Telangana High Court
Kunchala Srihari vs The State Of Telangana on 30 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
W.P.Nos.1303 of 2024 & 2895 and 7596 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
The Writ Petition No.1303 of 2024 is filed declaring
the action of the respondents in not taking any action on
the representations of the petitioners dated 13.12.2023 for
cancellation of the illegal sale deeds and assignment deeds
entered by the respondent Nos.5 to 15 fraudulently vide
Doc.No.13584/2022 dated 11.04.2022, Doc.No.11503/
2022 dated 25.03.2022, Doc.No.6819/2018 dated
02.03.2018, Doc.No.11985/2007 and 11986/2007 dated
31.05.2007, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently
direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to cancel the same.
2. The W.P.No.2895 of 2025 is filed declaring the
action of the respondent No.2 in not receiving and
registering the sale deed dated 24.01.2025 presented by the
petitioners in respect of the Plot No.140 admeasuring
166.66 Sq. Yards in Survey Nos.1001, 1002, 1003, 1004,
1006, 1008 and 1009 situated at Ameenpur Village without
reference to pendency of W.P.No.1303 of 2024.
::2::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batch
3. The W.P.No.7596 of 2025 is filed declaring the
action of the respondent No.4 in denying to register the
Sale Deeds presented by the petitioners in respect of Plot
No.97 admeasuring 166.66 Sq. Yards in Sy.Nos.1001,
1002, 1003, 1004, 1006, 1008 and 1009 situated at
Ameenpur Village, referring to the Interim Suspension
granted by this Hon’ble Court in I.A.No.2/2024 in
W.P.No.1303 of 2004 dated 12.01.2024.
4. The issue involved in all these writ petitions
pertains to the same subject property and consequential
orders. Therefore, these writ petitions are taken up for
hearing together and being disposed of by way of this
common order by taking W.P.No.1303 of 2024 as leading
case.
5. Heard Sri Vijay B Paropakari, learned counsel for
the petitioners in W.P.No.1303 of 2024, Smt. S. Sravanthi,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and
Registration appearing for the official respondents and
Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 8 and 13 in W.P.No.1303 of
::3::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batch2024 and learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.2895 and 7596 of 2025.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners purchased Plot Nos.114/C, 115/A and
115/B all forming part of Sy.No.1004 situated at Ameenpur
Village, Sangareddy District, through registered sale deeds
bearing Document Nos.5415/1984, 14882/2006 and
14881/2006, respectively. Their vendors have claimed the
title through the Industrial Employees Cooperative House
Building Society Ltd. (for brevity, “the Society”), which
purchased lands under several sale deeds and obtained
conversion (NALA) proceedings dated 18.06.1987 vide
Proc.No.E1-3091/87. The Society have laid out plots over
the said lands, which include the lands now claimed by the
petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that one C.J.Shyam Sunder, filed O.S.No.219 of
1982 on the file of II Additional Special Judge for Special
Police Establishment (SPE) and Anti-Corruption Bureau
(ACB), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking partition and
::4::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batchseparate possession of suit schedule properties against the
defendants and a compromise Decree was passed in the
said suit on 02.07.1991. Thereafter, the Society filed
O.S.No.338 of 2001 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking cancellation of
compromise Decree dated 02.07.1991 passed in
O.S.No.219 of 1982 on the ground of fraud and collusion
against the respondents herein. Aggrieved by the final
decree dated 08.04.2008 passed in I.A.No.3833/2007 in
O.S.No.219/1982 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the plot owners of Narayana
Rao Layout, who were not made parties in the suit,
preferred C.C.C.A.No.76 of 2016 before this Hon’ble Court
with leave petition. This Court was pleased to grant leave
by order dated 21.01.2016 and also filed
C.C.C.A.M.P.No.281 of 2016 in C.C.C.A.No.76 of 2016,
seeking stay of all further proceeding including execution of
the final decree pursuant to order dated 08.04.2008 passed
by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad in I.A.No.3833 of 2007 in O.S.No.219 of 1982.
This Court by order dated 15.06.2016 was pleased to grant
::5::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batchinterim stay as prayed for in respect of the land
admeasuring Ac.69.37 guntas comprising in Sy.Nos.37, 66,
69 to 71, 948, 949, 952 to 955, 1001 to 1004, 1006 to
1012, 1016, 1057, 1058, 1060 to 1063, 1110 to 1116,
1122, 1123 and 1129, situated at Ameenpur Village,
Patancheru Mandal, Medak District.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the respondent Nos.5 to 8 purchased Plot
Nos.158 and 158/A, admeasuring 281 Sq. Yards and 88.44
Sq. Yards respectively, totaling 369.44 Sq. Yards situated in
Sy.Nos.1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1006, 1008 and 1009 of
Ameenpur Municipality, Sangareddy District, under
registered Sale Deed No.13584/2022 dated 11.04.2022
from the respondent No.9 and the said land was previously
conveyed to the respondent No.9 by way of Sale Deeds
bearing Doc.Nos.11503/2022 dated 25.03.2022 and
6819/2018 dated 02.03.2018, which in turn were based on
Assignment Deeds bearing Document Nos.11985/2007 and
11986/2007 dated 31.05.2007 executed by the respondent
Nos.10 to 12, 14 and 15 in favour of the respondent No.13.
The said Assignment Deeds were registered in suppression
::6::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batchof Document No.8021/2008 and the dues of
Rs.27,96,000/- towards Government revenue, which were
pending as per DR Proceedings No.IR/3182/09 dated
08.04.2011. Despite the encumbrance entries and non-
payment of dues, the documents were registered and
formed the basis of subsequent transactions. Thereafter, a
representation dated 13.12.2023 was made to the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 seeking cancellation of the
Assignment and Sale Deeds under Sections 32 and 82 of
the Registration Act, 1908, but no action was initiated.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present Writ
Petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed rejoinder
denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit. It is
reiterated that the decree in O.S.No.219 of 1982 was
obtained collusively without impleading the Society and
other affected purchasers. The petitioners assert that
C.C.C.A.No.76 of 2016 was filed by similarly situated
persons who were not parties to the original suit. This
Court had granted interim stay of the final decree dated
08.04.2008 in I.A.No.3833 of 2007 in O.S.No.219 of 1982,
::7::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batchand the stay continues to operate. He further contends that
their possession has not been disturbed and the final
decree was passed solely on the report of the Commissioner
without considering the actual ground realities and the
decree holders failed to comply with the condition of
depositing Rs.29,00,000/- each with the Government, and
hence the execution is not valid. It is also urged that the
proceedings were vitiated by fraud and suppression and
that the Society had already obtained conversion to non-
agricultural status in 1987 and requested this Court to
allow the writ petition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on
instructions, submits that the petitioners did not inform
about the interim order of this Court in
C.C.C.A.M.P.No.281 of 2016 in C.C.C.A.No.76 of 2016
dated 15.06.2016 to the Registering Authority before
registration of the documents and also before filing of the
Writ Petition.
::8::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batch
11. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for
the petitioners relied upon the following judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court:
(1) Venkannagari Naveen Rao Vs Joint Sub-Registrar-I,
Sangareddy and Another 1
(2) M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs The Excise and Taxation
Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Others 2,
(3) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Vs S.P.
Velayutham & Ors. 3
12. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 and
13, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that the writ
petition is not maintainable as it seeks cancellation of
registered sale deeds and assignment deeds, which involves
adjudication of disputed questions of fact and title, not
amenable to writ jurisdiction. He further submits that the
land admeasuring Ac.69-37 guntas including Sy.No.1004 of
Ameenpur Village was originally purchased by late
Dhankoti Mudaliar in the name of his minor son,
1(2012(4) ALD 142)
2 Civil Appeal No.5393/2010
3 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445Civil Appeal Nos.27522753 of 2022,
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) Nos.19662-19663 of 2021)
::9::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & BatchC.D.Ramchander. Subsequently, a suit for partition was
instituted by a family member in O.S.No.100/1981
(renumbered as O.S.No.219/1982) on the file of the VI
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the
said land was claimed to be a joint family property. During
the pendency of the suit, C.D.Ramchander, taking
advantage of revenue entries and a registered sale deed in
his name, alienated the land in favour of the Society
through whom the petitioners now claim title.
Subsequently, a preliminary decree for partition was
passed on 02.07.1991. The Society, being an alienee
pendente lite, filed O.S.No.338/2001, seeking cancellation
of the said preliminary decree on the grounds of fraud and
collusion. However, the said suit was dismissed by the Trial
Court on 22.07.2003 holding that the land was a joint
family property and C.D.Ramchander was only entitled to
alienate his 1/3rd undivided share. The appeal preferred by
the Society in C.C.C.A.No.19 of 2004 was also dismissed,
thereby confirming the Trial Court’s Judgment, which has
since attained finality. Pursuant to that, the decree holders
in O.S.No.219/1982 assigned their respective shares to
::10::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batchrespondent No.13 (M/s. K.S.R. Constructions & Real
Estates Pvt. Ltd.) through registered Assignment Deeds
dated 31.05.2007. A final decree was subsequently passed
on 08.04.2008 based on the report of the Advocate
Commissioner and possession of the lands including
Sy.No.1004 was delivered by the Bailiff on 25.05.2009 to
the decree holders, who in turn handed it over to
respondent No.13. The respondent No.13 thereafter sold
Plot Nos.158 and 158/A to respondent No.9 through
registered sale deeds dated 21.02.2018 and 24.03.2022,
who in turn sold the same to respondent Nos.5 to 8 vide
registered document dated 11.04.2022. It is further
submitted that the disputes raised by the petitioners,
claiming through the Society are barred by the conclusive
findings recorded in C.C.C.A.No.19 of 2004 and other
related proceedings, and therefore, they lack locus standi to
seek cancellation of the sale or assignment deeds and
requested to dismiss the writ petition.
13. In support of his argument, learned counsel for
the respondents relied upon the following judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court:
::11::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batch(1) Y. Ramalakshmi Vs State of Telangana and Ors. 4,
14. After hearing both sides and on perusing the
entire material on record, this Court is of the considered
view that the petitioners questioning the inaction of the
official respondents in not disposing the representations
dated 13.12.2023, for cancellation of the sale deeds entered
by respondent Nos.5 to 15 vide Doc.No.13584/2022 dated
11.04.2022, Doc.No.11503/2022 dated 25.03.2022,
Doc.No.6819/2018 dated 02.03.2018, Doc.No.11985/2007
and 11986/2007 dated 31.05.2007. Admittedly, the
representations made by the petitioners are seeking
cancellation of the documents registered vide
Doc.No.11985/2007 and 11986/2007 dated 31.05.2007,
but in the present writ petition, the petitioners also prayed
for cancellation of the Documents registered vide
Doc.No.13584/2022 dated 11.04.2022, Doc.No.11503/
2022 dated 25.03.2022, on the ground that this Court has
passed interim orders dated 15.06.2016 in
C.C.C.A.M.P.No.281 of 2016 in C.C.C.A.No.76 of 2016.
4 2023 SCC OnLine TS 2727
5 2016 10 SCC 767
::12::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batch
15. In fact, after hearing the arguments made on
either side, this Court has questioned the learned counsel
for the petitioner with regard to the communication of the
Orders dated 15.06.2016, passed by this Court to the
respondent authorities and the learned counsel for the
petitioner has fairly conceded that there is no such
communication to the respondent authorities before the
registration of the documents which are executed by the
un-official respondents. In view of the same, the question
of cancellation of documents basing on the representations
dated 13.12.2023, does not arise and moreover, the
petitioner herein without approaching the competent Civil
Court for cancellation of the documents executed by the
un-official respondents, filed the instant writ petition,
which is not maintainable as per law and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
16. Admittedly, there are decrees for suit schedule
property, wherein this Court has passed Judgment and
Decree dated 23.01.2007 in C.C.C.A.No.19 of 2004 and
thereafter, the Final Decree was also passed in O.S.No.219
of 1982 on 08.04.2008. Subsequently, some third parties
::13::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batchhave filed C.C.C.A.No.76 of 2016 and obtained the orders
for interim stay as prayed for. In fact, either the petitioners
or the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and 13 are not parties in the
above appeal, in view of the same, the said orders are not
binding on them. As such, there are no merits in the writ
petition and is liable to be dismissed.
17. Further, the Judgments that are relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the
present case on hand, wherein the facts of those cases are
not relevant to the facts of the instant writ petition. If the
petitioners have any further grievance, they are at liberty to
approach the competent Civil Court for cancellation of the
documents executed by the un-official respondents.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 8
and 13 relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Y. Ramalakshmi Vs State of Telangana and
Ors. (supra 4) and relevant portion at Para Nos.12 and 13
of the, reads as under:
“12. Thus, the law on this aspect is well settled. In all
cases of registration of cancellation deed, without all the
parties consenting for the same, registration of such
cancellation deed is impermissible under law and such
::14::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batchregistrations are contrary to Rule 26 (k) of Telangana
Rules under Registration Act, 1908. The Honourable
Apex Court in the recent judgment in Asset
Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. S.P.
Velayuthams held that in case of violation of any rule or
provision of Registration Act or failure of registering
authorities in following the law, this Court is well within
its power to entertain Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for cancellation or setting aside
of such documents registered by the parties. The
relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
“58. Therefore, in the light of (i) the Tamilnadu
Registration Rules discussed above; (ii) the
statutory scheme of Sections 32 to 35 of the Act as
well as other provisions as amended by the State of
Tamilnadu; and (iii) the distinction between a
challenge to the first 2 steps in the process of
execution of a document and the third step
concerning registration, we are of the considered
view that the Division bench of the High Court was
not right in setting aside the order of the learned
single Judge, If the Registering Officer under the Act
is construed as performing only a mechanical role
without any independent mind of his own, then
even Government properties may be sold and the
documents registered by unscrupulous persons
driving the parties to go to civil court. Such an
interpretation may not advance the cause of justice.
59. Therefore, in fine, the appeals are allowed, the
impugned order of the Division Bench is set aside
and the order of the learned single Judge is
restored. There will be no order as to costs.”
13. Coming to the citations relied upon by the learned
counsel for the un-official respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in
Satyapal Anand case (supra) and P. Veda Kumari case
(supra) are concerned, the said judgments have no
application to the case on hand. The case of Satyapal
Anand (supra) is a case of disputed question of fact and
there is no rule like Rule 26 (1)(k)(i) of Telangana Rules
came up for consideration in the said case. In the
instant case, there are no disputed questions of facts
are involved. In so far as P. Veda Kumari case (supra) is
concerned, the said judgment categorically held that
::15::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batchunilateral cancellation of previously registered
document was permissible only prior to the introduction
of Rule 26 (i) (k) but not thereafter. In the instant case,
admittedly the document in question was registered on
28.05.2014 and whereas the Rule 26 (i) (k) (i) was
introduced with effect from 29.11.2006 and was further
amended with effect from 02.06.2014. Therefore, the
said judgment in Veda Kumar case is also of no help to
advance the case of respondent Nos. 3 to 6.”
19. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 8
and 13 relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
and Ors. (supra 5) and relevant portion at Para Nos.34
and 40, reads as under:
“34. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands
discharged, once the document is registered (see Raja
Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan7). Section 17 of the 1908
Act deals with documents which require compulsory
registration. Extinguishment deed is one such document
referred to in Section 17(1)(b). Section 18 of the same Act
deals with documents, registration whereof is optional.
Section 20 of the Act deals with documents containing
interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. Section
21 provides for description of property and maps or plans
and Section 22 deals with the description of houses and
land by reference to government maps and surveys.
There is no express provision in the 1908 Act which
empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The
fact whether the document was properly presented for
registration cannot be reopened by the Registrar after its
registration. The power to cancel the registration is a
substantive matter. In absence of any express provision
in that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Sub-
Registrar (Registration) would be competent to cancel the
registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the
power of the Inspector General is limited to do
superintendence of Registration Offices and make rules
::16::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batchin that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power
to cancel the registration of any document which has
already been registered.
40. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Yanala
Malleshwari was called upon to consider whether a
person can nullify the sale by executing and registering a
cancellation deed and whether the Registering Officer like
District Registrar and/or Sub-Registrar appointed by the
State Government is bound to refuse registration when a
cancellation deed is presented. The fact remains that if
the stipulation contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the
1908 Act are fulfilled, the Registering Officer is bound to
register the document. The Registering Officer can refuse
to register a document only in situations mentioned in
sections such as Sections 19 to 22, 32 and 35. At the
same time, once the document is registered, it is not open
to the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even
if his attention is invited to some irregularity committed
during the registration of the document. The aggrieved
party can challenge the registration and validity of the
document before the civil court. The majority view of the
Full Bench was that if a person is aggrieved by the
extinguishment deed or its registration, his remedy is to
seek appropriate relief in the civil court and a writ
petition is not the proper remedy.”
20. The findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
above said Judgments submitted by the counsel for the
respondent Nos.5 to 8 and 13 would squarely apply to the
instant case and the petitioners has to approach the
competent civil court for cancellation of registered
documents and moreover, merely basing on the
representations, the petitioners want to cancel the
::17::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & Batchregistered documents, which were not mentioned in the
representations and it cannot be acceptable.
21. In view of the above findings, the W.P.No.1303 of
2024 is dismissed.
22. In view of dismissal of W.P.No.1303 of 2024, the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.2895 and 7596 of 2025 are at liberty
to present the documents before the Registering Authority
for registration. After presenting the documents of the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.2895 and 7596 of 2025, the
Registering Authorities are directed to receive, register and
release the same, if those are otherwise in order more
particularly under the provisions of the Registration Act,
1908 as well as the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It will be open
to the Registering Authority to refuse the documents
presented before him, if he has any objection, by duly
assigning reasons in support of such decision and
communicate the said decision to the petitioner.
23. Accordingly, the W.P.Nos.2895 and 7596 of 2025
are disposed of with the above direction. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
::18::
SK, J
WP_1303_2024 & BatchMiscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date: 30.07.2025
spk