1. Kolanu Rukma Reddy v. The State of Telanagna

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be ...RESPONDENTS pleased to issue an order or direction more particutarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the present writ petition is filed against the action of the Respondent No. 5 and 6 in interfering into the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners and also interfering into the peaceful possession and property of the petitioners i.e. admeasuring Ac. 2-10 gts in sy.No.5ot121 , which is situated at Madhanpally Village of shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and calting the petitioners and their workers and detaining them in the police station and threatening to handover the land of the petitioners to the Respondent No. 7 and g, without having any jurisdiction is highry ilregal, arbitrary, u nconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 1s,21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and atso violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and consequenfly direct the Respondent No. 5 and 6 not to interfere into the petitioners pezrceful life and liberty and also not to interfere into the petitioners property admeasuring Ac. 2-10 gts in Sy.No.50/121, which is situated at Madhanpally Village of sl-,amshabad lMandar, Ranga Reddy District without having any jurisdiction and not to detain the petitioners and workers and not threaten them to handover the property of the petitioners to the Respondent No. 7 to g. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section I 51 cpc praying that in the circu mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 5 and 6 not to interfere into the petitioners peaceful life and liberty and also not to interfere into the petitioners property adnreasuring Ac. 2-10 gts in Sy No.50/121, which is situated at Madhanpaily Viilagre of shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without having any jurisdiction and not to detain the petitioners and workers and not threaten them to handover our property to the Respondent No. 7 to 8 and pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRt RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 5: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 and 7:__ The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 118O4 of 2O25 ORDER Heard learned Counsel [or thc petitioners, Iearned Government Pleadcr for lTome appearing for official respondent Nos. I to 5, and with thc conscnl- of ttrc lcarncd counsel appearing for the parties, thc Writ Petition is [akcn up for hcaring and disposal, at admission stage.

2. Having regard Lo thc n-ranncr ol disposal ol thc Writ Pctition and the naturc ol lis involvcd, this Court is ol rhc vicrv Lhat notice to unofhcial respondent Nos.6 & 7 is not ncccssary lor adjudication o[ the present Wril Petil.iorr.

3. Shorn of unrlcccssary dt:ti-rils, bricllr, staicd the case ol the peLitioners is that the respondcnts aul,horitics, in particular the 5th respondent is involving himsell in r:ivil disputes in rcspect o[ land purchased by the petitioncrs erdmcrrsuring Acr<:s 2. I O guntas in survey No.50/ 121, situatcd aL l\4ardlnnpallv Villagc, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from an Assct lleconstruction Company under CertificaLc ol Sale, dt.26.03.2025.

4. It is the further casc of thc pctirkrncrs that the 5fr respondent, at the behcst. of the unofficial respondents, is interfering wiLh the aforesaid lancl ol Lhe pr:ritioncrs, rvhich action 2 of thc respondenls in interl-cring in civil disputcs is high[y iilegal, arbitrary and r,vithoul:rny authority or sanction or laur.

5. Per contra, lcarncd Covcrnmcnt Plcadcr lor F{omc appearing for olficial respondcnts submits that based on a complaint madc by one Shiv Kumar f-iupta, the authoritir:s have regis rcred a casc uide Cr.No.249 I 2025, dL. 18.O4.2025.

6. I-carned Clovcrnment Plcader further subnrits that though thc peLitioncrs claim to havc purchasccl thc subjcct land, thcrc is no sale dccci in thcir favour, as such thc aforcsaid claim of the pctiLioncrs cirnnot bc ai:c<:pLc:r1 as a valid clairn.

8. I have takcn note of thc rcspcctive submissions made. Pctitior rcrs are claiming tltle to the subject properqr on the basis of Ce rtrficarc o[ Sale, d1.26.O3.2025, issued ir1, M/s Reliance Asset lteconsLrucLion Company I-td., undcr Rulc 9i6) of SARFAtrSI AcL, 2OO2.

9. 'lhougit b_r, thc alorcsaid ccrtificate, iL is stittecl of the said Assct ReconsLrucLion Companv having sold the lancl admeasuring Acres 2.10 guntas in survey No.50/i21 situated aL Madhanpally Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga l?eddy District in favour ol the petitioners for rccovery of finar-rcial lacility aclvance,l to M/s Durga Jervcllers and Gcms I)vt. l.td., it is to bc notcc] that the said 3 Certihcate of Sale is not registcred as requircd unclcr Section 17 of the Registration Act, I909.

10. The Apex Court in a recenL decision in Sanjag Shq.rmq. o. Koto.k Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Orsr hacl held thar in respect of immovable property registra[ion is compulsory and in the absence o[ rcgistration, no righr or irrtcrcst r:an be claimcd in immovablc property, even if possession is t.ransl'errcd and consideration is p.rid. 1 1. 'lhough the pctitioners claim to bc the o\r.ners o[ land admeasuring Acres 2.10 guntas having sold to rhem by M/s Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company I_td, inasmuch as the sale certificate is not regislered or no con\rcyarrce dced is execul-cd by pal,ing necessary stamp dutv and rcgisLration charges as required undcr Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as u,cll as thc Rcgist ration Act, 1908, the claim oI thc petitioncrs ol [he1, lrcing the owners of the subject land admeasuring Acrcs 2. J0 gunras, cannot be considered as a valid claim

12. Further, as it is stated to this Court that b.rsing on Lhe complaint of one Shiv Kumar Gup1a, the respo nde nLs,authorities having registered a case uide Cr.No.249/2025, dr. la.O4.2O2S, ' src1c1 lto.::o7zor 7, dt.70.t2.2024 4 u,hose land is shou,n as ncighbour,s land to the iand being claimed by the petitioncrs, u.herein petitionc:r No.2 hcr:in is arrayed as accused, this Court is ol the vieu, that thc rcsporr den ts-authorities are [o bc dir(]cl_cd to con.lucL investigation into t] e albrcsaid crime registered and takc ar:tirin, stric:llv in accordance \yith law. 13. Subjcct t() Lhc above obscrvation and Petition is clisposccl of. No orcler as to costs. dir-ection, the Writ t4 Conscquel I ll-_\', miscellzlneous petitions, il ar:y, pending shall stand closcrl //TRUE COPY// SDLN.RAJGOPAL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SEcTIoN-oFJIcER I!: Illl:ip:LSecretary. Ho.me Department. Secretariat Buitding, Secretariat, lhe State ot lelanagna., Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate. Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District. The Deputy Commissioner of police, Shamshabad Zone, Cyberabad Commissionerate. The Assistant Commissioner of police, Shamshabad Divis;ion. Cyberabad Commissionerate The Station House Officer Shamshabad Rural police Sta1.ion, Cyberabad Comm issionerate. One CC to Sri Rapolu Bhaskar. Advocate tOpUCl L*g C9r t9- Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies Home, High Court for ttie Stai6 of Tel,rngana, at ^GP_lor \+' To, 1 2 J 4 5 b 7

8. TJ LS HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 ORDER WP.No.11804 of 2025 R 1l.lE sra o k (i 1O JUl'l N6 (i( * Spr,; \{ts-O DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS PA t