THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.19069 of 2014 Dated : 25.08.2014 Between:
M/s.Savera Constructions Private Limited, Rep. by its authorized signatory R.Subrahmanyam and others .. Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.19069 of 2014 ORDER :
It is the case of the petitioners 1 to 3 that they are the owners of the land admeasuring Acs.50.00 guntas in Survey No.78 of Hafeezpet Village. The claim of the 4th petitioner is that he is the owner and he is in possession of another extent of land admeasuring Acs.115.00 guntas in Survey No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners intend to sell the above extents of land and when they approached the Sub-Registrar, Moosapet, Hyderabad-4th respondent, they were informed about the District Gazette notification issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy dated 26.09.1913 in which the objections were called from the affected persons against the proposal to notify the lands in Survey Nos.77, 78, 79 and 80 of Hafeezpet Village of Balanagar and Serlingampally Mandals, Ranga Reddy District covered under C.S.No.14 of 1958 under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the said notification is without power or jurisdiction. A notification can be issued concerning the properties which are mentioned in Section 22(A)(1)(e) of the Act by the State Government and the District Collector has no power to notify any properties covered by Section 22(A)(1)(e) of the Act as the registration of Government lands by way of deeds of conveyance were prohibited. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on earlier orders issued by the Government in memo No.28908/JA1/2004-1, dated 05.11.2004 and memo No.59734/JA.1/2005, dated 18.05.2009, which inter alia disclosed that these lands are treated as private lands and directions were issued for mutation in terms of the orders in C.S.No.14 of 1958.
3. Learned senior counsel further submits that attempts made by the State Government in this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have failed and therefore, the above orders are issued. Learned senior counsel therefore submits that the present notification issued by the District Collector treating it as sarkari is contrary to the orders of the Government and the District Collector does not have competence and power to overrule the orders of the Government and notify the subject land as sarkari land.
4. The matter underwent few adjournments at the instance of the learned Advocate General. When the matter is called, the Advocate General produced a memo filed by the 2nd respondent, wherein reference was made to the order of status quo passed by the Supreme Court in SLA (C) No(s).17362-17363/2014 and also orders passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.D5/5412/2014, dated 06.08.2014, suspending the mutation granted in respect of M/s.Savera construction.
5. Learned Advocate General submitted that in view of the order o f status quo granted by the Supreme Court and further orders passed by the Joint Collector suspending the mutation orders passed in favour of M/s.Savera construction, no further action can be taken.
6. Learned Advocate General submits that the lands in Survey Nos.77, 78, 79 and 80 of Hafeezpet Village are Government lands and that the Government is taking appropriate steps in this regard.
7. As regards the rival contentions on various issues concerning status of land and Government right to assert its title that cannot be gone into in this case.
8. The only issue for consideration in this writ petition is whether the notification issued by the District Collector amounts to prohibition of registration of lands mentioned therein concerning Survey Nos.77 to 80 of Hafeezpet Village in purported exercise of power under Section 22(A)(1)(e) of the Act.
9. Learned Advocate General submits that the notification in question is not issued under the above said provision and that it is erroneously mentioned and that the power is vested to issue a notification only in the State Government under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act. Further the State Government is entitled to call for the report from the District Collector and the notification issued on 26.09.2013 is for the purpose of compiling the information and submitting a report to the State Government to enable it to issue a notification under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act.
10. In other words, learned Advocate General fairly submits that there is no notification issued as on today under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act. It is further submitted that only after receipt of report from the District Collector and after examining the same by the State Government, appropriate action as warranted by law more particularly under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act would be taken.
11. In view of the submission of learned Advocate General, it is made clear that notification dated 26.09.2013 is not a notification under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act and since, as on today, there is no such notification issued under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act, there is no restraint on the registering authority to receive and process the deeds of conveyance concerning the lands in Survey Nos.79 to 80 of Hafeezpet Village.
12. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub- Registrar to receive and process the deeds of conveyance without reference to the District Gazette notification dated 26.09.2013 in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. However, it is open to the registering authority to refuse to register the deeds presented before him, if he has any other objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicate the decision to the petitioners. It is made clear that mere registration of deed of conveyance does not confer title to the property and it is made clear that this order does not preclude the Government to take appropriate steps as warranted by law and to assert its title. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date : 25.08.2014 ssp