HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry ONE

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

AND
THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

wRrT PET|T|ON NO.9248 0F 2021

Between:

Ravipati Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged about 43 years, Occ:

Employee, No. 1-152, Perkavedu, Peikaid, Warangal.
...pETlTlONER

AND

1. The Nizampet Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District.
2. The Sub-Registrar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps,
Telangana State.
(Respondent No.3 has been lmpleaded as per Court Order dated 10/06/2021 in
l A No 2 of2021)
...RESPoNDENT.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased
to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to receive, register
and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of flat No.302 in
Third Floor of "Pearl Heights" with a built up area of 1090 Square Feet, (including
common areas and car parking), along with an undivided share of land admeasuring
24 Square Yards (Out of 800 Square Yards), 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.4S/TP/NMCl2}1g, dt.01"11.2019 issued by 1't respondent and (ii) that the
sublect property is part and parcel of the lands covered under c.s.No.14l1958 as
arbitrary, illegal, without any jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908 and in violation of Article 14 of constitution of lndia and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to receive, register and release the
sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of flat No.302 in Third Floor of "Pearl
Heights,' with a built up area of 1090 square Feet, (including common areas and car
parking), along with an undivided share of land admeasuring 24 Square Yards (out
of 800 Square Yards), 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 without reference to letter bearing No.45/TP/NMC/2019,
dt.01.1 1.2019 issued by 1"t respondent.
/ IANO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the operation of (i) the letter bearing No.45/TP/NIVC/2019, dt.Oi.11r.ZO1g
issued by l"trespondent directing the 2nd respondent not to register documents and
(ii) the Memo No.G2125712019, dated 26.08.2020 issued by the 3,d respondent',.

(Prayer is amended as per Court Order dated 10.06.2021 vide l.A.No.3 of 2021 in
l.A.No.1 o'f 2021)

lA NO: 4 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to receive
the Memo No. G2125712019, dated 26.08.2020 issued by proposed respondent/3'd
respondent as additional material papers.
lA NO: 5 oF 2021
Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit
the petitioner to amend the prayer portion in the main writ petition by deleting the
words "without reference to letter bearing No.4slTp/NMC/201 9, dt.O1 .1 .t .2019 issued
by '1"t respondent" and by adding the words "without reference to (i) letter bearing
No.45/TP/NMC/201s, d1.01.11.2019 issued by lstrespondent and (ii) the Memo No.
G2125712019, dated 26.08.2020 issued by the 3d respondent,'.

Counsel for the Petitiorrer: SRI S. SRIDHAR

Counsel for the Resporrdent No.1: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR,

S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Gp FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following: ORDER

 HONOURABI,E SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABI-E SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.9248 of 2021

ORDEIi.: (l'er llon'ble Sri Justit:e M.S. Ramachandru Rao)

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged

L.r.No.45lTP/NMCl2019 dt.Ol.l 1.2019 sent by the Commissioner,

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

I{anga Reddy District (2''d respondent) directing the latter not to

register the alleged unauthorized floors which are constructed more

lhan 2 t'loors as ller the Annexure attached thereto within the lirnits ol
Nizampet Municipal Corporation (1" respondent) and the
consequential action ol thc 2"d respondent in refusing to receivc,
register and release a salc 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 21 sq. yds (out of 800 sq yds)

constructed on plot Nos. l16, ll7, 132 and 133 in Sy.No.491/A of

tlachupally village and Gram Panchayat, Bachupally Mandal,

Medchal-Malkaj giri District.

( asc ol the ctitioner

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

applied fbr building permission lrom the then Bachupally Gram

Panchayat lor construction of Ground + 2 floors and such pcrmission

t
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 Panchavat for regularization, petitioner's vendor had

tt
constructed 3'd and 4th floors in additiorr to I and 2n'l lloor covered bv

the building permission.

4. Thereafter the l't respondent Municipal Corporation came into

existence and all the records of the Bachupally Gram Panchayat stood

transferred to the l't respondent.

5. Petitioner contended that when he presented the salc deed

executed in his f'avour by his vendor before the 2nd respondent, the

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

ground that the I't respondent addressed a letter bearir.rg

No.45/TP,AIMCl20l9 d1.01.11.2019 intimating the 2nd respondenr 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 pl.operty overlaps into l{afeezpet

land which is subject matter of C.S.No.l4 of 958.

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

document presented before him for registration, scrutinize it and

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

/
 3

1908 for registration of the doouments, that 1" 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 l't 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

subj ect property as part and parcel of the land covered under

C.S.No.14 of 1958.

9. Petitioner has also PIaced on record Memo No.G2l257l19

dt.26.08.2020 of the Commissioner and Inspector General of

Registration and Stamps, Telangana, Hyderabad quoting the
 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 Cieneral 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 l'r resDondent

ll. It is contended by the l" respondent that the pernrission

obtained by the vendor of the petltioner from the Bachupally Gram

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

the vendor of the petitioner illegally constructed 3'd and 4tr, floors and

the petitioner had purchased the flat in the 3d floor illega[y

constructed by his vendor.

12. The issuance of the letter No.56/TpAiMCl2}lg dr.25.11.2019

by the l't respondent to the 2nd respondent not to entertain any

registration in respect of apartments constructed in illegally and

unauthorisedll' constructed floors is admitted and it is stated that
rightly the 2nd respondent refused to register the document preserted

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.l4 ol195g.

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

Govemment and also protecting the environment by issuing the

letter
dt.25.11.2019 refeffed 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 tand f the 2"d res ondent

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 l" respondent had raised an objection

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

16. He stated that the 3"i respondent issued a Memo

No.G2l25712019 d1.26.08.2020 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 Althority 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 Regisffation Authority shall not register
any building or structure or part of the building without the
ptoduclion of sanctioned plan approved by the Municipality'-

Section ll3 (8) of the Telangana Panchayar 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 purt of
an approval layout; provide that it shall not be applicable lo
plots ofland in Grana Kantam having an existing building'.

{Jnder Rule t3(C) of Telangana Regularisation of Unapproved

Illegal Layout Rules, 2015 (G.O.MsNa 151, MAUD

Department, dated 02.1L2015) (Failure to come forward Jbr

I

Regularisation of unapproved luyouts/plots) it has been

specified that 'Such unapproved layouts shall be recorded in

 lhe prohibitory properties of the Registration Department ond
no sale/disposal or transoctions shall be allowed in such sites.

Rule 26(h) of Common Building Rules [G.O.Ms.No.l68, MAUD

Deportment dated 07.04.20121 stipulates that 'The Regi.stration

uuthority shall register onli) the permiUed built up area ds per
the sanctioned plan and only upon producing and.filing a copl
ofsuch sanctioned building plan. On the registration document
it should be clearly menlioned that the registration is in
accordance with the sanctioned. building plan in respect of
setbacl<s ond number ofJloors. "

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

exercising powers conferred under Section 69 of the Registration Act,

1908 to implement Section 22-A(l)(a) of the Registration Act, 190g.

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 moclified

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

we are not concemed.

18. Reference is also made to pll- No.210 of 2020 tiled in this

Court challenging the Memo No.G2 125712019 dt,26.Og.2O2O and it is

stated that relief claimed by the petitioner is also similar.

onsideration b rh Cou rt

19. Learned counsel for petitioner, leamed Standing Counsel for

1tt respondent and learned Government pleader for 2nd respondent

reiterated the stand of their respective clients.

20. We have noted the contentions of all panies.

\
 7

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

apartment built on the 3'd floor of the complex 'Pearl Heights'

constructed on plot Nos.l16, ll7, 132 and 133 in Sy'No.491/A of

Bachupally village and Mandal, Medchal-Maikajgiri District'

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

from the Bachupally Gram Panchayat (the predecessor of the

l" respondent Corporation) to build 3'd floor of4th floor in the subject

properry.

Points for co ns ideration

23, The following points arise for consideration in this Writ

Petition:

(Q l" respondent Municipal

Whether the Commissioner of the

Corporation can issue letter No'4S/TP/I'{MC/2019

dt.01.11.2019 to the 2'd respondent asking him not to

register unauthorized .floors constructed or not under the

Registration Act, I 908?

(b) Whether the InsPector General of Stamps and

Registration can issue Memo No.G2/257/2019

dt. 2 6. 08.2 0 2 0 prohib it ing r egis trat ion by Sub - Re gi strar s of

illegalty constructed apartmentsfloors under the

Registration Act, I 908.

Point (a)

24. We shall first consider whether the Commissioner of the

Nizampet Municipal Corporation (1't respondent)

is empowered to

directing the Sub-

issue the letter No.45/TPAIMC/2O19 dt 0l'11'2019
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 ancl 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, 190g deals u,ith

prohibition of registration of certain documents. It stares:

"22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.

(1) The following classes of documents shall be prohibitetl

from regis tration, namely :

(a) documents relating to transfer of immoveable property,

the alienation or transfer ofwhich is prohibited under any statute
of
the State or Central Government;
@ documents relating to transfer ofproperty by v,ay
of
sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of
immowable property owned by the State or Centrol Goyernment.
executed by persons olher than those statutorily empowerecl to
tk;
so,'

(c) documents relating to transfer ofproperty hy utay oJ

sale. agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten)
t0
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 Erulowments Acr,
l9B7 or by tYakfs 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 lCeiling on Agricullural
Holdings) Act, 1973 or the [Jrban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976;

k) any document or class of documents pertaining to

the properties the State Government may, by notification prohibit the
regislration in which ayowed or accrued interests of Central and
Slate 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 lo adversely alfect tho.\e interests.

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

State Government shqll publish a notifrcation 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 fficer shall refuse to register any document to which a
notification issued under clause (e) ofsub-section (t).

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

by any person or for giving effect to the /inal orders cf the High
Court o/ 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

i prohibiting registration of documents relating to transfer of

)

I
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 2'd respondent to refuse to register the document

presented by the petitioner.

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

indicates rvhat 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 OJficer'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 fhe document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on

any of the grounds stated below:

(a) that lhe parties appearing or obout to appear before him are not
the ptrsons they profess to be

(b1 that the document is forged;

(c) that the person appearing as a rcpresentative, 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 execuling party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic.

29. None o1'these contingencies mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of

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

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

brought to hinr 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

o1' the Constitution of India, it is saved by Art. l3( i ) of the

Constitution oflndia. It is a legislation referable to the Entry 6 ofList-

Ill (concurrent List) in Schedule-vll 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

1-elangana State Legislature in relation to the legislative field relatable

toitem5ofList-II(StateList)intheVllscheduletotheConstitution

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 1't respondent'

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

stipulates that the Registration Authority shall not register

any

of
building or structure or part of the building without the production
"llp Municipality'
sanctioned plan approved by the

I
33. Thus thc 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 o I 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 prevaii over the provisions of the

Registration Act, 1 908.

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 Legislatutes

of States :

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

exclusive powet to make laws with respecl to any oJ the motlers

enumerated in List I ih the Seventh Schedule (in this Constittrtion re-ferred

to as the Union List)

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

to clause ( I ), 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)

(1) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to ony matter.fbr
any part of the territory of India not included (in a State) nohuithstanding
thal .tuch matter is d matter enumerated in the State Lisl"
 ::13::

and
"254, Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament
laws made by the Legislatures ofStates :

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

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

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

respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List

contains any provision repugnant to the
provisions of an earlier law
respect to that matter'
made by Parliament or an existing law with
State shall' if it has
then, rhe law so made by the Legislature of such
been reserved for the consit)eration of the President and has

received his assent' prevail in that State:

ptevent Parliament
Provided that nothing in this clause shall
enacting at any time any law with respect
to the same matter
from
or repealing the lav'
inclttding a law odding to, amentling' varying
"
so made by the Legislature of the State

of the Constitution does not provide for the

36. Art\cle 246

competence of Parliament or the State Legislatures as commonly

fields' Article 246

perceived but merely provides for their respective

on the entries mentioned in List

only empowers Parliament to legislate

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

I and List
under the entries
between a State Iaw and a parliamentary law

1
) I

f"
 mentioned in List III, the parliamentary law will prevail. ( Securiry

Association of India v. Union of Indial)

37. ln Floechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v State of Bihar2, the

Supreme Oourt explained the interylay between Lists I,II and III and

the principles goveming interpretation of Arl.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 "subjea ro clauses (l)
and (2)" in Article 246(3) lay down the principle of .federal
supretnac)) viz, that in case o-f ineyitable conflicl behre

State pov-ers, the Uni on power as enumerated in List I shall orevail

owr the State p ower as enltmerated in Lists II and IIl, and in case o/
overlaooirts belnveen Lists II and the former shall orevail. But the
princjBle ral supremacy laid down in Article 246 of the

Constltution cannot be resorted lo unless there is an

" irreconc;'labJe coqflict benueen the entries in the Union anLSlql?
Lists. In the cdse ofa seeming conflict benveen the entries in the two

Lists, the entries should be read together without giving a narro$)

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 ofjurisdiction. It should be considered whether
fair a

reconciliation can be achieved by giving to the language of the

Union Legislative List a meaning which, if less wide than it ntight in
another context bear, is yet one that can properly be given to it and
equally giving to the language ofthe State Legislati,-e List a nteaning
which it can properly bear. The non obstctnte clause in Article 246(11
must operate only i"f such reconciliation should prove impossible.
Thirdly, y16 question of conJlict between the two Lists will ari.se if the
impugned legislation, by the application of the doctrine o;f 'pith and
substance' appears to fall exclusively under one list, and the
encroachment upon another list is only incidental.

I 'lzoray tz scc os
1 '{tes:) a scc +s
 :: l5::

42. Union and State legislatures have concuruent power with

respect to subjecls enumerated in List lll, subject only to lhe
provision contained in clause (2) of Article 254 i.e. provided the
provisions of the State Acl do not conllict reith 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 o.f repusnancv arises onlv 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 subiect specified in list
Il and occupv the same field.

57, It is well settled that the validity of an Act is not affected if it

incidentally lrenches upon matters outside the authorized field and
there/bre it is necessary to inquire in each case what is the pith and
substance of the Act impugned the Ac t.w n so vlewe

substantially fslls within the powers exDressly conferred upon the

Lepis luture n hich anacte d it. then it cannot be held lo be invalid
merely because i t incidentallv encroach e .t on matters which ha le
bee n assip ned to another Legislature

69. ...The questio n of reousnancv un der Ar icle 251(1) be tween a

law made b v Parliamenl and a law made bvt he State lesislature

arises only in case both the lesislations occuDv the sa me field with
resDect to one o / the matters enum erated in the Concurre nt List. dnd

there is direcl co nllict berwe en lhe tuvo laws. It is on ly when both

fulfilled that the State law will, to the extent of
these requirements are

repugnancy, become void. Atticle 254(l) has no application to cases

of rep ugtt ancv due lo overlonoins found between List II on the one

haul and Lists I tnd III on the ollter. If strch o verhppitrg exists in
ant Dorlic ular cose , tlre Slate law will be uhra vires because of the
non obstante cktuse in Arl icle 246(1) read wilh the opening words

"s ubiect to" in A rticle 246(3). Itr such a case , the Stole la xt will fail
not hecause f
o rcvu snance to the union law b ut due to nl ol'
les is!dtive competence.... The underlying principle is that the
'qurrtion
of repugnancy arises only when both the legislatures are
competent to legislate in the same field i.e. with respect to one of the
 motters enumerated in the Concurrent List' Hence' Article 251(l)
cannot appb') unless both the [Jnion and the State laws relate to a
subject speci/ied in the Concurrent List' and they occupy the same

Jield. " ( emphasis suPPlied)

38. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka3, the Suprerre Courl

declared:

"220. ]t is well-settled principle that A rticle 216 recosni.ved the

prlnct ole of parliame ntary su oremacy in the field of lesislcttion in case
where bolh Legislatures have comoetence to legblgtg @ntphasis

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 l1l. A State

Legislature has exclusive power to legislate with respect to mLttters in

List II, excluding the matters falling in List I and has also concurrent

power to legislate with respect to matters falling in I'ist III excluding

matter.s falling in List I. The dominant position of the Central

Legislotur,z 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 deating with transfer of immovable

propefty such as an apartment or a floor which is constructed llt

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 authoritl'from registering

any building or stmcture or pafi of the building without the production

of sanctioned plan approved by the Municipality.

' 1985 Supp SCIC 4;'6, at page 573

 iill ii

40. Thus there is inconsistency between the provisions of the

of
Registration Acq 1908 (Law falling within the Legislative field
Municipalities
Entry 6 of List III) and the provisions of the Telangana
of Entry 5 of List
Act, 2019 (Law falling within the Legislative field

II) with regard to registration of such properties' In

such cases

are not in List III

Afi.254has no application since both legislations

(Concurrent List)'

Since overlapping is found between the

law made by the State
41.
a law referable to List III made by
under List II on the one hand and

in 1908 having all-lndia application

( it
the then British Government
under List III)' the
is thus a law akin to law made by Parliament

will be ultra vires because of the non obstante clause in

State law
words "subject to" in Article
Article 246(l) read with the opening
to the extent of inconsistency i e
246(3). In such a case, the State law'
Act' 2019' will fail'
Sec.178 (3) of the Telangana Municipalities

of the common Building

42. Similar logic applies to the Rule 26(h)
Municipal Administration and
Rules framed vide G'O'Ms'No'168'
dt'07 '04'2012 which has been
Urban Development Department
corporation Act' 1955 and the
framed under the Greater Municipal

1994 and the said Rule also

will not
A.P. Municipal Corporation Act'
in the field covered
prevail over the law made by Parliament

by List Ill.
\
 43. The State Legislature could have amended the Registration

Act,l908 (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

illegalll,. 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

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

dt.07.04.2012 cannot be quoted by the Commissioner of

l " respondent Municipal Corporation and he cannot instruct the

2nd respondent vide letter No.45lTp,NM Cl2Ol9 dt.0l . I I .20 I 9 asking

him not to register unauthorized floors constructed or not under the

Registration Act, 1908. Point (a) is thus answered in far.our of rhe

petitioner.

Point (b) :

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

(b) " lWether the Inspector General of Stamps and Registt ation
can issue Memo No.G2/257/2019 dt.26.0g.2020 prohihiting
registrotion by Sub-Registrars of illegally constructed
apartments,'floors under the Registrotion Acr, l g0g?'.

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

Division Be.ch of the Andhra pradesh High courr considered

the

question whetl.rer the Inspector General of Registration

and Starnps

a
Order dt.2 t .07.2001 in W.A.No.7O7 of 2OO2 (D.8.)

\--- _'
 :: l9::

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 ofthe 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.G21257/2019 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.l4 of 1958 on the file of this Court, a

preliminary decree was passed therein on 28.06.1963; and the State

iGovernment challenged the said preliminary decree ln

 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 of2001 on 16.07.2001. Therefore, it cannot be said that

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

Hafeezpet Village

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

is issued declaring the action of 2nd responde4t in refusing to receive,

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

Flat No.302,3'd 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 (y' letter

bearing No.45/TPAIMC/2019 dt.0l.l 1.2019 issued by l.r respondent;

and (ii) that the subject property is part and parcel of the lands
covered under C.S.No.14 of l95g as arbitrary, illegal, without any

jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Registration

Act, l90g
and in violation of Article 14 of the constitution of Indiar 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/TPA.{MC/2019,, dt.0t.t 1.2019, and Memo No.G2l257l20t9

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

)
 ii2lti

aocordance 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, miscelianeous petitions, pending if any' shali

stand closed.
SD/-K.VENKAIAH
ASS]STANT RqGISTRAR
C1o
I
//TRUE GOPY//
SECTTOIOFFICER

To,

llls3i[H::,:,"-,T,i,iinraumifi1ifl
'3.
{,]{:'fpa$;$$i#:.]':::::
-c;;i.sioner and lrispector General ot
tii;
,jp,i:ih
i
Fffi
d"3j!
,3,
Hvderabad. [OUTI
[i'ir*n'ni'l rv",'r""' !o,5,:'] re ansana a'i

z. Two CD CoPies
B. One SPare CoPY'
MP

q
 HIGH COURT

DATED:2310812021

.\
ORDER cJ.
€

WP.No.9248 ot 2021 o
,J 2 5 ll^ U G 2 0 21 ::
c',
.t,
'x/ -'\

) o
-:2

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT COSTS

@)0,P*'
ho-.-
e-\ul*