THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.28398 of 2010 Date : 16-11-2010 Between : N.Sivaram Prasad s/o.N.P. Rama Rao .. Petitioner And The District Registrar, Hyderabad (South) and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri S.Niranjan Reddy Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following : ORDER: Order dated 3-11-2010 in Appeal No.8/2010 passed by respondent No.1 confirming order dated 6-9-2010 of respondent No.2 is challenged in this Writ Petition. The petitioner has approached respondent No.2 for registration of sale deeds in respect of flat Nos.12 and 13, bearing municipal Nos.8-2-412/R/12 and 8-2-412/R/13. Respondent No.2, vide his order dated 6-9-2010 refused to register the documents on the ground that by order dated 8-4-2010 in O.P.No.641/2010 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, an order of status quo was passed in respect of the petition schedule property admeasuring 1100 sq. yards with 3000 sq.ft. built up area and therefore in view of Standing Order No.219(b), the documents cannot be registered. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached respondent No.1 by availing remedy under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short “the Act”). In the appeal, the petitioner, inter alia, specifically stated as under : “(b) That the properties sought to be registered are flats forming part of a big residential Apartment bearing Municipal Nos.8-2-412/R/12 and 8-2-412/R/13 whereas the status quo orders are in respect of H.No.8-2-412. That the properties sought to be registered are flats forming part of a big residential Apartment. Whereas the status quo orders are passed in respect of an independent house. The description of both the properties and the boundaries thereof are altogether different and distinct. (C) That all the properties are bearing the basic Number i.e., 8-2-412 and the said house number may consist vast and it might have been sold to different persons in portions. A perusal of documents of 1953 and 1960 clearly show the same house number but with different boundaries. As such if any dispute arises in respect of a particular portion, the said disputes and the orders in any proceedings in respect of the said portion of the property, cannot bind the owners of other portions of the said property. (D) As on the date of filing O.P. and on the date of presenting the documents with the respondent the property in dispute is “H.No.8-2-412” and the properties sought to be registered is “DUPLEX FLAT Nos.12 and 13 BEARING MUNICIPAL Nos.8-2-412/R/12 and 8-2-412/R/13.” Respondent No.1, however, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner with the following reasoning: “The vendor and the vendees of both the above mentioned sale deeds are one and the same. The main contention of the appellant, the vendor under the above sale deeds is that the property covered by the Status Quo order dated 08-04-2010 and the properties covered by the said sale deeds are different but not one and the same. The same contention was made by the vendees of the above documents through their affidavits filed before the under signed. But a keen perusal of the said sale deeds and the schedule of the property in respect of which status quo orders were granted by the Court in O.P.No.641/2010 reveals that the properties relate to the same Municipal No.8-2-412 situated at Road No.6 of Banjar Hills, Hyderabad.” At the hearing, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of status quo in O.P.No.641/2010 which is made the basis by the respondents to refuse registration of the documents does not relate to the properties in question. He has further submitted that there is absolutely no dispute between the petitioner in O.P.No.641/2001 and the petitioner herein and that neither the petitioner nor any one claiming through him are parties to the said O.P. The learned counsel further submitted that while the property covered by the order of status quo in O.P.No.641/2010 was bearing municipal No.8-2-412, the properties in respect of which the sale deeds have been presented relate to properties bearing municipal Nos.8-2-412/R/12 and 8-2-412/R/13. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue sought to sustain the orders passed by the respondents. On a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and a perusal of the orders, I am of the opinion that both the respondents have failed to apply their minds properly to the facts of the case. While it is not in dispute that the order of status quo pertains to property bearing municipal No.8-2- 412, the sale deeds of which the petitioner is seeking registration pertain to property bearing municipal Nos.8-2-412/R/12 and 8-2- 412/R/13. Despite specific grounds having been raised by the petitioner before respondent No.1, which are extracted herein above, he has not specifically adverted to those grounds. In my opinion, the approach of respondent No.1 is perfunctory. Unless respondent No.1 comes to the conclusion that the property bearing municipal Nos.8-2-412/R/12 and 8-2-412/R/13 do not exist or that the property covered by both the municipal numbers are same as the property bearing municipal No.8-2-412, he cannot deny relief to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 shall therefore reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner in the light of the specific grounds raised by him and pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order of respondent No.1 is accordingly set- aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration of the appeal. He shall pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J, Date: 16-11-2010 Note: Furnish copy in a week AM