HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8254 of 2014 Date :8.12.2014 Between :
State Bank of India Nellore town branch Nellore SPSR Nellore district … Petitioner and The State of A P Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration ) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8254 of 2014 ORDER:
Case of the petitioner bank is that on 15.6.2011 property consisting open area to an extent of 50 ankanams or 334.45 sq meters and RCC house in Plot No. 343 in Survey No. 610/1 door No. 24-2-1248, Nellore Bit-I area, Magunta layout, Nellore was mortgaged with the petitioner bank by owner of the property by name Mrs. M Karuna against loan sanctioned by the bank to her husband Sri M Srinivasulu Reddy for construction of MSR Function hall at Nellore. The barrower became defaulter and petitioner bank after taking appropriate steps in accordance with law auctioned the function hall on 12.2.2014. Sri Bandi Adinarayana Reddy having offered the price of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- was declared as auction purchaser and sale certificate was issued to him on 13.2.2014. Having received the full sale consideration, possession was handed over and bank presented the sale certificate before the Registering Authority for registration. Though, no written communication is given to the petitioner bank, it was informed by the Sub Registrar that the property cannot be processed for registration since already there was sale transaction on the same property and acceptance of the documents presented by the petitioner bank would amount to double registration. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.
2. Heard Sri B.S. Prasad learned counsel for petitioner bank and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents.
3. The facts are not in dispute. Learned standing counsel for petitioner bank contends that once property was mortgaged, first charge is with the bank, therefore the question of undertaking sale of the same property already mortgaged, is illegal and sale transactions if any made between 15.6.2011 and 12.2.2014 by the original owner were illegal and no rights accrue to any purchaser thereon. He further contends that as held by this Court in Dr.Yadla Ramesh Naidu Vs Sub Registrar, Sabbavaram and Others
[1]
, it is not the concern of the Sub Registrar to refuse to undertake registration on the ground that property was already registered.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that since already registrations have taken place prior to presentation of the sale certificate dated 13.2.2014 by the petitioner bank, the Sub Registrar cannot accept further registration on the same property and it would amount to double registration.
5. This very issue was considered by learned single Judge of this Court in Dr.Yadla Ramesh Naidu. As seen from para 7 of the judgment, same plea was raised. It was contended that for the land covered in Survey No. 26/2, a layout was approved by the Gram Panchayat, Gollapalem, plots were made and sold to several individuals by executing registered sale deeds. Therefore, if the document presented by the petitioner therein was received and registered, it would result in double registration. The questions considered in the said decision read as under:
“17. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 9, the following questions do arise for consideration in the present writ petition:
1. Whether mere registration of a document by the registering authority under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 confers title on the property purchased by the vendee from his vendor?
2. Whether the registering authority under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 is entitled to go into title disputes and refuse to receive and register the document presented for registration?
3. Whether respondent No. 1-registering authority, was justified in refusing to receive and register the documents presented by the petitioner for registration, on the ground that he failed to produce VA3 Adangals and 'No Objection' Certificate from the MRO in case Pattadar Passbooks, are not available, as, required by the Instructions issued by the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, in Re. No. 310/2000-F3, dated 08.11.2004, as reiterated by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam in Re. No. 1984/2004, dated 02.02.2005?
4. Whether respondent No. 1-registering authority was justified in refusing to receive and register the document on the ground that there are objections taken by the unofficial respondents with respect to registration of the documents in question?”
The above questions are answered by this Court as under:
27 I fail to understand as to how respondent No. 1 can refuse to receive and register a document on the ground that several complaints were received/objections filed in respect of the lands in question, for not registering the land, and that to avoid multiple sales in respect of the land, they are not registering, and more so when the Registering Officer is not entitled to go into questions such as, as to who is the actual owner of the lands in question, who purchased the said lands first from them, whether the petitioner or the unofficial respondents, whether they derived valid title to the property from their vendors, and if so, whether they are entitled to alienate the same in favour of third parties, either under the Registration Act or the Rules made thereunder. In that view of the matter, I hold that respondent No. 1-Sub Registrar, was not justified in refusing to receive and register the documents presented by the petitioner on the ground that there are objections taken by the unofficial respondents with respect to registering of the documents in question.”
6. In the facts of this case and having regard to the judgment of this Court in Dr.Yadla Ramesh Naidu, the objection raised by the Sub Registrat- I, Nellore- 4th respondent is held illegal and 4th respondent is accordingly directed to receive and register the sale certificate dated 13.2.2014 presented by the petitioner bank concerning the property to an extent of 50 ankanams or 334.45 sq meters with RCC house in Plot No. 343 in Survey No. 610/1 door No. 24-2-1248, Nellore Bit-I area, Magunta layout, Nellore in accordance with Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Having regard to the same, all old miscellaneous petitions are closed.
P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE:8.12.2014 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8254 of 2014 Date :8.12.2014
[1] 2009 (1) ALD 337