Telangana High Court
Naushad Ali And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 11 July, 2025
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ WRIT PETITION No.8489 of 2022
% Dated 11-07-2025
Between:
# Naushad Ali, S/o. late Ismail Ali and another
... Petitioners
and
$ The State of Telangana,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. J.Ramachandra Rao
^ Counsel for the respondents : Mr. S. Ravi
< GIST : ---
>HEAD NOTE : ---
? Cases referred: :
1. (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 210
2. (2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 1
3. (2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 767
NVSK, J
2 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.P. No.8489 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioners are aggrieved by the Proceedings dated
26.06.2021 passed in Appeal No.2422 of 2021 by respondent No.3
and order Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 dated 20.03.2021 passed by
respondent No.4. Further consequential prayer was sought to direct
the respondents No.3 and 4 to receive and register the sale deeds
presented by the petitioners in respect of the flats constructed in
house property bearing Nos.6-l-286 and 6-1-286/A admeasuring 2200
square yards situated at Walker Town, Padmarao Nagar,
Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject property’).
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners
and possessors of the subject property having purchased the same
from its original owners under a registered sale deed bearing
document No.867 and 868 of 2017, dated 19.11.2014. Their further
case is that they have executed a Development Agreement dated
11.09.2019 in favour of M/s. Vijetha Constructions. In pursuance to
the said Development Agreement, GHMC granted permission on
08.08.2019 for construction of residential apartments consisting of
One Cellar + Stilt + Five upper floors situated at Walker Town,
Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad vide Permit No.1/C30/12231/ 2019
dated 08.08.2019. Accordingly, the developer had constructed
residential flats as per the sanctioned plan.
NVSK, J
3 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
3. While so, one Smt. Devika and three others have filed a suit in
O.S. No.203 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Courts, Hyderabad against the petitioners for declaration of title
and recovery of possession however, no interim orders were passed in
the said suit. Thereafter, the petitioners have sold all the flats to the
respective purchasers and when the petitioners wanted to execute the
sale deeds in favour of the respective purchasers, the Registering
authorities i.e., respondents No.3 and 4, have refused to receive and
register the sale deeds stating that the civil suit in
O.S. No.203 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Courts, Hyderabad is pending. It is further submitted that
except the said suit, no suits are pending and there is no direction
from any Court of law directing not to receive and admit the sale
deeds. Questioning the action of the Registering authorities, the
petitioners filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
official respondents No.1 to 4 has placed a copy of the written
instructions issued by the respondent No.4, Sub-Registrar,
Secunderabad, wherein it is stated that two Agreement of Sale-
cum-General Power of Attorney deeds dated 27.02.2021 executed by
the writ petitioners have been presented before the Sub-Registrar,
Secunderabad for registration. Both the documents were admitted for
execution and kept pending as P.No.60 of 2021 and 61 of 2021 for
scrutiny. On scrutiny of the documents, it is observed that in
NVSK, J
4 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
preamble of the documents, it is recited that the link document
Nos.867 of 2017 and 868 of 2017 both the documents are registered
at the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Secunderabad and these two link
documents have got the origin of documents No.3867 of 1971 and
1525 of 1978 registered at the Registrar’s Office, Hyderabad.
5. It is further submitted that a complaint was lodged at Nampally
Police Station and FIR was booked vide No.265 of 2019 dated
08.11.2019 and an investigation is under process with respect to the
origin Document Nos.3867 of 1971 and 1525 of 1978, which were
tampered electronic and manual records in the District Registrar’s
Office, Hyderabad, relating to the instant pending document Nos.60 of
2021 and 61 of 2021 of Sub-Registrar Office, Secunderabad.
Subsequently, Nampally Police Station has transferred the case to
CCS Hyderabad and renumbered as 168/2020 and the CCS
Hyderabad is inquiring into alleged crime. For the said reason,
the pending document Nos.60/2021 and 61/2021 were refused vide
Refusal order Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 and reasons for refusal to register
were recorded in Book-II under Section 71 of Registration Act, 1908.
A copy of the reasons recorded were served to the petitioner on
20.03.2021 informing that there is a remedy by way of an appeal
before the District Registrar Hyderabad under Section 72 of the
Registration Act, 1908. Subsequently, the aggrieved petitioner filed an
appeal before the District Registrar, Hyderabad on 19.04.2021 against
aforesaid refusal orders of the Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad in respect
NVSK, J
5 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
of pending document Nos.P.60 and 61 of 2021. It is further submitted
that the District Registrar, Hyderabad in view of the above facts and in
order to stop further frauds on the basis of a fraudulently inserted
forged document in the office records of the Registrar’s Office,
Hyderabad, which is a serious crime, observed that the action of the
Sub-Registrar in refusing to register the subject document was well
founded.
6. On behalf of the respondents No.5 to 8, counter affidavit has
been filed, inter alia, stating that they are the rightful owners of the
properties in Municipal Nos.6-1-296, 6-1-288 A & B and
6-1-289, located at Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad, with a total area
admeasuring 1682 square yards. It is submitted that the ownership
of these properties was legally acquired by the respondents No.5 to 8
through Four registered sale deeds executed vide Documents
No.202/2000, dated 07.03.2000, 203/2000, dated 07.03.2000,
711/2002, dated 15.06.2002 and 712/2002, dated 15.06.2002.
However, they were unlawfully dispossessed from the said properties.
7. It is further submitted that under Section 77 of the Registration
Act, 1908, petitioners have a remedy of appeal for orders passed
under Section 71 or 72 or 76 and hence, the present writ petition is
barred under law and the petitioners ought to have approached the
District Court for any grievances with regards to the orders in appeal
No.2422 of 2021 passed by the appellate authority and also Orders
No.3 and 4 of 2021 dated 20.03.2021. It is further submitted that the
NVSK, J
6 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
respondents No.5 to 8 became aware of a series of fraudulent claims
that were unlawfully asserted against their clear and undisputed title
to these properties and certain individuals, including the petitioners,
have falsely and fraudulently claimed title to these properties by
relying upon fictitious and fabricated sale deeds bearing documents
No.867 and 868 of 2017 dated 19.11.2014, which are created with the
mala fide intention to usurp the properties of respondents No.5 to 8.
In the said circumstances, respondents No.5 to 8 have instituted a
suit in O.S. No.203 of 2019 before the Court of the I Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking a declaration of title,
recovery of possession, cancellation of the fraudulent documents, and
the grant of a permanent injunction along with other appropriate
reliefs. In the said suit, three I.As. No.732, 733 and 734 of 2019 were
filed by the respondents No.5 to 8 seeking various interim reliefs
however, these I.As., were dismissed. Assailing the same, the
respondents No.5 to 8 have preferred appeals in CMAs. No.129, 133
and 140 of 2022 dated 10.03.2022 before this Court, which are
presently pending adjudication. During the pendency of the civil suit
in O.S. No.203 of 2019 and CMA Nos.129, 133 and 140 of 2022,
petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:
8. The learned Senior Counsel Sri J.Ramachandra Rao appearing
for the petitioners would submit that it is the case of the petitioners
that the Sub-Registrar vide refusal order Nos.3 and 4 of 202l dated
NVSK, J
7 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
20.03.2021 has refused to register the documents submitted by the
petitioners on the ground that the link document under which the
petitioners are claiming title is the subject matter of police
investigation. That the said documents viz,, document Nos.3867 of
1971 and No.1525 of 1978 in the Registrar Office of Hyderabad have
been tampered with and the same were inserted in the electronic
records and to that effect a criminal complaint has already been
lodged and investigation is pending. As against the said refusal orders,
the petitioners have preferred appeal under Section 72 of the
Registration Act and the said appeal was also dismissed vide
impugned order dated 26.06.2021.
9. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioners
claims to be the absolute owners and possessors of the subject
property, which was earlier purchased from its original owners under
registered sale deed bearing documents No.867 and 868 of 2017,
dated 19.11.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners have executed a
development agreement dated 11.09.2019 in favour of M/s. Vijetha
Constructions and had obtained construction permission vide
Permission No.1/C30/12231/2019 dated 08.08.2019 and accordingly
made construction as per the plan. On 27.02.2021 when two sale
agreements were presented by the petitioners for registration with
regard to Apartment 204 and 402 in II and IV Floor respectively at
Samruddi Residential Complex, these documents came to be refused
vide refusal Memo endorsement No.03/2021 and 04/2021. Assailing
NVSK, J
8 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
the same, petitioners preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2422 of 2021
before the District Registrar and the same came to be dismissed by
impugned order dated 26.06.2021 holding the reason that the
documents were refused for registration as the said property is listed
in the prohibited properties list covered by the Court stay.
10. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that vide
Lr.No.72/RTI/SEC-BAD/2021, dated 07.04.2021 of the Sub-
Registrar, Secunderabad, the petitioner was informed that “The
documents were refused for registration as the said property bearing
H.No.6-1-286, 288 and 289, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad are listed
in the prohibited properties list of this office covered by Court stay vide
O.S. No.452/201 dated 11-10-2013 and O.S. No.516/2018 dated
25-09-2019.”
11. Further, present status on the reference made by the
Sub-Registrar is as follows:
“(I) OS 516 of 2018 was dismissed for default on 10-08-2022.
(II) OS 452 of 2013 was dismissed as withdrawn 08-02-2018
(This suit was filed against Vendors of Irrevocable GPA Doc.566 &
567/2013, the same was dismissed as withdrawn after a settlement
between the LRs’ of Christie Original owner of the subject property
6-1-286 with Vendors of Irrevocable GPA, as such the Irrevocable GPA
was ratified by the conduct of the LRs’, thus clearing the cloud on the
title of the vendors of the writ petitioners herein.”
NVSK, J
9 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
12. It is submitted that nothing survives now to refuse registration
of the documents presented in compliance with the Registration Act
by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the de facto
complainant in FIR No.265/2019 has not protested the final report
and the same has been accepted by the learned XII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, vide Docket Order dated
28.07.2023, which reads as “Defacto complainant is present and
reported no protest. Hence, the final report filed by the police is hereby
accepted and office is directed to issue proceedings vide RC.No.02 of
2023.”
13. It is further submitted that nothing in the document P-60 and
P-61 presented before the Sub-Registrar has a reference to the
Document No.3867 of 1971, which clearly states that the vendor is
the sole and absolute owner and peaceful possessor of property
bearing H.No.6-1-286, admeasuring 2200 sq.yds., equivalent to
1839.42 sq.mts., situated at Padmarao Nagar, Walker Town,
Secunderabad having purchased the same from Sri Jototh Ramulu
and others vide sale deeds dated 19.11.2017 registered at
Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad. The Sub-Registrar claimed in his
refusal note that the documents presented are based on Document
No.3867/1971 and 1525/1978 which is incorrect, and it is settled
principle that Sub-Registrar cannot go into the title of the documents
presented. The entire litigation was started by the unofficial
respondents No.5 to 8 who are hand in glove with the Sub-Registrar,
NVSK, J
10 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
who refused the registration of the said documents unlawfully and
also never took representations of the petitioners.
14. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this
Court to the title of the respondents No.5 to 8, GPA Document
No.225/1991, dated 18.03.1991 and the death certificate of principal
to the GPA Executor dated 10.04.1997 and would submit that
extinguished GPA has no force for making a sale agreement after the
death of one of the principal executors of the GPA. The respondents
No.5 to 8 filed an affidavit to the extent to claim title from fraudulent
documents and also appealed the order of this Court in I.A. No.1 and
3 in W.P. No.8489 of 2022 while being imposters vide sale deeds
202/2000, 203/2000, 711/2002 and 712/2002. Adding to the
fraudulent execution, the documents 711/2002 and 712/2002 shows
that in the executor column Andrew Humphrey Christie came to the
Sub-Registrar office and put his finger prints 5 years after his death,
while replacing Joseph Philip photo against Andrew Humphrey
Christie, Teresa Margarate Christie against Joseph Philip and Andrew
Humphrey Christie against Teresa Margaret Christie.
15. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that this
Court had passed an elaborate reasoned orders in I.A. Nos.1 and 3 in
W.P. No.8489 of 2022, which was challenged by the respondents
No.5 to 8 vide W.A. No.626 of 2022 and W.A. No.628 of 2022 were
allowed by order dated 23.09.2022.
NVSK, J
11 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
16. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that W.As. No.626
and 628 of 2022 were challenged and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
SLP (C) 25760 – 25761 of 2023 passed an order dated 19.04.2024 and
remanded the matter for consideration. The respondents No.5 to 8
argued that the Document No.3867/1971 claimed as inserted,
however, the parties shown in the document No.3867/1971 neither
petitioners are parties to the document nor signatories and
petitioners were 6 years old in 1971 and no benefit is obtained by this
document as such, there cannot be any allegation against the
petitioners. As regards the Document No.1525/1978, the petitioners
are neither parties to the document nor signatories and the petitioners
were 11 years old in 1975 and no benefit is obtained by this document
as such, there is no allegation against the petitioners. Learned Senior
Counsel further submits that the registering authorities i.e.
respondents No.1 to 4 in collusion with unofficial respondents 5 to 8,
represented by their GPA holder had filed false report against the
petitioners and refused to receive and register the sale agreements for
registration and that the respondents No.5 to 8 are only proforma
parties and the main contesting parties against whom the relief was
sought for are District Registrar and the Sub-Registrar, who have not
sought an appeal of the order passed in I.As. No.1 and 3 in W.P.
No.8489 of 2022. Therefore, the impugned order is grossly erroneous,
without jurisdiction and prayed this Court to suspend the impugned
orders by allowing the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner also filed copies of documents to substantiate title flow and
NVSK, J
12 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
for better serving the arguments. Learned Senior Counsel in support
of his submissions referred to the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Asset Reconstruction Company
(India) Limited Vs. S.P. Velayutham and others 1 and Veena Singh
(Dead) through Legal Representative Vs. District
Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) and another 2.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 8:
17. The learned Senior Counsel Sri S.Ravi appearing for the
respondents No.5 to 8 submitted that the petitioners initially filed the
present writ petition seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus
declaring the action of the respondents No.3 and 4 in refusing to
receive and register the sale deeds in respect of the flats constructed
on the subject property and consequently sought a direction to the
respondents No.3 and 4 to receive and register the documents
presented by the petitioners.
18. Thereafter, subsequent to the impleadment of the respondents
No.5 to 8 as per the orders passed in I.A. No.2 of 2022, petitioners
filed amendment of prayer vide I.A. No.4 of 2022 seeking to declare
the proceedings dated 26.06.2021 passed in Appeal No.2422 of 2021
by the respondent No.3 and the orders No.3 and 4 of 2021 dated
20.03.2021 passed by the respondent No.4 as illegal and bad in law
and consequently sought to set aside the same with a direction to the
1
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 210
2
(2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 1
NVSK, J
13 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
respondents No.3 and 4 to receive and register the sale deeds
presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject flats.
19. It is further submitted that the petitioners are claiming title
based on two sale deeds vide Documents No.867 and 868 of 2017,
dated 19.11.2014, which trace their origin to two fraudulent
documents, namely Sale Deed No.3867 of 1971 and Mortgage Deed
No.1525 of 1978. These documents were fraudulently inserted into
the records of R.O. Hyderabad in place of genuine documents.
The genuine documents pertain to Mortgage Deed No.3867 of 1971
and Sale deed No.1525 of 1978 pertains to entirely different
properties, unconnected with the petitioners’ claim. The enquiry
conducted by the Assistant Inspector General of the Registration
Department culminated in a detailed report dated 19.11.2019,
wherein it was conclusively found that Documents No.3867/1971 and
1525 of 1978 were maliciously inserted into the department’s
database on 08.09.2011 at 12:42 AM. Consequently, FIR No.265 of
2019 was lodged with P.S. Nampally on 08.11.2019 and an additional
complaint was lodged on 23.11.2019 regarding the fraudulent
documents. It is further submitted that the respondents No.5 to 8
have filed a comprehensive civil suit in O.S. No.203 of 2019 before the
I Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking a
declaration of title, recovery of possession and other reliefs. In this
suit, the petitioners are arrayed as defendants No.11 and 12.
Additionally, and FIR No.102 of 2019 was lodged with P.S. CCS.,
NVSK, J
14 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
Hyderabad on 16.05.2019 against the petitioners and all parties are
involved in the sale deeds Documents No.867 of 2017 and 868 of 2017
on the ground of fraud. It is further submitted that the petitioners
have statutory remedy available under Section 77 of the Registration
Act, 1908 to challenge the refusal orders passed by the respondents
No.3 and 4. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable in
law as the petitioners have bypassed the available statutory remedy by
directly approaching this Court and prayed this Court to dismiss the
writ petition.
20. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material made available on the record.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
21. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 26.06.2021 passed in
Appeal No.2422 of 2021 by the District Registrar, Hyderabad under
Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, the said appeals were filed
against the refusal orders dated 20.03.2021 of the Sub Registrar,
Secunderabad, in respect of pending documents No.P-60 and P-61 of
2021 of SRO, Secunderabad. The appellants have submitted that
there are no orders prohibiting alienation of the subject property as
they are not notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908
and that the reasons recorded by the respondent in the refusal orders
are vague and against the Registration Rules, as such requested to set
aside the refusal orders passed by the Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad,
pertaining to the documents in question.
NVSK, J
15 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
22. The subject documents are Sale Agreement-cum-GPA with
possession in respect of the property of undivided share in house
property bearing No.6-1-286, consisting of Flat No.402, in II Floor to
the extent of undivided share of land 87 square yards out of 2200
square yards equivalent to 1839.42 square meters with built up area
1885 square feet along with two car parking spaces situated at
Padmaraonagar Walker Town, Secunderabad, within the limits of
GHMC and the said documents were presented for registration on
20.03.2021 at Sub_Registrar Office, Secunderabad, who refused to
register the same for the reason that as per Book 2 extract and also
oral depositions made by the Sub-Registrar that the instant pending
document got their links in documents No.867/2017 and 868/2017 of
Book 1 of SRO, Secunderabad and these two documents got the origin
in Documents No.3867/1971 and 1525 of 1978 of Book 1 of RO
Hyderabad. The Department found that a fraud occurred by way of
inserting forged pages against the document No.3867/1971 and 1525
of 1978 of Book 1 of R.O. Hyderabad. Thereafter,
a complaint was lodged with P.S. Nampally in Joint SR1, Hyderabad
letter dated 20.11.2019 regarding the tampering of both electronic and
manual records of the RO Hyderabad and requested the Police to
investigate. As there was a similar case of tampering of records and
the complaint made by the Joint SR 1, Hyderabad was registered as
FIR bearing 265/2019, the Police have informed the office that the
present case be clubbed to the FIR 265/2019 of P.S., Nampally.
The Sub Registrar, Secunderabad found that the link documents were
NVSK, J
16 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
found to be forged prima facie, and a police enquiry is going on,
therefore, registration of any further document on the basis of such
forged links will perpetuate the fraud and that the credibility of
registration system would be in serious risk. As such the
Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad vehemently presented the case
substantiating the refusal order in the interest of justice and to avert
further fraud in the issue which is under investigation by Police on the
complaint made by the department with regard to forgery in their
official record.
23. There was a specific observation by the District Registrar that
on perusal of the available records, it is found that forged copies are
inserted by removing original papers of copies of document
Nos.3867/1971 and document No.1525/1978 fraudulently on the
midnight of 8th September, 2011. These copies are in the Book 1 file
volume bearing No.343 and 623 of RO Hyderabad. The records of RO
Hyderabad were scanned. As per the record, the original
(untampered) records were scanned on 13th November, 2007 and
7th January, 2010 respectively, whereas, the inserted fraudulent
record was scanned on 8th September, 2011 at midnight 12:42:14.
Based on the criminal complaint filed before the SHO Nampally by the
Joint Sub-Registrar-1, through his letter dated 20.11.2019, the P.S.
Nampally has clubbed this complaint with a similar case registered as
FIR No.265/2019 thereafter, PS, Nampally has transferred these case
to CCS, Hyderabad and renumbered as 168/2020 and the CCS,
NVSK, J
17 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
Hyderabad is inquiring into the alleged crime. In view of the above,
FIR was registered and investigation is going on and the District
Registrar did not see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by
the Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad in refusing to register the Sale
Agreement-cum-GPA with possession as the orders were passed to
stop further frauds on the basis of a fraudulently inserted forged
documents in the official records of RO Hyderabad, which is a serious
crime. In view of the above, the appeals were rejected.
24. Further, it is seen that the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime PS
CCS, DD, Hyderabad, has filed a final report under Section 173 of
Cr.P.C., in Crime No.168 of 2020 on 21.05.2022 before the XII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, wherein it is
stated that during the course of investigation, a notice was sent under
Section 91/160 Cr.P.C. to the complainant i.e. Joint Sub-Registrar,
Red Hills, Hyderabad, with a request to produce the electronic devices,
relevant documents and any other evidences in support to the
investigation. After several requests, documents were provided but
neither the complainant nor the NIC team have provided the IP logs of
the said entries made in the servers. They have stated that the said
entry was made on 28.02.2019 and 01.03.2019 from R.O. Hyderabad
but did not provide any IP logs and without IP logs, they cannot trace
the person who has made the entries and there is no hope to detect
this case in near future and case is pending more than two years
without any clues. Further it is stated that after giving complaint,
NVSK, J
18 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
they have deleted the dubious fraudulent entry from the data base.
It is further stated that all possible efforts were made to trace out the
accused but could not yield any result and the final report was filed
stating that treating the case as UN-DETECTED for time being and
whenever any clues come-forth the case will be re-opened and
investigated accordingly.
25. It is pertinent to note here that the date of appeal order is
26.06.2021 thereafter, a final report has been filed on 21.05.2022 and
on 28.07.2023 the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad, passed the following docket order:
“Date: 28-07-2023
De facto complainant is present and
reported no protest. Hence, the final report filed
by the police is hereby accepted and office is
directed to issue proceedings vide RC.No.02 of
2023.”
26. It is pertinent to note that the subsequent events after passing
of the impugned order dated 26.06.2021 needs to be considered.
Further, it is also to be noted that the suit in O.S. No.203 of 2019 that
was filed by the respondents No.5 to 8 is pending in which the
petitioners herein were arrayed as the defendants as 11 and 12.
Additionally, an FIR No.102/2019 was lodged with P.S. CCS,
Hyderabad on 16.05.2019 on the ground of fraud against the
petitioners and all parties involved in the sale deeds i.e. Documents
No.867/2017 and 868/2017.
NVSK, J
19 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
27. In the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and others 3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for recalling the
registration document after registration/cancellation, the competent
authority is Civil Court alone and none of the authorities/officers
under 1908 Act have power in this regard. Any irregularity, which
was done deceitfully to cause loss and harm to other party to the deed
is a question of fact which must be pleaded and proved by the party
making such allegation and such fact cannot be presumed and
aggrieved party by such registration of document is free to challenge
its validity before the civil Court. Further, the Registering Officer
cannot inquire into title as his power is not quasi-judicial, but
administrative in nature. The scope of the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court for adjudication of disputed question of fact, declaration of
private rights of the parties or enforcement of their contractual rights
and obligation do not fall within its scope.
28. In the case on hand, there are several disputed facts in question
such as allegations of fraud, impersonation, identity and title disputes
surrounding the registration of the documents, which necessitates
recording of evidence which fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil
Courts and not writ jurisdiction, which may be adjudicated by the
competent civil Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to
judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yanala Malleshwari
3
(2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 767
NVSK, J
20 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
Vs. Ananthula Sayamma (AIR 2007 AP 57). The relevant para No.40
in the case of Satya Pal Anand (Supra) is extracted hereunder:
40. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Yanala
Malleshwari [Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula
Sayamma, AIR 2007 AP 57 : 2006 SCC OnLine AP
909] 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.
From the above, it is clear that it is a well settled law that the High
Court cannot exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
NVSK, J
21 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
of the Constitution of India to adjudicate the hotly disputed questions
of facts.
29. Having regard to the facts that disputed question of facts are
involved in the present case and since the civil suit in
O.S. No.203 of 2019 before the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Secunderabad and CMA Nos.129, 133 and 140 of
2022 before this Court are pending and the rights of the parties are
not decided till date as such, the order dated 20.03.2021 warrants no
interference and at this juncture, no Mandamus can be issued
directing the Registering authority to register the subject documents
and the writ petition is devoid of merits and fails. It is made clear that
this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rights of the parties.
However, the parties are at liberty to pursue their remedies as
available under law.
30. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 11.07.2025
Note: L.R. copy be marked.
B/o.
LSK
[ad_1]
Source link