High Court · 2025

Petrtion under Article 226 of the 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 o[ Writ of fi,4andamus to declare the action of the Respondents herein rn not canceling the certificate Nos. N/2612100 dt. 03-01 issued by the 3rd Respondent herein impounding the saada sale deeds dt. 191611979 and 221111982 in favour of the 4th Respondent without issurng any notice/calling for any oblections from the Petitioner herein, and [urther rejecting the representation of the petitioner for cancellation of the same vrde Lr.in C.No. G1/3067/09 dt. 6/10/2009 by the 3rd Respondent, as arbitrary, rllegal and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to cancel the certificate Nos. Ni2612l00 dt. -03-01 issued by the 3rd Respondent herein impounding the saada sale deeds dt. 19/6/1979 and 221111982 in favour of the 4th Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUI AR (NoNE AeeEARED) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUT: Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B.NARASIMHA SAF lVl A The Court made the following: ORDER :1'l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR trrRIT PETITION No.24329 of 2OO9 ORDER: No representation on behalf of the petitioners on

19.08.2025, 04.O9.2025, ).6.1O.2025 and 17.1O.2025 and the matter u,as posted today i.e., 31 . 10.2025, under the caption 'for orders'. Even today there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners

2. The Writ Petition is fi1ed aggrieved by the action of the respondent for not cancelling the certihcate Nos. N/2612/OO, issued by the respondent No.3 herein impounding the saada sale deeds dated 19.06.1979 and o?.Ol.lg82 in favour of the respondent No.4 without issuing any notice/calling for any objections from the petitioner herein, and further rejecting the representation of the petitioner for cancellation of the same vide Lr. in C.No.G1/3067 /09, dated 06.10.2009 by the respondent No.3.

3. The record reveals that the petitioner is the owner of the land to the extent of Ac. O.2 guntas in Sy. No. 146 / C situated at Huzurabad Village and Mandal of Karimnagar CPK,J t'.No.243rq of 2oae District under a registered sale deed No.4C,r 6177, daLed

03.10. 1977 . In the year 1979 an olfer was m: le to sel1 the property to one Smt. Sakenabee for a sum. r I Rs. 1,600/- and entered into a saada sale deed on 19 .06.1979 However in the year 1987 the said deed .r rs cancelled since the vendee has not paid the entire sal: , onsideration and got the property registered under the condition of saada sa.le deed dated 19.06.1979

4. The record further reveals that in thr 1,e ar 1999, nhen the respondent No.4 came over the 1 ropert5.' and tried to interfere with the peaceful posse r sion ol the property, a suit in O.S.No.41 of 1999 war; filed before Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. While t _- : suit rvas pending, the respondent No.4 has app r rached the respondent No.3 and obtained the cr: tihcate for impounding the cancelled saada sale teed dated

19.06.1979 and a_lso the saada sale leed dated

22.O1.1982, withor-rt any notice or ca1li rg for rhe objections. It is however noticed that the s i id suit was dismissed on 72.12.2006. Aggrieved by the sar e an appeal GPX,J w.P No 21329 of2Dos was filed in A.S.No.ll2OO7 and the same is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the judgement passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, dated 23.03.2018 in A.S.No.O1 of 2OO7, which had the same parties and was dismissed for non-prosecution. The respondent No.2 in the counter affidavit stated that neither respondent No. 1 nor respondent No.2 can review the action taken by the respondent No.3 functioning AS collector under section 40, 4I and 42 of Indial Stamp Act II of

6. It is further contended by the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.3 having no authority to impound any document as per the judgement passed by this Court in W.P.No. 17945 and 17951 of 2O06, dated 13.O9.20O6 is factually incorrect. In fact, this court in the above judgment clearly held that the definition under section 2 sub-section 9 (b) of Indian Stamp Act says that the Collector means any officer whom the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette appoint in behalf. O.PK,J w.P-Ito 24329.f2ao9

7. The only question arose for considerati() r in the Writ Petition is that the respondent No.3 without t: nducting al enquiry into the matter rejected the applica rn u,hile the Rcvenue Divisional Officer (RDO) has no iuthorit]' to impound arly documents. The District Collec -, r is the only competent authority and there is no delegatio: of pou,ers to the Revenue Divlsiona-l Officer.

8. Therefore, every opportunity has beer provided by this Court, but there is no representation or € r v assistance rendered by the counsel for the petitioners.

9. However, by virtue of the Judgment p: ;sed by this Court in W.P.No.17945 and 17951 of 2006 and also in terms of circular No.13/2006 issued by th," High Court dated 10.07.2006, clause (5) thereof speci r :a.ll1, speaks that: 'tf the party requests the Court to send the document to t-l Collector, for collection of the stamp duty and penalty, the Court .r y consider such request and send the document to the Collector.' In terms of this High Court circular, the )ivi1 Court is required to send the documents to the "Collt: tor" but not to the "Revenue Divisional Officer". @ To, GPK,J w P No.2a32e of 2oo')

10. Although the parties are not represented, in the interest of the parties, the petitioners are at liberty to submit a fresh application to the District Collector for sending the documents ald for taking appropriate action in the matter.

11. In view of the same, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach before the District coilector, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// D/.K.BHAV SISTAN AMY RAR GIST SECTION OFFICER

1. The District Collector, Karimnagar District' Karimn 2. The District Registrar, Karimnagar' 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar- 4. One CC to SRI ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUTMAR' AdVocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI B.NARASIMHA SARMA' Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD CoPies BSR BS w HIGH COURT DATED: 3111012025 ORDER WP.No.24329 of 2009 R lHt :h o t? ,.-ii I I ' it l,:i.:1I r'i)i i:; it'.t' {i * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS iC q..\ rt?'" $ --" -{t}Y