1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged Lr.No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019 sent by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Nizampet to the Sub-Registrar, Quthbullapur, Ranga Reddy District (2nd respondent) directing the latter not to register the alleged unauthorized floors
which are constructed more than 2 floors as per the Annexure attached thereto within the limits of Nizampet Municipal Corporation (1st respondent)
and the consequential action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to receive, register and release a sale deed presented by petitioner relating to floor
No.302 in the third floor of ‘Pearl Heights’ with built up of 1090 sq.ft (including common areas and car parking), along with an undivided share
of land admeasuring 24 sq. yds (out of 800 sq yds) constructed on plot Nos.116, 117, 132 and 133 in Sy.No.491/A of Bachupally village and Gram
Panchayat, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
Case of the petitioner
2. According to the petitioner, the vendor of the petitioner had applied for building permission from the then Bachupally Gram Panchayat for
construction of Ground + 2 floors and such permission was accorded on 12.02.2019, and thereafter construction of residential apartments was
commenced by petitioner’s vendor under the name and style ‘Pearls Heights’ and the same was completed and apartments were sold to
respective vendees.
3. Petitioner contended that on the assurance given by the then Gram Panchayat for regularization, petitioner’s vendor had constructed 3rd and
4th floors in addition to 1st and 2nd floor covered by the building permission.
4. Thereafter the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation came into existence and all the records of the Bachupally Gram Panchayat stood transferred
to the 1st respondent.
5. Petitioner contended that when he presented the sale deed executed in his favour by his vendor before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent
refused to receive, register and release the same on the ground that the 1st respondent addressed a letter bearing No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019
intimating the 2nd respondent not to register any unauthorized floors without production of sanctioned plan approved by it. It is also stated that 2nd
respondent gave an additional reason that the subject property overlaps into Hafeezpet land which is subject matter of C.S.No.14 of 958.
6. Petitioner contends that 2nd respondent is bound to receive the document presented before him for registration, scrutinize it and register it, if there
are no legal impediments under Registration Act, 1908 for registration of the documents, that 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to issue any direction
to the 2nd respondent asking him not receive any document presented for registration, and also the 2nd respondent, on the basis of the said letter,
cannot refuse to register the same. It was also stated that the grounds taken by 2nd respondent for refusing to register the document are not covered
by Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and the action of the 2nd respondent is illegal.
7. Further, it is contended that the Registration Act, 1908 has not been amended pursuant to Section 178(3) of the Telangana Municipality Act, 2019
and the 1st respondent cannot get any jurisdiction to issue such letters to the 2nd respondent.
8. It is also contended that the State Government’s claim in respect of the land in Hafeezpet had been negatived by this Court in several cases and
this Court had held that said lands are private lands; even other wise, the lands in Bachupally area like the subject land have no connection with
Hafeezpet village or that any other lands covered by C.S.No.14 of 1958; and on a mere apprehension of overlapping of survey numbers, the 2nd
respondent cannot treat the subject property as part and parcel of the land covered under C.S.No.14 of 1958.
9. Petitioner has also placed on record Memo No.G2/257/19 dt.26.08.2020 of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps,
Telangana, Hyderabad quoting the provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and prohibiting the registration of constructions made in violation
of the sanctioned plan.
10. Petitioner pointed out that even the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana, Hyderabad cannot issue such
direction without being empowered to do so under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
Counter of the 1st respondent
11. It is contended by the 1st respondent that the permission obtained by the vendor of the petitioner from the Bachupally Gram Panchayat on
12.02.2019 was only for Ground + 2 upper floors; but the vendor of the petitioner illegally constructed 3rd and 4th floors and the petitioner had
purchased the flat in the 3rd floor illegally constructed by his vendor.
12. The issuance of the letter No.56/TP/NMC/2019 dt.25.11.2019 by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent not to entertain any registration in
respect of apartments constructed in illegally and unauthorisedly constructed floors is admitted and it is stated that rightly the 2nd respondent refused
to register the document presented by the petitioner since it was an illegal construction.
13. He stated that he was not aware whether the Sy.Nos. on which the subject flat was built was subject matter of C.S.No.14 of 1958.
14. He stated that he is protecting the interest of the State Government and also protecting the environment by issuing the letter dt.25.11.2019 referred
to above to the 2nd respondent. He stated that he is also taking steps to demolish the additional floors which are illegally constructed by the vendor of
the petitioner in the subject complex.
The stand of the 2nd respondent
15. At the outset, the 2nd respondent denied the allegation of the petitioner that he declined to receive the document presented by the petitioner on the
ground that the 1st respondent had raised an objection that the property is overlapping lands relating to C.S.No.14 of 1958.
16. He stated that the 3rd respondent issued a Memo No.G2/257/2019 dt.26.08.2020 quoting the following provisions:
“Section 172(16) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 which stipulates that ‘No new plots or sub-division shall be registered by
Registration Authority unless it is approved by the authority as per the provisions of the Act’.
Section 178(3) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 which stipulates that ‘The Registration Authority shall not register any building
or structure or part of the building without the production of sanctioned plan approved by the Municipality’.
Section 113 (8) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 which mandates that ‘No pieces of land for building purpose shall be sold by
any owner or developer which is not a part of an approval layout; provide that it shall not be applicable to plots of land in Grama Kantam
having an existing building’.
Under Rule 13(C) of Telangana Regularisation of Unapproved Illegal Layout Rules, 2015 (G.O.Ms.No.151, MAUD Department, dated
02.11.2015) (Failure to come forward for Regularisation of unapproved layouts/plots) it has been specified that ‘Such unapproved
layouts shall be recorded in the prohibitory properties of the Registration Department and no sale/disposal or transactions shall be allowed
in such sites.’
Rule 26(h) of Common Building Rules [G.O.Ms.No.168, MAUD Department dated 07.04.2012] stipulates that ‘The Registration authority
shall register only the permitted built up area as per the sanctioned plan and only upon producing and filing a copy of such sanctioned
building plan. On the registration document it should be clearly mentioned that the registration is in accordance with the sanctioned
building plan in respect of setbacks and number of floors.â€
17. It is stated that the Memo was issued by 3rd respondent exercising powers conferred under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 to implement
Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. He stated that it is the duty of the Registrar to examine the provisions of the above Statute as on the
date of registration of the document and protect interest of gullible public. He also referred to modified instructions dt.29.12.2020 relating to open
plots/structures with which we are not concerned.
18. Reference is also made to PIL No.210 of 2020 filed in this Court challenging the Memo No.G2/257/2019 dt.26.08.2020 and it is stated that relief
claimed by the petitioner is also similar.
Consideration by the Court
19. Learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for 1st respondent and learned Government Pleader for 2nd respondent reiterated the
stand of their respective clients.
20. We have noted the contentions of all parties.
21. It is no doubt true that the petitioner intends to register an apartment built on the 3rd floor of the complex ‘Pearl Heights’ constructed on plot
Nos.116, 117, 132 and 133 in Sy.No.491/A of Bachupally village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
22. The vendor of the petitioner admittedly did not have permission from the Bachupally Gram Panchayat (the predecessor of the 1st respondent
Corporation) to build 3rd floor of 4th floor in the subject property.
Points for consideration
23. The following points arise for consideration in this Writ Petition:
(a) Whether the Commissioner of the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation can issue letter No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019 to the 2nd
respondent asking him not to register unauthorized floors constructed or not under the Registration Act, 1908?
(b) Whether the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration can issue Memo No.G2/257/2019 dt.26.08.2020 prohibiting registration by
Sub-Registrars of illegally constructed apartments/floors under the Registration Act, 1908.
Point (a)
24. We shall first consider whether the Commissioner of the Nizampet Municipal Corporation (1st respondent) is empowered to issue the letter
No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019 directing the Sub-Registrar (2nd respondent) not to register unauthorized floors while exercising powers under the
Registration Act, 1908.
25. The Registration Act, 1908 was enacted to consolidate the law relating to the registration of documents. It specifies what are the documents
which are compulsorily registerable and what are not compulsorily registerable in Section 17 and 18 thereof and prescribes the procedure to be
followed for such registration in detail. Subject to payment of prescribed stamp duty and registration fee and other charges prescribed under the Act, a
citizen is entitled to get his document dealing with transfer of immovable property registered by the Sub-Registrar, unless prohibited under the Act.
26. Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with prohibition of registration of certain documents. It states:
“22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.â€
(1) The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely:
(a) documents relating to transfer of immoveable property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or
Central Government;
(b) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immoveable property
owned by the State or Central Government, executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(c) documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in respect
of immoveable property, owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or by Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by persons other than those
statutorily empowered to do so;
(d) agricultural or urban lands declared as surplus under the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976;
(e) any document or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in
which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable
Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal, Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are likely to adversely
affect those interests.
(2) For the purpose of clause (e) of sub-section (1), the State Government shall publish a notification after obtaining reasons for and full
description of properties furnished by the District Collectors concerned in the manner as may be prescribed.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification
issued under clause (e) of sub-section (1).
(4) The State Government either suo motu or on an application by any person or for giving effect to the final orders of the High Court of
Telangana or Supreme Court of India may proceed to de-notify, either in full or in part, the notification issued under sub-section (2).â€
27. As per the above provision, the Commissioner of the Nizampet Municipal Corporation is not a person designated to prohibit registration of any
documents relating to transfer of immovable property. There is no specific provision in the Registration Act, 1908 prohibiting registration of documents
relating to transfer of immovable property which is illegally constructed. It is not the case of the respondents that any provision of Section 22-A is
attracted entitling the 2nd respondent to refuse to register the document presented by the petitioner.
28. Rule 58 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908 indicates what is the nature of enquiry to be conducted by a Registering Officer
before he proceeds to register the document. It states:
“58. It forms no part of a Registering Officer's duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend
to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute
the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below:
(a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be;
(b) that the document is forged;
(c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity;
(d) that the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party applying for registration; or
(e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic.â€
29. None of these contingencies mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the above Rule 58 is attracted in the instant case. So, the main part of Rule 58
which prohibits him from going into validity of a document brought to him for registration, would have to apply. In the light of such prohibition, he is not
entitled to refuse to register a document on grounds which are not prescribed by the Registration Act, 1908 for refusing to register a document.
30. We may also point out that the Registration Act, 1908 was enacted in British India and had received the assent of the Governor General on
18.12.1908. It applies throughout India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Though it is enacted prior to coming into force of the Constitution of
India, it is saved by Art.13(1) of the Constitution of India. It is a legislation referable to the Entry 6 of List-III (Concurrent List) in Schedule-VII to the
Constitution of India which deals with “Transfer of property other than agricultural land; registration of deeds and documents.â€
31. Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 was enacted by the Telangana State Legislature in relation to the legislative field relatable to item 5 of List-II
(State List) in the VII Schedule to the Constitution whish deals with “Local Government, that is to say, the constitution and powers of municipal
corporations…â€. It applies to both Municipalities and Municipal Corporations like the 1st respondent.
32. Section 178(3) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 stipulates that the Registration Authority shall not register any building or structure or
part of the building without the production of the sanctioned plan approved by the Municipality.
33. Thus the State Legislature, while making a Law relating to the powers and constitution of the Municipal Corporations and Municipalities, made
Section 178(3) dealing with the aspect of registration of documents relating to immoveable property and prohibited registration of certain documents
relating to structures erected without/in violation of sanctioned plan.
34. The question is whether Section 178(3) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 would prevail over the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
35. This issue is dealt with by Articles 246 and Art.254 of the Constitution of India which state as under:
“246. Subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States :
(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses ( 2 ) and ( 3 ), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the Union List)
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause ( 3 ), Parliament, and, subject to clause ( 1 ), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make
laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the Concurrent List)
(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included (in a State)
notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State Listâ€
“254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States :
(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament
is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then,
subject to the provisions of clause ( 2 ), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such
State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the
repugnancy, be void.
(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any
provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so
made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent,
prevail in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a
law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.â€
36. Article 246 of the Constitution does not provide for the competence of Parliament or the State Legislatures as commonly perceived but merely
provides for their respective fields. Article 246 only empowers Parliament to legislate on the entries mentioned in List I and List III of the Seventh
Schedule and that in case of a conflict between a State law and a parliamentary law under the entries mentioned in List III, the parliamentary law will
prevail. ( Security Association of India v. Union of India (2014) 12 SCC 65)
37. In Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 45, the Supreme Court explained the interplay between Lists I,II and III and the
principles governing interpretation of Art.246 and Art.254 of the Constitution as under:
41. The words “notwithstanding anything contained in clauses
(2) and (3)†in Article 246(1) and the words “subject to clauses (1) and (2)†in Article 246(3) lay down the principle of federal
supremacy viz. that in case of inevitable conflict between Union and State powers, the Union power as enumerated in List I shall prevail
over the State power as enumerated in Lists II and III, and in case of overlapping between Lists II and III, the former shall prevail. But the
principle of federal supremacy laid down in Article 246 of the Constitution cannot be resorted to unless there is an “irreconcilableâ€
conflict between the entries in the Union and State Lists. In the case of a seeming conflict between the entries in the two Lists, the entries
should be read together without giving a narrow and restricted sense to either of them. Secondly, an attempt should be made to see whether
the two entries cannot be reconciled so as to avoid a conflict of jurisdiction. It should be considered whether a fair reconciliation can be
achieved by giving to the language of the Union Legislative List a meaning which, if less wide than it might in another context bear, is yet
one that can properly be given to it and equally giving to the language of the State Legislative List a meaning which it can properly bear.
The non obstante clause in Article 246(1) must operate only if such reconciliation should prove impossible. Thirdly, no question of conflict
between the two Lists will arise if the impugned legislation, by the application of the doctrine of ‘pith and substance’ appears to fall
exclusively under one list, and the encroachment upon another list is only incidental.
42. Union and State legislatures have concurrent power with respect to subjects enumerated in List III, subject only to the provision contained in
clause (2) of Article 254 i.e. provided the provisions of the State Act do not conflict with those of any Central Act on the subject. However, in case of
repugnancy between a State Act and a Union law on a subject enumerated in List III, the State law must yield to the Central law unless it has been
reserved for the assent of the President and has received his assent under Article 254(2). The question of repugnancy arises only where both the
legislatures are competent to legislate in the same field i.e., when both the Union and the State laws relate to a subject specified in list II and occupy
the same field.
… … … …
57. It is well settled that the validity of an Act is not affected if it incidentally trenches upon matters outside the authorized field and
therefore it is necessary to inquire in each case what is the pith and substance of the Act impugned. If the Act, when so viewed, substantially
falls within the powers expressly conferred upon the Legislature which enacted it, then it cannot be held to be invalid merely because it
incidentally encroaches on matters which have been assigned to another Legislature.
… … …
69. …The question of repugnancy under Article 254(1) between a law made by Parliament and a law made by the State legislature arises
only in case both the legislations occupy the same field with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, and there is
direct conflict between the two laws. It is only when both these requirements are fulfilled that the State law will, to the extent of repugnancy,
become void. Article 254(1) has no application to cases of repugnancy due to overlapping found between List II on the one hand and Lists I
and III on the other. If such overlapping exists in any particular case, the State law will be ultra vires because of the non obstante clause in
Article 246(1) read with the opening words “subject to†in Article 246(3). In such a case, the State law will fail not because of
repugnance to the Union law but due to want of legislative competence…. The underlying principle is that the question of repugnancy
arises only when both the legislatures are competent to legislate in the same field i.e. with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List. Hence, Article 254(1) cannot apply unless both the Union and the State laws relate to a subject specified in the Concurrent
List, and they occupy the same field.â€( emphasis supplied)
38. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka 1985 Supp SCC 476, at page 573, the Supreme Court declared:
“220. It is well-settled principle that Article 246 recognised the principle of parliamentary supremacy in the field of legislation in case
where both Legislatures have competence to legislate (emphasis supplied). The constitutional scheme is that Parliament has full and
exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters in List I and has also power to legislate with respect to matters in List III. A State
Legislature has exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters in List II, excluding the matters falling in List I and has also concurrent
power to legislate with respect to matters falling in List III excluding matters falling in List I. The dominant position of the Central
Legislature with regard to matters in List I and List III is established.â€
39. While there is no prohibition contained in the Registration Act, 1908 to register a document dealing with transfer of immovable property such as an
apartment or a floor which is constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan or without a sanctioned plan, Section 178(3) of the Telangana
Municipalities Act, 2019 contains such prohibition i.e. it prohibits the registration authority from registering any building or structure or part of the
building without the production of sanctioned plan approved by the Municipality.
40. Thus there is inconsistency between the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (Law falling within the Legislative field of Entry 6 of List III) and
the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (Law falling within the Legislative field of Entry 5 of List II) with regard to registration of
such properties. In such cases Art.254 has no application since both legislations are not in List III (Concurrent List).
41. Since overlapping is found between the law made by the State under List II on the one hand and a law referable to List III made by the then
British Government in 1908 having all-India application ( it is thus a law akin to law made by Parliament under List III), the State law will be ultra vires
because of the non obstante clause in Article 246(1) read with the opening words “subject to†in Article 246(3). In such a case, the State law, to
the extent of inconsistency i.e Sec.178 (3) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, will fail.
42. Similar logic applies to the Rule 26(h) of the common Building Rules framed vide G.O.Ms.No.168, Municipal Administration and Urban
Development Department dt.07.04.2012 which has been framed under the Greater Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the A.P. Municipal
Corporation Act, 1994 and the said Rule also will not prevail over the law made by Parliament in the field covered by List III.
43. The State Legislature could have amended the Registration Act,1908 (since the said law is in the List III) and introduced a provision to prohibit
registration of documents relating to transfer of immoveable property such as structures which are constructed illegally. But it has not done so.
44. Therefore, we hold on Point (a) that Section 178(3) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 or Rule 26(h) of the Common Building Rules
contained in G.O.Ms.No.168 M.A.U.D. Department dt.07.04.2012 cannot be quoted by the Commissioner of 1st respondent Municipal Corporation
and he cannot instruct the 2nd respondent vide letter No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019 asking him not to register unauthorized floors constructed or
not under the Registration Act, 1908. Point (a) is thus answered in favour of the petitioner.
Point (b) :
45. Now we shall consider Point (b) which is as under :
(b) “Whether the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration can issue Memo No.G2/257/2019 dt.26.08.2020 prohibiting registration
by Sub-Registrars of illegally constructed apartments/floors under the Registration Act, 1908?â€
46. In Sub-Registrar, Shamirpet vs. K. Ramakrishna Raju Order dt.21.07.2004 in W.A.No.707 of 2002 (D.B.), a Division Bench of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court considered the question whether the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps has authority in law to issue any directions to
the registering authority not to register any document. It observed that only the State Government has power to issue any notifications under Section
22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 not to register documents and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps has no such authority, and declared a
Memo dt.22.03.1993 issued by the said authority as null and void and inoperative. The Bench declared that the Sub-Registrar is bound to receive
documents and scrutinize the same and accordingly register the same if there are no other legal impediments for registration of the document and he
cannot to refuse to register a document on the basis of a Memo issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps.
47. In view of the said binding precedent, we hold on Point (b) that the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, State of Telangana has no
authority to issue Memo No.G2/257/2019 dt.26.08.2020 and the 2nd respondent erred in taking note of the same and refusing to register the document
presented by the petitioner.
48. As regards overlap with the land in Hafeezpet Village of the subject land in Bachupally Village, the respondents have denied the same and so it is
not necessary to deal with the said aspect. Suffice it to point out that even assuming it to be so, Hafeezpet Village is subject matter of C.S.No.14 of
1958 on the file of this Court, a preliminary decree was passed therein on 28.06.1963; and the State Government challenged the said preliminary
decree in O.S.A.(SR).No.3526 and 3527 of 2000, which was dismissed on 17.02.2001 and the said order was also confirmed in SLP.Nos.10622 and
10623 of 2001 on 16.07.2001. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State Government has any right, title or interest in the land in Hafeezpet Village.
49. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; a Writ of Mandamus is issued declaring the action of 2nd respondent in refusing to receive, register and
release the sale deed presented by petitioner in respect of Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, ‘Pearl Heights’, with a built up area of 1090 Sq.ft. (including
common areas and car parking), along with an undivided share of land admeasuring 24 Sq.Yds. (Out of 800 Sq.Yds), constructed on Plot Nos.116,
117, 132 and 133 in Survey No.491/A, situated at Bachupally village and Gram Panchayat, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, on the
grounds of (i) letter bearing No.45/TP/NMC/2019 dt.01.11.2019 issued by 1st respondent; and (ii) that the subject property is part and parcel of the
lands covered under C.S.No.14 of 1958 as arbitrary, illegal, without any jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and consequently a direction is issued to 2nd respondent herein to receive, register and release the
sale deed presented by petitioner in respect of the above property without reference to letter bearing No.45/TP/NMC/2019, dt.01.11.2019, and Memo
No.G2/257/2019 dt.26.08.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent, if document is in accordance with law, otherwise, within four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
50. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs.
51. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
