Mir Mahboob All Khan v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.28135 OF 2017 ORDER:

1.

Petitioner claims to be the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of one Dr. Mohammed Musihuddin Omar and three others. According to the petitioner, they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land to an extent of 2300 square yards in Survey No.121 (part) situated at Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Petitioner claims that he is looking after the property on their behalf. According to the petitioner, on 09.08.2017, when he visited the office of the third respondent, he came to know that third parties also appeared before the third respondent for the purpose of registration in respect of the abovementioned land. In fact, he went to the office of the third respondent with a draft sale deed for the purpose of registration.

According to the petitioner, having come to know that third parties are trying to register the very same property, he made a representation on 11.08.2017 to the District Registrar requesting not to register the sale deed that may be presented by any third party in respect of the subject land since he is holding GPA on behalf of the original owners of the property. The said request of the petitioner is not acceded to and hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2.

Be that as it may, according to the provisions contained in the Indian Registration Act ("the Act" for brevity) and the Rules ("the Rules" for brevity) made thereunder, there is no provision to entertain any complaint against registration of a document even before a document is presented for registration. Even after a document is presented for registration under Section 34 of the Act,

limited scope of enquiry is provided and Rule 58 of the Rules clearly prohibits entertaining any complaint/objection against registration of a document except considering the objections on five items mentioned therein. Even the provision of Rule 58 of the Rules may be attracted only when an objection is made at the time when some person presents a document for registration and processed by the registering authority.

3.

In the case on hand, no such document was presented and the petitioner wants the Sub Registrar not to entertain any document for registration. In view of the clear embargo under Rule 58 of the Rules, the petitioner cannot insist not to entertain any document for registration even before a document is presented. Further more, this Writ Petition is filed in individual capacity as a person but not representing the so-called owners on whose behalf he holds GPA.

4.

He also sought to contend that his document has not been accepted for registration by accepting the objection of the third parties. However, no material is placed on record to show that in fact, the petitioner has taken all the required steps for presentation of the document and the document was actually presented but not received. The prayer in the Writ petition does not deal with that issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to raise such contention in support of his prayer in the Writ Petition that once the objection of the third party is accepted when he sought to present a document, the objection of the petitioner not to receive any document presented by others ought to have been accepted. Having regard to the statutory mandate, as noted above, the prayer as sought for in this Writ Petition cannot be granted.

5.

The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

____________________ (P.NAVEEN RAO, J) 23rd August 2017 RRB