Telangana HC Issues Guidelines To Authorities In View Of Problems Faced By Persons In Getting Their Documents Registered

The Telangana High Court has issued certain guidelines to the authorities in view of the problems faced by the parties/citizens in getting their documents registered.

The Court was dealing with a batch of twenty-four (24) writ petitions in which the common grievance was that the Sub-Registrar was refusing to register the sale deeds with respect to the property and kept all the documents pending.

A Single Bench of Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar said, “In view of the above observations made by this Court and the issues raised in these writ petitions referring to the common problem faced by the parties/citizens in getting their documents registered and considering the issues prevailing and in the larger interest of the parties/citizens, this Court deems it appropriate to issue certain guidelines to respondent No.1 i.e., Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration & Stamps) Department; Respondent No.2 i.e., District Registrar, Ranga Reddy.”

The Bench issued the following guidelines –

i) Whenever a party/citizen approaches the Registering Authority to register the documents, the concerned officer shall as expeditiously as possible preferably within one week, either register the document or pass refusal order, in terms of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and communicate the same to the concerned parties and the Registering authorities shall not refuse the documents orally for registration and it must be followed by a written refusal order, if any.

ii) In case of documents are refused for registration, the procedure for refund of stamp duty and registration charges should be simplified and the parties should clearly understand the refund policy before paying the stamp duty and registration charges.

iii) Respondents, who have control are directed to issue fresh memo/circular or instructions to all the Sub-Registrars so as not to insist Court order for registration of documents on the same ground i.e., Government Orders/ notifications/circulars/memos/proceedings or orders passed by the authorities, which have already been set aside or modified by Court order and also when there is no pending appeal and in those matters which have attained finality.

iv) The Registering Authorities shall not pass any refusal orders on a ground and with reference to the same notification or G.Os., which have been set aside by the Courts and issues which have already been attained finality.

v) The authorities must ensure that a watch Register/General Diary (GD Book/Entry Book/Register) shall be maintained at every Sub-Registrar’s office and to make entries of the parties approaching the office on a particular date and time for the purpose for which they approached the office, so as to avoid interference, tampering and misrepresentation.

vi) The Sub-Registrar/Mandal Revenue Officer who are empowered to decide shall pass order without insisting for Court orders.

vii) The Registering Authorities shall also follow the guidelines issued in the cases of Vinjamuri Rajagopla Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and M/s. Invecta Technologies Private Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (cited supra).

Advocate Rajesh Maddy appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

In this case, the petitioners argued that the act of the Sub-Registrar (respondent) in refusing to register the sale deeds presented by them and keeping all the documents pending, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution. Since the rejection was common in all the writ petitions, one of these was taken up as the lead matter according to which the petitioner purchased a land vide registered sale deed.

The petitioner with an intention to sell the subject the property submitted draft sale deed before the respondent for registration after paying the requisite stamp duty. However, the respondent refused to register the documents and the same was informed to the petitioner by the respondent. The respondent stated that unless there is a Court order, the subject document will not be entertained for registration and hence, passed the refusal order. Questioning this, the writ petitions were filed before the High Court.

The High Court in view of the above facts ordered, “Though the Commissioner & Inspector General of Stamps and Registration, Telangana is not a party to the writ petitions herein, however he is directed to issue circulars/Memos/orders/instructions to their Subordinate, in effectively implementing the provisions of Registration Act, 1908, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the directions issued in various Court orders for effectively implementing the same while discharging their duties.”

The Court further gave the following instructions to the concerned parties –

i) The concerned parties shall make an effort to see that their presence is recorded in the watch Register/General Diary (GD Book/Entry Book/Register), if any maintained by the Sub Registrar’s office to ensure that they have approached the Sub Registrar’s office, so as to avoid the repeated instructions from the authorities that the parties/petitioners have not approached the Sub Registrar’s office or not presented any proposed documents for registration and they have not orally refused for registration.

ii) Before approaching the Registrar’s office, parties must ensure that the proposed property is not in the prohibited list, if it is found in the prohibited list, they shall take appropriate steps to delete the subject property from the prohibited list, in accordance with law, but not to approach the Court on the ground that the Sub Registrar is orally refusing to receive and register the subject property.

iii) Presentation of the proposed documents should be in compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act.

Coming to the cases, the Court observed, “… today the Sub-Registrar is present before this Court and submits that he has gone through all the proceedings and understood the order passed by this Court and he is ready to register the subject documents without any Court order as and when parties present the documents in accordance with Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Since the Sub-Registrar has stated before this Court that he would register and release the subject documents without insisting Court order and his submissions are recorded and has become part of this common order.”

Furthermore, the Court clarified that mere registration of the subject documents does not confer title on the subject property and that its order would not have any bearing on all those matters where title/rights of the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision/appeals for adjudication and in any other case, the order also does not preclude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of law.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petitions and set aside the refusal orders.

Cause Title- Anantha Rameshwari Devi v. The State of Telangana

Click here to read/download the Order