Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of Telangana High Court directed the state government to explain how it had permitted industrial units to function in the residential area at Azamabad. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti was dealing with a letter addressed to the court in 2017. The letter complained that the government was not taking action against the lessees of 136 acres and 14 guntas of land in Azamabad, where third parties had constructed residential houses in small portions. Giving permission was contrary to the Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination & Regulation of Leases) Act. When the government stated that it had taken necessary all steps to prevent this, N. Naveen Kumar, counsel for Agarwal Industries, argued that it could not be dispossessed while it had a valid subsisting lease, other than by the procedure laid down by law. The bench granted three weeks for the government pleader to file a counter affidavit as to how Agarwal Industries can be permitted to run an industry in a residential area and, if so, under which provision of law.
HC upholds Sec. 22 of Registration Act
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court junked a challenge to the legality of Section 22A of the Registration Act. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar dismissed a bunch of seven writ petitions and two writ appeals claiming the provision as being a product of legislative non-competence, unbridled power and being contrary to the parent enactment. Section 22A, introduced in 1999, provided that documents can be refused for registration if they are opposed to public policy. The petitioners said it did not have Presidential assent. It was also alleged that the state cannot decide its own title, which is the effect of the amendment. The bench speaking through Chief Justice Aradhe found that the provision has been incorporated to empower the government not to register documents opposed to public policy. The object is to protect vacant land as well as properties in which the government has either awarded or accrued interest, properties belonging to local bodies as well as religious and charitable institutions and wakf. The bench also reasoned that registration does not by itself create any title. The action of non-registration does not prevent a person from the right to enjoy the property. The contention that it violated Article 300A was misconceived, the bench. The bench also found that government had issued guidelines for exercising the power.
HC refuses to quash case on sub-registrar
Justice K. Surender of the Telangana High Court ruled that the key consideration for prior sanction for prosecution of a public servant is that the act complained of should be “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.” The judge refused to quash at the trial stage a criminal case lodged against Rachakonda sub-registrar Srinivasa Rao, accused in a criminal case before the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally. The allegation against him was that he had colluded with real estate brokers and other persons including a lawyer for the purpose of fabricating documents and selling plots of the TNGOs House Building Cooperative Society in Mailardevipally. The petitioner said it was not his duty to verify the veracity of the documents. During investigation, it was found that nine documents were registered on May 24, 2016. In four registrations, the photograph of Accused No. 3 was affixed as purchaser with different names and addresses. Six other documents were also registered on the same day in respect of the same society. The judge said that it cannot be said that the petitioner as registering officer could not observe that the very same person was appearing as purchaser in four different documents with different names. “The circumstances in the case clearly indicate that this petitioner was part of the criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of such conspiracy has registered the documents. Conspiracies are hatched in secrecy and there cannot be any direct evidence. However, in the present case, the circumstances clearly indicate that the petitioner was involved in registering documents having knowledge about its falsity,” Justice Surender said. He said that a reading of Section 197 of CrPC would clarify the situation when sanction is needed. A public servant alleged to have committed an offence while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty commits any offence without any intent requires sanction. The words “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” would mean that the public servant while discharging his duty commits any acts attracting penal consequences, though done unintentionally would require sanction. Entering into criminal conspiracy with other accused and registering documents causing wrongful loss to persons and thereby wrongful gain to the co-conspirators will not entail any protection under Section 197 of CrPC
