M/S United Land Marks Private Limited, v. The Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION No.39625 of 2015 BETWEEN M/s. United Land Marks Private Limited and others. ... PETITIONERS AND The Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District and two others. ...RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 21.01.2016 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

No 2.

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

No 3.

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

No

ORDER:

Petitioners state that they have purchased agricultural lands in Sy.No.613 of Nadergul village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from its owners Mr. Pratap Karan S/o. Late Dhiraj Karan and other vide sale deeds dated 01.09.2014 and presented the sale deeds for registration before the first respondent on 31.12.2014 and the said sale deeds have been given pending registration Nos.859, 860 and 861 of 2014. On the point of scrutiny, when the said documents were kept pending, the first respondent passed three separate identical orders dated 30.11.

2015 with reference to each of the pending document stating, inter alia, that though the petitioners have remitted the requisite stamp duty and registration fee, the property, in question, is found to fall within the jurisdiction of the District Registrar Ranga Reddy East and not within the jurisdiction of District Registrar, Ranga Reddy Registration District. In view of that, the first respondent expressed inability to register the documents and intimated the petitioners to collect the original documents from the first respondent on any working day. The aforesaid three orders are questioned in this writ petition.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the Ranga Reddy Revenue District, being one, there is no justification for the first respondent to return the documents validly presented by the petitioners before the first respondent.

3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that under G.O.Ms.No.119 Revenue (Registration-1) Department dated 27.02.2013 as well as G.O.Ms.No.120 Revenue (Registration-1) Department dated 27.02.2013 whereunder the Ranga Reddy District is split into Registration District of Ranga Reddy and Registration District of Ranga Reddy East and different Sub-Registrars under the jurisdiction of each of the said Districts are mentioned in the schedule and are designated as Joint Sub-Registrars. The said notifications are stated to have been issued under Section 7(2) of the

Registration Act.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has raised a contention that the power under Section 7 of the Registration is only for amalgamation of the Sub-Registrars within the Registration District but does not empower splitting of the registration District into two as has been stated to have been done.

5. However, the said issue requires adjudication with reference to provisions of Section 7 of the Registration Act and since that involves time, an alternative request is made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners to permit the petitioners to take return of the said three pending documents so as to enable the petitioners to get them registered from the Registrar stated to be competent as per the respondents i.e. under the Registration District of Ranga Reddy East.

6. In fact, the impugned order itself permits and requires the petitioners to take return of the documents presented. Hence, I see no impediment in accepting the alternative request of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Hence, the first respondent is directed to return all the three documents bearing pending Document registration Nos.859, 860 and 861 of 2014 to the petitioners respectively so as to enable them to present the documents before the competent Joint Sub-Registrar within the registration district of Ranga Reddy East within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

If the documents are so presented before the appropriate registering authority, there is no doubt that the registering authority shall deal with the same in accordance with law and take necessary action. The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

January 21, 2016 DSK