1. Koveeri Padmavathi. Wo. K. Raju, Age v. The State of Telangana. ReP. bY its

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stateC in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a vrrit' order or direction more particularlv one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the respondents in not taking any action on the representations of the petitioners dated 13'12 2023 for cancellation of the illegal sale deeds and assignment deeds entered into by and between the respondents 5 to 15 fraudulently vide Doc.No 1358412022' dated 11tO412022' Doc.No.11503 12022' daled 24103t2022' Doc No 6819/20'18' dated 21t0312018 Doc.No.11985i2007 and 11986/2007' dated 31lO5t2OO7 ' as highly illegal' arbitrary and in riolation of Article 300 A of the Constitution of lndia' consequently direci the respondents 3 and 4 to cancel the Registered Doc No' 1358412022, daled 111O4t2022 Doc'No 1 150312022' dated 24t03t2022' Doc No .6819i2018 dated 21t03t2018 who Registered Assiglnment Deed bearing 1 1g(5t2oo7 and I 1 986/20107 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tfle High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to cancel the fegistered Doc.No. 1358412022, dated 1 1 tO4l2O22, Doc. No. 1 1 503t2022, dated 24103t2022, Doc. No O 81gt2\1 B, dated 211312018, Doc.No 1198512007 and 1'1986/2007, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tle High Court may be pleased to grant lnterim Stay of all further nroceedingl or transactions in respect of Registered Doc.No. 1358412022. dated '1 110412022, Doc.No.1150312022, dated 2410312022, Doc No6819/2018, dated 2110312018, Doc.No. 1198512007 and 1198G12007, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying fthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thle High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order passed in LA No. 212014 in W.P.No. 1310312024, dated 12.01 .2024, until further orders, pending dispogal of the above writ petition, in the interest of the justice. lA NO:4 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying ithat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to take up the matter "FOR BEING IMENTIONEp" to the effect that the order granted by this Hon'ble Court dated 12.01 2044 in l.A.No.2l2O24 in W.P.No. 130312024 may be modified to the effect that ihe interim order shall be made applicable against the respondent No.8, not to ehtertain any document relating to Sy.No.1004, for registration presented by the third parties inview of stay granted by the this Hon'ble Court in CCCA M P No. 281 ol 2016 in C C.C.A.No. 76 of 2016, dated '15.06.2016, in the interest of the justice. IANO:5 OF 2024 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircrlmstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to the Main Prayer and lnterim Prayer in permit the petitioner herein to amend W.P No. 130312024 as follows: MAIN PRAYER: "it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleaserJ to lssue a writ' order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus' declaring action of the respondents in not taking action on the representations of thepetitionersdated,l312'2023forcancellationoftheillegalsaledeedsand assignment deeds entered into by and between the respondents 5 to 15 fraudulently vide Doc-No 1358412022, dated 1 1 04 2022' Dor: No 1150312022' dated 25 03.2022, Doc lrlo 6819/201'8' dated 02 03'20'18 Doc'No 1198512007 & llgE6l2OOT,dated3lOlt2OOT,whereinthelandsarecoveretlbySyNo'i004' situated at in between the villages of Narregudem and Beera'nguda' Hamlet of AmeenpurVillage,TalukSangareddyDistrict,pursuanttothilstaygrantedby this Hon'ble Court in C'ICA.M.P.No 2B1 of 2016 in C C C A No 76 of 2016' dated15.06.2016,ashr'shlyillegal,arbitraryandinviolationofArticle300-4of theConstitutionoflndiaandconsequentlydirecttheofficialrespondentsto cancel the Doc.No. 135i14t2022, dated 1 1 04'2022' Doc No 1150312022' daled 25032022, Doc.No. 6819/2018, dated 02032018 DocNo 11985/2007 & 11g86t2007, dated 31 .O52OO7 and pass such other order or crders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case" IN TERIM PRAYER: "ltisfurtherprayedthatthisHon'bleCourtmaybepleasedtograntinterimstay of all further proceedings or transactions arising out of th(-' sale deeds and assignment deeds enk:red into by and between the respondents 5 to 15 fraudulently vide Doc.Nr. 13584t2022' dated 1 1 04 2022' Doc No 1150312022' daled25'03.2022,Doc.1'.lo.6819/2018,dated02,03.2018DocNo.11985/2007& 11gB6t2OO7, dated 31 .C5 2OO7 wherein the lands are covered by sy.No 'i 004' situated at in between lhe villages of Narregudem and Beeramguda' Hamlet of I Ameenpur Village, Taluk Sangareddy District' in the light of the stay granted by this Hon',ble court in cccn trl p r'ro 281 0f 2016 in c c c A No T6 0f 2016' dated '15.06.2016, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case" in the interest of the justice' IA NO: 60 F 2024 petition under Section 151 Cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ilne High court may be pleased to direct the respondents 3 & 4 not to entertain any documents presented by the unofficial respondents for registration of lands covered under Sy No 1004' at in between the viflages of Narregudem and Beeramguda, Hamlet Of Ameenpur Village, Taluk Sangareddy District' pursuant tq the Doc No 13584t2O22' daled 11.04.2022,Doc No 11503t2022' dated 25 03.2022' Doc No. 68'19/2018' dated 02.03.2018 Doc No 11gB5l2OO7 & 11986/2007' dated 31'O5 2OO7 ' pending disposal of the above writ petition IA NO: 70F 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the p extend the interim order passed in l A 12.01.2024, until further orders' pend the interest of the justice IA NO: 80F 2024 praying that in the circumstances stated etitron, fhe High Court may be pleased to t'lo ztl,ozq in w P No 130312024' daled ing dislosal of the above writ petition' in Between: pmar, Amee S/o. P npur Vi lla Abshalom' R/o. Plot No. 12' 1 Sri. Pantamalla Arun K d Mandal, San ga Reddy District KSR NRI Anand Nagar, 2 Sri. Erukulla Sridhar, S/o. Erukulla Mal bsham, R/o Plot No 12, KSR NRI Anand Nagar, Ameen pur Village and Ma hdat, sa nga Reddy District 3. Sri Falaha ram Kasi Prasad, S/o. Late F Chandra Shekhar' aged about 39 Anand Nagar' K R/o H No 15-55/l2/88, KSR NRI ant{ma llaqP an years, occ.Service, Beera mguda, Ameen pur, Sangareddy D btrtct-502032

4. Sri Chintamalla VijaY Kumar, S/o Chintaim alla Samuel, aged about 47 Years, District-5082 17, No.2-43, ThoPul[herla, Nalgon da Occ.service, R/o.H Telangana State 5 M/s. K.S.R. Constructlons & Real Estates Pvt Ltd Reo' bv rts lVlanaging Director. K srini'ras nro, tlo'"i'i"]'ilili*nanao Aoed 39 vears' occ Business. R/o YFK co,pi"i'iu'is;inJLl"' H lt".g-1 41'tt4 Hvderabad ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT No'5 to 8 & 13 AND 1 2 3 j1;,4n""fl ,,3]J"",1',i'f l"'[%":"#[''*" ["#"J:.t-i3#iJ,l9],,H,'3"5n,11 B'Venkata Subbamma. W/o, Sree Ramulu, Aged 61,y1,,?. .9.", Housewite, Hr;"i-i6'i5i, BH'=L, RamairranJiap"am' Sangareddv D'strict P.Sunitha.Wo.P'VenkataRamana'-Aged43,years,occ,Housewife,Rio. LidTsi', suEL, Flamachandrapuram' Sangareddy District i:''0 8e:?'i:tfl I i ff:L3i *,i.:';::' rf. il *i : "#' fi i$f li{,;l karimnagar Distrct ...REspoNDENTSMRtr PETITIoNERS Stamps and "","" Principal Sectetary' Regrstration General'. Stamp.; and 4 The State of Telangana, Rep by its - - n"iiJ'jii". o"p irt.6ni, Secie[aria[ eultoings' Hvderaba d 5. The Commissic ner and lnspector - " o"irrtl"'"ni.'5ii," ot r.rungini' l'* Bagh' Hvderabad 6. The District Registrar, Sanga Reddy District 7. The Joint Sub-R,:gistrar, Sanga Reddy District' 8. Sri Koppula Rarn Reddy, S/o Late Koppula Krishna R'rddy' aged about 49 vears, occ.se vrce, ''ilJri ru" i:id]-"g c cotonu 'lear water lanK' Rayanasudem, r;urvapeiil?nii]lr'i'iri"to' 5is1ti"i-doaa'o Telansana state J Shramsunder' Age 90

9. Smt C.J.Hymavathi Shyamsunder' Wo Late ,C " il;;.,'d; fr'",L'"*it", riiJo-i:)Js 10- Smt. Nivedita Flao, Wo V Sanjeeva Rao' Age 62 years' Occ Housewife' ' " il'.i.oli-z1ii, t'1.* iinoiguoa Secunderabad 11. Smt. N.S.Surandini, W/o N S Chandrasekhar' Age 59 years' ' ' 5"ii H"riu-*ir., nlo o-r-zis,-l'iew Bhoiguda' Secunderabad 12.CH. Rathindrarrath, S/o Late C D Hemanth'. Aged, 74 years' Occ Pvt '' 5!iri"i,'il" H r'ro a-s-ros, NJravanaguda' Hvderabad '13. CH. Rabindranath, S/o Late C D Hemanth . Ag.ed , 69 years' Occ Pvt' Service, R/o. H No 3-5iiOs, ttt""y'n'guda' Hyderabad 'r'le* Bhoisuda' secrrnderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 12 01 '2024 made in WP No.130 3 of 2024 and dismiss the Writ exerlplary costs' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRIKANTH SUTFRI Counsel for the Respondent No'1 to 4: SMT S.$RAVANTHI' AGP FqR STAMPS & REGISTRATION counsel for the Respondent No.S to 8 & 13: SRI P.VENKAT REDDY WRIT PETITIO N NO: 2895 OF 2025 Between: 1 M/s. K.S.R. Constructions and Real Estateg Pvt Ltd , a company in corOolg!! undertneprovisionsofthecompaniesAct,l956.havinoltsreolstereoofllce ;i'iil. tiii,,- :e- i -+ar+. vnr c"o;'pG;, M; i,i' noio, r-ang6r !gq5e, ryd9',L',q 500008, Represented by its managing Dlre^ctor- Srr' K Srlnlvas Kao r/o' L;te.t;r;i"ih;-nao, ,g6o iboui st"vda,t occupation- Business' Rio YRK Compfei, Langer Hous6, Hyderabad, Telangana State Bhoooal Reddv, Aqed about 48 Years, H No 1-15, VenkePalle, Moinabad. R/o. J Late

2. Smt. Chittimalla Vimala, Wo Occuoation- Housewife, K.V.iangareddY District, T.S. Sri. Chittimilla Nandeshwar Reddy, S/o. L Years, Occupation- Business; R/o. H. K.V.RangareddY District, T.S. 4. Smt. Chittimilla AmulYa, D/o. Occuoation- Student, R/o K.V.RangareddY District, T.S. Petitioners No.1 to 4 are represented Doc.No.'10005 of 2004 dt-8 4.2024 Sri O Late. Bhoopal Reddy, Aged about 32- Year ate Bhoopal ReddY. Aged about 32 l.io 1-15, YenkePalle. Moinabad, Late BhooDal Reddy, Aged about 26 Years, - H No. ' 1-1 5 YenkePalle, Moinabad, bv rts Reqistered GPA bearing hittimitta Nindeshwar ReddY S/o. . R/o. K.V.Ranga ReddY. ...PETITIONERS AND I 2 3 s Principal Secretary, Revenue The State of Telangana, ReP. bY Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad The Joint Sub Registrar, Patencheru District, T.S. Smt. Koveeri Padmavathi, Wo. K Ra1u, flged 6] years, Occ Housewife' R/o il itr"'b-e:iosirglaz, rnoir'r'r.ragarJuditee Fitts' Ro'ao No 2, Hvderabad' T S Registration Office, Sanga ReddY ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitutron of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed thprewrth, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ order or dlrectioh more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent rn not receiving and registeringthesaledeeddt-24.ol.2025presentedbythepetitionersinrespect of subject Plot i.e., Plot No 140, 166 66 sq.yards, in surveY admeasunng No.1001 , 1002, 1003, 1004, 1006, 1008, and 't009, having Built up area 954 sq-feets, Ground floor only, Roof covered with R.C.C., Situated at Ameenpur Village, Ameenpur Municipality, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy district, T.S as illegal, arbitrary, contrarl,to law and U nconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to receive and register the sale deed dt- 24-01 .2025 presented by the petiticners in respect of subject plot without reference to pendency of W.P No.13(t3 oI 2024 pending on the file of this Honble Court. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Se,;tion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to receive and register the sale deed dl-24 01 .2025 presented by the petitroners in respect of subject plot ie, Plot No 140, admeasuring 166.66 sq.vards, in survgy No.'1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1006, 1008. and 1009, having Built rp area 954 sq.feets, Ground floor orrly, Roof covered with R.C.C., Situated al Ameenpur Village, Ameenpur Munictpality, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy dis rict, T.S without reference to pendency of W.P No 1303 of 2024, pending dispos:rl of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PRAMOD SINGH Counsel for the Responrlent No.1 & 2: SMT S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION Counsel for the Responrtent No.3: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPKARI WRIT PETITION NO: 7596 OF 2025 Between:

1. Kunchala Srihari, S/o. Kunchala Venkateshwarlu, Business, R/o. ll No. 21-57, Bombay Colony, Ramchand rapuram, San gareddy District - 502032. Ag N eo 33 years, Occ eat Govt. School.

2. Smt. Vemula Sujatha, Wo. Venkateshwarlu, Aged 38 years, Occ.-Housewife, R/o. BC Colony,'Pctluru, Gudluru Mandal, Prakasam District - 523281 . AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Stamps Registration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS

2. The Commisstoner and lnspector Genetal, Stamps and Registtation Department, State ofTelangana, Jam Bagh, Hyderabad'

3. The District Registrar, Sanga Reddy District 4. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy Distriqt. 5. Koveeri Padmavathi, Wo. K. Raju, Aged 6'l years, Occ Housewife' R/o' lino' 8-3-26gt1gt47,lndiranagar, Jubil-ee Hills, Road No. 2, Hyderabad

6. B.Venkata Subbamma, Wo. Sree Ramulu, ,[ged 63 years, Occ Housewife' R/o. LIG 751, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, S4ngareddy District

7. P. Sunitha, Wo. P. Venkata Ramana, Aged 43 years, Occ Housewife, R/o' LIG 751, BHEL, Ram achandrapuram, Sangareddy District' Respondents 5 to 7 Rep. by their GPA Hol{er s-ri Akula Harish, S/o. Akula Ganoareddv. Aqed 25 'vears, Occ. Business, R/o' H no 3"l 'l T Tatipalle Villale, Jagiial Mandal. Karimnagar District ...RESPONDENTS petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit. filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in denying to register the sale Deeds presented by the petitioners in respect of Plot No. 97, admeasuring 166.66 Sq.yards or 139 34 Sq.mtr$, in Sy No 1001' 1002' 1003' 1004,1006,'l00sandl0Og,situatedatfmeenpurVillage,Ameenpur Municipality, Ameenpur Mandal, sangareddy District, referring to the lnterim Suspenston granted by this Hon'ble Court in l A No 212024 in W P No' 130312004, dated 12.01 .2024 as highly illegal, arpitrary and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of lndia, consequently sEt aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thq High court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to receive, process and register the sale deeds presented by the petitioners in respect of Plof No. 97, admeasuring 166 66 Sq.yardsor139.34Sq.mtrs,inSyNo100'1,1002,1003,1004,1006'100Band 1009, situated at Ameenpur Village, Ameenpur frlunicipality, Ameenpur Mandal, sangareddy District, without reference to the lntfrim suspension granted by this Hon'ble Court in l A.l,to.2l2O24 in W.p.No. 1303t2004, dated 12.01 2024. pending disposal of the ,,,'yrit petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI B.CHINNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SMT S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respon Cent No.5 to 7: SRI P.SANKAR RAO The Court made the fottowing: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JIISTICE K.SARATH W.P.Nos.13O3 of 2O24 & 2895 and 7596 of20.25 COMMON ORDER: The Writ Petition No.1303 dt ZOZ+ is {iled declaring the action of the respondents in hot taking any action on the representations of the petitiorlers dated 13. L2.2O23 for cancellation of the illegal sale deeds and assignment deeds entered by the respondent Nos.S to 15 fraudulently uid,e Doc.No.13584/2022 dated LL.M.2022, Doc.No.lt5O3/ 2022 dated 25.O3.2022, Dqc.No.6819l2Ot8 dated O2.O3.2O18, Doc.No.71985l2OO7 and t1986/2OO7 dated

31.05.2007, as illegal and arbi{rary, and consequently direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 [o cancel the same. 2 The W.P.No.2895 of 2025 is filed declaring rhe action of the respondent No.2 rn not receiving and registering the sa-le dded dated 24.AI.2025 presented by the petitioners in respect of the plpt No. 140 aclmeasuring

166.66 Sq. Yards in Survey Nos.l,0O1, 1002, j0O3, lOO4, 1006, 1OO8 anci IOOg situatcd at,]meenpur Village without reference to pendency of W.p.No. IJO3 of 2024. 2 SK, J WI' 130.) 2O24 & Botch

3. 't'he W.P.No.7596 of 2O2S i:; filcd declaring the action of the respondenl. No.4 in cierrying to register the Sale Deeds presented by the petitioners in rcspect of plot No.97 adnreasuring 166.66 Sq. yarcls in Sy.Nos.1O01, 1OO2, 10O3, 7OO4, 1006, 1008 and 1009 siruated at Ameenpur Village, referring to the Intt:rim Suspension granted bl, this Honble Court in l.A.No.2 12024 in w.P.No.1303 0f 2004 dated t2.ot.2024.

4. The issue involved in all these writ petitions pertains to the same subject property and consequcntial orders. 'lherefore, thes<: writ petitions are taken up for hearing togettrer ancl being disposecl of by rvay ol this common orrler by taking W.p.No. 1303 of 2024 as leading case.

5. Heard Sri Vijay B Paropakari, lcarnecl counsel for the petitioners in rW.P.No. i3O3 of 2024, Sntt. S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government pleader frtr Stamps and Registration appea_ring lor the official rcspondents and Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for unofficia-l res;pondent Nos.5 to g and 13 in W.p.No.13O3 of a SK,,J WP_1 303_2O24 & Batctt 2024 and learned counsel for the petitioners W.P.Nos.2895 and T596 of 2025.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners purchased plot Nos. 114/C, 1 15/A and 115/B all forming part of Sy.No. 1Q04 situated at Ameenpur Village, Sangareddy District, through registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.5415/ igg4, 1485212006 and 14881 12006, respectively. Their vbndors have claimed the title through the Industrial Emplpyees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (for brevitJz, ,,the Society,,), which purchased lands under severa_l Sale deeds and obtained conversl0n (NALA) proceedings

18.06.1987 uide Proc.No.El-3O9I/87. The Society have laid out plots over the said lands, which include the tands now claimed bv the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that one C.J.Shyam Sunper, filed O.S.No.2l9 of 1982 on the file of II Additional Special Judge for Special Police Establishment (SpE) and flnti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), City Civil Court, Hyderabafl, seeking partition and 4 .SX, J WI' 1303 2024 & Bdtch sepa-rate possession of suit schedule properties against the defendants ald a compromise Decree was passed ir-r the said suit on 02.O7.1991. Thcreafter, the Society filed O.S.No.338 of 200i on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Flyderabad, seeking carcellation of compromisr: Decree dated 02.O'7.lg9l passed in O.S.No.219 of 1982 on the ground of fraud anC collusion against ttrr, respondents herein. Aggrieved by the final decree date d O8.04.2OO8 passed in I.A.No.3g33/2OOT in O.S.No.219,t1982 on the file of III Adclitional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the plot owners of Narayana Rao Layoul., who were not made parties in the suit, preferred C.C.C.A.No.76 of 2016 before thrs Hon'ble Court with leave trretition. This Court was pleased to grant leave by order dated 21.01.2016 ancl also filed C.C.C.A.M.P.No.28l of 2Ot6 in C.C.C.A.\ro.76 of 2Ot6, seeking stay of all'further proceeding inclucling execution of the final decree pursuant to order dated Og 04.2OOg passed by the III Additiona-l Chief Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Flyderabad in I.A.No.38133 of 2007 in O.S.No.2 t9 of 1982. This Court b), order dated 1S.O6.2016 rvas pleased to grant 5 SK, J WP l3O3 2024 & Batch lnterlm stay AS prayed for in respect of the land admeasurin g Ac.69.37 guntas cofnprising in Sy.Nos.3 7, 66, 69 to 71, 948, 949, 952 to 95Q, 1001 to 1OO4, 1006 to tot2, tol6, 1057, 1058, 1060 t o 1063, 1110 to 1116, 1t22, tt23 t129, ituatdd S at Ameenpur Village, Patancheru M anda,l , Medak District l

8. Learned counsel e petitioners further submits that the respondent N s.5 to 8 purchased Plot 4 Nos.158 and 158/A, admeasurin$Zat Sq. Yards and88.44 Sq. Yards respectively, totating ZO6.++ Sq. Yards situated in Sy.Nos.1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1006, 1OO8 ald 1009 of Ameenpur Municipality, SanSFIeddy District, under registered Sale Deed No.73584[2022 dated 17.O4.2022 I from the respondent No.9 and th said land was previously q conveyed to the respondent No p by way of Sale Deeds bearing Doc.Nos.Il5O3l2022

25.O3.2022 and 6819 /2OI8 dated O2.03 .2O18, whI I ch in turn were based on Assignment Deeds bearing Docurrfent Nos. 1 1985/ 2OO7 and 17986 / 2OO7 dated 3 l.O5.2OO7 e)de cuted by the respondent Nos.10 to 12, 14 and 15 in favourl of the respondent No. 13. The said Assignment Deeds were egistered in suppression 1r l l. ) 6 SK, J Wl' 1343 2024 & Bdtch of DocurrLent No.8O2 1/2008 arrd the dues of Rs.27,96,0Ct0/- towards Government revenue, which were pending as per DR Proceedings No.IR,/3182 lO9 dated O8.O4.2O11. Despite the encumbr-ance entries and non- payment ol- dues, the documents werc registered and formed the casis of subsequent transactiorrs. Thereafter, a representation clated 13.72.2023 was made to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 seeking cancellation of the Assignment and Sale Deeds under Sectiotrs 32 and 82 of the Registrzrtion Act, 1908, but no action was initiated. Aggrieved bl, the same, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

9. Lt:arned counsel for the petitioners filed rejoinder denJring the allegations made in the counter affidavit. It is reiterated t.eat the decree in O.S.No.21r) of 19g2 was obtained collusively without impleading the Society and other affected purchasers. The petitioncrs assert that C.C.C.A.No.iz6 of 20L6 was filed by similarly situated persons whrt were not par-ties to the originat suit. This Court had 6lranted interim stay of the final decree dated

08.04.2008 in I.A.No.3833 of 2OO7 in O.S.No.2 t9 of t982, 7 SK, J WP,13O3_2O24 & Batch and the stay continues to operate; He further contends that their possession has not been disturbed and the frnal decree was passed solely on the rpport of the Commissioner without considering the actual ground realities and the decree holders failed to comply with the condition of depositing Rs.29,00,000/- each with the Government, ald hence the execution is not valid It is also urged that the proceedings were vitiated by frqud and suppression and that the Society had already obtained conversion to non- agricultural status in 1987 an dr requested this Court to allow the writ petition.

10. Learned counsel fotr the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the letitioners did not inform about the this Court in interim order C.C.C.A.M.P.No.28l of 2016 iri C.C.C.A.No.76 of 2016 dated 15.06.2016 to the Reglstering Authority before registration of the documents a4d also before hling of the Writ Petition. 8 .SK, J WP-1303 )024 & Balch

11. In support of his arguments, le:rrned counsel for the petitiorLers relied upon the following .judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (7) Venk,annagari Naueen Rolo Vs Joint Sub-Registran -1, Sangctreddg and. Anotherl (2) Wl GodreJ Sara Lce Ltd. Vs The Excise q.nd. Taxation OfJicer-cum-Assessing Authoritll & Athersz, (3) Asset Reconstntction Compang (Ittd.ia) Limited Vs S.p. Vetaguiham & Ors.3

12. Lr:arned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to g and 13, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as it seeks ca,cellation of registered selc deeds and assignment deeds, which involves adjudication of disputed questions of facL and title, not arnenable to writ jurisdiction. He further snbmits that the land admeasuring Ac.69-37 guntas including Sy.No.1O04 of Ameenpur Viltage was originaly putchased by late Dhalkoti Mudaliar in the name of his minor son, t(2or2(41 ALD t42l '] Civil Appeal No.5393/ 2O l O t 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445 Civil Appeal Nos.tl752-2753 of 2022, (Arising out ol Special Lcave petition(C) Nos. 19662_19663 o, : 021) 9 SK, J WP 1303 2O24 & Botclt C.D.Ramchander. Subsequently, a suit for partition was instituted by a family member 1n O.S.No.100/ 1981 (renumbered AS O.S.No.219lL9g2) on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said land was claimed to be a joirrt family propert5r. During the pendency of the suit, C.D.Ramchander, taking advantage of revenue entries and a registered sale deed in his name, alienated the land fn favour of the Society through whom the petitioners now claim title. Subsequently, a preliminary decree for partition was passed on O2.O7.1991. The SjcietV, being al alienee pendente lite, filed O.S.No.338 /2AOl, seeking cancellation of the said preliminar5r decree on the grounds of fraud and collusion. However, the said suit was dismissed bv the Trial Court on 22.O7.2OO3 holding tlat the land was a joint family property and C.D.Ramchapder was only entitled to alienate his 1/3.aundivided share. The appeal preferred by the Society in C.C.C.A.No.19 of ),OO+ was also dismissed, thereby confirming the Trial Court's Judgment, which has since attained finality. Pursuant to that, the decree holders 1n O.S.No.219 11982 assigned t\eir respective shares to t t i :: 10:: S,(, J WP - 134.J 2024 & Bntch respondent No.13 (M/s. I{.S.R. Constructions & Real Estates Pvl . Ltd.) througtr registered Assignment Deeds dated 3l.Oi;.2OO7. A finai decree ,v\ras subsequently passed .on 08.04.2008 based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner and possession of tire lands including Sy.No.1004 was delivered by the Bailiff on 2S.C5.2009 to the decree holders, who in turn hancied it over to respondent No. 13. The respondet-rt No. 1i] thereaJter sold Plot Nos. 1[i8 ald 158/A to respondent No.9 rhroug]r registered sale deeds dated 21.02.20Ig ltnd_ 24.03.2022, who in turrL sold the sarne to respondent Nos.S to g uid.e registered document dated 11.O4.2022 It is lurther submitted :hat the disputes raised by the petitioners, claiming thlough the Society are.barred by the conclusive Iindings re<;orded in C.C.C.A.No.19 of i).OO4 and other related procsedings, and therefore, thev iack locus standito seek cancellation of the sa_le or assignnrent deeds and requested tc dismiss the writ petition.

13. Ir. support of l'ris argument, lealned counsel for the respond:nts relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: I I 11 SK, J WP.,13O3 2024 & Batch (7) Y, Ramalo,kshmi Vs Strrte ol Telangana and Ors.4, (2) Satga Pal Anq,nd I/s State qf Madhga prad.esh qnd Ors6.

14. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners questipning the inaction of the official respondents in not disppsing the representations dated 13. 12.2023, for cancellatiop of the sale deeds entered by respondent Nos.5 to 15 uid"e foc.No.13584/2022 dated 11.O4.2022, Doc.No.ll5o3l2OD2 dated 25.03.2022, Doc.No.6819 /2018 dated 02.03 .2018, Doc.No. 11985 /2OO7 and I1986l2OO7 dated 31.05.2007. Admittedly, the representations made by the petitioners are seeking cancellation of the documents registered uide Doc.No.ll985l2OO7 and 1L98612OO7 dated 31.05.2OO7, but in the present writ petition, the petitioners also prayed for cancellation qf the Documents registered uide Doc.No.73584l2022 dated lL.04.2022, Doc.No.11503/ 2022 dated 25.03.2022, on the gfound that this Court has passed interim orders

15.06.2016 in {ated C.C.C.A.M.P.No.281 of 2016 in C.C.C.A.No.76 of 2016. 4 2023 SCC OnL\ne TS 2727 s 2016 10 SCC 767 ::12 .S/{, J WI' I3O.l 2024 & Belch

15. hi fact, after hearing the arguments made on either side, this Court has questioned the learned counsel lor the petitioner with regard tr.; the cornmunication ol the Orders datr:d 15.06.20 16, passed by thrs Court to the responden t authorities and the learirecl counsel for the petitioner tras lairly conceded that there is no such communicalion to the tespondent authorities before the 1 registration of the documents which are ,jxecuted bv the un-officie[ rcspondents. In view of thc sarrrc, the question of cancellati,tn of documents basing on the reprcscntations dated L3.12,.2O23, does not arise ernd moreover, the petitioner hr:rein without approaching the competent Civil Court for czmcellation of the documents (rxecuted by the un-officia-l respondents, hted the instanr, rvrit petition, which is not maintainable as per law and the same is liable to be dismisl;ed.

16. Adrnittedly, there are decrees for- suit schedule property, wtLerein this Court has passed Judgment and Decree daterl 23.01.2OO7 in C.C.C.A.No. 1(l of 2OO4 and, thereafter, tLre Fina-l Decree was also passecl in O.S.No.219 of 1982 on ()8.04.2008. Subsequently, some third parties I I ..1 0. SK, J WP_l3O3_2O24 & Bdtch have filed C.C.C.A.No.76 of 2Ol and obtained the orders 0 for interim stay as prayed for. In fact, either the petitioners l or the respondent Nos.5 to 8 an 13 are not parties in the d 1 above appeal, in view of the s e, the said orders are not binding on them. As such, ther are no merits in the writ petition and is liable to be dismis ed

17. Further, the Judgme ts that are relied try the 1 t learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present case on hand, wherein t$e facts of those cases are not relevant to the facts of the i{rstant writ petition. If the petitioners have any further griev ce, they are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Co rt for cancellation of the documents executed by the un-oflicial respondents

18. Learned counsel for t$e respondent Nos.5 to 8 l and 13 relied upon the Judgme t of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in !. Ramatbkshmi Vs $tate of Telangcrna and Ors. (supra 4) and relevant porti n at Para Nos. 12 and 13 .l of the, reads as under: "12. Thus, the law on this asp cases of registration of cancella parties consenLing for the s cancellation deed is impermissi t is well settled. In all n deed, without all the e, registration of such le under law ald such l4:'. SK, J t),/P 1303 2a24 & Batch {i regl rtratlons are contrary to Rule 2_6 (k) rf Telangala RuL:s under Registration Act, 1908. The llonourablc Ape.r Court in the recent judgmeni in Asset Reconstruction Compa_ny (lndia) Limited v. S.p. Velal,rLthams held that in case of violation c,f aly rule or pror, ision of Registration Act or failure o[ rcgistering autlroritics in following the law, this Court rs wcll rvithin its Srorver to entertain Writ pctition under Article 226 of the lonstitution of India for cancellation or sctting aside of s;uch documents registcrcd by thc par.ties. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as undei-: '58. Therefore, in the light of (i) tfut Tamiinaclu Registration Rales disassed abot,e.: (ii) the statutory scheme of Sections 32 to 35 of the t\ct as r.uell os other proubions as amended bL! the SLote of Tatnilnadu; and (iii) the distinction betu.teen a challenge to lhe first 2 steps irt tht process of execution of a document and the third- step concenting regtstration, we are of th<: consid-erecl uiew tltat the Diuision bench of the High Court :tuas not ight in setting aside the order oJ the learned single Judge, If the Registeing OJficer under the Act is construed as performiry onlg a mec:hartical role urithoLLt ang independent mind of hi:; ou.n.t., tlten euen. Gouentment properTies may be :;old and the clocuments registered bg urLscrupuLt)us persons dnuing the parties to go to ciuiL ,:ou4. Such an ittterpretation maA not aduance the cau:,e ol justice.

59. Therefore, in fine, the appeals are o.llolDed, the ittpugned order of the Diuision Bench is set asicle and the order of the learned singl,= Judge is restored. There uill be no order as ,o costs. ,'

13. Ooming to the citations relied upon by the learned coun scl for the un-ofhcial respondent ],{os 3 to 6 in Satyapal Anand case (supra) and P. Vecla Kumari case (supla) are concerned, the said judgment.s have no applicalion to the case on hand. the case of Satyapal Anar: d (supra) is a case of disputed qur:stior of fact ald thcre is no rule like Rule 26 (1)(k)(r) of Telargana Rules came up for consideration in t1.e said crLse. In the instant case, there are no disputed qucstions of facts are irrvolved. In so far as p. Veda Kumati case (supra) is concr:rned, thc said j udgment categoricalll helcl that :15:: S.K, J WP 1303 2024 & Batch unilateral cancellation of previously registered document was permissible only prior to the inlroduction of Rule 26 (4 B) but not there"Jter. In the insta-nt case, admittedly the document in qu! )stion was registered on Rule 26 (i) (k) (i) was 28.05.2014 a-nd whereas the introduced with effect from 29. i 1.2006 and was further amended with effect from 02.! )6.2014. Therefore, the said judgment in Veda Kumar q ase is also of no heip to \os. 3 to 6." advance the case of respondent ]

19. Learned counsel for t+e respondent Nos.S to 8 and 13 relied upon the Judgme t of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satga Pal Anqnd Vs te of Madhga Pradesh and Ors. (atpra 5/ and relev t portion at Para Nos.34 and 40, reads as under: "34. The role of ttre Sub-Regis(rar (Registration) stalds discharged, once the documenf is registered (see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khanl). SecLion 17 of the 1908 Act deals with documents wliich require compulsory :d is one such document registration. Extinguishment de1 referred to in Section 17(1)(b) Sl ection 18 of the same Act tion whereof is optional. deals with documents, registraj Section 2O of the Act deals wif .h documents containing s or alterations. Section interlineations, blanks, erasuri 2l provides for description ol pr( :perty and maps or pla-ns and Section 22 deds *itt., tt.," d lescription of houses and Iand by relerence to governrrx ent maps ald surveys. in the 1908 Act which There is no eipress provision empowers the Registrar to rec! l1 such registraLion. The s properly presented for fact whether the documenl wal by the Registrar after its registration cannot be reopened] registration. The power to can] cel the registration is a substaltive matter. In absence ] of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open t o assume that the Sub- ) competent to calcel the Registra-r (Registration) would b! regislral ion of the docu mcn ts i11 r question. Similarly, the power of the Inspector Ged eral is limited to do superintendence of Reglstratror! Offices and make rules ] .-J ::16: s/lJ WP 1303 2024 & Batch in that behalf. Evcn the Inspector General has no pou.er to carlcel the regrstr:ation of aly document which has already been registered.

40. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Yzrnala Ivlz.ihshwari rvas callcd upolt to consider whether a pe-son can nullify the sale by executing zurd registering a calcellation deed and whether the Regrstering Ofhcer like Dir;trict Regrstrar ald/or Sub-Registrar appointed by the St:lte Government is bound to refuse registration when a calcellation deed is presented. The fact r:emains tirat if thr: stipulation contained in Sections 17 ald 18 of the 1918 Act are fuihlled, the Registering Officer is bound to reg;istcr the document. The Regrstering OfFrcer can iefuse to register a document only in situations menticrted in seclions such as Sections 19 to 22,32 and 35. At the sa;nc time, once the document is registere,:1, it is not open to the Rcgistering Offrccr to carrcel that rr.grstration even if his attention is invited to some irregul:rity comrnitted during the registration of the document. The aggrieved pa-ty can challenge the registration and validrty of the do,:ument before the civil court. The majonty view of the Full Bench was that if a person is aggrieved by the exlinguishment deed or its registration, his remedy is to se<:k appropriate relief in the civil court and a wri.t per itron is not the proper remedy."

20. The findings of the Honble Supreme Court in the above sairl Judgments submitted by the counsel for the respondent Nos.S to 8 and 13 would squarely apply to the instalt c€rse and the petitioners has to approach the competent civil court for cancellation of registered docrrmentl; and moreover, merely basing on the representations, the petitioners want to cancel the ::77: SKJ WP 1303 2024 & Bolt:h reglstered documents, which lqere not mentioned in the representations and it cannot be acceptable.

27. In view of the above dings, the W.P.No.1303 of 2024 is dismissed 22-. In view of dismissal o W.P.No.1303 of 2024, the { petltroners in W.P.Nos.2895 and 7596 of 2O2S are at liberty to present the documents before the Registering Authority for registration. After presentipg the documents of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2895 dnd T596 of 2025, the Registering Authorities are direcied to receive, register and release the same, if those are otherwise in order more particularly under the provisionp of the Registration Act, 1908 as well as the Indian Stamp Act, 1g99. It will be open to the Registering Authority to refuse the documents presented before him, if he hap any objection, by duly of such decision and assrgnlng reasons ln support communicate the said decision to the petitioner.

23. Accordingly, the W.P.Nqs.2895 and 7596 of 2025 are disposed of with the above direction. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ::18 SK, J WP 1303 2024 & fJdtch Misceilaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shzLll stand closed. //TRUE COPY// P!' SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL R DEPUTY R GIST SECTIO FICER The.Principal secrerary, Stamps and Registration Department, secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad State of Telangana. - The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretarrat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Commissic,ner and lnspector General, Stamps and Reqistration Department, Stale of Telangana, Jam Bagh, Hyderabad. I|g ,Jgit Sub Rergistrar, Patencheru Registration Office, Sanga Reddy Diskict. T.S. The District Regir;trar. Sanga Reddy District. The Joint Sub-Rergistrar, Sanga Reddy District. One CC to SRI SRIKANTH SUTAR|, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRI PRAMOD StNGH, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRI B CHINNA|AH, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRI P VENKAT REDDY. Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRi VIJAY B.PAROPKARt, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI P SANKAR RAO, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to GP l:OR STAMfS & REGtSTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 J 4 5

7. B,

9. '10 11 12 13 14 BSR BS Lit,{r, HIGH COURT DATED: 3010712O,25 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.1303 of 210 24&2895 and 7596 of 7':==::_:l_\ '''l'.1";tx'sra1;\ " ,-))' i, z E A,,s 106 i) 2025r-=_ -'_,-..),' \w,.,', DISPOSING OF THE W.P.Nos.2895 and 7596 of 2025 & DISMISSING THE W.P.No.1303 of 2024, WITHOUT COSTSi