HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.

RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.9248 of 2021

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged

Lr.No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019 sent by the Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation, Nizampet to the Sub-Registrar, Quthbullapur,

Ranga Reddy District (2nd respondent) directing the latter not to

register the alleged unauthorized floors which are constructed more

than 2 floors as per the Annexure attached thereto within the limits of

Nizampet Municipal Corporation (1st respondent) and the

consequential action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to receive,

register and release a sale deed presented by petitioner relating to

floor No.302 in the third floor of ‘Pearl Heights’ with built up of 1090

sq.ft (including common areas and car parking), along with an

undivided share of land admeasuring 24 sq. yds (out of 800 sq yds)

constructed on plot Nos.116, 117, 132 and 133 in Sy.No.491/A of

Bachupally village and Gram Panchayat, Bachupally Mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

Case of the petitioner

2. According to the petitioner, the vendor of the petitioner had

applied for building permission from the then Bachupally Gram

Panchayat for construction of Ground + 2 floors and such permission

 ::2::   

was accorded on 12.02.2019, and thereafter construction of residential

apartments was commenced by petitioner’s vendor under the name

and style ‘Pearls Heights’ and the same was completed and

apartments were sold to respective vendees.

3. Petitioner contended that on the assurance given by the then

Gram Panchayat for regularization, petitioner’s vendor had

constructed 3rd and 4th floors in addition to 1st and 2nd floor covered by

the building permission.

4. Thereafter the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation came into

existence and all the records of the Bachupally Gram Panchayat stood

transferred to the 1st respondent.

5. Petitioner contended that when he presented the sale deed

executed in his favour by his vendor before the 2nd respondent, the

2nd respondent refused to receive, register and release the same on the

ground that the 1st respondent addressed a letter bearing

No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019 intimating the 2nd respondent not

to register any unauthorized floors without production of sanctioned

plan approved by it. It is also stated that 2nd respondent gave an

additional reason that the subject property overlaps into Hafeezpet

land which is subject matter of C.S.No.14 of 958.

6. Petitioner contends that 2nd respondent is bound to receive the

document presented before him for registration, scrutinize it and

register it, if there are no legal impediments under Registration Act,

 ::3::   

1908 for registration of the documents, that 1st respondent had no

jurisdiction to issue any direction to the 2nd respondent asking him not

receive any document presented for registration, and also the

2nd respondent, on the basis of the said letter, cannot refuse to register

the same. It was also stated that the grounds taken by 2nd respondent

for refusing to register the document are not covered by Section 22-A

of the Registration Act, 1908 and the action of the 2nd respondent is

illegal.

7. Further, it is contended that the Registration Act, 1908 has not

been amended pursuant to Section 178(3) of the Telangana

Municipality Act, 2019 and the 1st respondent cannot get any

jurisdiction to issue such letters to the 2nd respondent.

8. It is also contended that the State Government’s claim in

respect of the land in Hafeezpet had been negatived by this Court in

several cases and this Court had held that said lands are private lands;

even other wise, the lands in Bachupally area like the subject land

have no connection with Hafeezpet village or that any other lands

covered by C.S.No.14 of 1958; and on a mere apprehension of

overlapping of survey numbers, the 2nd respondent cannot treat the

subject property as part and parcel of the land covered under

C.S.No.14 of 1958.

9. Petitioner has also placed on record Memo No.G2/257/19

dt.26.08.2020 of the Commissioner and Inspector General of

Registration and Stamps, Telangana, Hyderabad quoting the

 ::4::   

provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and prohibiting the

registration of constructions made in violation of the sanctioned plan.

10. Petitioner pointed out that even the Commissioner and

Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana, Hyderabad

cannot issue such direction without being empowered to do so under

the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.

Counter of the 1st respondent

11. It is contended by the 1st respondent that the permission

obtained by the vendor of the petitioner from the Bachupally Gram

Panchayat on 12.02.2019 was only for Ground + 2 upper floors; but

the vendor of the petitioner illegally constructed 3rd and 4th floors and

the petitioner had purchased the flat in the 3rd floor illegally

constructed by his vendor.

12. The issuance of the letter No.56/TP/NMC/2019 dt.25.11.2019

by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent not to entertain any

registration in respect of apartments constructed in illegally and

unauthorisedly constructed floors is admitted and it is stated that

rightly the 2nd respondent refused to register the document presented

by the petitioner since it was an illegal construction.

13. He stated that he was not aware whether the Sy.Nos. on which

the subject flat was built was subject matter of C.S.No.14 of 1958.

14. He stated that he is protecting the interest of the State

Government and also protecting the environment by issuing the letter

 ::5::   

dt.25.11.2019 referred to above to the 2nd respondent. He stated that

he is also taking steps to demolish the additional floors which are

illegally constructed by the vendor of the petitioner in the subject

complex.

The stand of the 2nd respondent

15. At the outset, the 2nd respondent denied the allegation of the

petitioner that he declined to receive the document presented by the

petitioner on the ground that the 1st respondent had raised an objection

that the property is overlapping lands relating to C.S.No.14 of 1958.

16. He stated that the 3rd respondent issued a Memo

No.G2/257/2019 dt.26.08.2020 quoting the following provisions:

“Section 172(16) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019

which stipulates that ‘No new plots or sub-division shall be
registered by Registration Authority unless it is approved by the
authority as per the provisions of the Act’.

Section 178(3) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 which

stipulates that ‘The Registration Authority shall not register
any building or structure or part of the building without the
production of sanctioned plan approved by the Municipality’.

Section 113 (8) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018

which mandates that ‘No pieces of land for building purpose
shall be sold by any owner or developer which is not a part of
an approval layout; provide that it shall not be applicable to
plots of land in Grama Kantam having an existing building’.

Under Rule 13(C) of Telangana Regularisation of Unapproved

Illegal Layout Rules, 2015 (G.O.Ms.No.151, MAUD
Department, dated 02.11.2015) (Failure to come forward for
Regularisation of unapproved layouts/plots) it has been
specified that ‘Such unapproved layouts shall be recorded in
 ::6::   

the prohibitory properties of the Registration Department and

no sale/disposal or transactions shall be allowed in such sites.’

Rule 26(h) of Common Building Rules [G.O.Ms.No.168, MAUD

Department dated 07.04.2012] stipulates that ‘The Registration
authority shall register only the permitted built up area as per
the sanctioned plan and only upon producing and filing a copy
of such sanctioned building plan. On the registration document
it should be clearly mentioned that the registration is in
accordance with the sanctioned building plan in respect of
setbacks and number of floors.”

17. It is stated that the Memo was issued by 3rd respondent

exercising powers conferred under Section 69 of the Registration Act,

1908 to implement Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908.

He stated that it is the duty of the Registrar to examine the provisions

of the above Statute as on the date of registration of the document and

protect interest of gullible public. He also referred to modified

instructions dt.29.12.2020 relating to open plots/structures with which

we are not concerned.

18. Reference is also made to PIL No.210 of 2020 filed in this

Court challenging the Memo No.G2/257/2019 dt.26.08.2020 and it is

stated that relief claimed by the petitioner is also similar.

Consideration by the Court

19. Learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for

1st respondent and learned Government Pleader for 2nd respondent

reiterated the stand of their respective clients.

20. We have noted the contentions of all parties.

 ::7::   

21. It is no doubt true that the petitioner intends to register an

apartment built on the 3rd floor of the complex ‘Pearl Heights’

constructed on plot Nos.116, 117, 132 and 133 in Sy.No.491/A of

Bachupally village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

22. The vendor of the petitioner admittedly did not have permission

from the Bachupally Gram Panchayat (the predecessor of the

1st respondent Corporation) to build 3rd floor of 4th floor in the subject

property.

Points for consideration

23. The following points arise for consideration in this Writ

Petition:

(a) Whether the Commissioner of the 1st respondent Municipal

Corporation can issue letter No.45/TP/NMC/2019
dt.01.11.2019 to the 2nd respondent asking him not to
register unauthorized floors constructed or not under the
Registration Act, 1908?

(b) Whether the Inspector General of Stamps and

Registration can issue Memo No.G2/257/2019
dt.26.08.2020 prohibiting registration by Sub-Registrars of
illegally constructed apartments/floors under the
Registration Act, 1908.

Point (a)

24. We shall first consider whether the Commissioner of the

Nizampet Municipal Corporation (1st respondent) is empowered to

issue the letter No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019 directing the Sub-

 ::8::   

Registrar (2nd respondent) not to register unauthorized floors while

exercising powers under the Registration Act, 1908.

25. The Registration Act, 1908 was enacted to consolidate the law

relating to the registration of documents. It specifies what are the

documents which are compulsorily registerable and what are not

compulsorily registerable in Section 17 and 18 thereof and prescribes

the procedure to be followed for such registration in detail. Subject to

payment of prescribed stamp duty and registration fee and other

charges prescribed under the Act, a citizen is entitled to get his

document dealing with transfer of immovable property registered by

the Sub-Registrar, unless prohibited under the Act.

26. Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with

prohibition of registration of certain documents. It states:

“22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.–

(1) The following classes of documents shall be prohibited

from registration, namely:

(a) documents relating to transfer of immoveable property,

the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of
the State or Central Government;
(b) documents relating to transfer of property by way of
sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of
immoveable property owned by the State or Central Government,
executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do
so;

(c) documents relating to transfer of property by way of

sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10
years in respect of immoveable property, owned by Religious and
 ::9::   

Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Telangana

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,
1987 or by Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by
persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;

(d) agricultural or urban lands declared as surplus

under the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural
Holdings) Act, 1973 or the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976;

(e) any document or class of documents pertaining to

the properties the State Government may, by notification prohibit the
registration in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and
State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious
and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal,
Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which
are likely to adversely affect those interests.

(2) For the purpose of clause (e) of sub-section (1), the

State Government shall publish a notification after obtaining
reasons for and full description of properties furnished by the
District Collectors concerned in the manner as may be prescribed.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the

registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a
notification issued under clause (e) of sub-section (1).

(4) The State Government either suo motu or on an application

by any person or for giving effect to the final orders of the High
Court of Telangana or Supreme Court of India may proceed to de-
notify, either in full or in part, the notification issued under sub-
section (2).”

27. As per the above provision, the Commissioner of the Nizampet

Municipal Corporation is not a person designated to prohibit

registration of any documents relating to transfer of immovable

property. There is no specific provision in the Registration Act, 1908

prohibiting registration of documents relating to transfer of

 ::10::   

immovable property which is illegally constructed. It is not the case

of the respondents that any provision of Section 22-A is attracted

entitling the 2nd respondent to refuse to register the document

presented by the petitioner.

28. Rule 58 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908

indicates what is the nature of enquiry to be conducted by a

Registering Officer before he proceeds to register the document. It

states:

“58. It forms no part of a Registering Officer's duty to enquire

into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to
attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a
document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to
execute the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on
any of the grounds stated below:

(a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not
the persons they profess to be;

(b) that the document is forged;

(c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has

no right to appear in that capacity;

(d) that the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party
applying for registration; or

(e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic.”

29. None of these contingencies mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of

the above Rule 58 is attracted in the instant case. So, the main part of

Rule 58 which prohibits him from going into validity of a document

brought to him for registration, would have to apply. In the light of

 ::11::   

such prohibition, he is not entitled to refuse to register a document on

grounds which are not prescribed by the Registration Act, 1908 for

refusing to register a document.

30. We may also point out that the Registration Act, 1908 was

enacted in British India and had received the assent of the Governor

General on 18.12.1908. It applies throughout India except the State of

Jammu and Kashmir. Though it is enacted prior to coming into force

of the Constitution of India, it is saved by Art.13(1) of the

Constitution of India. It is a legislation referable to the Entry 6 of List-

III (Concurrent List) in Schedule-VII to the Constitution of India

which deals with “Transfer of property other than agricultural land;

registration of deeds and documents.”

31. Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 was enacted by the

Telangana State Legislature in relation to the legislative field relatable

to item 5 of List-II (State List) in the VII Schedule to the Constitution

whish deals with “Local Government, that is to say, the constitution

and powers of municipal corporations…”. It applies to both

Municipalities and Municipal Corporations like the 1st respondent.

32. Section 178(3) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019

stipulates that the Registration Authority shall not register any

building or structure or part of the building without the production of

the sanctioned plan approved by the Municipality.

 ::12::   

33. Thus the State Legislature, while making a Law relating to the

powers and constitution of the Municipal Corporations and

Municipalities, made Section 178(3) dealing with the aspect of

registration of documents relating to immoveable property and

prohibited registration of certain documents relating to structures

erected without/in violation of sanctioned plan.

34. The question is whether Section 178(3) of the Telangana

Municipalities Act, 2019 would prevail over the provisions of the

Registration Act, 1908.

35. This issue is dealt with by Articles 246 and Art.254 of the

Constitution of India which state as under:

“246. Subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures

of States :

(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses ( 2 ) and ( 3 ), Parliament has

exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred
to as the Union List)

(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause ( 3 ), Parliament, and, subject

to clause ( 1 ), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws
with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh
Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the Concurrent List)

(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for
any part of the territory of India not included (in a State) notwithstanding
that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List”
 ::13::   

“254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and

laws made by the Legislatures of States :

(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of

a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament
which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an
existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause ( 2 ), the
law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law
made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the
existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the
State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.

(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with

respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List
contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law
made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter,
then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has
been reserved for the consideration of the President and has
received his assent, prevail in that State:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament

from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter
including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law
so made by the Legislature of the State.”

36. Article 246 of the Constitution does not provide for the

competence of Parliament or the State Legislatures as commonly

perceived but merely provides for their respective fields. Article 246

only empowers Parliament to legislate on the entries mentioned in List

I and List III of the Seventh Schedule and that in case of a conflict

between a State law and a parliamentary law under the entries

 ::14::   

mentioned in List III, the parliamentary law will prevail. ( Security

Association of India v. Union of India1)

37. In Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar2, the

Supreme Court explained the interplay between Lists I,II and III and

the principles governing interpretation of Art.246 and Art.254 of the

Constitution as under:

41. The words “notwithstanding anything contained in clauses

(2) and (3)” in Article 246(1) and the words “subject to clauses (1)
and (2)” in Article 246(3) lay down the principle of federal
supremacy viz. that in case of inevitable conflict between Union and
State powers, the Union power as enumerated in List I shall prevail
over the State power as enumerated in Lists II and III, and in case of
overlapping between Lists II and III, the former shall prevail. But the
principle of federal supremacy laid down in Article 246 of the
Constitution cannot be resorted to unless there is an
“irreconcilable” conflict between the entries in the Union and State
Lists. In the case of a seeming conflict between the entries in the two
Lists, the entries should be read together without giving a narrow
and restricted sense to either of them. Secondly, an attempt should be
made to see whether the two entries cannot be reconciled so as to
avoid a conflict of jurisdiction. It should be considered whether a fair
reconciliation can be achieved by giving to the language of the
Union Legislative List a meaning which, if less wide than it might in
another context bear, is yet one that can properly be given to it and
equally giving to the language of the State Legislative List a meaning
which it can properly bear. The non obstante clause in Article 246(1)
must operate only if such reconciliation should prove impossible.
Thirdly, no question of conflict between the two Lists will arise if the
impugned legislation, by the application of the doctrine of ‘pith and
substance’ appears to fall exclusively under one list, and the
encroachment upon another list is only incidental.

                                                            
1
 (2014) 12 SCC 65
2
 (1983) 4 SCC 45 
 ::15::   

42. Union and State legislatures have concurrent power with

respect to subjects enumerated in List III, subject only to the
provision contained in clause (2) of Article 254 i.e. provided the
provisions of the State Act do not conflict with those of any Central
Act on the subject. However, in case of repugnancy between a State
Act and a Union law on a subject enumerated in List III, the State
law must yield to the Central law unless it has been reserved for the
assent of the President and has received his assent under Article
254(2). The question of repugnancy arises only where both the
legislatures are competent to legislate in the same field i.e., when
both the Union and the State laws relate to a subject specified in list
II and occupy the same field.
…………
57. It is well settled that the validity of an Act is not affected if it
incidentally trenches upon matters outside the authorized field and
therefore it is necessary to inquire in each case what is the pith and
substance of the Act impugned. If the Act, when so viewed,
substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred upon the
Legislature which enacted it, then it cannot be held to be invalid
merely because it incidentally encroaches on matters which have
been assigned to another Legislature.
………
69. …The question of repugnancy under Article 254(1) between a
law made by Parliament and a law made by the State legislature
arises only in case both the legislations occupy the same field with
respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, and
there is direct conflict between the two laws. It is only when both
these requirements are fulfilled that the State law will, to the extent of
repugnancy, become void. Article 254(1) has no application to cases
of repugnancy due to overlapping found between List II on the one
hand and Lists I and III on the other. If such overlapping exists in
any particular case, the State law will be ultra vires because of the
non obstante clause in Article 246(1) read with the opening words
“subject to” in Article 246(3). In such a case, the State law will fail
not because of repugnance to the Union law but due to want of
legislative competence…. The underlying principle is that the
question of repugnancy arises only when both the legislatures are
competent to legislate in the same field i.e. with respect to one of the
 ::16::   

matters enumerated in the Concurrent List. Hence, Article 254(1)

cannot apply unless both the Union and the State laws relate to a
subject specified in the Concurrent List, and they occupy the same
field.”( emphasis supplied)

38. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka3, the Supreme Court

declared:

“220. It is well-settled principle that Article 246 recognised the

principle of parliamentary supremacy in the field of legislation in case
where both Legislatures have competence to legislate (emphasis
supplied). The constitutional scheme is that Parliament has full and
exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters in List I and has
also power to legislate with respect to matters in List III. A State
Legislature has exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters in
List II, excluding the matters falling in List I and has also concurrent
power to legislate with respect to matters falling in List III excluding
matters falling in List I. The dominant position of the Central
Legislature with regard to matters in List I and List III is established.”

39. While there is no prohibition contained in the Registration Act,

1908 to register a document dealing with transfer of immovable

property such as an apartment or a floor which is constructed in

violation of the sanctioned plan or without a sanctioned plan, Section

178(3) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 contains such

prohibition i.e. it prohibits the registration authority from registering

any building or structure or part of the building without the production

of sanctioned plan approved by the Municipality.

                                                            
3
 1985 Supp SCC 476, at page 573  
 ::17::   

40. Thus there is inconsistency between the provisions of the

Registration Act, 1908 (Law falling within the Legislative field of

Entry 6 of List III) and the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities

Act, 2019 (Law falling within the Legislative field of Entry 5 of List

II) with regard to registration of such properties. In such cases

Art.254 has no application since both legislations are not in List III

(Concurrent List).

41. Since overlapping is found between the law made by the State

under List II on the one hand and a law referable to List III made by

the then British Government in 1908 having all-India application ( it

is thus a law akin to law made by Parliament under List III), the

State law will be ultra vires because of the non obstante clause in

Article 246(1) read with the opening words “subject to” in Article

246(3). In such a case, the State law, to the extent of inconsistency i.e

Sec.178 (3) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, will fail.

42. Similar logic applies to the Rule 26(h) of the common Building

Rules framed vide G.O.Ms.No.168, Municipal Administration and

Urban Development Department dt.07.04.2012 which has been

framed under the Greater Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the

A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and the said Rule also will not

prevail over the law made by Parliament in the field covered

by List III.
 ::18::   

43. The State Legislature could have amended the Registration

Act,1908 (since the said law is in the List III) and introduced a

provision to prohibit registration of documents relating to transfer of

immoveable property such as structures which are constructed

illegally. But it has not done so.

44. Therefore, we hold on Point (a) that Section 178(3) of the

Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 or Rule 26(h) of the Common

Building Rules contained in G.O.Ms.No.168 M.A.U.D. Department

dt.07.04.2012 cannot be quoted by the Commissioner of

1st respondent Municipal Corporation and he cannot instruct the

2nd respondent vide letter No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019 asking

him not to register unauthorized floors constructed or not under the

Registration Act, 1908. Point (a) is thus answered in favour of the

petitioner.

Point (b) :

45. Now we shall consider Point (b) which is as under :

(b) “Whether the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration

can issue Memo No.G2/257/2019 dt.26.08.2020 prohibiting
registration by Sub-Registrars of illegally constructed
apartments/floors under the Registration Act, 1908?”

46. In Sub-Registrar, Shamirpet vs. K. Ramakrishna Raju4, a

Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the

question whether the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps

                                                            
4
Order dt.21.07.2004 in W.A.No.707 of 2002 (D.B.)
 ::19::   

has authority in law to issue any directions to the registering authority

not to register any document. It observed that only the State

Government has power to issue any notifications under Section 22-A

of the Registration Act, 1908 not to register documents and Inspector

General of Registration and Stamps has no such authority, and

declared a Memo dt.22.03.1993 issued by the said authority as null

and void and inoperative. The Bench declared that the Sub-Registrar

is bound to receive documents and scrutinize the same and

accordingly register the same if there are no other legal impediments

for registration of the document and he cannot to refuse to register a

document on the basis of a Memo issued by the Inspector General of

Registration and Stamps.

47. In view of the said binding precedent, we hold on Point (b) that

the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, State of Telangana

has no authority to issue Memo No.G2/257/2019 dt.26.08.2020 and

the 2nd respondent erred in taking note of the same and refusing to

register the document presented by the petitioner.

48. As regards overlap with the land in Hafeezpet Village of the

subject land in Bachupally Village, the respondents have denied the

same and so it is not necessary to deal with the said aspect. Suffice it

to point out that even assuming it to be so, Hafeezpet Village is

subject matter of C.S.No.14 of 1958 on the file of this Court, a

preliminary decree was passed therein on 28.06.1963; and the State

Government challenged the said preliminary decree in

 ::20::   

O.S.A.(SR).No.3526 and 3527 of 2000, which was dismissed on

17.02.2001 and the said order was also confirmed in SLP.Nos.10622

and 10623 of 2001 on 16.07.2001. Therefore, it cannot be said that

the State Government has any right, title or interest in the land in

Hafeezpet Village.

49. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; a Writ of Mandamus

is issued declaring the action of 2nd respondent in refusing to receive,

register and release the sale deed presented by petitioner in respect of

Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, ‘Pearl Heights’, with a built up area of 1090

Sq.ft. (including common areas and car parking), along with an

undivided share of land admeasuring 24 Sq.Yds. (Out of 800 Sq.Yds),

constructed on Plot Nos.116, 117, 132 and 133 in Survey No.491/A,

situated at Bachupally village and Gram Panchayat, Bachupally

Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, on the grounds of (i) letter

bearing No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019 issued by 1st respondent;

and (ii) that the subject property is part and parcel of the lands

covered under C.S.No.14 of 1958 as arbitrary, illegal, without any

jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908

and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and

consequently a direction is issued to 2nd respondent herein to receive,

register and release the sale deed presented by petitioner in respect of

the above property without reference to letter bearing

No.45/TP/NMC/2019, dt.01.11.2019, and Memo No.G2/257/2019

dt.26.08.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent, if document is in

 ::21::   

accordance with law, otherwise, within four weeks from the date of

receipt of copy of this order.

50. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as above. No order as

to costs.

51. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

____________________________
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

___________________
T.VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:23-08-2021
Vsv/Ndr