THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26033 of 2014 Dated:05.09.2014 Between:
Koturi Srinivasareddy, S/o Late Suryanarayana Reddy …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd by its Principal Secretary to Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26033 of 2014
ORDER:
The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor and is in enjoyment of land to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Survey No.22/B of Agatavarappadu Village, Guntur District. He claims that the property was purchased by his grandfather through registered sale deed, dated 16.06.2011 and that his grandfather died intestate leaving behind the father of the petitioner as his sole legal heir. The petitioner further averred that his father also died intestate leaving behind his seven sons and one daughter as his legal heirs. As some internal disputes arose between the sons and daughter of Late Suryanarayana Reddy (father of the petitioner), the petitioner filed O.S.No.493 of 2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Guntur seeking partition of the suit schedule property. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.732 of 2014 to grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from alienating the plaint schedule property until the disposal of the suit.
The petitioner avers that urgent notice was ordered and the said I.A is pending consideration by the learned Judge. At this stage, having come to know that respondent No.4 is taking active steps for disposal of the suit schedule property, the petitioner filed protest petition before the Sub-Registrar, Peddakakani Mandal on 23.06.2014 informing him about the litigation pending and requested him not to entertain any deed of conveyance presented before him in respect of the suit schedule property. Alleging that no orders are passed on the protest petition filed by the petitioner, this Writ Petition is instituted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is a serious dispute regarding the ownership of the land in issue and a suit is pending, registration of any deed of conveyance would only create third party interests and frustrate the litigation instituted by the petitioner. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar, Peddakakani (respondent No.3) ought to have accepted the protest petition filed by the petitioner and given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before processing and registering any deed of conveyance in respect of the suit schedule property.
3. However, genuine the documents may be, insofar as the registering authority is concerned, he is governed by the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). The said Act does not envisage any provision for entertainment of protest petition/objections in respect of the document(s) presented for registration at the time of processing the same. The only provision that is incorporated is through Rule-58 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Rules’). If one of the contingencies provided in Rule 58 of the Rules is satisfied, it is competent for the registering authority to entertain such protest petition and consider the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court that the protest petition filed by the petitioner attracts atleast one of the contingencies mentioned in Rule 58 of the Rules. Except for this provision, there is no other provision made in the Act or the Rules made thereunder which vests power in the registering authority to receive protest petition/objections. The registering authority has to act in accordance with the mandate of the Act. Since there is no such provision incorporated in the Act and Rule-58 of the Rules clearly mandates that the registering authority shall not go into the correctness or validity of the title to the property, the petitioner cannot compel the registering authority to accept his complaint by way of a Mandamus. Hence, I see no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, it is always open to the petitioner to work out the remedies as available to him in law. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO 05th September 2014 Note:
Issue CC in three days. B/o DR