High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Consti.tution 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 Ce(iorari, calling for the records of LGOP No.4 ot'202.3 on the file of the Respondent No.2 i.e. Special Tribunal under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, i.e. 3rd Addl. District, and sessions Judge-cum-special Tribunal under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act under section 7A(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prqhibition Act, 1982 and set-aside the Judgment dt.27-12-2024 passed in LGOP No.4 of 2023 passed by the Respondent No.2, in the lnterest of Justice lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition uncer llection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filerd in s;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operaticn oi the Judgmenl dt.27-12 2024 passed in LGOP No.4 of 2023 passed by the, Respondent No.2 i.e. Hon'ble Special TribLrnal under the Land Grabbing (F'rofribition) Act, i.e. 3rd Addl. District and Sessio rs Judge-Cum- Special Tribunal under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act under Section 7A(1)qf the Andhra Prredeslt Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982, in the lnteres! of Justice pending disp tsal of the Writ Petition pounse! for the Petitioner: Ms. K. JAMALI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1&3: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Res;pondent No.4; SRI ALI FAROOQ Counsql for the Bespondent No.2: SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN, SC FOR TELANGANA STATE HIGH COIJRT The CoUrt made the folloyring: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T, VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Writ petition No.5252 of 2025 ORDER'. (per uonble Sri lustice T.Vnod Kumar) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the record. with the consent of the rearned counser appearing for the parties, the Writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

2. This Writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dt.27.12.2024 passed in L.G.O.p.No.4 of 2023 (otd LGOP No.B21 of 2003) on the file of the III Additional District and sessions Judge-cum-special rribunal under the Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, whereby the petitioner herein had been decrared as land grabber of the land admeasuring 120 square yards situated on the western side of prot No.72 in sy.No.27 situated at Ailapur Viilage, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, directing him to vacate and handover vacant possession of the aforesaid extent of land by removing the structures raised by the petitioner therein, to the respondents herein within three months from the date of the order, failing 2 '*i;- which, the 3'd respondent herein was directed to evict the petitioner herein from the said property.

3. Ctn behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the Court below had failel to take note of the fact that the petitioner herein is claiming title to tire subject property under a notarized agreement of sale and thus, having set up a rival title to the subject land, the S;pecial Court could not have declared the petitioner as a land grabber.

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for AssiJnment appearing for rt-.sprt rdent Nos.1 and 3 and learned counsel appe;rring on behalf of the 4h rr::;pondent would submit that the petitioner is claiming the subject land cn lhe basis of a notarized agreement of sale and as such the same wolld n t[ confer any right or title on him, and thus, the Court below taking n<>t:e of the aforesaid fact had rightly allowed the LGOP filed by the l 4th respondent herein declaring the petitioner as land grabber.

5. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

6. Adrnittedly, the title to a land of immovable nature can only be claimed -rnder a registered document as mandated under Section 17 of the Irrdian Registration Act, 1908 (for short,'the Act').

7. It is now well settled that mere agreement of sale that too an unregister,:d agreement of sale in respect of an immoval;le property does t <,ryv 3 not confer any right or title to the person claiming thereunder, firstly, as the document is only an agreement showing the intention of the vendor to sell the immovable property in favour of the purchaser and that by itself would not confer any right or title; secondly, that in respect of immovable property in order to get the rights transferred, a document is required to be registered compulsorily, then only a person claiming under the said document can establish his title to the property. Section 49 of the Act deals with effect of non-registration of document required to be , I registered under the Act. t I B. In a recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Sharma v/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and othetC had held that mere agreement of sale in relation to an immovable property without the same being registered in terms of Section 17 of the Act cannot be held to be a valid document.

9. Since, in the facts of the case, the petitioher is claiming title to the subject property of land of 120 square yards only on the basis of notarized agreement of sale, the said document cannot be considered as conferring any title in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the order of the Court below taking note of the aforesaid facts and the position of law, in the considered view of this Court does not suffer from any infirmity for ' sLe1c1 t'to.33o of zotT dr.7o.t2.2oz4 4 being irrterfe r:d by this Coud in the present Writ Petition n exercise of jurisdiction u rCer Article 226 of the Constitution of India' lO. l-hus, the Writ Petition as filed fails and it is accordin'lly dismissed' Miscellernr:ous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petitic'n shall stand closed. No o'rler as to costs' //TRUE COPY// IJD/.V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -1 $E,:irorl orr ICER To, 1 2 4 ?,lB 33J.i"t[;rfdAittJiS$l,ti,f [?;'i"?urilor the star,: of reransana at sUi.iJrJ r:ul 6'"E"ctl T,l d,i r: 4 u-rs 9 ??,11,hTft':J3 ?tsR r s H c r o p, r c l One CC; t() Sll BATHULA Two Cf) C)oP,()s I I BM BSw N;.EfE!:GffiaI HIGH COURT DATED:24102,2025 ORDER WP.No.S252 oI 2025 -_-::: '- i, r i.^\r \ \ 0 4 Atn 2['[ -al t ,)e 1;;.,q10 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS