THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.20214 of 2014 Dated : 18.07.2014 Between:
J.M.Susai Raj, S/o Joseph Chikoo, 80 yrs., Retired employee, R/o Plot No.30, Indian Airlines Colony, Thirumalagiri, Secunderabad.
.. Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.20214 of 2014 ORDER :
The claim of the petitioner is that the land of the society viz., Aparna Society (India) was illegally sold by the 4th respondent to respondents 5 and 6. The deed of conveyance was registered on 20.04.2013 bearing document No.6956 of 2013. This writ petition is instituted praying to declare the action of 3rd respondent i.e., District Registrar, Nalgonda in entertaining the registration of sale deed and registering the same on 20.04.2013, as illegal and in violation of Rule 26-K of A.P. Registration Rules.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false Will was generated and based on the said false Will, the property in question was sold by 4th respondent in favour of respondents 5 and 6 and that 4th respondent has no authority or competency to sell the property, which actually belongs to the petitioner and his sister.
3. When the deed of conveyance is presented before the registering authority, the registering authority cannot refuse to entertain the same for registration unless the concerned property is prohibited in accordance with Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act. Under Rule 58 of the Rules framed under the Act, the registering authority is barred from enquiring into the validity of the document presented before him or entertain written or verbal protest against the registration of the document on the ground that the executing party has no right to execute the document. However, he is bound to consider the objection raised on any of the grounds mentioned therein. Apparently, no such objection was raised before the document was registered. Thus, even the provision in Rule 58 does not come to the aid of the petitioner. Since the action of the 3rd respondent in receiving the document and registering the same is not in violation of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by this Court declaring such action as illegal.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is against the Will alleged to have been created on 03.09.2012, based on which, the property is sold by 4th respondent to respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner has to work out his remedies against such grievance.
5. Hence, this Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to avail the remedies as available to him under law. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date : 18.07.2014 ssp