G KADAMBARI Vs. DISTIRCT REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCES HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking to declare the order of the first respondent, dated 22. 1. 2004 and the order of the second respondent, dated 2. 12. 2003 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the second respondent to register the document without insisting for payment of stamp duty on the present market value of the property.

(2.) THE petitioner purchased an extent of 222 square yards in Sy. Nos. 132 and 160 of B. K. Guda, Hyderabad from her vendor A. V. Pentaiah, who is the absolute owner of the property. A sale deed was executed on 28. 2. 1979 and it was presented to the Sub-Registrar, Khairatabad, the third respondent herein, for registration on 2. 3. 1979. The third respondent refused to register the document on the ground that certificate of permission from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling act was not enclosed along with the sale deed and the document was kept pending. Thereafter, on 28. 5. 1982, the third respondent passed an order refusing to register the sale deed. As the vendor of the petitioner failed to get the permission from the Urban land Ceiling Authority, the petitioner was constrained to file O. S. No. 1344 of 1984 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, ccc, Secunderabad seeking a direction to the vendor for specific performance of agreement of sale and to apply permission to the Urban Land Ceiling Authority, hyderabad and to take steps to get the certificate also for the relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an Application covered by I. A. No. 252 of 1984 to implead the respondents 1 to 3 herein as the respondents in the said LA. The respondents raised a plea that they are not necessary parties to the proceedings. The trial Court dismissed the said Application through the order, dated 27. 8. 1987. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter the vendor filed A. S. No. 51 of 1991 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, CCC, secunderabad and it was dismissed through the order, dated 9. 12. 1997. Despite the decree of the Civil Court, the vendor of the petitioner has not taken any steps to get the letter from the Urban Land Ceiling authority, therefore, the petitioner filed the e. P. for execution of the decree granted by the Court. Subsequently, the vendor obtained a clearance certificate from ULC authorities, dated 21. 7. 2003 and the same was furnished to the petitioner on 20. 8. 2003. The petitioner made an application on 23. 8. 2003 for registration of the document. The petitioner further pleaded that the second respondent has issued the impugned letter mentioning that the document is not being considered and the petitioner has to file an Appeal under Section 72 of the Indian Registration act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') On receipt of the letter from the second respondent, she filed an Appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent refused to entertain the Application on the ground that the period of limitation is only 30 days from the date of the order. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 22863 of 2003 before this Court and this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, through the order, dated 3. 11. 2003, directed the second respondent to receive the document for registration and to pass appropriate orders. The petitioner submitted that she submitted the document for registration before the second respondent, but he has passed an order holding that the document is treated to have been submitted only in the month of August, 2003 and the registration fees should be paid on the basis value of the department as on 24. 11. 2003 which comes to Rs. 97,680/- towards stamp duty and rs. 67,155/- towards registration fees and directed her to remit the amount within a period of one week The petitioner filed an Appeal before the first respondent, but the first respondent passed order stating that the appeal is not maintainable as the second respondent only directed to pay the stamp duty and registration charges. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE petitioner contended that as the High Court observed that the respondents are under the obligation to receive the document and pass appropriate orders, the document now submitted for registration should be treated as fresh submission with the same stamp duty. She further contended that when once the document has been presented, the same cannot be refused by the respondents on the ground of non-enclosure of a certificate from the Urban land Ceiling Authority though the document is resubmitted after 24 years.