Telangana High Court
Nimmaneni Srinivasa Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 29 July, 2025
1
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
WRIT PETITION NO.8397 of 2025
Between:
Nimmaneni Srinivasa Rao
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and six others
...Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 29.07.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment : Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of
judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
2
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
+ WRIT PETITION NO.8397 of 2025
%Dated 29.07.2025
# Nimmaneni Srinivasa Rao
...Petitioner
and
1. $ The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and six others
...Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao
Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for N.Hari Prasad, Learned Counsel
for the petitioner
^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mrs.S.Sravanthi
Learned Assistant Govt. Pleader
for the respondent Nos.1 to 3
Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 : Sri Avinash Desai,
Learned Senior Counsel, appearing
Sri T.P.S.Harsha,
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1.(2011) 7 SCC 69
2 (2010) 4 SCC 728
31 MANU/AP/0709/2017
4 MANU/TL/1298/2023
5 (1969) 2 SCC 343
6 (2016) 10 SCC 767
7 2024 SCC Online SC 2490
8 2024 SCC ONLINE TS 4119
9 (2012) 1 SCC 656
10 2023 SCC ONLINE 1266
11 (2021) 19 SCC 263
12 Unreported judgment of this court in
FCA NO.75 OF 2022 DT.27.01.2023
13 MANU/MH/1136/2025
14 1950 SCC Online MAD 153
15 (2004) 8 SCC 785
16 2025 SCC Online 740
17 (2006) 4 SCC 322
18 (2014) 4 SCC 108
3
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.8397 of 2025
ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of
the respondent No.3 in registering the Deed of
Cancellation bearing document No.2115/2022, dated
17.03.2022 whereunder Registered Agreement of Sale-
cum-General Power of Attorney (for short ‘AGPA’)
bearing document No.12902/2019 dated 18.10.2019
was cancelled without any enquiry by exceeding his
authority and jurisdiction and consequently sought a
direction to the respondent authorities to cancel the
Deed of Cancellation bearing Doc.No.2115/2022 dated
17.03.2022.
2. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior
Counsel representing Sri N.Hari Prasad, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. S.Sravanthi, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for the official
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Avinash Desai, learned
4
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
Counsel representing Sri T.P.S.Harsha, learned
Counsel for the respondent No.4 and perused the
record.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the husband of the respondent No.5
namely P.Ravindra Babu, who was engaged in real
estate business under the name and style of Bhoomi
Projects, Ameerpet, Hyderbad, had purchased the
land in Sy.Nos.25, 33, 37, 39, 40 and 41 situated at
Immulnarva village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District from its lawful owner i.e. the respondent No.4
by virtue of registered Agreement of sale-cum-GPA
bearing No.12902/2019 dated 18.10.2019 (for short
‘AGPA’) and later the said land was converted into 100
House Plots. Subsequently, the husband of the
respondent No.5 offered to sell the entire 100 house
plots and accordingly, the petitioner purchased said
plots and paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards part
5
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
sale consideration i.e. Rs.17,00,000/- by way of cash
and Rs.13,00,000/- through RTGS in favour of M/s
Siri Bhoomi Projects on 19.09.2020 and the possession
was also delivered to the petitioner. At the time of
receiving the part sale consideration, the husband of
the respondent No.5 agreed to execute the registered
sale deed in favour of the petitioner or his nominees.
Unfortunately, the said Ravinder Babu expired, leaving
behind him, the respondent No.5 and his two minor
sons. Consequent on death of his vendor, the
petitioner approached the respondent No.5 several
times, who is well aware of the transaction and about
receipt of substantial sale consideration, to receive the
balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed.
While things stood thus, the respondent No.5 in
collusion with the respondent No.4, who is the original
owner, presented Deed of Cancellation of the AGPA
executed in favour of husband of the respondent No.5
and the respondent No.3 exceeding his authority and
6
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
without conducting any sort of enquiry registered the
Deed of Cancellation vide document bearing
No.2115/2022 on 17.03.2022. In view of unilateral
cancellation of the AGPA, the petitioner is put to
immense loss. Now, the respondent No.4 under the
guise of cancellation of AGPA, trying to sell away the
subject plots to third parties.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
would further submit that Section 35 of the
Registration Act, 1908 does not confer quasi judicial
power on the registering authority. Further, it is only
when the sale deed is cancelled by a competent Court,
the cancellation deed can be registered and that too
after putting notices to the parties concnered. The
role of the Sub-Registrar stands discharged once the
document is registered and there is no express
provisions in the Registration Act, to recall the
registration. In the absence of any express provision it
7
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
cannot be assumed that the Sub-Registrar is
competent to cancel the registration of the documents.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
would further submit that having come to know about
cancellation of the registered AGPA, the petitioner got
issued a notice to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to cancel
the Deed of Cancellation bearing document
No.2115/2022 dated 17.03.2022 and to maSke note
of the same. However, having received the notice, the
respondent-authorities did not choose to take any
action nor given any reply and in view of the same
present writ petition is filed seeking to direct the
respondent authorities to cancel the Deed of
Cancellation bearing document No.2115/2022 dated
17.03.2022 forthwith and requested to allow the writ
petition.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent No.4, basing on the counter filed by the
8
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
respondent No.4 would submit that the petitioner
deliberately suppressed the material facts including
but not limited to filing of the criminal complaint by
the petitioner against the respondent No.4 and
obtained interim orders. The petitioner, after death of
husband of the respondent No.5, on the very same
issue of Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of
Attorney, dated 18.10.2019 had already filed a
Criminal case in Karimnagar-II Town Police Station
against the respondent No.4 and the police after
conducting investigation closed the criminal case on
30.06.2024 stating that the complaint is in civil
nature. The petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact
of criminal complaint. Thus the suppression of
material facts amounts to serious abuse of the process
of law. The respondent No.4 never entered any
agreement with the petitioner.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondnet
No.4 would further submit that the land claimed by
9
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
the petitioner, being an extent of Ac.1.11 guntas in
Sy.Nos.37/W1, 37/UU/2, 37/AA, 37E1, 37U, 37U
under the AGPA, is already part of HMDA-approved
layout vide permission No.0000380/LO/PLG/HMDA/
2021 with multiple third party rights have been
created in the lay out. In fact, the part of the subject
land has already been gifted to the Inmulnarva Gram
Panchayath and the petitioner despite knowledge of
the same, has maliciously filed the writ petition by
suppressing the material fact.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
No.4 would further submit that the petitioner is
challenging the Deed of Cancellation dated 17.03.2022
executed between the unofficial respondents and the
AGPA, admittedly, the petitioner is neither a party to
the said AGPA or Deed of Cancellation. Further, the
petitioner is relying on an unstamped receipt and the
alleged receipt dated 10.09.2020 which the petitioner
claims to be an agreement without any basis. Even if
10
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
the argument of the petitioner is accepted, the said
unstamped receipt dated 10.09.2020 was issued to
one Mr.Sanjeev Rao but not to the petitioner. The
subject lands under AGPA are different from the land
mentioned in the receipt dated 10.09.2020, which
would speak about Sy.Nos.25, 33, 37, 39, 40 and 41,
therefore the petitioner has no locus standi to file the
present writ petition. Further, the writ petition is not
maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
No.4 would submit that the AGPA did not create any
right in the subject land in favour of Sri P.Ravindra
Babu as it is settled principle of law that registered
power of attorneys did not create any interest in
immovable property and as such the question of any
right in the subject land accruing to the respondent
Nos.5 to 7, after demise of Sri Ravindra Babu does not
arise, thereby the said Ravindra Babu himself did not
11
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
have title to the subject land. Therefore, what is
mutually cancelled is an agreement and there is no
sale of lands on behalf of the minors.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
No.4 would further submits that the respondent No.4
was never in communication with the petitioner at any
time in the past. The petitioner does not have any
relationship with P.Ravindra Babu and as such the
petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present
petition seeking cancellation of the registered
cancellation deed, as he is stranger even as per the
documents filed by the petitioner himself.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
No.4 would further submit that even if the interest of
the petitioner in the schedule property is accepted for
the sake of argument, the cancellation of a registered
document cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings
under Article 226 of Constitution of India and it can be
12
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
done only by a competent civil Court. Even if the
so-called unstamped and unregistered receipt exists,
the remedy for the said Sanjeev Rao would to be file a
Civil suit for recovery of money against the legal heirs
of Mr.Ravindra Babu.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
No.4 would further submits that there is no pleading
on the validity of the Cancellation Deed on the basis of
the minority of respondent Nos.6 and 7 as such the
said contention cannot be accepted. Even if the non-
pleaded argument is considered, it is not for any
stranger who has nothing to do with the subject land
to such or any pleas. The petitioner, apart from
making vague and baseless allegations about
cancellation the absence of the parties, has not
demonstrated any legal violation committed by the
Sub-Registrar in registering the Cancellation Deed.
The Cancellation Deed was admittedly a mutual
13
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
cancellation deed and was executed by the parties
mentioned in the Deed and it is not unilateral but
mutual deed which the Sub-Registrar has to
necessarily register and therefore there are no merits
in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ
petition.
13. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
No.4 in support of their contention relied on the
following Judgments:
2. Oswal Fats & Oil Ltd Vs. Additional Commissioner
(Administration), Bareilly Division and others 2
3. NCC Limited Vs. Sembcorp Gayatri Power Limited and others 3
4. Mohammad Fareed Pasha Vs. The State of Telangana and
others 4
7. Beena and others Vs. Charan Das (D) Thr.LRs and others 7
1 (2011) 7 SCC 69
2 (2010) 4 SCC 728
3 MANU/AP/0709/2017
4 MANU/TL/1298/2023
5 (1969) 2 SCC 343
6 (2016) 10 SCC 767
7 2024 SCC Online SC 2490
14
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
8. A.R.Nagar Gudisevasulu Sangam Vs. Y.Ramakumari and others 8
9. Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Ltd., Vs. State of Haryana and
another 9
10. N.S.Balaji Vs. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal 10
11. Beereddy Dasaratha Rami Reddy Vs.V.Manjunath and another 11
12. Division Bench Judgment of this Court in FCA No.75 of 2022 12
14. Ramalingam Reddy (Minor) by next Friend Vinjakshi Ammal Vs.
Babanambal Ammal 14
15. Nangali Amma Bhavani Amma Vs. Gopalakrishnan Nair &
others 15
17. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. K.Thangappan and
another 17
18. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and
others Vs. T.T.Babu 18
14. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner is challenging the
registration of the Cancellation Deed bearing document
8 2024 SCC Online TS 4119
9 (2012) 1 SCC 656
10 2023 SCC Online SC1266
11 (2021) 19 SCC 263
12 Unreported judgment of this Court in
FCA No.75 of 2022 dt.27.01.2023
13 MANU/MH/1136/2025
14 1950 SCC Online MAD 153
15 (2004) 8 SCC 785
16 2025 SCC Online SC 740
17 (2006) 4 SCC 322
18 (2014) 4 SCC 108
15
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
No.2115/2022 dated 17.03.2022 by the respondent
No.3, executed between the respondent No.4 and
respondent Nos.5 to 7, on the ground that the
petitioner has purchased suit schedule property
mentioned in the Registered Deed of AGPA dated
18.10.2019 from the husband of the respondent No.5
namely, P.Ravidnra Babu, by paying part
consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- i.e. Rs.17,00,000/-
cash on 10.09.2020 and Rs.13,00,000/- through
RTGS transfer in favour of M/s Siri Bhoomi Projects
and to that effect the husband of the respondent No.5
also issued a receipt on 10.09.2020.
15. Both the Counsel for the petitioner and the
unofficial respondents have vehemently argued with
regard to the rights of the parties in respect of the suit
schedule property. The petitioner failed to show the
transaction between the him and husband of the
respondent No.5 for seeking cancellation of the subject
16
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
document executed between the respondent No.4 and
respondent Nos.5 to 7.
16. In the writ affidavit, the petitioner stated that he
paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the husband of
the respondent No.5 vide receipt dated 10.09.2020 and
obtained receipt to that effect from him. In fact, on
perusal of the said receipt dated 10.09.2020 it shows
that the husband of the respondent No.5 received the
amount from one Sanjeeva Rao and moreover there is
no mention in the said receipt about the suit schedule
property mentioned in the impugned cancellation deed
dated 17.03.2022. The husband of the respondent
No.5 is only AGPA holder of the respondent No.4. After
death of the husband of the respondent No.5, the
respondent Nos.5 to 7 being legal heirs of the said
Ravindra Babu executed Deed of Cancellation of earlier
document No.12902/2019 dated 18.10.2019 through
impugned Deed of Cancellation No.2115/2022 dated
17
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
17.03.2022. It is settled principle of law that mere
Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney
cannot create any rights in the subject lands in favour
of Ravindra Babu.
17. The petitioner relied on an unstamped and
unregistered receipt dated 10.09.2020 and the same
cannot be taken into consideration for cancellation of
the impugned document executed between the
respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 to 7 in the writ
petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Moreover, the unstamped and unregistered receipt
dated 10.09.2020 was issued in favour one
Mr.Sanjeev Rao, who is not a party herein. The
petitioner is a stranger to the said receipt as rightly
contented by the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent No.4.
18. The contention of the petitioner with regard to
execution of document by guardian of the minors
18
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
cannot be taken into account as there is no bar with
regard to execution of a document by the guardian on
behalf of the minors.
19. Further, the petitioner contended that the
subject property was converted into 100 plots and
respondent No.4 sold the same to third parties. The
respondent No.4 contended that HMDA approved the
Layout vide permission No.000308/LO/PLG/HMDA/
2021 for 100 plots and some of them sold third parties.
The petitioner without impleading the effected parties,
filed the writ petition. In view of the same, the writ
petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of
non-joinder of effected parties.
20. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 in
support his contentions relied on number of
Judgments and some of them apply to the facts of the
instant case.
19
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
21. In a recent Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in K.Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and
others (supra 14), relied on by the learned Counsel
for the respondent No.4, held as under:
“15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the
executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the
executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a
lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the
registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the
procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as
well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under
the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar
or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to
the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering
authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present
before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject
to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document
must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have
the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant
possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the
property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer”
The above Judgment squarely apply to the facts
of the instant case.
20
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
22. In view of the above findings, the registration of
impugned Cancellation Deed bearing Document
No.2115/2022 dated 17.03.2022 by the respondent
No.3 needs no interference in this writ petition. If the
petitioner has any rights over the subject property, he
can initiate appropriate civil proceedings for
ascertaining his rights. In view of the same, the writ
petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
23. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No
order as costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date:29.07.2025
Note: LR copy to be marked
trr