THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.21541 of 2014 Dated : 31.07.2014 Between:
J.Nagaraju, S/o China Madappa, 54 yrs., R/o H.No.84/48-2, Shareen Nagar, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
.. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.21541 of 2014 ORDER :
The petitioner claims to be the member of Class-IV Employees Co-operative House Building Society, Kurnool. He has been allotted plot by the said society. The petitioner intends to sell the plot allotted to him. Accordingly, he said to have submitted sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Kurnool, 2nd respondent herein. His grievance is that the 2nd respondent is not entertaining the documents on the basis of a letter dated 19.01.2009 addressed by the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Krunool, 4th respondent herein to the District Registrar, Kurnool, 3rd respondent herein. Reference was made to W.P.No.25604 of 2008 filed by the Ex-President of the society before this Court. The petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent cannot refuse registration on the basis of such communication.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
3. The 2nd respondent can refuse registration of any document presented before him, if only the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as amended by A.P. Act 19 of 2007, is attracted. There can also be cases, where orders or decrees prohibiting alienation are passed by the competent Court of law. Even where such orders of temporary and perpetual injunction exist, they would operate only vis-à-vis the parties thereto.
4. In the instant case, the only basis for the 2nd respondent in refusing to receive the document presented by the petitioner appears to be the letter, dated 19.01.2009 addressed by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent. A perusal of the same discloses that a request was made by the 4th respondent not to register the document in relation to the plot, only on the ground that W.P.No.25604 of 2008 is pending. On the face of it, the said letter is beyond the scope of the powers of the 4th respondent. He cannot assume to himself, the powers of a Court to prohibit transfer or registration.
5. Further, even if the petitioner transfers the plot owned by him, such transfer does not affect the rights of persons or agencies including the society, that are not parties to the transactions. The execution of such documents shall be without prejudice to the rights of the third parties.
6. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to process the document that may be presented by the petitioner without reference to letter, dated 19.01.2009 addressed by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date : 31.07.2014 ssp