Sub-registrar cannot cancel sale deed on tahsildar's word: Hyderabad High Court

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Wednesday set aside an order of a single judge who held that the sub registrar had the power to cancel sale deeds on the recommendation of the tahsildar concerned.

A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganthan and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili was dealing with an appeal by city resident Vatumalli Lakshmi Prasa-nna and others challenging the order of a single judge.

The single judge in September had upheld the action of the joint sub-registrar-I, Sangareddy, who on August 16 had cancelled the deeds registered in 2007.

The single judge said under Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Rules, 1960, prior consent and presence of all parties to a previously registered document was not needed. An authorised officer can unilaterally present the deed of cancellation and aggrieved parties have to avail the civil law remedies as available to them.

Counsel appearing for the appellants said the land was in the possession of appellants and cancelling the deeds without issuing notices was against the law. He reminded the bench that in a similar case another single judge had differed with the order of the single judge.

Telangana state advocate-general D. Prakash Reddy told the court that the land being claimed by the appellants belonged to the government. All transactions on the land parcels had been banned in 1996, he said.

The bench said though the tahsildar’s recommendation to the sub registrar to cancel the deeds was apparently illegal, the issue needed a hearing in view of the government’s claim. The bench remanded the matter to the single judge.

Farmer waits 8 years for relief
The Hyderabad High Court expressed anger at the delay in paying compensation to farmers and landowners under the Land Acquisition Act.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili while dealing with a contempt appeal said that it would not countenance displaced persons and farmers having to roam around officers for years for compensation.

The bench said, “The officer cannot by escape stating that he has recently taken charge and that the earlier officer was responsible for the delay.”

The bench cautioned that it would initiate action against officers who were in charge since from the initiation of land acquisition proceedings. 

The bench said that if such an attitude continued they would suo motu implead the Chief Secretary.

The bench was dealing with a contempt appeal by Sircilla revenue divisional officer N. Pandurangam challenging an order of a single judge who had sentenced him to one month simple imprisonment with a fine of '1,500 in a contempt of court case. 

While staying the sentence, the bench said the appellant had to pay the fine imposed against him.

Mr B. Balaji, a resident of Sarampally, moved the High Court in 2005 stating that the officers had not assessed the value of the land which was acquired from him. A single judge ordered the RDO in 2009 to assess the land value as per market rate and pay the compensation after deducting '2.45 lakh already paid.

When the RDO failed to pay the amount, Mr Balaji moved a contempt case in 2010 and a single judge in October 2017 imposed the sentence on the RDO. 

TS counsel informed the bench that the RDO had  taken charge in March and they had already paid Rs 4.10 lakh additional compensation to the petitioner. The bench asked what they were doing till 2017 when the order for compensation passed in 2009. While staying the sentence the bench adjourned the case.