Registration cannot be denied without gazette notification under Sec 22-A: HC | Hyderabad News

Hyderabad: Telangana high court has held that registration of land cannot be refused merely because the property is included in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, unless a gazette notification has been issued identifying such properties.The court also ruled that registration cannot be denied on the basis of internal correspondence between govt departments.Justice Renuka Yara passed the order on Friday while allowing a batch of four writ petitions filed by purchasers whose documents were not registered on the ground that the lands were allegedly included in the prohibitory list as properties belonging to Sri Gattupathi Venkateshwara Swamy temple.Setting aside the earlier refusal orders, the court directed registration authorities to register the disputed lands situated in Chinthapally village and mandal of Nalgonda district, subject to compliance with other legal requirements.According to the petitioners, they sought registration of sale deeds relating to 2.24 acres, 4.05 acres, 2.24 acres and 5.17 acres in different survey numbers. They contended that the lands were private patta properties and that occupancy rights certificates (ORCs), pattadar passbooks and title deeds had been issued in favour of their predecessors by the revenue authorities.The petitioners also relied on a no objection certificate issued by the revenue divisional officer in 2009, pursuant to which an earlier sale deed covering a larger extent had been registered.They argued that registration authorities could not refuse registration solely on the basis of communications from the endowments department, particularly when no gazette notification had been issued under Section 22-A (2) of the Registration Act prohibiting registration of the land.Opposing the pleas, the endowments department contended that the lands formed part of a Nizam-era grant made to the temple for its daily rituals and festivals. The department alleged that the occupancy certificates had been obtained through misrepresentation and maintained that the properties had been handed over to it pursuant to earlier proceedings.Justice Renuka Yara observed that the revenue records produced by the authorities themselves reflected the names of private individuals, while certain proceedings of the endowments department claimed temple ownership, giving rise to competing claims over title.The court held that registration authorities cannot refuse registration solely on the basis of internal departmental communications in the absence of the mandatory gazette notification under Section 22-A.Accordingly, the court set aside the refusal orders issued in March 2013 and the appellate orders passed in May 2015, and directed the authorities to register the sale deeds, if otherwise in accordance with law.The court, however, clarified that the endowments department is at liberty to approach the endowments tribunal to establish its ownership claim over the properties.