The Sub-registrar can refuse to register the property if there is an injunction order imposing restraint on the rights of the property: Telangana High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA WRIT PETITION NO.101721 Between : Karam Venkatesh s o. Karam Bazar Aged about 40 years occu: Business r o.6 72 Brundhavan Colony Balaji Nagar Thirumalagiri Hyderabad and another. …. Petitioners and The State of Telangana rep.by its Prl. Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and others. …. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED 30.06.2021 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : No may be allowed to see the Judgments 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes marked to Law Reporters Journals 3. Whether Their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment : No PNR J W.P.No.101721 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.101721 30.06.2021 Karam Venkatesh s o. Karam Bazar Aged about 40 years occu: Business r o.6 72 Brundhavan Colony Balaji Nagar Thirumalagiri Hyderabad and another. Vs. The State of Telangana rep.by its Prl. Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and others. … Petitioners …. Respondents Revenue for respondents Mr. T.V.Kalyan Singh counsel Respondent no.4. Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A.P.Suresh Counsel for the Respondents: Asst.Government Pleader for 1 to 3 for Gist : Head Note: Cases referred: 2020ALD 139PNR J W.P.No.101721 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.10178 OF 2021 This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief: “to issue a Writ order or direction especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not registering the Sale Deed presented to him through Dharani Portal by the petitioners for the agricultural property admeasuring an extent of Acres 5.30 guntas comprised in Survey No.528 Ruu and 528A situated at Bibinagar Village Bibinagar Mandal Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District TD cum Pass Book No.T30060090496 as illegal arbitrary and contrary to Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 2020and also violative of Articles 14 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.” Heard A.P.Suresh learned counsel for petitioners learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri T.V.Kalyan Singh learned counsel for respondent no.4. First petitioner claims that he is the owner and in possession of agricultural land to an extent of Acs.5.30 guntas Sy.No.528 Ruu and 528A of Bibinagar Village and mandal in Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district. He was issued passbook cum title deed. He offered to sell this land to the second petitioner for valuable sale consideration and sale deed was executed on 12.11.2020. In compliance of the Indian Registration Act 1908 Act 1908) and the Indian Stamp Act 1899 petitioners applied through DHARANI web portal for registration of the sale deed. The parties were asked to appear on 27.01.2021 at 12.30 p.m. Accordingly petitioners appeared and submitted all PNR J W.P.No.101721 the documents in support of the claim of ownership by the 1st petitioner. However the Tahsildar refused to register the document without assigning reasons. Seeking to declare the action of the Tahsildar in not registering the sale deed presented by the petitioners as illegal and contrary to Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 2020this writ petition is filed. According to the learned counsel for petitioners the property is a private property and is not included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22 A of the Act 1908. There is no prohibition on dealing with the property by any statutory provisions. That being so the Tahsildar cannot refuse to register the document submitted before him in compliance with all the statutory formalities. the petitioners. Fourth respondent has a different story to the entire claim of 5.1. According to the 4th respondent Peraboina Venkataiah Peraboina Swamy and Peraboina Chandravasu are the owners of the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.15.26¼ guntas in different survey numbers. They agreed to sell the land to the 4th respondent. An agreement of sale was executed on 16.05.1994 after receiving full sale consideration. They have also executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri N.Gopal Naidu in his capacity as Director of 4th respondent company the father of first petitioner. It appears Mr. Gopal Naidu resigned as Director of 4th respondent company. Alleging that he was trying to alienate the company properties the 4th respondent company instituted O.S.No.9 of PNR J W.P.No.101721 2004 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge Bhongir praying to grant perpetual injunction restraining N.Gopal Naidu from alienating transferring or creating any charge or mortgage etc. over company’s properties. On 30.04.2005 the Senior Civil Judge injunction order restraining N.Gopal Naidu alienating transferring mortgaging creating any charge or lien over petition ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule lands till the disposal of the suit. The list in these schedules also contains the land in issue in this writ petition. Aggrieved thereby N.Gopal Naidu filed C.M.A.No.543 of 2005 in this Court. By order dated 17.06.2011 the said C.M.A. was dismissed affirming the view taken by the trial Court. 5.2. That being so alleging that the owners failed to execute the registered sale deed in accordance with the terms of the agreement of sale dated 16.05.1994 the 4th respondent filed O.S.No.88 of 2005 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Bhongir seeking to grant decree of specific performance of sale agreement. The said suit was decreed on 28.04.2006 directing the defendants 1 to 3 to execute registered sale deed within six months from the date of judgment. The suit schedule land is the one in issue in this writ petition. As the sale deed was not executed as per the decree 4th respondent company filed E.P.No.5 of 2017 and the same is pending consideration of the Court of Senior Civil Judge Bhongir. According to the learned counsel for 4th respondent once civil litigation is pending and an injunction order is granted preventing alienation no alienation can take place. Further in view of the decree passed in the suit for specific performance the original land owners cannot deal with the property in any other PNR J W.P.No.101721 manner except complying with the decree and to execute sale deed. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in T.Ganesh v. State of Telangana and others1 wherein this Court held that once an injunction order is made by the trial Court or this Court the deeds of conveyance or any other document affecting the property in issue cannot be entertained even if registering authority is not a party to the proceedings. Several other contentions are also urged but the Court is not recording and dealing with those contentions as the issue is confined as to whether the registering authority is justified in not registering the deed of conveyance of the petitioners. From the pleadings in the writ petition and the affidavit of the 4th respondent filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2021 it is apparent that on the same subject matter suit is pending and another suit is decreed in favour of 4th respondent. In the pending suit an injunction is granted which according to the learned counsel for 4th respondent is still in operation. Ordinarily whenever a document is presented registration in compliance of the Indian Registration Act 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899 the registering authority has to receive process register and release the document. He may refuse to receive register if the property in issue on which registration is sought is included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22 A of the Act 1908. He may also refuse to register the document if some litigation is pending and civil Court or High Court passed interlocutory order affecting the transactions in the 7 PNR J W.P.No.101721 concerned land. He can also refuse to register a document if the document is not in compliance with the provisions of Rule 26 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act 1908 and if any objections are raised as per Rule 58. 10. Rule 262 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act 1908 requires the Registering Authority to examine the document presented for registration to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and the Rules are complied with and list out instances referable to various sections. According to this provision the registering authority can verify whether a person who executed the document and presented before him is entitled to present himself and execute the document affecting a property. This provision is referable to Sections 32 and 40 of the Act 1908. As per Section 32 of the Act 1908 the executant representative of the document should be physically present. 11. Rule 58 though couched in a negative terms but also requires the registering authority to consider objections raised on any other ground mentioned in the Rule. 12. This being the statutory environment in which registering authority should act when a document is presented for registration going by the provisions of the Indian Registration Act 1908 and the Rules made there under it is seen the Act 1908 and the Rules are silent on the course to be adopted by the Registering 2 Rule 26of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act 1908: “Rule 26.Every document shall before acceptance for registration be examined by the Registering Officer to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and in these rules have been complied with for instance: xxxx b) that the person is entitled to present itPNR J W.P.No.101721 Authority if litigation is pending on the landed property on which a document is presented before him for registration. To fill the gaps in the statutory provisions and to give effect to the intendment of the scheme of the Act or the Rules Government notified Standing Orders to guide the Registering Authority. The Standing Order 219(b)3 requires the Registering Authority to refuse to register a document for registration if High Court or any other civil Court restrained a person from alienating the property and such order is brought to the notice of the registering officer. In addition the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps also issued circular instructions to guide the registering officer. In T.Ganesh the Court considered the precedent decisions on the scope of power of registering authority refusing to register a document presented before him on the ground that a restrained order of this Court or a Civil Court is operating and scope of power to issue circular instructions by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. In Circular Memo dated 10.03.2010 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps the registering authority was instructed not to entertain and register a document affecting a property on which an injunction order of a civil Court and or interlocutory order of the High Court is operating. The validity of the Circular was tested before this Court. Having regard 3 “S.O. 219 An order restraining a person from alienating certain property does not operate as a prohibition to the registering officer against the registration of a document executed by such person effecting such property b) “If the Andhra Pradesh High Court or any other Civil Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if such orders are brought to the notice of the Registering Officer or served on the Registering Officer the Registering Officer is estopped from going ahead with the Registration". PNR J W.P.No.101721 to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court this Court held that it is within the competence of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps to issue circular instructions. The decision of the registering authority not to register the document on the ground that an injunction order is operating on the same property is held valid. In the case on hand there are two hurdles insurmountable as they are petitioners need to cross to hold the action of the registering authority in not registering the document as illegal. 15. Firstly the injunction order granted by the Senior Civil Judge at Bhongir on 30.04.2005 in I.A.No.904 in O.S.No.9 of 2004 restrained N.Gopal Naidu from alienating transferring mortgaging creating any charge or lien over petition ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule lands till the disposal of the suit. In schedule ‘A’ list of properties land to an extent of Acs.10.38¾ guntas in Sy.No.528 of Bibinagar village is also included. In schedules ‘B’ to ‘D’ there are several other survey numbers. Thus the land covering various survey numbers included in the list in schedules ‘A’ to ‘D’ to the injunction order cannot be alienated. C.M.A.No.543 of 2005 filed against the order in I.A.No.93 of 2004 in O.S.No.9 of 2004 dated 30.04.2005 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.06.2011. Secondly in O.S.No.88 of 2005 where the original pattadars as well as N.Gopal Naidu were the defendants the suit for specific performance was decreed favour of respondent covering the subject property. It appears from the schedule appended to the proposed sale deed dated 12.11.2020 PNR J W.P.No.101721 it is the same land which was agreed to be sold by the original pattadars to the 4th respondent. 16. According to the 4th respondent representation was made to the Tahsildar and the Joint Sub Registrar informing them the injunction order and the decree and to invalidate the claim of the petitioners. 17. From the reading of the Standing Order 219(b) the circular instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps and the view taken by this Court in T.Ganesh it is clear that once the registering authority comes to know that there is an injunction order imposing restraint on alienation etc. of a landed property it is sufficient for him to refuse registration of a document. 18. Having regard to the litigation inter parties provisions of the Standing Order 219(b) the instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector General for Registration and Stamps and the law on the subject I do not see any error in the decision of the registering authority in not registering the sale deed presented before him by the petitioners. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits and parties are at to prosecute civil law remedies. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed. JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 30.06.2021 PNR J W.P.No.101721 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.10178 OF 2021 Date: 30.06.2021 

Summary: When the registering authority comes to know that there is an injunction order imposing restraint on the rights to alienation or any other right which affects the enjoyment of the property, then such a reason is sufficient to reject the registration of the document pertaining to such a party. This was decreed by The Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao in the case, Karam Venkatesh Vs. The State of Telangana [WRIT PETITION NO.10178 of 2021] on the 30th of June 2021. The brief facts of the case are, the first petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of a particular property. He has the passbook-cum-title deed to this property. A sale deed in favour of the second petitioner was executed. For the registration of such a deed, the petitioners applied on the DHARANI web portal and were asked to appear before the tahsildar for such a registration. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared before him and submitted all the documents necessary for such a registration which were I compliance with the Indian Registration act and the Indian Stamp Act.  However, the tahsildar refused to register such a deed without mentioning the reasons for such a refusal. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have filed a writ before the Hon’ble High Court claiming that such an action was arbitrary and illegal. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the property in question is a private property and is also not in the list of prohibited properties. Since there was no prohibition by statutory provisions on dealing with the property, such an action by the tahsildar is illegal. However, the counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the fourth respondent executed a sale deed to an extent of Acs.15.261⁄4 guntas in different survey numbers from the original owners. The director of the Respondent no.4 company was appointed as the general power of attorney for the company. Alleging that he was trying to alienate the properties of the company, Respondent No.4 got a perpetual injunction restraining him from alienating, transferring or creating any charge or mortgage etc. over company’s properties. Thus, there was a pending litigation since the sale deed between the original owners and respondent four had not been executed completely. The counsel also submitted that once civil litigation is pending and an injunction order is granted preventing alienation, no alienation can take place. After listening to the submissions of both the counsels, the Hon’ble court relied on the Government notified Standing Orders to guide the Registering Authority. The Standing Order 219(b) requires the Registering Authority to refuse to register a document for registration if High Court or any other civil Court restrained a person from alienating the property and such order is brought to the notice of the registering officer. The court also considered the view opted in T.Ganesh v. State of Telangana and others [2020 (3) ALD 139 (TS)], wherein, “the precedent decisions on the scope of power of registering authority refusing to register a document presented before him on the ground that a restrained order of this Court or a Civil Court is operating and scope of power to issue circular instructions by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. The decision of the registering authority not to register the document on the ground that an injunction order is operating on the same property is held valid.”