AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
With the consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned Letter No.3786/Appeal/2026, dated 11.06.2026, issued by respondent No.3, and consequently, to direct respondent No.4 to process, register and release the Sale Deed dated 17.02.2026, which is presently kept as Pending Document No.P.02/2026.
Heard Sri M. Sharath Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject property, being part of Plot No.399 situated in Sy.Nos.381, 382, 383, 384 and 387 of Rampally Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, presently falling within Medchal-Malkajgiri District, was originally conveyed in favour of one Vallurupalli Nageshwar Rao by one A. Ramana Reddy under Document No.4361/2016 dated 20.05.2016. Thereafter, Vallurupalli Nageshwar Rao executed a registered AGPA-cum-GPA in favour of Madhan Mohan and N. Sudhakar Reddy under Document No.14725/2019 dated 14.08.2019. The said GPA holders, in turn, executed a Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner on 17.02.2026, which was presented before respondent No.4 for registration. However, respondent No.4 refused to register the said document vide Refusal Order No.1/2026 dated 19.02.2026 and assigned Pending Document No.P.02/2026, placing reliance upon the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. No.11957 of 2024, whereby status quo was directed to be maintained in respect of the survey numbers comprising the subject property. It is further submitted that the said order was passed without taking into consideration the material fact that the subject property, namely Plot No.399, had already been regularized under the HMDA LRS proceedings bearing No.001535/LPS/HMDA/Plg./2010 dated 16.08.2011. Aggrieved by the refusal order dated 19.02.2026, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3. However, the said appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation, without considering the fact that Plot No.399 had already been regularized under the aforesaid LRS proceedings. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the reasons assigned by respondent No.4, submits that the refusal to register the document was on account of the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. No.11957 of 2024 and that respondent No.3 rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation as the said appeal was preferred beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.
Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to remand the matter to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration, without reference to the aspect of limitation.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to reconsider the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh on merits, without reference to the aspect of limitation and by duly taking into consideration the regularization of Plot No.399 under the HMDA LRS proceedings bearing No.001535/LPS/HMDA/Plg./2010 dated 16.08.2011, and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.