HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.1739 of 2014 DATE: 23.12.2014 Between:
M/s. Nile Ltd., Industrial Estate, Nacharam, Ranga Reddy District, rep.by its M.D. V.Ramesh s/o.late Dr. V.Kameswara Rao, aged about 63 years, r/o.Hyderabad and another.
.. Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
.. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.1739 of 2014 ORDER:
The case of the petitioners is that first petitioner company purchased the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas in Sy.No.617/1 (old) presently Sy.Nos.617/5 and 617/9 in Malkajgiri Village, Hyderabad East, Hyderabad District, vide registered sale deed No.1640/1986, dated 18.08.1986 from M/s.Andhra Foundry and Machine Company Limited. First petitioner intend to dispose of the factory, building and entire glass lined machinery business of the first petitioner. Accordingly, sale deed was drawn and presented before the Sub- Registrar on 21.06.2012. The Sub-Registrar vide his endorsement dated 25.06.2012 returned the same informing the petitioners that property intended to be sold is a prohibited property falling under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act as per the information furnished by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad vide his letters dated 24.06.2011 and 10.02.2012. Aggrieved thereby, second petitioner filed an appeal before the District Registrar. The District Registrar rejected the appeal vide order dated 25.04.2013 affirming the decision of the Sub-Registrar.
2. Notice No.F2/74/86, dated nil August, 2008 was issued by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, directing the first petitioner company herein to file application for regularization of land in illegal possession of the first petitioner. It was alleged that first petitioner was in illegal possession of land to an extent of 19234 square meters which was already declared as surplus under Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘Act, 1976’) and vested with the Government and possession was taken. Challenging the said notice, shareholder of the first petitioner instituted W.P.No.23846 of 2008. While so, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, was enacted by the Indian Parliament. The Repeal Act, 1999 came into force in the State with effect from 27.03.2008. It was contended that the possession was never taken by the State in accordance with the provision of the Act, 1976 and possession remained with the petitioners and in view of Section 4 of Repeal Act, 1999, proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, abate and, therefore, there is no requirement to apply for regularization of the land. Having regard to the provisions of Sections 10 and 20(1) of the Act and Section 4 of the Repeal Act and following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.23256 of 2013 and Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar v. Dy.Deputy Collector & Competent [1] Authority and others , this Court by judgment dated 06.11.2013 allowed the writ petition setting aside the notice dated nil August, 2008. It was held that in view of the fact that by the time the Repeal Act came into force possession remained with the first petitioner, Section 4 of the Repeal Act would apply and, therefore, there is no requirement for the first petitioner to apply for regularization of the land as directed in the impugned notice.
3. Alleging that though the decision of this Court was brought to the notice of the respondents–registering authority, respondents 4 and 5 refused to register the document, this writ petition is instituted.
4. Heard learned senior counsel Sri D.V.Sita Ram Murthy for the counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23846 of 2008, the proceedings under the Repeal Act do not survive any more and the land absolutely vests in the petitioners and first petitioner is entitled to deal with the said property according to necessities of the first petitioner. In view of the judgment of this Court in the above writ petition, the earlier directions issued by the Urban Land Ceiling authorities do not survive any more. It is, therefore, contended that registering authority cannot rely communication from Urban Land Ceiling Authorities made earlier to judgment in W.P.No.23846 of 2008 to refuse to undertake the registration as requested by the petitioners.
6. Fifth respondent filed counter-affidavit. Fifth respondent reiterated his earlier view as reflected in the order passed by the Sub- Registrar and as affirmed by the District Registrar. However, having regard to the fact that judgment is rendered by this Court in W.P.No.23846 of 2008, it is stated that if the document is presented and if no appeal is filed against the order of this Court dated 06.11.2013, document would be registered. Along with reply filed by the petitioners, cash receipt dated 10.04.2014 is filed and it is contended in the reply affidavit that petitioners have represented the sale deed on 10.04.2014, which was received by the 5th respondent, but till date 5th respondent has not registered the same.
7. Along with reply, letter of Joint Sub-Registrar addressed to the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, dated 16.04.2014 is enclosed. In this letter, the Joint Sub- Registrar requests the Special Officer to inform him whether any appeal is preferred against the decision of this Court in W.P.No.23846 of 2008 and if an appeal is preferred, whether any stay is granted.
8. It appears from the averments in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of 5th respondent, no such reply was furnished by the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities.
9. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.
10. Even though in the counter-affidavit, it was specifically averred on behalf of 5th respondent that as and when document is presented, he could process for registration and registration would be done provided no stay is granted, the 5th respondent continues to enter into correspondence with the Urban Land Ceiling authorities and keeps the document pending even after eight months.
11. As seen from the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.23846 of 2008, this Court held that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act lapse since on the date of coming into effect the Repeal Act, 1999, possession remained with the first petitioner. Since the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act are declared to have lapsed, the reliance on correspondence from the Urban Land Ceiling authorities prior to the judgement have no bearing. In view of judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23846 of 2008, that property vested in the 1st petitioner absolutely and 1st petitioner is entitled to deal with the same. Therefore, refusal to register the document by referring to the correspondence from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities prior to the judgment was erroneous.
12. The Sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri, (5th respondent) is directed to process the document P.No.247 of 2012, which was re-presented on 10.04.2014, in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Stamp Act, 1899 and if the document is otherwise in order without reference to earlier objection that the land in issue was covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, he shall register and release the document. It is made clear that mere registration does not take away the right of the State to assert its title or availing remedies against the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23846 of 2008 as available in law.
13. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date : 23.12.2014 kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.1739 of 2014 Date: 23.12.2014 kkm
[1] 2012 STPL (Web) 165 SC