Mr. Mohammed Asrar Ahmed Siddiqui vs. The State Of Telangana And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioners, IVR. I/OHAIVTVIED ASRAR AHN4ED SIDDIQUI and IVIR, JANUZAI IRSHAD AHIVED KHAN, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by Respondent No.2. The petitioners sought directions to Respondent No.3, the Sub-Registrar, Azampura, Hyderabad, to receive, process, register, and release sale deeds for three specific flats. The dispute appears to be related to the registration of these sale deeds, with an interim order previously granted by the Court directing the respondents to proceed with registration subject to certain conditions. The learned counsel for both sides submitted that the matter is covered by a common order passed by the High Court in a batch of writ petitions.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the common order passed in WP.No.328 of 2022 and batch, dated 18.02.2022, as modified by the order dated 22.02.2022 in IA.No.2 of 2022 in WP.No.2985 of 2022 and batch. The Court noted that an interim order had been previously passed in this writ petition, directing the respondents to receive, process, register, and release the subject document(s), with conditions that the petitioners could not withdraw the petition and registration was subject to the final outcome. The Court acknowledged the submission that the subject matter is covered by the aforementioned common orders. Consequently, the Court directed that if the subject document(s) have already been registered and released in compliance with the interim order, no further action is needed. If the documents are not yet registered and released, the Sub-Registrar is directed to register and release them, subject to the conditions stipulated in the common order, which include making an endorsement on the document and encumbrance records regarding the outcome of relevant court cases and potential violations of law, such as lack of 30 feet road width access.

Key Issues

1. Whether the registration of sale deeds for the subject properties should be directed, considering the interim order already granted and the submission that the matter is covered by a common order of this Court. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the matter is squarely covered by the common order of the High Court in WP.No.328 of 2022 and batch, dated 18.02.2022, as modified by the order dated 22.02.2022 in IA.No.2 of 2022 in WP.No.2985 of 2022 and batch. They contended that keeping the matter pending would serve no purpose and it should be disposed of in terms of these orders. Revenue's contention: The Revenue did not record any specific arguments against the petitioners' submission regarding the common order. The Court noted the submissions of learned counsel on either side.