Telangana High Court
Mohammed Farooq Ali Khan And 5 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 22 Others on 20 January, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.37146 of 2022
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“…the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction
more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the
actions, of the official respondents, more particularly, respondent No.4 in
registering and granting succession, mutation of revenue records
(including Dharani Portal) and issuing pattadar passbook (vide
No.T0516004157) in the name of respondent No.10 vide transaction
No.2100908340 dated 04.10.2021 and in subsequently registering
documents (Sale Deeds) in favour of respondent Nos.20, 21 and 22 vide
document Nos.2258/2021, 2259/2021, 2260/2021, 2261/2021,
2263/2021, 2264/2021, 2265/2021, 2266/2021, 2267/2021, 2268/2021,
2269/2021, 2402/2021, 2403/2021, 513/2022 and 778/2022 and
declaring the action of issuing passbooks vide Nos.T05160041057,
T05160041058 and T05160041061; and in making entries in Dharani
Portal, with respect to land belonging to the petitioners admeasuring
Ac.103-35 guntas, situated at Sy.Nos.181/1 (Ac.13-08 Gts), 181/2
(Ac.16-05 Gts), 181/3 (Ac.40-38 Gts), 181/4 (Ac.15-35 Gts.), 181/6
(Ac.10-29 Gts.), 182 (Ac.10-29 Gts.) and 181/3 (Ac.9-21 Gts.), Nagaram
Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana;
Despite(1) Orders of Revenue Divisional Officer (Official Respondent
No.3) vide proceedings A2/2708/2017 dated 19-06-2019, (2) Orders of
Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy vide Proceedings D5/2352/2021 dated:
08-02-2021, (3) Orders in W.P.No.10912 of 2021 dated: 27.04.2021,
and the non compliance of Unofficial Respondent No.10 of the said order
(4) Orders in W.P. No. 8145 of 2006 dated 21-04-2006 (also order in
W.P.M.P.No.10411 of 2006 dated: 05-06-2006), (5) Orders in I.A.333 in
2019 in O.S.315 of 2019 dated: 25-02-2020 (also order in I.A.No.36 of
2021 in I.A.No.333 of 2019 dated: 21-01-2021), (6) The said survey
numbers being reflected in prohibited list of properties (Under Section
22A of Registration Act) of Official Respondent No.5 (Stamps and
Registration Department) vide Lr.No.D/867/2012 dated: 06/06/2012,
(7) Representations dated 15-02-2019 and 02-02-2021 without holding
2prior enquiry/assessment and (8) Without giving notice or affording an
opportunity to the Petitioners herein And to declare the inaction of the
Official Respondents with respect to representations of the petitioners
dated 14-03-2022, 31-03-2022 and 01-09-2022 as being illegal,
arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Rights and Land
and Pattadar Passbook Act, the Registration Act, the Indian Stamp Act
and in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India;
and consequently to set aside and cancel, the registration and granting of
succession, mutation of revenue records (including Dharani Portal) and
issuing pattadar passbook (vide No.T0516004157) in the name of
Unofficial Respondent No.10 vide transaction No.2100908340 dated
04.10.2021 and registration of documents by Official Respondents more
particularly Official Respondent No.4 vide document Nos.2258/2021,
2259/2021, 2260/2021, 2261/2021, 2263/2021, 2264/2021, 2265/2021,
2266/2021, 2267/2021, 2268/2021, 2269/2021, 2402/2021, 2403/2021,
513/2022 and 778/2022 and issuance of passbooks vide
Nos. T05160041057, T05160041058 and T05160041061; and the entries
made in the dharani portal with respect to the said transactions; and to
also consequently act upon the representations of the Petitioners dated
14-03-2022, 31-03-2022 and 01-09-2022 and also to pass such other
order or orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.”
2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners No.5 and 6
are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring
Ac. 103.35 guntas, situated in Sy.Nos.181/1 (Ac.13.08 guntas),
181/2 (Ac.16.05 guntas), 181/3 (Ac.40.38 guntas), 181/4
(Ac.15.35 guntas), 181/6 (Ac.10.29 guntas), 182 (Ac.10.29 guntas)
and 181/3 (Ac.9.21 guntas), Nagaram Village, Maheshwaram
Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana, by virtue of Agreement of
Sale cum General Power of Attorneys vide document bearing
No.6345/2005 dated 24.10.2005 and vide validation document
3
bearing No.7099/E/2005 dated 16.11.2005. The said property was
purchased by the petitioners No.5 and 6 from one Late Mohammed
Akber Ali Khan (father of petitioners No.2 to 4) and Mohammed
Farooq Ali Khan (petitioner No.1). The said vendors of the
petitioners No.5 and 6 became owners of the property by virtue of
oral gift (Hiba) from their father Late Mohammed Nawab Haji Khan.
3. It is stated that the names of the vendors of the petitioners
No.5 and 6 are recorded in the revenue records as enjoyers in the
Pahanies for the years 1973 to 1983 and until 2021, the name of
their father, Late Mohammed Nawab Haji Ali Khan was reflected as
the owner in the pahanies and other revenue records. The father of
the said vendors filed declaration under Agriculture Land Ceiling Act
of 1973, vide C.C.Nos.2049, 2048 and 4209/1/75 before the Land
Reform Tribunal. In the said declarations, Mohammed Nawab Haji
Khan, i.e. original pattadar of Sy.Nos.181/1 to 181/6 and 182 of
Nagaram Village, declared that he has gifted the said property to
the vendors of the petitioners in the year 1964-65 to an extent of
Ac.57.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.181/1, 181/2, 181/5 and a portion in
Sy.No.181/3 to his son Mohammed Akber Ali Khan and also gifted
Ac.46.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.181/3 part, 181/4 181/6 and 182 to his
second son Mohammed Farooq Ali Khan and put them into
possession. The said transfer of ownership was reflected in the
column No.13 of the pahanies for the year 1973 to 1995. The Land
4
Reform Tribunal had also confirmed the said gift vide issue No.III in
proceedings dated 28.02.1977 and declared Mohammed Akber Ali
Khan and Mohammed Farooq Ali Khan as owners of property and
non-surplus holders.
4. It is submitted that the respondent No.8 (A.P. Bhoodan
Board) made a claim that the Late Nawab Haji Ali Khan gifted them
an extent of 50 acres of the subject land. WP.No.8145 of 2006 was
filed by the petitioners against the respondent No.8 wherein stay of
all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned Memo
Lr.No.B/1181/06 dated 17.04.2006 vide order dated 21.04.2006.
The said stay is still subsisting and the writ petition is pending.
5. It is submitted that, while so, the respondent No.10, who is
the daughter of Late Nawab Haji Khan and sister of vendors of the
petitioners, falsely claimed that her father had orally gifted her
Ac.51.22 guntas out of the total extent of his holding in the year
2004. Subsequently, the respondent No.10 and her son
(respondent No.11) executed a fraudulent partition deed bearing
document No.3635/2014 dated 04.02.2014 at the office of the
respondent No.6 by dividing the land among themselves and
obtained pattadar passbooks from the respondent No.4 (Tahsildar,
Maheshwaram Mandal) for an extent of Ac.10.29 guntas for
Sy.No.182.
5
6. It is submitted that being aggrieved by the action of the
respondent No.4 in issuing pattadar passbooks to the respondents
No.10 and 11, the petitioners filed an appeal before the respondent
No.3 i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, vide proceedings
A2/2708/2017 and order dated 19.06.2019 was passed directing
the respondent No.4 to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued to the
respondent No.10.
7. It is submitted that the respondents No.10 and 11,
in collusion with the respondents No.12, 13, 14 and 19 executed
Sale Deed bearing document No.24224/2018 in the office of the
respondent No.7 on 21.12.2018. The said document was executed
and registered despite subsistence of stay order passed by the RDO
with respect to pattadar passbooks illegally issued to the
respondent No.10. As against the illegal registration of partition
deed and subsequent sale deed, the petitioners herein filled
O.S.No.315 of 2019 before the XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy, wherein injunction order was passed in favour of the
petitioners restraining the respondents from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property vide order dated
25.02.2020 in I.A.No.333 of 2019 and the petitioners were also
granted police protection vide order dated 21.01.2021 in I.A.No.36
of 2021.
6
8. It is submitted that the respondent No.10 has fraudulently
and through coercion made the petitioner No.1 to execute a
ratification deed, allegedly, ratifying the partition deed of 2017.
The said ratification deed was cancelled by the petitioner No.1 vide
cancellation deed bearing document No.11965/2017. As the AGPA
holder of the petitioner No.1 was acting against him,
interim applications vide IA.Nos.76, 286 and 287 of 2022 were filed
in O.S.No.315 of 2019 for change of counsel, change of agent and
withdrawal of suit and the applications were dismissed on
19.10.2022.
9. While things stood thus, an appeal was filed by the
respondent No.10 before the Special Tribunal (revenue) of Ranga
Reddy District vide proceedings D5/2352/2021 challenging the
order of the respondent No.3 i.e. RDO Kandukur dated 19.06.2019
and the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 08.02.2021
directing the parties to pursue O.S.No.315 of 2019. Thereafter, the
order of the Special Tribunal was challenged by the respondent
No.10 in WP.No.10912 of 2021 and this Court by order dated
27.04.2021 directed the Special Tribunal to consider the matter and
pass fresh orders with a direction to the respondent No.10 to
appear before the Special Tribunal within 10 days from the date of
receipt of said order and furnish necessary details. However, the
respondent No.10 did not comply with the conditional order of this
7
Court dated 27.04.2021, thereby, crystallizing the order of the RDO
dated 19.06.2019.
10. It is submitted that the land in Sy.No.181 was notified in the
prohibited list of properties under Section 22-A of the Registration
Act, 1908 to an extent of Ac.95.00 guntas vide Lr.No.D/867/2012
dated 06.06.2012 issued by the office of the respondent No.4.
As per the said notification, an extent of Ac.50.00 guntas was
notified as being in prohibited list with respect to Bhoodan land and
the remaining Ac.45.00 guntas as Gairan Sarkari. The petitioners
are taking steps to challenge the said notification. In any case,
the petitioners filed WP.No.8145 of 2006 against the Bhoodan land
wherein stay was granted.
11. It is submitted that the petitioners No.5 and 6 learnt that the
respondent No.4 vide proceedings in transaction No.2100908340
dated 04.10.2021 registered and granted succession with respect to
land in Sy.No.181/3/1 (Ac.0.11 guntas), 181/4 (Ac.15.35 guntas),
181/5 (Ac.16.10 guntas) and 181/6 (Ac.10.17 guntas), totally
admeasuring Ac.42.33 guntas, in favour of the respondent No.10
reflecting her as the successor of Late Nawab Haji Khan,
in contravention of the orders of the RDO dated 19.06.2019;
order of the Special Tribunal dated 08.02.2021; orders in
W.P.No.10912 of 2021 dated 27.04.2021; orders in WP.No.8145 of
8
2006 dated 21.04.2006; orders in I.A. 333 in 2019 in O.S.315 of
2019 dated 25.02.2020 and order in I.A.No.36 of 2021 in
I.A.No.333 of 2019 dated 21.01.2021 and even when the lands
have been notified as prohibited properties under Section 22-A of
Registration Act. The aforesaid transactions and succession
proceedings are illegal, fraudulent and the consequential sale deeds
bearing documents Nos. 2258/2021, 2259/2021, 2260/2021,
2261/2021, 2263/2021, 2264/2021, 2265/2021, 2266/2021,
2267/2021, 2268/2021, 2269/2021, 2402/2021, 2403/2021,
513/2022 and 778/2022 executed by the respondent No.10 in
favour of the respondents No.20, 21 and 22 and pattadar
passbooks are illegal, void and unenforceable.
12. The petitioners herein filed representations dated
14.03.2022, 31.03.2022 and 01.09.2022 requesting the respondent
authorities to cancel the aforesaid said documents, which are
executed in contravention of the orders passed by the respondent
authorities and this Court.
13. The respondents No.10 and 11 have filed detailed counter,
inter alia, stating that multiple reliefs cannot be asked for in the
writ petition. The claim of ownership of the petitioners on the
strength of the Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney
dated 07.11.2055 is denied. The respondent No.10 became the
9
owner of the subject property by virtue of oral Hiba made on
15.04.2004 and thus, succession granted in favour of respondent
No.10 is valid as it is issued by following due procedure of law.
Thereafter, pattadar passbooks bearing No.T0516004157 was
issued and subsequently, sale deeds bearing document
Nos.2258/2021, 2259/2021, 2260/2021, 2261/2021. 2263/2021,
2264/2021, 2265/2021, 2266/2021, 2267/2021, 2268/2021,
2269/2021, 2402/2021, 2403/2021, 513/2021 and 778/2022 were
executed in favour of the respondents No.20, 21 and 22.
14. It is submitted that there is no violation of order of the
respondent No.3 dated 19.06.2019, the Special Tribunal dated
08.02.201 and order passed in O.S.No.315 of 2019. The oral Hiba
made in favour of the respondent No.10 was ratified by the
petitioner No.1 vide ratification deed bearing document
No.523/2017 dated 27.01.2017. The respondent No.11 is the son of
the respondent No.10 and both of them partitioned the property of
the respondent No.10 vide partition deed bearing document
No.3635/2014 dad 04.02.2014 and in turn, they executed sale
deeds in favour the respondents No.13, 14, 18 and 19 vide
document bearing No.24224/2018 dated 21.12.2018 and they
became absolute owners and possessors of the property covered by
the aforesaid sale deeds. Subsequently, mutation was issued in
their name.
10
15. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 has unilaterally
executed cancellation of rectification deed vide document bearing
No.11965/2017 dated 15.12.2017, which is not valid. The suit for
declaration and injunction in O.S.No.315 of 2019 is pending and the
petitioners have to agitate the claim in the said suit.
16. It is submitted that Mohammed Nawab Haji Khan filed
declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal in the year 1977
stating that he has gifted the land admeasuring Ac.103.00 guntas
in favour of his sons viz. petitioner No.1 and Mohamed Akbar Ali
Khan and both of them have not acted upon the declaration and did
not show any interest for acquiring the said land. Thereafter, out of
Ac.103.22 guntas, the share of the petitioner No.1 i.e. Ac.51.22
guntas was gifted by Mohammed Nawab Haji Khan with the consent
of the petitioner No.1 under oral Hiba dated 15.04.2004 in favour of
the respondent No.10.
17. It is submitted that the GPA of the petitioner No.5 was
cancelled by petitioner No.1 on 11.12.2021, as such, the petitioner
No.5 is not entitled to represent petitioner No.1 as GPA. Petitioner
No.5 executed another registered GPA in favour of one Devender
Reddy, S/o. Narayan Reddy, R/o. Hyderabad, vide document
bearing No.72/4/2022 dated 25.01.2022. The said GPA Holder filed
interlocutory applications viz. IA.Nos.76 of 2022, 286 of 2022 and
11
287 of 2022 in O.S.No.315 of 2019 for change of Advocate and to
represent the petitioner No.1 as GPA. The said applications were
dismissed against which CRP.Nos.2448, 2562 and 2553 of 2022
were filed before this Court and are pending.
18. In the counter filed by the respondents No.13 and 18 to 22,
it is submitted that they are bonafide purchasers of various extents
of land. The respondents No.10, 11 and 12 executed sale deed
dated 21.12.2018 in favour of the respondents No.13, 14, 18 and
19 to an extent of Ac.10.29 guntas in Sy.No.182, Nagaram
Revenue Village. On their application, mutation was granted and
they were recorded as pattadar in the revenue records. Later, they
were issued pattdar passbooks. The respondent No.20 purchased
submit that respondent No.20 purchased the land in Sy.No.181/4 to
an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas (registered sale deed bearing
document No.2262/2021); an extent of Ac.3.3000 in Sy.No.181/4
(registered sale deed bearing document No.2260/2021); an extent
of Ac.3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/5 (registered sale deed bearing
document No.2266/2021); an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas in
Sy.No.181/6 (registered sale deed bearing document
No.2261/2021); an extent of Ac.1.2000 guntas in Sy.No.181/6
(registered sale deed bearing document No.2258/2021) and an
extent of Ac.0.1800 guntas in Sy.No.181/4, an extent ofAc.2.200
guntas in Sy.No.181/6 and an extent of Ac.2.3000 guntas in
12
Sy.No.181/5 (registered sale deed bearing document
No.2264/2021) and an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/5
(registered sale deed document No. 2259/2021) executed by the
respondent No.10.
19. It is stated that similarly the respondent No. 21 purchased an
extent of Ac. 3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/4 (registered sale deed
bearing document No.2265 of 2021); an extent of Ac. 3.3000
guntas in Sy.No.181/5 (registered sale deed bearing document
No.2263 of 2021); an extent of Ac.1.1400 guntas in Sy.No.181/5
and an extent of Ac.2.1600 guntas in Sy.No.181/6 (registered sale
deed bearing document No.2267 of 2021); an extent of Ac.2.0900
guntas in Sy.No.181/6 and an extent of Ac.0.0300 guntas in
Sy.No.181/5 and an extent of Ac.1.1000 guntas in Sy.No.181/4
(registered sale deed bearing document No.2269 of 2021) and
an extent of Ac.2.3700 in Sy.No.181/4 and an extent of Ac.0.3300
guntas in Sy.No.181/5 (registered sale deed bearing document
No.2268 of 2021) executed by the respondent No.10.
20. It is stated that the respondent No. 22 purchased the land
from respondent No. 20 in an extent of Ac.0.1800 guntas in
Sy.No.181/5/1/1/2, an extent of Ac.1.2000 guntas in
Sy.No.181/6/2, an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/6/1/2,
an extent of Ac.0.2200 guntas in Sy.No.181/6/1/1/2 and an extent
13
of Ac.3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/5/2 (registered sale deed bearing
document No.2403 of 2021 dated 20.10.2021) registered at the
office of Tahsildar and Joint sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram. I further
submit that, the respondent No.22 purchased the land from
respondent No. 20 in Sy. No. 181/4/1/1/2 to an extent of
Ac.0.1800, Sy. No. 181/4/1/2 to an extent of Ac.2.1000, Sy. No.
181/4/2 to an extent of Ac. 3.3000, Sy.No. 181/5/1/1/1/2 to an
extent of Ac.3.3000 and Sy.No.181/5/1/1/2/1 to an extent of
Ac.2.1200 through a registered Sale Deed Document No. 778 of
2022, dated 08-02-2022 registered at the office of Tahsildar and
Joint sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram. All the above said lands are
situated at Nagaram Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District.
21. It is stated that the respondent No.22 purchased the land
from respondent No.21 in an extent of Ac.1.3500 guntas in
Sy.No.181/4/1/1/1/1/2; an extent of Ac.0.2500 guntas in
Sy.No.181/5/1/1/1/1/2/1; an extent of Ac.1.1000 guntas in
Sy.No.181/4/1/1/1/1/1 and an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas in
Sy.No.181/4/1/1/1/2 (registered sale deed bearing document
No.513 of 2022) and an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas in
Sy.No.181/5/1/2; an extent of Ac.2.0900 guntas in
Sy.No.181/6/1/1/1/1; an extent of Ac.0.2900 guntas in
Sy.No.181/5/1/1/1/1/2; an extent of Ac.0.3300 guntas in
14
Sy.No.181/5/1/1/1/1/1/2; an extent of Ac.2.1600 guntas in
Sy.No.181/6/1/1/1/2 and an extent of Ac. 0.0300 guntas in
Sy.No.181/5/1/1/1/1/1/1 (registered sale deed bearing document
No.2402 of 2021).
22. It is submitted that many of the respondents are not parties
to the suit filed by the petitioners and not bound by orders passed
in the suit. From the date of purchase under the above registered
sale deeds, the respondents No.13 and 18 to 22 had been in
possession of their respective lands.
23. The respondent No.8 filed counter contending that
Mohammed Nawab Haji Ali Khan, S/o. Zabbardast Khan, donated
an extent of Ac.50.00 guntas in Sy.No.47 (old) (181 (new) to
Bhoodan Yagna Samithi and also relinquished in Rajina in Form-I
before the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Taluka, on 15.03.1956.
The gift has been accepted and mutated in the name of the
Bhoodan Yagna Samithi by the then Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam
Taluka, vide Lr.No.A1/1093/65 dated 26.11.1965. The said land has
been incorporated in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the
Registration Act.
24. It is submitted that the declaration filed by Mohammed
Nawab Haji Khan is not binding on the respondent No.8, as they re
not party to the land ceiling proceedings. The land vested in the
15
Government as per Rule 8 of the Land Revenue Special Rules,
1951. It has been recorded as Bhoodan Kharij Khatha in all the
relevant revenue records and the lands are subject matter of
WP.No.8145 of 2006 filed by Mohammed Akbar Ali Khan, which is
pending.
25. Mr. Asad Hussain, learned counsel appearing for Mr. B. Pavan
Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the
impugned successions granted in favour of the respondents No.10
and 11 and thereafter, the sale deeds executed in favour of other
unofficial respondents are illegal, void and not binding on the
petitioners. The respondent No.10 has further violated the order
passed by the RDO dated 19.06.2009, which was confirmed by the
Special Tribunal to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas. Thus, the claim of
the respondent No.10 is hit by the principle of res judicata.
The respondent No.10 has clandestinely applied for succession
without notice to the petitioners and thus, the succession
proceedings are liable to be cancelled.
26. Per contra, Mr. Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel,
appearing for Mr. T. Venkat Raju Goud, learned counsel for the
respondents No.10 to 12, submitted that the impugned successions
proceedings were issued under the Telangana Rights in Land and
Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020, which does not provide for
16
adjudication of rival claims between the parties. Several sale deeds
have been executed in favour of third parties and suit in
O.S.No.315 of 2019 is filed for declaration and injunction.
The petitioners cannot pursue parallel remedy. Having instituted a
suit in the year 2019, the petitioners approached this Court in the
year 2022. If there is any violation of injunction order, the remedy
available to the petitioners is to file an appropriate application
under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
27. Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents
No.13 and 18 to 22, submitted that the respondents No.13 and 18
to 22 are bonafide purchasers of the land. They are not parties to
the suit and they were not aware of any proceedings.
Thus, the proceedings are not binding. The petitioners, having
instituted the suit in O.S.No.315 of 2019, which is a comprehensive
title suit, cannot be permitted to invoke parallel remedy of writ
jurisdiction.
28. Learned standing counsel for the Telangana Bhoodan Yagna
Board submitted that the respondent No.8 has a claim over the
subject property, which is pending adjudication in WP.No.8145 of
2006. So far as title dispute is concerned, the same is seized by the
civil Court in O.S.No.315 of 2019. Hence, there are no merits in the
writ petition.
17
29. Heard Mr. Asad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents
No.10 and 11, Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondents No.13 and 18 to 22 and Mr. G. Kiran Kumar, learned
standing counsel respondent No.8 – Telangana Bhoodan Yagna
Board and perused the material on record.
30. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following
judgments:
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED
v. S.P. VELAYUTHAM 1; VEENA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR v.
THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR/ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR 2; SRI
PATLOLLA RAMESHWAR REDDY v. STATE OF TELANGANA 3
[WP.Nos.18957 of 2020 and 17372 of 2021 dated 25.01.2023]
SRI SABBATHAL ALGAPPA TRUST v. THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, CHENNAI 4; SYED ABDUL
MAJEED v. JOINT COLLECTOR – II 5; B. MALLA REDDY v.
STAET OF TELANGANA6; THOTA GANGA LAXMI v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 7 and PERLA PARTHA SARATHI REDDY v. SUB-REGISTRAR 8 1 (2022) 8 SCC 210 2 (2022) 7 SCC 1 3
WP.Nos.18957 of 2020 and 17372 of 2021 dated 25.01.2023
4
MANU/TN/7620/2022
5
2006 (5) ALD 348
6
2015 (5) ALD 595
7
(2010) 15 SCC 207
8
2013 (2) ALT 237
18
31. In ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA)
LIMITED‘s case (1 supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that
the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to examine whether the registering authority performed its
statutory duty in the manner prescribed by law in registering a
document and that jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ousted. In
VEENA SINGH’s case (2 supra), it was held that the dispute
related to the order passed by the District Registrar under Section
74 of the Registration Act by giving a finding that the sale deed has
been duly signed by the appellant therein and liable to be
registered. The said order was not interfered with by the learned
Single Judge. Learned Division Bench allowed the appeal setting
aside the order of the learned single Judge and the order of the
District Registrar. SRI PATLOLLA RAMESHWAR REDDY‘s case (3
supra) related to succession proceedings and a decision was given
based on the facts of the case and no principle of law was laid
down.
32. In SRI SABBATHAL ALGAPPA TRUST’s case (4 supra),
it was observed that the registering authority having issued refusal
check slip, not only entertained registration of document in respect
of property covered by such refusal check slip. SYED ABDUL
MAJEED‘s case (5 supra) and B. MALLA REDDY‘s (6 supra) deal
with proceedings under Sections 38-E, 32 and 40 of the Tenancy
19
Act. In THOTA GANGA LAXMI‘s case (7 supra), it was held that
there is no need for the appellants to approach civil Court when
cancellation deed was wholly void and non-est in the eye of law.
In PERLA PARTHA SARATHI REDDY‘s case (8 supra), it was
observed that the petitioner suppressed the fact that he has earlier
filed writ petition for issuance of pattadar passbooks and the relief
sought in the instant writ petition for registration of document was
declined and the writ petition was dismissed, as the petitioner
approached the Court with unclean hands.
33. All the aforesaid judgments are of no help to the petitioner,
as none of the cases deal with parallel remedy where the party,
who has filed a writ petition, has earlier filed a civil suit, which is
specific to the instant case.
34. Petitioners No.1 to 5 instituted a suit in O.S.No.315 of 2019
on the filed of the XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District Courts at L.B. Nagar, seeking declaration and perpetual
injunction against the defendants No.1 to 10, who are unofficial
respondents No. 10 to 19 herein in respect of the subject property.
On reading of the plaint averments, it is seen that claim of the
petitioners in the suit and in this writ petition is based on the same
set of facts and title history. The petitioners were granted injunction
in IA.No.333 of 2019 in O.S.No.315 of 2019 by order dated
20
25.02.2020 restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering
with the possession of the petitioners. In IA.No.36 of 2021, order
dated 21.01.2021 was passed in favour of the petitioners granting
police protection to implement injunction order.
35. Having instituted the suit in O.S.No.315 of 2019,
the petitioners have approached this Court in 2022. The additional
facts pleaded by the petitioners in this writ petition are that after
succession was granted in favour of the defendants in the suit,
several sale deeds have been executed in favour of third parties
(respondents No.18 to 23 herein). From the documents filed by the
petitioners, it appears that there is no order passed by the trial
restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule
property. The only injunction order passed is to restrain the
defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs-
petitioners herein. The respondents No.13 and 18 to 222 submitted
that they are not parties to the suit.
36. In the instant case, the petitioners have already instituted a
comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. Having availed
effective alternate remedy before the civil Court, the petitioners
choose to approach this Court. In fact, the petitioners ought to
have sought for an injunction order restraining the defendants from
alienating the suit properties. Even if third party rights are created
21
during the pendency of the suit, such sale deeds are hit by the
doctrine of lis pendense. The succession proceedings, subsequent
pattadar passbooks and thereafter, execution of sale deeds which
are issued/executed pendendi lite do not per se confer any title in
favour of the defendants/subsequent purchasers and will be subject
to the result of the suit. Even otherwise, the relief, which is sought
in this writ petition, can always be sought in the suit.
The petitioners can also seek for amendment of plaint, if additional
properties are sold. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
invoking writ jurisdiction by the petitioners is unwarranted.
37. In the light of the above discussion, without expressing any
opinion on the merits, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners
are at liberty to implead third parties/subsequent purchasers of the
subject property in the suit and also seek for injunction order
restraining alienation of suit properties pending disposal of the suit.
It is made clear that several other factual and legal issues raised by
the learned counsel on either side have not been discussed in this
order as the writ petition is dismissed on the sole ground that the
petitioners have already availed suit remedy.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
January 20, 2025/DSK