JUDGMENT : Writ Petition No. 12124 of 2023 1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “…declaring the action of the respondents in passing Refusal Order No.46/2023 dt.04.03.2023 refusing to register the Sale Deed pending document No.112 of 2023 with regard to the House bearing Municipal No.256/D/8/5/27 (PTIN No.1219992785), Plot No.27, admeasuring 300 sq.yards., situated at Khanamet village, GHMC Serilingampally Circle, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on the ground of Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 dt.10.06.2021 issued by the District Collector and also on the Letter No.B/1751/2017 dt.16.06.2017 issued by the 5th respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to receive, register and release the Sale Deed Pending document No.112 of 2023 submitted by the petitioner for registration with regard to the House bearing Municipal No.2-56/D/8/5/27 (PTIN No.1219992785) Plot No.27, admeasuring 300 sq.yards., situated at Khanamet village, GHMC Serilingampally Circle Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (subject property) without reference to the Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 dt.10.06.2021 issued by the District Collector and the Letter No.B/1751/2017 dt.16.06.2017 issued by the 5th respondent…” 2. The facts of the case in brief are that petitioner claims to be purchaser of subject plot from one Smt.Settipalli Lalitha and others who acquired the title to the property from one Mr.Jaya Rao having purchased vide registered sale deed and constructed house after obtaining permission from GHMC and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, approached respondent No.3 for registration of the subject plot in his favour, however, respondent No.3 refused to register the same and assigned pending Doc.No.P.112/2023 and passed refusal order No.46/2023 dated 04.03.2023 on the ground that the District Collector vide Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 dated 10.06.2021 declared the land in Sy.No.41/11 situated at Khanamet as Government land and prohibited for registration. The further reason is that as per the letter No.B/1751/2017 dated 16.06.2017, issued by the Tahsildar, Serilingampally, the land is assigned land and hence the registration of sale cannot be entertained. It is further submitted that prior to the above said letter, the District Collector issued notification dated 26.09.2013 calling for objections and suggestions for inclusion of the lands in the prohibitory register under Section 22(A)(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’ hereinafter). However, the said notification was set aside by an order of this Court in W.P.No.19069 of 2014 dated 25.08.2014. 4. However, the said notification was set aside by an order of this Court in W.P.No.19069 of 2014 dated 25.08.2014. 4. Thereafter, no notification was issued by the Government notifying the subject lands under the prohibitory register under Section 22-A of the Act. The petitioner’s further case is that since no final notification has been issued by the Government, respondent authorities cannot refuse registration on the basis of draft notification. It is further submitted that the letter was issued by respondent No.5 dated 16.06.2017 circulating list of Government lands for prohibition of registrations and in the said letter, the subject land in Sy.No.41/11 was not at all mentioned and hence the refusal order of respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the lands are private lands but the Government have shown the subject lands as Government lands and prohibited the same for registration. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. This Court on 26.06.2023 has granted an interim order directing respondent No.3 i.e., the Joint Sub- Registrar to receive and register the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property. However, it is made clear that the registration would be subject to final result of the writ petition. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Joint Sub- Registrar, Ranga Reddy District i.e., respondent No.3 herein and would submit that petitioner has submitted a sale deed and the same was refused for registration on 30.01.2023 and the reasons for refusal had been informed through intimation of refusal on the same day to the parties to the document. The document was refused for registration vide Rule 161 (XVII) of Telangana Registration Rules and also on the instructions of Commissioner Inspector General, Stamps and Registration, Telangana since the property impugned is Government land as per list furnished by District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and constructions were made without approval of the competent authority. It is further submitted that the subject land in Sy.No.44/11 situated at Khanamet Village is a Government land as per the list furnished in Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 dated 10.06.2021 in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 238 of Telangana Registration Rules and Section 22(1)(a)(i) of the Act. It is further submitted that the subject land in Sy.No.44/11 situated at Khanamet Village is a Government land as per the list furnished in Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 dated 10.06.2021 in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 238 of Telangana Registration Rules and Section 22(1)(a)(i) of the Act. It is further submitted that no notification has been issued by the Government notifying the lands under Section 22-A of the Act whereas Rule 238 of the Rules formulated by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.121 dated 01.06.2016 in pursuance of the orders of the High Court empowers the District Collector to furnish lists of immovable properties falling under clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 22-A of the Act including any subsequent additions, deletions or modification to the District Registrar concerned. The District Collector is authorized to sign to the list so furnished to the Registration Department. 7. It is further submitted that as per the list of prohibited properties under Section 5(2) of Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 vide Lr.No.B/1751/2017 dated 16.06.2017, Sy.No.44/1 is mentioned as assigned land and Section 5(1) of Telangana Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 authorizes the Revenue Authority and not below the rank of MRO/Tahsildar to send such communications. It is further submitted that the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana directed not to register such unauthorized plots vide Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 26.08.2020 and hence the impugned document was refused on that ground also. Making the aforesaid submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader pray this Court to vacate the interim order dated 26.06.2023 and dismiss the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in W.P.No.16109 of 2024 has set aside the letter in Lr.No.E5/2825/2024 dated 10.06.2024 vide its order dated 19.07.2024. In the said order, this Court has referred to certain guidelines issued by the Full Bench of this Court in M/s. Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. Revenue Department , 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407. The relevant paragraph Nos.12 and 13 are extracted hereunder for reference: “12. It is also pertinent to note that in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary (Supra) at paragraph 156 the Full Bench of this Court had summarized and issued directions. The relevant paragraph Nos.12 and 13 are extracted hereunder for reference: “12. It is also pertinent to note that in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary (Supra) at paragraph 156 the Full Bench of this Court had summarized and issued directions. As per the Guideline (v), no notification is contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 22(A) of the Act with respect to the properties falling under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22(A). As stated earlier, as per Guideline (vi), the properties covered under clause (e) of Section 22-A shall be notified in the official Gazette of the State Governments and shall be forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the relevant notification/Gazette, to the concerned registering authorities under the provisions of the Act and shall also place the said notification/Gazette on the websites of both the State Governments. 13. As such, the letter dated 10.06.2021 in Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 and the similar letter dated 29.09.2021 in which reference of letter dated 10.06.2021 was made, are only letters submitted by District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to District Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department, Ranga Reddy District for taking further necessary action and that cannot be the basis for refusal for registration of the subject property. It is also pertinent to note that subsequently, no notification was issued by respondent authorities with respect to the list of lands mentioned in the letter dated 10.06.2022. In view of the same, letter dated 10.06.2021 in Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 and the similar letter dated 29.09.2021 submitted by District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to District Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department, Ranga Reddy District are not in consonance to the provisions of Section 22-A of the Act and 22(A)(1)(e) and Clause (vi) of the guidelines and the same cannot be referred for the purpose of denying registration of the subject properties. Consequently, reference made vide Lr.No.E5/2825/2021, dated 10.06.2021 and similar letter dated 29.09.2021 are per se illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and are hereby set aside and writ petition stands allowed. Registering Authorities are directed to receive, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamps Act, 1899. Registering Authorities are directed to receive, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamps Act, 1899. It is also open to the Registering Authority to refuse to register the subject document, by specifically assigning the reasons in terms of Section 71 of the Act, 1908 and communicate the said decision to the petitioner.” 9. The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar has placed a copy of instructions through learned Assistant Government Pleader and would submit that as per the Wasool Baqui, the old Sy.No.55 corresponding to New Sy.No.41 to an extent of 252.24 is classified as poramboke and as per Sethwar the said land belongs to Government. It is further submitted that in the year 1962, the land in Sy.No.41 to an extent of Ac.47-00 gts., was assigned to 13 persons and from the documents, it is evident that the land in Sy.No.41/11 admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts., has been assigned to one N.Mallaiah and the names of the assignees have been brought on record. Later, it is noticed that the assignee/LR of assignee have sold the said assigned land in contravention of the assignment rules. The purchasers of the said assigned land have developed the same into residential layout illegally and sold to various persons against the rules. As such the act of transfer of assigned lands is prohibited under the provisions of AP(TS) Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and the subject land is also included in the prohibited list as per Section 22-A of the Act. 10. When the matter was taken up on 06.11.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instructions whether the subject property has been registered in terms of interim order passed by this Court and sought time to verify the same. Thereafter, on 12.11.2024, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue sought time to get instructions and on 29.11.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject document was registered. 11. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 12. Thereafter, on 12.11.2024, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue sought time to get instructions and on 29.11.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject document was registered. 11. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 12. It is pertinent to note that in the refusal order, the Office of District Registrar has refused to register the subject property as per the list furnished by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 dated 10.06.2021, however, the said letter was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.16109 of 2024 dated 19.07.2024. Therefore, rejection of registration on the said ground is not sustainable. It is further to be noted that the notification in R.R.No.86 dated 26.09.2013 issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District is only calling for objections from all the affected persons. In the said notification, the name of the assignee/allotee/owner of the subject property in Sy.No.41/11 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-00 gts., is shown as Nukala Mallaiah S/o. Venkataiah. However, the said notification was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.19069 of 2014 dated 25.08.2014. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “12. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the SubRegistrar to receive and process the deeds of conveyance without reference to the District Gazette notification dated 26.09.2013 in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. However, it is open to the registering authority to refuse to register the deeds presented before him, if he has any other objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicate the decision to the petitioners. It is made clear that mere registration of deed of conveyance does not confer title to the property and it is made clear that this order does not preclude the Government to take appropriate steps as warranted by law and to assert its title. No costs.” 13. The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal issued a letter to the Joint Registrar, Prashanthi Nagar, Moosapet directing him to furnish latest list of Government lands. In the said list furnished by the joint Registrar, the subject lands in Khanamet Village were also included. No costs.” 13. The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal issued a letter to the Joint Registrar, Prashanthi Nagar, Moosapet directing him to furnish latest list of Government lands. In the said list furnished by the joint Registrar, the subject lands in Khanamet Village were also included. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of prohibited properties list issued by Registration and Stamps Department, Government of Telangana wherein the subject land in Sy.No.41/11 was shown as Government land and the reason was stated as Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 dated 10.06.2021. However, the said letter was set aside by this Court as stated supra. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case would rely on similar orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.45748/2022; 45731/2022; 19223/2022; 35755/202 and 30967/2021. 15. In the present case, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar i.e., respondent No.5 claims the subject property as Government land and submit that they are placed under prohibited list. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject document was registered. Hence, for removal of the subject property from the prohibited list, the petitioner may make an application under Section 22- A(4) of the Act as was held in M/s. Invectra Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh , 2024 (1) ALT 272 . The relevant paragraph is as follows: “29. It was further held that sub-section (4) of Section 22A of the Act provides a remedy to an aggrieved party to approach the State Government for deletion of his property from the notification. It has further been held that if any such application is made, the competent authority has to afford an opportunity of hearing and an opportunity to produce materials/documents in support of such a claim. The claim made by an aggrieved person has to be dealt with by a speaking order. It has further been held that in case such an application is made under Section 22A(4) of the Act, the same has to be decided within a period of three months. It has also been held that the mechanism provided under Section 22A(4) of the Act shall not preclude the parties to file any other appropriate proceeding, including civil suit, for similar or appropriate relief.” 16. It has also been held that the mechanism provided under Section 22A(4) of the Act shall not preclude the parties to file any other appropriate proceeding, including civil suit, for similar or appropriate relief.” 16. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court in similar circumstances (cited supra) the refusal order No.46/2023 dated 04.03.2023 is hereby set aside and taking into account the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject document has already been registered, it is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer title on the subject property and it is also made clear that this order would not have any bearing on all those matters where title/rights of the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision/appeals for adjudication and in any other case this order also does not preclude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of law. This order also would not preclude the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance to law. However, for further conveyance of the subject property, the petitioner may avail appropriate remedy as available under law as observed by this Court in M/s. Invectra Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 17. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. 18. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.