1. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are one family members i.e., husband, wife and son, as such, related to each other. Assailing the action of
the 4th respondent-Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Crime Investigation Department, Hyderabad in issuing letter dated 18.01.2021 to
the Sub-registrars of different areas in both the States i.e., State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, directing them not to register the
properties belonging to the petitioners, these writ petitions have been filed.
3. Since all these writ petitions are challenging the action of the 4th respondent-Inspector of Police, for the sake of convenience, the facts, in brief, in
W.P.No.28643 of 2021 are taken into consideration, which are as follows:
The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the properties mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, having purchased
the same out of own funds and also out of loans obtained from financial institutions. The petitioner and one Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, have
incorporated a company in the name and style of RMS Research Labs Private Limited in the year 2002. However, due to differences, said
G.Madhusudhan Reddy lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Jinnaram Police Station, Medak District, alleging fraud against the
petitioner. As a result of which, the Station House Officer, Jinnaram registered FIR No.115/2015 on 25.06.2015 under Sections 420, 468 IPC. After
filing of the charge sheet, the same is pending as Calender Case No.533 of 2021 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Sangareddy. Challenging the said FIR and charge sheet, the petitioner along with wife and son, who are petitioners in W.P.Nos.28776 and 28799 of
2021, filed W.P.No.25890 of 2021 on the file of this Court, which is pending adjudication.
4. Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy also filed a Company Petition No.1/59/213/241/HBD/2017 complaining Oppression and Mis-management on the part of
the petitioner claiming various reliefs on the file of National Company Law Tribunal, which is pending adjudication.
5. While things stood thus, when the petitioner was in need of funds for meeting his litigation expenses, he tried to raise funds by mortgaging his
properties, the sub-registrars-respondents 5-9 refused to entertain any document stating that there was a direction from the 4th respondent by way of
letters dated 18.01.2021, not to accept any document for registration. The petitioner obtained said letters dated 18.01.2021 addressed to the
respondents 5-9 separately, under Right to Information Act. The 4th respondent-Inspector of Police, being investigating officer has no power or
authority to effect attachment of immovable property of an accused person but he can only seize the property under Section 102 of the Code. It is
further stated that the respondents 5 to 9 have no authority to act upon the letters issued by the 4th respondent and include his properties in the list of
prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act of 1908’). The procedure envisaged under Section
22-A of the Act of 1908 has not been followed for placing the subject properties under the list of prohibited properties, as such, same is illegal and
arbitrary.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is an admitted fact that a case in Cr.No.115/2015 under Sections 420, 406, 477(A), 464, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120(B) of Indian penal
Code has been registered against the petitioners. During the course of investigation, the 4th respondent-Inspector of Police, being investigating officer,
wrote letters to the respondents-Sub-Registrars of different areas in the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, where the properties of the
petitioners are located, directing them not to entertain any document, as the said case is under investigation.
8. A perusal of one of such letter addressed by the 4th respondent to the Sub-Registrar, Patamata, Andhra Pradesh-5th respondent, dated 18.01.2021
goes to show that the case against the petitioners is under investigation and requested the authorities to stop the further transactions until further
intimation, as the said properties are to be attached. It is not known under which provision of law the 4th respondent addressed such a letter to the 5th
respondent requesting to stop further transactions in respect of subject immovable property and it is also not mentioned in the said letter under which
provision of law, he addressed such a letter, but learned Government Pleader for Home stated that it is under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. That apart, on
one hand, the letter addressed by the 4th respondent gives an impression that the offences alleged against the petitioners have been proved and on the
other hand, it is stated that the case is under investigation and the properties are to be attached, which is nothing but without application of mind.
9. Police officer has a power to seize certain property under Section 102 of the Code. For the sake of convenience, Section 102 of the Code is
extracted hereunder.
“Section 102 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.
(1) Any police officer, may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances
which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.
(3) 1 Every police officer acting under sub- section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property
seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking
to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same.]â€
10. No doubt, Section 102 of the Code provides assistance to the Investigating Officer to collect and collate evidence to be produced to prove the
charge complained of and set up in the charge sheet. However, said provision does not show that a police officer can seize an immovable property. In
fact, said provision is silent about the seizure of the immovable property by a police officer. Clause (3) of Section 102 makes it clear that where the
property seized is such that it cannot be, conveniently transported to the Court or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the
custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of
investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when
required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same, which means thereby, the Investigating Officer cannot
seize an immovable property. In the absence of specific power or authority on the part of the 4th respondent in issuing such letters to the respondent
Nos.5-9, with a direction not to entertain any documents for registration in respect of the subject properties, the same are illegal, arbitrary and violative
of principles of natural justice.
11. That apart, the language used in Section 102 of the Code also does not support the interpretation that the police officer has the power to dispossess
a person in occupation and take possession of immovable property in order to seize it. In the absence of the Legislature conferring this express or
implied power under Section 102 of the Code to the police officer, we would hesitate and not hold that this power should be inferred and is implicit in
the power to effect seizure.
12. Section 102 of the Code is not a general provision, which enables and authorizes the police officer to seize immovable property for being able to be
produced in the Criminal Court during the trial. This, however, would not bar or prohibit the police officer from seizing documents/papers of title
relating to immovable property, as it is distinct and different from the seizure of immovable property. Disputes and matters relating to the physical and
legal possession and title of the property must be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court. (See Nevada Properties Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra
& others (AIR 2019 SC 4554].
13. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent Nos.5-9 are also under no obligation to accede to the request made by the 4th respondent in not
entertaining any documents in respect of the subject property, since it is not in accordance with the principle/guidelines laid down in the full Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others v. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & others
(2016) 2 ALD 236 (FB) and also against the procedure under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908. In the said judgment, this Court laid down the
law/guidelines relating to the procedure to be followed under Section 22-A of the Act stating that the authorities mentioned in the guidelines, which are
obliged to prepare lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d), to be sent to the registering authorities under the provisions of Registration Act,
shall clearly indicate the relevant clause under which each property is classified and that the registering authorities would be justified in refusing
registration of documents in respect of the properties covered under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of section 22-A provided the authorities
contemplated under the guidelines, have communicated the lists of properties prohibited under these clauses and also that the concerned authorities,
which are obliged to furnish the lists of properties covered under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of section 22-A and the concerned registering
officers shall follow the guidelines scrupulously. In view of the above, the authorities under the Act of 1908 have to invariably follow the procedure
laid down under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908. Anything contrary to the rules made there under, is null and void and the authorities under the Act
cannot place any such properties under the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act, which is not in accordance with procedure
envisaged under said Section. For the sake of convenience, Section 22-A of the Registration Act is extracted hereunder.
“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).
(5) Notwithstanding anything in any judgment, decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or any other authority to the contrary no notification declaring that
the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy and the refusal of the same for registration under section 22-A of
the principal Act during the period with effect from 1st April 1999 being the date of commencement of the Registration (Telangana Amendment) Act,
1999 up to the date of the commencement of the Registration (Telangana Amendment) Act, 2006 substituting new section 22-A in the principal Act,
shall be deemed to be invalid and the refusal for registration of the said document deemed to have been validly refused for registration and accordingly
(a) no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any Court against the State Government or any person or authority whatsoever for
the purpose of registration and (b) no Court shall enforce any decree or order directing to register.â€
Clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A are concerned, it is clear that the concerned authority i.e., District Collectors in case of
properties covered by Clauses (a) and (b), Commissioner in case of Endowment and Secretary in case of Wakf Properties covered by clause (c ) and
the Special Officer and competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and Regulations in respect of the properties covered under clause (d)
have suo motu power to add to the list or delete form the list of any property and/or to modify the list sent to the registering officer, having jurisdiction
over such property and also to the District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General or to Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and
Stamps.
14. Admittedly, the letters addressed by the 4th respondent are not falling under any of the clauses mentioned under Section 22-A of the Act of 1908,
nor procedure envisaged there under is followed before issuance of impugned letters, as such, the respondent Nos.5 to 9 are under no obligation to act
upon such letter and deny transactions in respect of the properties of the petitioners. The respondent Nos. 5 to 9 have acted illegally and included the
properties of the petitioners in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act. The 4th respondent-Inspector of Police is not an
‘authority’ prescribed in Section 22-A of the Act of 1908 for preparation of list of properties to be communicated to the registering authorities
i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 9, for incorporating the same in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act.
In view of foregoing discussion and reasons, the impugned letters dated 18.01.2021 addressed by the 4th respondent to respondents-Sub-Registrars of
different areas of the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, are set aside. However, this order will not preclude the 4th respondent from
taking action against the petitioners/ properties belongs to the petitioners, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
these writ petitions, shall stand disposed of.
