IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.17916 of 2014 Between:
S. Ramakrishna, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about years, Cultivation, R/o. D.No.3-225, Kanuru, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.
.. Petitioner AND State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.17916 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner claims to be a lease holder to the land to an extent of Ac. 8.45 cents in R.S.No.170 of Bodanapalli Village, Agiripalli Mandal, Krishna District. This land belongs to respondents 4 and 5. Having ascertained the intention of respondents 4 and 5 to sell the property and were looking for buyers, the petitioner came forward to buy the said land. An agreement was entered into on 12.03.2014 between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. The petitioner apprehends that in violation of the terms of the agreement, even after receiving the part sale consideration, respondents 4 and 5 are seeking to induct a new buyer and in such an event, grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that aggrieved by the actions of respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner filed G.L.No.1085 of 2014, in the Court of the District Munsiff Specially Appointed under A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, at Nuzvid. As there is no Presiding Officer to take up this appeal, so far it is not considered. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation/Protest Petition before respondents 2 and 3 on 20.06.2014 requesting them not to entertain any Deed of Conveyance on the above properties.
This writ petition is instituted aggrieved by the alleged inaction of respondents 2 and 3 in not acting upon the Protest Petition filed by the petitioner.
2. Apparently, respondents 4 and 5 are the owners of the land to an extent of Ac. 8.45 cents in R.S.No.170 of Bodanapalli Village, Agiripalli Mandal, Krishna District, and the petitioner is a tenant. The petitioner claims to have entered into an Agreement of Sale with respondents 4 and 5 to buy the said land and paid part sale consideration.
3. The only issue for consideration in this writ petition is whether this Court can issue mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 and 3 in proceeding with the registration of Deed of Conveyance on the above said land as and when presented.
4. As evident from the narration of facts in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, as of now no such Deed of Conveyance is presented. The petitioner is seeking to interdict the registering authority from entertaining any Deed of Conveyance. As per the scheme of the Registration Act, 1908, there cannot be any restraint imposed on the registering authority in receiving the Deed of Conveyance. Once a Deed of Conveyance is received, the registering authority has to process the same in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and refuse to entertain the Deed of Conveyance for registration, if the same is prohibited in accordance with the notification issued under Section 22(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or the land is classified as endowment or wakf or Government land. Rule 58 of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, enable the registering authority to entertain an objection subject to satisfaction of the circumstances mentioned therein. None of the circumstances mentioned therein are attracted in the case of the petitioner. The registering authority cannot be restrained from entertaining the document which is not even presented and cannot be directed to refuse to process the Deed of Conveyance at the instance of the petitioner and the reason assigned by the petitioner do not attract the provision of Rule 58 of the Rules. There is no merit in the writ petition.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. This order does not preclude the petitioner to work out his remedies as available to him. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 1st July, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.17916 of 2014 Date: 1st July, 2014 KL