Telangana High Court
Mrs. Shalini Saincher And Another vs Sayeeda Abood And 20 Others on 17 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.45203/2022, 14737/2024 and 5348/2025 COMMON ORDER:
The issues involved in these writ petitions are intrinsically
interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together
and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.45203 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners-Smt. Shalini
Saincher and another, seeking following relief:
“…issue a Writ of Certiorari filed Mandamus calling for records
pertaining to the A) ULC Proceedings in C.C.No.E/5946/76 dt.22-6-1982
and 11-09-1982, C.C.No.E/6384/76, C.C.No.E/8948/76 proceeding
Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, 6870 of 1979 dt.27-4-1980, B) Registered Sale
Deed bearing document No.1937 of 1980 dt.06-10-1980 and
Doc.6451/1982 dt.07.09.1982 and quash the same as they are illegal,
arbitrary, highhanded, fraudulent, without Jurisdiction and Null & Void,
made in violation of the Provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Registration Act 1908, in violation of the
rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India
with a consequential prayer to declare the Registered Development
Agreement bearing No.4801/2021 dt.08-07-2021 as null and void and
pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case…”
3. W.P.No.14737 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners-Mohammed
Fayazuddin Khan and others seeking following relief:
“…to issue a Writ or Writs more appropriately a Writ of Mandamus
declaring the ULC proceedings Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, 6870 of 1979
dated: 27.04.1980 in C.C.No.E/5946/76 dated:22-06-1982 and 11-09-
1982, С.С.No.E/6384/76, CC No. E/8948/76 issued by the respondent
No.2 to 5 as illegal, void, ultra virus and unconstitutional and
consequently declare the Registered Development Agreement bearing
No.4801/2021 dated: 08-07-2021 as null and void in the interest of
justice and equity and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..”
2
4. W.P.No.5348 of 2025 is filed is filed by the petitioners-
Mohammed Fayazuddin Khan and others seeking following relief:
“…to issue a Writ or Writs Order or Direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent
No.10 issuing the proceedings vide Lr.No.B/12258/2024 dated
10.02.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural
justice, consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and
equity…”
5. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are
referred as they were arrayed in W.P.No.45203 of 2022.
6. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present
writ petitions are stated as under:
7. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.45203 of 2022 that
Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad, was the owner and possessor of land
admeasuring Ac.7-00 guntas in Sy.No.396 (correlated to Revision
Sy.No.225), situated at Shaikpet Village, presently falling within
Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It is stated that the subject
land was originally recorded in revenue records as Jubilee Hills Gyra
Jirayatti Patta. The entire Shaikpet Village was an ex-Sarf-e-Khas
village and vested with the-then Hyderabad Government upon the
merger of Sarf-e-Khas with Diwani in 1358 Fasli (1949 AD). It is
further stated that original Sethwar was prepared in 1326 Fasli
(1916 AD) after revenue survey, wherein the land admeasuring
Ac.3220.02 guntas in Sy.No.129 is classified as Government land. A
Supplementary Sethwar of 1331 Fasli (1921 AD) was issued in
3
favour of one Moinuddin Hassan, sub-dividing Sy.No.129 into 10
parts, and Sy.No.129/1 was classified as Kancha Tattikahana, while
Sy.Nos.129/2 to 129/10 were shown as patta lands in favour of
Moinuddin Hassan. It is stated that Moinuddin Hassan sold an
extent of Ac.186.32 gts to Moulvi Syed Mohmed Mehdi Saheb under
registered document No.395 of 1358 Fasli. It is further stated that
Syed Mohmed Mehdi divided the land into plots and sold them to
several eminent individuals of that era. It is specifically stated that in
the year 1930, Syed Mohmed Mehdi orally gifted (Hiba) Plot No.4 to
an extent of Ac.7-00 gts to Maharaja Kishen Pershad, which was
accepted and acted upon by the Maharaja Kishen Pershad, who
constructed a building on the said land, and his name was entered
in revenue records such as Sethwar and Wasool Baqi. It is submitted
that boundaries in subsequent sale deeds executed in 1933 by
Mohmed Mehdi (vide document Nos.383, 394 and 413 of 1343 Fasli)
clearly mention Maharaja’s possession of the subject land, thereby
corroborating his ownership and physical possession. It is further
submitted that in 1334 Fasli (1924 AD), the number of survey
numbers in Shaikpet Village was reduced from 353 to 352 due to
boundary disputes with Yellareddyguda. Again, in 1346 Fasli (1936
AD), one more Supplementary Sethwar was issued, and the previous
sub-divisions of Sy.No.129 were deleted and replaced with new
Sy.Nos.352 to 404. The present subject land was assigned Sy.No.396
4
with an extent of Ac.7.00 gts. It is stated that a Revision Survey was
conducted in 1349 Fasli (1939 AD), and corresponding Revision
Setwar and Wasool Baqi registers were prepared, wherein Sy.No.396
was shown as Revision Sy.No.225, with Maharaja Kishen Pershad as
the pattedar under Khata No.131. Column No.24 of the Setwar
describes the land as “Non-agricultural – Bungalow”. It is submitted
that Khasra Pahani of 1954-55, along with subsequent Pahanies till
1980-81, consistently shows Maharaja Kishen Pershad as the
pattedar and possessor of the subject property. It is further
submitted that Town Survey was conducted between 1964 and 1971
under the provisions of the-then Andhra Pradesh Survey and
Boundaries Act, 1923, culminating in final notification dated
06.08.1977. As no suit was filed within three years, the records
attained finality. The Town Survey Register reflects TS No.1, Ward
No.11, Block-E corresponding to Sy.No.225/396, showing Maharaja
Kishen Pershad as the registered holder and Asadullah Khan (his son
through Muslim wife) as the person in possession, by inheritance. It
is the case of petitioners that Maharaja Kishen Pershad passed away
in the year 1940 and succession was declared by Farman dated
13.12.1943 in favour of his son, Khaja Arjun Pershad. Upon his
death in 1943, the estate was placed under the supervision of the
Sarf-e-Khas Department. Following Virasat and Atiyat enquiries,
succession was granted in favour of Raja Ratan Gopal, Raja Prem
5
Gopal, Raja Narender Lal, and Raja Chaman Lal. A Munthakab was
issued vide No.1154/1959. It is stated that Raja Narender Lal and
Raja Chaman Lal relinquished their rights in favour of Raja Ratan
Gopal and Raja Prem Gopal under registered deed No.1159/1968. It
is stated that petitioners No.1 and 2 are legal heirs of Raja Prem
Gopal, and the Respondents 14 to 16 are legal heirs of Raja Ratan
Gopal. It is further submitted that Khaja Asadullah Khan, son of
Maharaja Kishen Pershad through his Muslim wife, was residing in
the house (Rock Cliff) as a permissive licensee and he had no title. It
is further submitted that Khaja Asadullah Khan passed away in
1974, and his widow Khairunnisa Begum was permitted to stay and
collect rent as a permissive licensee and Respondents 11 to 13 are
his legal heirs. It is stated that in July, 2022, petitioners noticed
unauthorised activity in the subject land and came to know that
Respondent No.10, a construction company, was undertaking
measurements and on further enquiry, petitioners found that
Respondents 1 to 9 claimed rights under a development agreement
vide document No.4801/2021 based on fraudulent title claims. It is
submitted that Respondents 1 to 9 claim ownership based on sale
deeds bearing document Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and
6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982, alleged to have been executed by the
heirs of Asadullah Khan in favour of Ahmed Bin Saleh Bin Mahfooz
and others. The said documents are fabricated and obtained in
6
collusion with officials, contrary to law and in violation of the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “ULC Act, 1976“).
It is the case of petitioners that all the revenue records stand in the
name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad and there is no valid gift deed in
favour of Asadullah Khan and his name was never entered in any
revenue record. It is submitted that forensic report dated 14.11.2022
from Truth Labs confirms that the questioned signatures on the
alleged gift deed do not match with the Sub-Registrar’s authenticated
signatures, thus proving it as a forged document. It is submitted that
petitioners are the rightful successors of Maharaja Kishen Pershad,
and Respondents 1 to 13 have created fraudulent documents to
usurp the schedule property. The transactions are void under the
ULC Act, 1976 particularly Sections 5(3), 10(4), and 27(1), as no
prior permission was obtained from the competent authority before
effecting alienation. It is further submitted that no notice as required
under Rule 5(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Rules,
1976 (for short “ULC Rules”) was served on the petitioners and
therefore, the entire ULC proceedings and permissions are vitiated by
fraud and non-compliance of mandatory provisions. It is submitted
that mutation obtained by Respondents based on forged and
fraudulent sale deeds is a nullity and not binding on the petitioners.
It is submitted that the concept of permissive licence does not confer
ownership or leasehold rights. As per settled law, the legal
7
possession always remains with the licensor, and any alienation by
the licensee is void ab initio. Thus the petitioners sought to set aside
the fraudulent transactions and consequential documents and to
protect their lawful title and possession over the subject property.
Hence the writ petition.
8. The respondent Nos.1 to 9 filed counter affidavit inter alia
stating that the writ petition filed questioning the registered sale
deeds vide documents Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and
6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982, after 40 years from the date of
execution is not maintainable. It is further stated that even if the
allegations of fraud and forgery are taken to be true, it is only the
competent Civil Court, which can declare the sale deeds as null and
void after examination of evidence and documents in support of the
pleadings. While denying the averments of the writ affidavit filed by
the petitioners, the respondents stated that the land admeasuring
Ac.7-00 gts bearing Plot No.4 in Sy.No.129 of Shaikpet Village, Asif
Nagar Taluq, Artaf Balda (presently corresponding to Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad) was owned and possessed by Syed Mohammed Mahdi @
Mahdi Nawaz Jung, who gifted the portion of the property in favour
of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan S/o. Maharaja Bahadur Sir Kishen
Pershad under registered gift deed bearing document No.250/1937
dated 23rd Isfindar 1347 Fasli (1937 AD) and the said Nawab Khaja
8
Asadullah Khan, during his lifetime constructed the house known as
“Rock Cliff” bearing Municipal No.8-3-323/324 on the land
admeasuring Ac.5-15 gts situated at Road No.4, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad. It is further stated that Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan
died on 27.08.1974 leaving behind his wife-Khaiserunnisa Begum,
sons i.e, Khaja Ahmedullah Khan and Khaja Mohammedullah Khan
and daughter Jafferunnisa Begum as his legal heirs and thereafter,
the Khaja Ahmedullah Khan, has gifted his 7/20th share in the
property in favour of his niece Durre Shahwar, by way of oral Hiba
on 17th November, 1974 and the wife of Nawab Khaja Asadullah
Khan i.e, Khaiserunnisa Begum and his daughter Jafferunnisa
Begum, executed registered General Power of Attorney bearing
document No.81/1978 dated 11.07.1978 appointing Khaja
Mohammedullah Khan as their power of attorney holder. It is further
case of respondents that the legal heirs of Nawab Khaja Asadullah
Khan has obtained permission for sale of the property under the
provisions of ULC Act vide Proceedings No.6816, 6831, 6842 and
6871 dated 29.04.1980 in respect of land admeasuring 9,928
sq.mtrs vide Proceedings No.C/743/27/1982 dated 13.08.1982 in
respect of the land admeasuring 21,816 sq. mtrs including the land
admeasuring 9,928 sq.mtrs and thereafter, they have executed a
registered sale deed bearing document No.1937/1980 dated
06.07.1980 in respect of land admeasuring 9,928 sq.mtrs in favour
9
of Ahmed Saleh Bin Sareefa Begum, Saleh Bin Mahfooz and Amer
Bin Mahfooz and also executed supplementary sale deed bearing
document No.6451/1982 dated 07.10.1982 to an extent of land
admeasuring 11,499 sq.mtrs, thus the total extent of 21,427 sq.mtrs
(25,626.48 sq.yards). The vendors therein have entered into a
registered development agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney
vide document No.4801/2021 in favour of respondent No.10-M/s.
Prestige Estates Projects and thereafter, the respondent No.10 has
obtained necessary permission from the competent authority and
proceeded with the construction. The respondents denied the
contention of oral gift by Syed Mohammed Mehdi in favour of
Maharaja Kishen Pershad and consequential constructions by
Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is stated that the subject property
belongs to the respondents predecessors-in-interest and the
petitioners themselves have admitted that Moinuddin Hassan sold an
extent of Ac.186.32 gts to Syed Mohammed Mehdi Saheb under
registered sale deed bearing document No.395/1338 Fasli dated 20th
Behman 1338 Fasli, which clearly indicates that the vendor of the
respondents is owner of the subject land in dispute and they denied
that the respondent Nos.14 to 16 are legal heirs of Maharaja Kishen
Pershad. The respondents also denied that H.E.H Nizam Hyderabad
has issued Farman dated 13.12.1943 declaring the son of Maharaja
Kishen Pershad namely Khaja Arjun Pershad as his successor under
10
Atiyat enquiry proceedings and Virasat was issued vide D.O dated
11th Safar 1358 (1948 AD) in the name of Raja Ratan Gopal and
others. The respondents have denied that after the death of Maharaja
Kishen Pershad, his successors have permitted Khaja Asadullah
Khan to reside as licensee for maintaining and administering the
subject property and he also leased out the property to the State
Bank of India and continued to enjoy the property as permissive
licensee. It is further contention of respondents that even according
to petitioners, they made an application under Right to Information
Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act“) on 23.08.2021 and received
documents on 02.09.2021 and filed writ petition on 12.12.2022, after
a lapse of 15 months, which itself shows that the petitioners
approached this Court with unclean hands and the writ petition filed
is misconceived and prayed for dismissal of the same.
9. The Respondent No.10 filed a counter affidavit denying all the
allegations made in the writ affidavit and contended that the writ
petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that the petitioners,
while questioning the ULC proceedings have also sought cancellation
of the registered sale deeds on the alleged ground of fraud, with an
inordinate delay. The petitioners are seeking adjudication of disputed
questions of title and possession of the subject property by placing
reliance on certain proceedings purportedly obtained under the Right
11
to Information Act, 2005. In the absence of authenticated and
admissible evidence, the genuineness of such documents cannot be
adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.22 to 40 have
instituted a Civil Suit vide O.S.No.1 of 2023 on the file of II
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking the very
same relief of cancellation of registered sale deeds dated 06.10.1980
and 07.09.1982. Therefore, the present writ petition is misconceived
and liable to be dismissed.
10. During the pendency of the Writ Petition No.45203 of 2022,
respondent Nos.22 to 40 (the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1 of 2023) claiming
succession rights over the subject property under dispute as legal
heirs of Late Maharaja Kishen Pershad filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 seeking
to implead them as party respondents in the writ petition and the
same was allowed. The respondent Nos.22 to 40 also filed
W.P.Nos.14737 of 2024 and 5348 of 2025 raising similar contentions
of the petitioners in W.P.No.45203 of 2022 and in the said writ
petitions, counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent Nos.1
to 9 and respondent No.10 taking similar stand as that was taken in
W.P.No.45203 of 2022.
11. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the record.
12
12. Mr.D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing
Mr.S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.45203 of 2022 submitted that Maharaja Kishen Pershad, the
predecessor-in-title of petitioners has acquired the subject property
under oral Hiba (gift) from Mohommed Mehdi Nawaz Jung. The said
oral gift was accepted and the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad was
recorded in Supplementary Sethwar and in the sale deed
Nos.394/1343 Fasli (1933) and 413/1343 Fasli (1933) executed by
Mohd. Mehdi Nawaz Jung, in favour of third parties, the boundaries
describe the land of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is also submitted
that Jamabandi register prepared in the year 1346 Fasli, the lands
were shown in the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad for the land in
Sy.No.396 to an extent of Ac.7-00 gts and in remarks column it is
shown that the building is existing in the said land. While relying on
the revenue entries, the learned Senior Counsel denied the execution
of registered gift deed and ownership of Mohd. Asadullah Khan, i.e,
predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 9. It is also contended that the
entries in Wasool Baqi, Revisional Sethwar, ROR record from 1954 to
1982 and Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) prepared as per
provisions of Telangana Survey Boundaries Act, 1923 would
clinchingly prove that Maharaja Kishen Pershad was the owner and
pattadar and at no point of time, any documents have been executed
by the pattadar Mohd. Mehdi Nawaz in favour of Khaja Asadullah
13
Khan. It is stated that the oral Hiba/gift requires no registration
when the same is acted upon. It is further stated that in order to
establish that the oral hiba was acted upon, the name of Maharaja
Kishen Pershad was recorded in the Sethwar, thereby evidencing
that the property was gifted by the pattadar in favour of Maharaja
Kishen Pershad. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that
after the death of Maharaja Kishen Pershad, H.E.H Nizam has
conferred rights by issuing Farman in favour of Khaja Arjun Pershad
S/o. Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is submitted that Asadullah Khan,
who is the son of Maharaja Kishen Pershad was allowed to live and
enjoy the property as licensee without transferring the rights and
permissive possession is never considered to be transfer of title. It is
further submitted that the declarations filed by the vendors of the
respondent Nos.1 to 9 claiming to be successors of Late Asadullah
Khan and pending finalization of the same, has fraudulently created
permissions under Section 27(3) of ULC Act, 1976 vide Permission
No.6816/1979, 6833/1979, 6842/1979 and 6870/1999 dated
27.04.1980 in Proceedings No.E/ 5946/76 dated 22.06.1982 and
11.09.1982, C.C.No.E/6384/76, C.C.No.8948/76 and executed the
subject sale deeds dated 06.10.1980 and supplementary document
No.6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982 as if the exemptions were granted
under the provisions of the ULC Act and as no such permissions are
available on record, the same has to be treated as fraudulent
14
documents and hit by Section 5 of the ULC Act read with provisions
of the Registration Act, 1908. It is submitted that the note file
produced by the Government reveals that the proceedings in C.C.
Nos.E/6384/76 and E/8948/76 did not culminate in a Final
Declaration under the ULC Act, 1976. Therefore, the claim of the
respondents that exemption orders were issued stands falsified, and
the recitals in the sale deeds vide Document Nos. 1937/1980 dated
06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982 are contrary to record.
It is contended that the said sale deeds are not valid in law, as fraud
vitiates all judicial acts, whether ecclesiastical or temporal, and can
be challenged even in collateral proceedings. It is further contended
that the petitioners, upon obtaining information under RTI Act, came
to know that the respondents had misrepresented facts by stating
that permission had been granted by the ULC authorities for
execution of the subject sale deeds. In view of such discovery, it is
submitted that the principles of limitation and laches do not apply to
the maintainability of the present writ petitions. It is further
submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare the
proceedings under the ULC Act as void, illegal, or non-est, and
therefore, the present writ petitions, which challenge the proceedings
initiated under the ULC Act, are maintainable even after the
enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999 (for short “ULC Repeal Act, 1999“), as adopted by the State of
15
Telangana. Consequently, this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is competent to
declare the said sale deeds as null, void, and non-est in the eye of
law. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied
upon the decisions in Ameer-un-Nissa Begum and others vs.
Mahboob Begum 1; Director of Endowments, Government of
Hyderabad and others vs. Akaram Ali 2; Ningawwa vs. Byrappa
Shiddappa Hireknrabar and others 3; Syed Shah Ghulam
Ghouse Mohiuddin vs. Syed Shal Ahmed Mohiuddin Kamisul
Quadri 4; Bankey Bahadur Srivastava vs. District Judge,
Varanasi 5; State of Gujarat and others vs. Parshottamdas
Ramdas Patel and others 6; K.S. Mariyappa vs. K.T. Siddalinga
Setty 7; The Government of A.P. vs. J. Raghothama Reddy 8; Col.
Denzyl Winston Ferries vs. Abdul Jaleel 9; State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Surendra Kumar and Ors. 10; Uppari Muttamma vs.
Special Tribunal 11; Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian and others12;
1 (1955) SCC Online SC 23 (Paras 19 & 20)
2 (1955) SCC Online SC 62 (Paras 10 & 11)
3 (1968) SCC Online SC 206 (Paras 5 & 6)
4 (1971) 1 SCC 597 (Para 19)
5 1982 SCC Online (Paras 5 & 6)
6 (1988) 1 SCC 132 (Paras 10 & 12)
7 (1988) SCC Online Kar 53/ I.L.R 1989 KAR 425 (Para 12)
8 (1991) SCC Online AP 30 (Paras 16 & 21)
9 (1992) SCC Online AP 1 (Para 14)
10 (1995) 2 SCC 627 (Paras 3, 4 & 5)
11 1997 SCC Online AP 433 (Para 49)
12 (2001) 7 SCC 549 (Para 48)
16
Joseph Severance and others vs. Benny Mathew and others 13;
Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala and others 14; Prem Singh vs.
Birbal 15; A.V.Papayya Sastry and others vs. Government of A.P
and others 16; Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki vs. State of
Gujarat 17; Ritesh Tewari vs. State of UP 18; Hafeeza Bibi and
others vs Shaikh Farid (dead) by LRs. and others 19; Union of
India vs. Ibraheem Uddin and another 20; P. Vijaya Jyothi vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 21; State of Orissa vs.
Fakir Charan Sethi 22; Madhukar Sadba Shivarkar vs. State of
Maharashtra and others 23; State of UP vs. Adarsh Sevs
Samithi 24; S.P.S. Rathore vs. CBI 25; Sunil Kumar and others vs.
State of Maharashtra and others 26; Jamila Begum vs. Shami
Mohd. (D) through L.Rs. and others 27; The Competent Authority,
Calcutta vs. David Mantosh and others 28; Partap Singh vs.
Shivram 29; Saurav Jain and another vs. A.B.P. Design and
13 2005 7 SCC 667 (Paras 7 & 8)
14 (2006) 8 SCC 210 (Paras 15 & 16)
15 (2006) 5 SCC 353 (Paras 16, 17 & 18)
16 (2007) 4 SCC 221 (Paras 21, 22, 27, 28 & 30)
17 (2008) 12 SCC 353 (Paras 18-22, 24 -25)
18 (2010) 10 SCC 677 (Paras 21, 27, 31, 32 & 35)
19 (2011) 5 SCC 654 (Paras 26 & 27)
20 (2012) 8 SCC 148 (Paras 85.3 & 85.4)
21 (2013) SCC Online AP 418 (Paras 14, 15 & 16))
22 (2015) 1 SCC 466 (Paras 17 & 18)
23 (2015) 6 SCC 557 (Para 27)
24 (2016) 12 SCC 493 (Paras 4, 5 & 6)
25 (2017) 5 SCC 817 (Para 47)
26 2019 SCC Online Bom 959 (Paras 9 to 12)
27 (2019) 2 SCC 727 (Paras 21 & 22)
28 (2020) 12 SCC 542 (Paras 44, 47 & 64)
29 (2020) 11 SCC 242 (Paras 25 & 26)
17
another 30; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ghisilal 31; Asst
Commissioner of Proh. and others vs. K.Anjaiah and others32;
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs.
S.P.Velayutham and others 33 and Umadevi Nambiar vs.
Thmarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese 34.
13. On the other hand, Mr.Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi, learned Senior
Counsel representing Smt. Saleha Begum, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.22 to 40 in W.P.No.45203 of 2022/petitioners in
W.P.No.5348 of 2025 argued that the respondent Nos.22 to 40 are
the successors of Late Maharaja Kishen Pershad through his wife
Ghousia Begum. It is submitted that a Civil Suit vide O.S.No.1 of
2023 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at
Hyderabad, seeking to pass a preliminary Decree by allotting 1/3rd
share to the plaintiffs, 2/3rd share to the defendant nos.1 to 3 in
respect of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds as shown
in the plaint schedule; to pass a final decree pursuant to preliminary
decree by appointing Advocate-Commissioner for partition of the suit
property by metes and bounds by allotting the share to the plaintiffs
and defendant nos.1 to 3; to declare the registered Sale Deeds
document Nos.1937/1980 dated 06-10-1980 and 6451/1982 dated
30 (2022) 18 SCC 633 (Paras 20 to 22, 43 & 44)
31 (2022) 17 SCC 657 (Paras 11 & 12)
32 2022 SCC Online TS 1162 [DB] (Paras 72, 73 & 74)
33 2022 8 SCC 210 (Paras 53 to 58)
34 (2022) 7 SCC 90 (Paras 12 & 13)
18
07-09-1982 as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs; to
declare the registered Development Agreement-cum-GPA vide
document No.4801/2021 dated 08-07-2021 as null and void and not
binding upon the plaintiffs and to grant Perpetual Injunction against
the Defendant No.13, their agents, representatives, GPA holders or
anybody claiming through them from changing the nature of the
property in any manner whatsoever in respect of the suit schedule
property. In the said suit, the defendants (respondent Nos.1 to 9
herein) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking
to reject the plaint and pending adjudication of the same, the
respondent Nos.22 to 40 filed I.A.No.599 of 2023 seeking permission
to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file fresh suit. However, the trial
Court vide order dated 28.04.2023 dismissed the suit as withdrawn
but did not grant liberty to file fresh suit. Challenging the same, the
respondent Nos.22 to 40 filed C.R.P.No.2379 of 2023 on the file of
this Court and the same is pending for adjudication. In the
meanwhile, the respondent Nos.22 to 40 filed W.P.No.5348 of 2025
questioning the Proceedings vide Letter No.B/12258/2024 dated
10.02.2025 granted in favour of respondent No.10 on the
development agreement vide document No.4801/2021 dated
08.07.2021 said to have been executed by the respondent Nos.1 to 9
herein. It is contended that the initial application submitted by
respondent Nos.1 to 9 and their developer for issuance of No
19
Objection Certificate (NOC) was rejected by the District Collector vide
Endorsement No.B/30/2025, on the ground that writ petitions were
pending before this Hon’ble Court. However, contrary to the said
stand, respondent No.10 subsequently granted NOC vide Letter
No.B/12258/2024 dated 10.02.2025, on the ground that no
Government interest was involved. It is submitted that such action is
inconsistent with the earlier stand taken by the authorities and is
tainted with malice. Thus it is submitted that the action of official
respondents in issuing the impugned NOC is illegal and prayed to set
aside the same.
14. Mr. Wasim Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.1 to 9 would submit that Syed Asadullah Khan S/o. Maharaja
Kishen Pershad acquired the property under registered gift deed in
the year 1937 from its lawful owner Moinuddin Saheb Mehdi and
after enactment of ULC Act, the children of Late Syed Asadullah
Khan filed declarations in CC No.E/5946/76, C.C.No.E/6384/76,
C.C.No.8948/76 in respect of the subject property and the
declarants therein obtained the permission to alienate the property
under the provisions of ULC Act and thereafter, the respondent Nos.1
to 9 purchased the subject property under registered sale deed dated
1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982.
The learned counsel denied that petitioners are successors of Late
20
Maharaja Kishen Pershad and issuance of Farman by the-then
Nizam Government in favour of Khaja Arjun Pershad and obtaining
Munthakab No.1154/1959 dated 07.01.1959. It is further submitted
that the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest are in
possession of the property from the year 1937 and at no point of
time, neither the petitioners nor any others claiming the rights as
successors have disputed the ownership and possession of the
respondent Nos.1 to 9 and in fact, for the first time, the petitioners
filed O.S.No.154 of 2023 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking mandatory injunction and
consequential eviction of the respondent Nos.1 to 9 and on the
application filed by the respondents herein/defendants therein, the
plaint was rejected on 26.02.2024 and the writ petitioners filed an
appeal vide C.C.C.A.No.96 of 2024 and the same is pending for
adjudication. It is further contended that petitioners in
W.P.No.45203 of 2022 are not having any right to question the sale
deeds and with a mala fide intention, taking advantage of repeal of
ULC Act, 1976 and destruction of the records, on vague allegations,
W.P.No.45203/2022 has been filed. There is no foundation for the
allegations in W.P.No.45203/2022 on the teeth of ULC proceedings
Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, 6870 of 1979 dated 27.04.1980 in
C.C.No.E/5946/76 dated 22-06-1982 and 11-09-1982 and in view of
serious disputes relating to title, possession and succession and
21
entries made in the ULC proceedings, the writ petition is not a proper
remedy to agitate their grievances and prayed for dismissal of the
writ petitions. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied
upon the decisions in Competent Authority, Calcutta vs. David
Mantosh and others (supra); The Auroville Foundation vs.
Natasha Storey 35; Rattan Singh vs. Nirmal Gill36; Mrinmoy
Maity vs. Chhanda Koley 37; Uma Devi vs. Anand Kumar 38 and
Damodar Narayan Singh vs. Sardar Hira Singh 39.
15. Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Mr.Rohit Pogula, learned counsel for respondent No.10 in
W.P.No.45203 of 2022, vehemently contended that respondent Nos.1
to 9 are the lawful owners and possessors of the subject property,
having purchased the same from the rightful owners after obtaining
necessary permission for alienation under the provisions of the ULC
Act, 1976. It is submitted that such ownership is substantiated by
the documents filed in support of I.A. No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.45203
of 2022. It is argued that the registered sale deeds in question were
executed much prior to the insertion of Section 22-A into the
Registration Act, 1908, introduced by the Andhra Pradesh
Amendment Act 4 of 1999, which came into force on 01.04.1999. The
35 Civil Appeal No.13651 of 2024 dated 17.03.2025 = 2025 INSC 348
36 Laws (SC) 2020-11-21
37 Laws (SC) -2024-4-50
38 Laws (SC)-2025-4-11
39 2002 2 CalLJ 68 = 2002 0 Supreme (Cal) 305
22
learned Senior Counsel submitted that even a perusal of the
photocopy of the note file in C.C. No. B/5946/76 makes it evident
that exemption orders were passed under sub-section (3) of Section
27 of the ULC Act and the same is supported by the records in File
Nos.E/8947/76 and E/8948/76, wherein orders dated 10.08.1982
reflect that the declarants were protected under Section 4(11) of the
ULC Act and that there was no excess vacant land available for
vesting. It is therefore contended that in the absence of any excess
land vesting with the State Government, neither the State nor the
petitioners in W.P. No.45203 of 2022/respondent Nos.22 to 40, have
the locus standi to challenge the ULC proceedings or the sale
transactions, particularly after the lapse of several decades and
following the repeal of the ULC Act. The learned Senior Counsel
further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners
are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Rules
framed under the Registration Act, 1908 do not confer any power
upon the Registering Authority to adjudicate upon the validity or
legality of the documents at the time of registration. In support of
his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions in
Shri Sohan Lal vs. Union of India & another 40; Mohan Pandey
& another vs. Usha Rani & others 41; State of Rajasthan vs.
40 (1957) SCC OnLine SC 39
41 (1992) 4 SCC 61
23
Bhawani Singh & others 42; State of Rajasthan vs. Mangilal
Pindwal 43; Bina Murlidhar Hemdev vs. Kanhaiyalal Lokram
Hemdev 44; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar vs. Arthur Import &
Export Co., 45; Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. vs.
Sukamani Das 46; Dilboo (Dead) By LRS and others vs. Dhanraji
(Dead) and others 47; Syed Kazim Bahadur vs. District Collector,
Hyderabad 48; Raidurg Co-operative House Building Society
Limited vs. Government of A.P. & others 49; Yanala Malleshwari
vs. Ananthula Sayamma 50; Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd vs.
State of Haryana 51; Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra
Shankar Patil 52; Swati Ferro Alloys Private Limited vs. Orissa
Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation & Others 53;
Uma Devi & others vs. Anand Kumar & others (supra); Satya Pal
Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 54; Roshina T. vs. Abdul
Azeez & others 55; Popat Rao vs. Patil vs. State of Maharashtra
42 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306
43 (1996) 5 SCC 60
44 (1999) 5 SCC 222
45 (2019) 3 SCC 191
46 (1999) 7 SCC 298
47 (2000) 7 SCC 702
48 2002 SCC OnLine AP 437
49 2003 SCC OnLine AP 323
50 2006 SCC OnLine AP 909
51 (2009) 7 SCC 363
52 (2010) 8 SCC 329
53 (2015) 4 SCC 204
54 (2016) 10 SCC 767
55 (2019) 2 SCC 329
24
& others 56; Gaurav Jaiswal vs. Union of India & others57;
Ganesh Industrial Estate vs. Addl. Deputy Collector and
others 58; Padhiyar Prahladji Chenanji (Deceased) through LRs
vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) through LRs and others59
and Rushali Khera vs. Govt of NCLT of Delhi 60.
16. Mr.D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for
Assignment appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.17 to 21 in
W.P.No.45203 of 2022 submitted that the original records pertaining
to Files in C.C.Nos.6384/76 and 8948/76 have been produced before
this Court along with a Memo dated 02.05.2025. It is submitted that
as per the entries in the revenue records, the name of Maharaja
Kishen Pershad is duly recorded. However, the petitioners, who claim
to be his legal successors, have not filed any declaration under the
provisions of ULC Act, 1976, and are now disputing the declarations
made therein while seeking a declaration that the sale deeds in
question are null and void. It is submitted that in view of the repeal
of the ULC Act in the year 1999 and its adoption by the State of
Telangana on 22.04.2008, the reliefs sought in the present writ
petitions are misconceived and not maintainable. It is contended that
in the absence of any challenge to Proceedings No.6816, 6831, 6842,
56 (2020) 19 SCC 241
57 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3456
58 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 749
59 (2022) 12 SCC 128
60 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1320
25
and 6871, all dated 29.04.1980, the petitioners in W.P.No.45203 of
2022, as well as respondent Nos.1 to 9 and 22 to 40, are at liberty to
agitate their respective rights, if any, before the competent Civil
Court by instituting a comprehensive civil suit for declaration and
partition of the subject lands. It is further submitted that, in the
absence of availability of the original file in C.C. No.5946/76 and the
proceedings emanating therefrom, this Court cannot rely upon
Photostat copies of the note file, particularly when the same are
seriously disputed by the contesting parties and when such
documents do not bear any conclusive relevance to the
determination of title among the inter se disputants. Therefore, the
present writ petitions are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
In support of his submissions, learned Government Pleader relied
upon the decision in Smt. Uma Devi and others vs. Sri Anand
Kumar and others (supra).
17. A copy of the instructions filed in W.P.Nos.45203 of 2022,
14737 of 2024 and 5348 of 2025 by the Special Deputy Collector,
Urban land Ceiling, Hyderabad, along with the Memo, is reproduced
below:
26
27
28
18. The brief history relating to subject lands is necessary to
decide the nature of claims of the parties.
19. The lands under dispute originally forms part of ex-Sarf-e-khas
village (previously under the ownership and control of the H.E.H.
Nizam of Hyderabad) and vested in the Diwani Hyderabad regulated
under the provisions of Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.
29
The Diwani Estate in Hyderabad, also known as Diwani lands, was
merged with the State’s land holdings in February, 1949. This
merger occurred following the Hyderabad Sarf-e-khas (Merger)
Regulations and the Hyderabad (Jagirs) Abolition Regulation, 1949.
Original Sethwar (Settlement Register) was prepared in 1326 Fasli
(1916 AD) showing the lands in Sy.No.129 with an extent of
Ac.3,220.02 gts classified as Government land. It is stated that a
supplementary Sethwar of 1921 AD was issued in favour of
Moinuddin Hassan subdividing Sy.No.129 into 10 parts and
Sy.No.129/1 was classified as Kancha Thattikana, while
Sy.Nos.129/2 to 129/10 were shown as patta lands in favour of
Moinuddin Hassan. It is further stated that Moinuddin Hassan sold
an extent of Ac.186.32 gts in faovur of Moulvi Syed Mohmed Mehdi
Saheb, under registered sale deed vide document No.395/1358 Fasli
(1948 AD). It is further stated that Syed Mohd. Mehdi Saheb, divided
said land into various plots and sold to several eminent individuals
of the era. It is also stated that in the year 1930, Syed Mohd. Mehdi,
orally gifted (Hiba) Plot No.4 to an extent of Ac.7-00gts in favour of
Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad Bahadur Yamin us-Sultanat, (Prime
Minister (dewan) of Hyderabad), and the said Hiba was acted upon
by Maharaja Kishen Pershad and a bungalow was constructed and
the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad was recorded in all the
revenue records, such as Sethwar, Wasool Baqi and other records. It
30
is stated that in 1334 Fasli (1924 AD), the Survey Numbers were re-
assigned varying extents and reducing the survey numbers in view of
boundary disputes with Yellareddyguda Village. It is the case of
petitioners that Sy.No.129 was divided and allotted new Sy.Nos.352
to 404. It is further stated that after adopting Survey and
Boundaries Act, 1923 for the Telangana Area of the Andhra Pradesh,
the Town Survey was conducted and the property in dispute is
corresponding to T.S.No.1, Ward No.11, Block No.E corresponding to
Sy.No.225/96 showing the names of Maharaja Kishen Pershad as
registered holder and Mohd. Asadullah Khan, (his son through
Muslim wife) as possessor.
20. The case projected in the present writ petitions is that one
Mohd. Mehdi Saheb @ Mehdi Nawaz Jung was the original pattadar
of land admeasuring Ac.186-00 guntas in Sy.No.396 of Shaikpet
Village, which correlates to Revised Sy.No.225. It is submitted that
this property was subsequently divided into several parcels and sold
to various eminent individuals. It is the specific case of the
petitioners that in the year 1930, Syed Mohmed Mehdi orally gifted
(Hiba) Plot No.4, to an extent of Ac.7-00 guntas to Maharaja Kishen
Pershad. Pursuant thereto, the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad
was entered in the revenue records. It is also stated that a bungalow
31
was constructed by him on the said plot, and the appurtenant land
remained in his possession.
21. On the other hand, respondent Nos.1 to 9 contend that their
vendors are the successors-in-interest of Nawab Khaja Asadullah
Khan, who was the son of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. According to
them, Syed Mehdi Saheb executed registered gift deed bearing
Document No.250/1937 dated 23rd Isfindar 1347 Fasli (1937 A.D.),
in favour of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan, who was in possession of
the subject property. The vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9, being the
legal heirs of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan, claim to have lawfully
alienated the property in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 9 under
registered sale deeds. It is further submitted that the successors of
Late Asadullah Khan, namely Khaiserunnisa Begum, Khaja
Ahmedullah Khan, Khaja Mohammedullah Khan, and Jafferunnisa
Begum filed declarations under the ULC Act, 1976 vide
C.C.Nos.E/5946/76, E/6384/76, and E/8948/76. Pending final
determination of surplus land, they submitted applications seeking
permission to alienate the land under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of
the said Act and permission was granted vide File Nos.6816, 6833,
6842, and 6870/1979 dated 27.04.1980. It is the categorical stand
of respondent Nos.1 to 9 that the sale deeds executed by their
vendors are lawful and valid, and that neither the petitioners nor
32
respondent Nos.22 to 40 ever asserted any claim over the subject
land until the repeal of the ULC Act, and are now belatedly disputing
the sale transactions.
22. The Respondent Nos.22 to 40 claim to be children of Muslim
wife of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is their case that the vendors of
respondent Nos.1 to 9, who were in permissive possession of the
property, misused such possession and alienated the land under
Document Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated
07.09.1982, falsely representing that permission was granted by the
ULC authorities. It is submitted that they instituted a suit vide
O.S.No.1 of 2023, seeking partition and cancellation of the
aforementioned sale deeds, which was withdrawn on 28.04.2023
with certain conditions. Aggrieved by the refusal of liberty to file a
fresh suit, they filed C.R.P. No.2379 of 2023 on the file of this Court
and the same is pending for adjudication.
23. The above pleadings disclose a tri-partite dispute over the
subject property. The petitioners claim succession through Maharaja
Kishen Pershad and allege that the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9,
who are also the declarants in C.C.Nos.E/5946/76, E/6384/76, and
E/8948/76, committed fraud by executing sale deeds even before a
lawful partition among the heirs of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. The
petitioners also instituted O.S.No.154 of 2023 on the file of the III
33
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking
injunction and eviction of respondent Nos.1 to 9. Upon rejection of
the plaint, they preferred C.C.C.A. No.96 of 2024 on the file of this
Court, and the same is pending for adjudication. The main
contention of the petitioners is that no valid permission under sub-
section (3) of Section 27 of the ULC Act was granted for the said
alienation, and that the documents relied upon by respondent Nos.1
to 9 are forged and fabricated, as evidenced from the Photostat
copies of the alleged ULC note files. It is further contended that once
fraud is established and it is shown that no such proceedings exist,
the sale deeds cannot be saved merely by virtue of registration, as
fraud vitiates all transactions and relied upon the decisions in
S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath 61 and A.V.Papayya
Sastry and others vs. Government of A.P and others (supra). The
petitioners further contend that registration of a document comprises
three essential steps: 1) execution of the document by the executants
signing or affixing thumb impression 2) presenting the document for
registration and admitting the execution of the document and 3) Act
of registration. If any of these steps are tainted by fraud or are in
contravention of the prevailing law at the relevant point of time, then
such documents are liable to be declared as null and void. In this
61 1994 SCC (1) 1
34
regard, reliance is placed on the judgment in Asset Reconstruction
Company (India) Limited vs. S.P.Velayutham and others (supra).
24. Contrarily, Mr.D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Government
Pleader for Assignment, relying on the written instructions and the
counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, submitted that the Special
Officer-cum-Competent Authority under the ULC Act, 1976 had
issued proceedings dated 29.04.1980 under sub-section (3) of
Section 27 of the Act in favour of the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to
9, namely, Jafferunnisa Begum and three others. It is further
submitted that the original file pertaining to C.C. No.5946/76 is not
traceable, and as per the applicable rules, the proceedings were
destroyed after the statutory retention period of one year. In the
absence of availability of original file and in view of the passage of
over four decades since the execution of the sale deeds, and more
than fifteen years since the coming into force of the ULC Repeal Act,
1999, the petitioners cannot now challenge the validity of ULC
proceedings or consequential sale deeds. The learned Government
Pleader contended that when there are serious disputes relating to
title, possession, succession and allegations of fraud coupled with
the non-availability of original ULC records, the proper remedy is to
approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief in
accordance with law. In the absence of any illegality or procedural
35
irregularity apparent on the face of the record, the validity of
registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.1937/1980 dated
06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982 cannot be examined
by this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and thus prayed this Court to dismiss the writ
petitions.
25. This Court has carefully examined the rival contentions of the
respective parties and the decisions relied upon by them in support
of their case. Prima facie, it appears that there is a serious title
dispute in respect of the subject property. While it is true that
proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 are not amenable to jurisdiction of Civil Court, it is settled law
that a declaration made under the ULC Act neither confirms title nor
extinguishes the rights of any party so as to validate or invalidate the
registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.1937/1980 dated
06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982. The core contention
of the petitioners is that in response to their RTI application dated
10.01.2024, the Public Information Officer, Urban Land Ceiling
Wing, Hyderabad, vide Memo No.A4/RTI/27/2024 dated 31.01.2024,
furnished information stating that the Proceedings Nos.6816, 6833,
6842, and 6870/1979 dated 27.04.1980 were not issued by their
office. In contrast, respondent Nos.1 to 9 rely on Photostat copies of
36
proceedings dated 27.04.1980 in support their claim. Whereas, the
stand of the Government is that the said proceedings were destroyed
within the prescribed period of one year in accordance with the rules,
and no original records are presently available. The learned counsel
for the respective parties placed reliance on internal note files to
support or question the validity of the sale deeds. It is settled law
that a note file is an internal record or documentation and, unless it
culminates into a formal order or proceeding, it does not constitute
legal action so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present cases, there is
no material on record to show that the ULC authorities ever passed
final orders under Sections 8(4), 10(3), 10(5), or 10(6) of the ULC Act.
In fact, it appears that pending ULC proceedings, the ULC Act, 1976
was repealed and the same was adopted by the State on 22.04.2008.
In the absence of any concluded proceedings under the provisions of
the ULC Act, and having regard to the destruction of original records
in accordance with the applicable rules, the claims of the petitioners,
which are based on unverified note files, cannot be adjudicated in a
writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asset Reconstruction
Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra)
observed that if a party questions the very execution of the document
37
or the right and title of a person to execute the document and
present it for registration, the remedy is only to go to Civil Court, but
where a party questions the failure of the Authority to perform its
statutory function in the course of act of registration, it cannot be
said that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India stands completely ousted. In the instant case,
as on the date of execution of the documents, there is no provision
under the Registration Act, 1908 prohibiting the documents for
registration at the threshold and Section 22A was inserted into the
Act in the year 2007 as such it cannot be said that the Registering
Authority failed to discharge its statutory duty.
27. The facts of the present case are similar to the decision
rendered by Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Yanala
Malleshwari and others vs. Ananthula Sayamma and others
(supra), wherein it was observed as follows:
“97. As already referred to in these cases, there are serious disputed
questions of fact regarding the allegations of fraud and
misrepresentation played by the vendors as well as vendees against
each other. There are also questions raised regarding the competence
and entitlement of a person executing the document. In some cases
(W.P.Nos.22298, 23005 and 23088 of 2004), the sale deeds were
cancelled sometime in August, 2003, but the writ petitions are filed with
considerable delay: In some cases, there are complaints of cancellation
of deeds/ instruments after lapse of ten years after execution of the
original deed. In the opinion of this Court, these are the matters which
are to be decided based on evidence and the affidavit evidence available
on record is hardly sufficient to decide the issues in such a manner to
meet the ends of justice. Indeed, in some of the matters
W.P.Nos.879,880, 881,882,979,980 and 981 of 2006) suits are already
filed for injunction and the orders of status quo are in force. Therefore,
this Court is of considered opinion that the parties should be relegated to
38the civil Court to file suit either under Section 31 or under Section 34 of
Specific Relief Act..” (emphasis supplied)
28. The above decision was followed in Thota Ganga Laxmi and
another vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 62, and
challenging the same, a Civil Appeal No.317 of 2007 was preferred on
the file of Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its
judgment dated 13.07.2010 63 while reversing the findings recorded
in Thota Ganga Laxmi‘s case (supra), overruled the judgment of
this Court in Yanala Malleshwari‘s case (supra) on the ground that
the cancellation of document without issuing notice amounts to
violation of principles of natural justice. The judgments of this Court
in Yanala Malleshwari‘s case (supra) and Thota Ganga Laxmi’s
case (supra), came to be considered by a Division Bench of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 25.08.2015 in Satyapal
Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). In view of difference
of opinion between the two Hon’ble Judges of Apex Court, the matter
was referred to Division Bench (three-Judges Bench). The Division
Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 26.10.2016 64,
while approving the reasoning of the Full Bench in Yanala
Malleshwari‘s case (supra), observed as under:
“46. In our considered view, the decision in Thota Ganga Laxmi [Thota
Ganga Laxmi v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 207 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ)
1063] was dealing with an express provision, as applicable to the State62 2010 Law Suit (SC) 1243
63 (2010) 15 SCC 207
64 (2016) 10 SCC 767 : 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1202
39of Andhra Pradesh and in particular with regard to the registration of an
extinguishment deed. In absence of such an express provision, in other
State legislations, the Registering Officer would be governed by the
provisions in the 1908 Act. Going by the said provisions, there is nothing
to indicate that the Registering Officer is required to undertake a quasi-
judicial enquiry regarding the veracity of the factual position stated in
the document presented for registration or its legality, if the tenor of the
document suggests that it requires to be registered. The validity of such
registered document can, indeed, be put in issue before a court of
competent jurisdiction.”
29. The facts in the present cases are that the registered sale
deeds were executed in the years 1980 and 1982 vide document
Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982.
As on that date, there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908
prohibiting to entertain the registrations and the Registrar has no
power to examine the validity or otherwise of the documents.
Therefore, the principles laid down in Yanala Malleshwari‘s case
(supra), as approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment
dated 26.10.2016 passed in Satyapal Anand vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh‘s case (supra) squarely apply to the cases on hand.
30. Further, the petitioners in support of their title relied upon the
entries made in the revenue records, in the name of Late Maharaja
Kishen Pershad. The entries made in the revenue records or
mutations would not have any bearing on the title or possession of
the parties, as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sawarni vs.
Inder Kaur 65, Balwant Singh and another vs. Daulat Singh
65 (1996) 6 SCC 223
40
(dead) by LRs and others 66, Narasamma and others vs. State of
Karnataka and others 67 and Hyderabad Potteries Private
Limited vs. Collector, Hyderabad 68.
31. Whereas respondent Nos.1 to 9 are relying upon the registered
gift deed bearing document No.250/1937 dated 23rd Isfindar 1347
Fasli (1937 AD) executed by the pattadar Mohammed Mehdi @ Mehdi
Nawaz Jung, in favour of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan S/o.
Maharaja Bahadur Sir Kishen Pershad. The said registered
document was disputed by the petitioners and respondent Nos.22 to
40. The contention of the petitioners is that no permission was
granted to the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9 (Jafferunnisa Begum
and others) for alienation of the subject land under the provisions of
ULC Act and the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9 are in permissive
possession. Having taken plea that vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9
are not having any title, no reasons are forthcoming as to why the
petitioners or the respondent Nos.22 to 40 or their predecessors,
have not filed any declaration during the subsistence of ULC Act,
1976 or initiated proceedings for eviction of Jafferunnisa Begum and
others (vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9) from the subject property.
The main contention in these writ petitions is that no permission was
granted by ULC Authorities and suppressing the said fact, fraudulent
66 (1997) 7 SCC 137
67 (2009) 5 SCC 591
68 2001 (3) ALD 600
41
registered sale deeds have been executed in favour of respondent
Nos.1 to 9. If that is the case, the aggrieved parties are not the
petitioners or the respondent Nos.22 to 40 and it is for the State to
exercise its powers as per the Registration Act, 1908 seeking
cancellation of the registered sale deeds, on the ground of fraud,
misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. The codicils
referred in the disputed documents are admittedly binding the
parties to the said documents and the same cannot extinguish any
rights of the third parties and the registration binds inter se parties
to the said documents. If the petitioners are under the impression
that the aforesaid documents were executed fraudulently taking
away their rights, they are always entitled to agitate their grievance
before the competent Civil Court. Even if some of the conditions in
the sale deed were made with a fraudulent intention to circumvent
the proceedings under the ULC Act, it is evident from the orders
passed by the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority under the
ULC Act, vide Proceedings No.CC E1/8948/1976 dated 11.08.1982,
that the land, which is the subject matter of the declaration, is
exempted under Section 4(11) of the ULC Act. As on that date, no
proceedings were issued under Sections 8(4), 10(3), 10(5), and 10(6)
of the ULC Act, 1976. Accordingly, the benefit under the ULC Repeal
Act, 1999, would enure to the declarants. In addition, the Special
Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad has placed written
42
instructions dated 01.05.2025 stating that they have issued
proceedings under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of ULC Act, granting
permission to alienate the subject lands. (scanned copy of
instructions is reproduced above).
32. The parties to these writ petitions are inviting this Court to
adjudicate upon the issues relating to right, title, and possession/
alleged fraudulent execution of documents (sale deeds) in respect of
the subject property. In view of the serious disputes with regard to
right, title, possession and nature of documents and its authenticity,
a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve the inter se
disputes between the parties, especially in the absence of original
records being traceable. The questions as to who is the rightful
owner of the land in question; who is in possession of the subject
property, and if so, since when, how, and under what circumstances
they claim to be in possession and title; whether such possession
can be regarded as legal vis-à-vis the true owner, whether the
documents relied upon by the parties are genuine or fabricated etc.,
are material questions that arose for consideration in these writ
petitions. In my view, these are pure questions of fact, which can
only be appropriately addressed by a civil court in a properly
instituted civil suit, based on the evidence adduced by the parties,
but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
43
India. It has been consistently held by Hon’ble Apex Court and this
Court that a regular civil suit is the proper remedy for the
adjudication of disputes relating to property rights. Admittedly, in
the cases on hand, in respect of the subject property, C.C.C.A.No.96
of 2024 and C.R.P.No.2379 of 2023 are pending for adjudication on
the file of this Court. The Proceedings vide Lr.No.B/12258/2024
dated 10.02.2025 issued by the Government recommending the
request of applicant for construction of residential building/
apartment is of no consequence as the Government is not having any
power to issue no objections for the patta lands/private lands, as
held by a Division Bench of this Court in District Collector,
Chittoor District and others vs Smt.Nakka Jayalakshmamma 69.
33. It is a well-settled principle of law that the exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is governed
by self-imposed restrictions, as laid down in various judicial
pronouncements. It is equally settled that High Courts should
ordinarily refrain from entertaining writ petitions where serious
questions arise regarding the existence, genuineness, validity, or
authenticity of documents, or where even a fraction of doubt exists
as to their existence or non-existence. Such disputed questions of
fact cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under the summary
69 Judgment dated 01.10.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No.1653 of 2013 by a
Division Bench of this Court
44
jurisdiction of this Court. In the considered opinion of this Court,
these issues are required to be adjudicated by a competent Civil
Court.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise
its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
granting any relief as sought by the petitioners and the Writ Petitions
filed by the petitioners are devoid of merits and the same are liable to
be dismissed.
35. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. The
observations made in this common order are only for disposal of
these writ petitions and they will not have any bearing over any
proceedings between the inter se parties.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these writ petitions
shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 17.06.2025
scs