate comprehensive application if so advised to vindicate its rights and any decision rendered in the L.G.C. will not bind the State. L.G.C. No.195 of 1994 was subsequently disposed of by the Special Court by an order dated 20-7-1998 upholding the title of the applicant Ravindranath to the land claimed by him. It is stated in the counter affidavit of the respondents that pursuant to the said orders passed by the Special Court, a separate land grabbing case has been filed by the Government being L.G.C. (SR) No.4219 of 1998 and the same is said to be still pending. It is also stated that the steps are being taken to obtain necessary orders from the Special Court.
The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has drawn my attention to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in WP Nos.27832 of 1995 and 26080 of 1996 dated 21-8-1998. In the said decision the Division Bench had occasion to consider the question of validity of the ban imposed by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in respect of the lands situate in Sy. Nos.7, 8 and 9 of Saroornagar village, some parts of which were claimed to be Government lands. The Division Bench held that such a ban cannot continue perpetually and that the power of superintendence and control vested with the Inspector-General of Registration and Stamps has to be exercised reasonably. After considering the factual situation and the legal position, the Division Bench directed the registering authority to send the xerox copies of the documents presented for registration to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy district within two weeks, together with the plans appended thereto and if within the time limit of three months thereafter the revenue authorities do not come forward with definite material that the plots in question form part of the Government land, the Registering Authority, i.e., the Sub-Registrar, Saroornagar should proceed to register the documents subject to the fulfilment of statutory formalities under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, if the said Act is applicable to the land in question and that the registration of the documents will be without prejudice to the claims of the State in respect of the land and the remedies which the Slate may take recourse to under the relevant laws.
The fact situation in the present case is somewhat different from the case cited. In the instant case, though the land in Sy. No. 129/67 is claimed to be Evacuee property which stood vested as per the Gazette Notification dated 22-5-1951, admittedly this particular survey No. 129/67 was not mentioned in the said notification. It is, however, stated in the counter affidavit that it was not mentioned inadvertently. Be that as it may, there appears to be a dispute with regard to the title to this land and the case is now pending before the Special Court under the Land Grabbing Act. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that steps are being taken to obtain appropriate orders from the said Court.
Normally, the Registering Authority is expected to register the document which is presented for registration if all the formalities under the law of registration are fulfilled. The Registering Authority cannot go into the disputed questions of title and stop registration of documents acting on the instructions of some other Executive authority in the absence of any orders from the competent Court authority.
Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the legal position, I think it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to proceed with the registration of sale-deed presented for registration by the petitioners herein in respect of the land in Sy. No.129/67 of Banjara Hills subject to fulfilment of all formalities. If the respondents fail to produce any orders from the Special Court under the Land Grabbing Act restraining the registration of such documents within two months from to-day. The registration of documents shall, however, be without prejudice to the claims of the State in respect of the land and the remedies which the State may take recourse to under the relevant laws. This order may not be construed as having expressed any views on the merits of the rival contentions regarding title to the property.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.