The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.SRINIVASA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SMT TEKURU SWETCHA, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SMT S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION WRIT PETITI ON NO: 1280 0F 2024 Between: ) T.V.Ratna Rao, S/o T. Kotaiah, Age- lZ, Occ- Retd. Service, R/o H.No.b-32_ 3, 3/15. Brodiepet, Guntur-s2 002, Ap ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 5 The State of Telangana_, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, I elangana Secretariat, Hyderabad The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District The Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, RR Dt., S Ra.machandra- Reddy, S/o Narayan Reddy, Age- 67, Occ- Business, R/o Flat No 101, Ashoka Ornata Apartmentd, SIreet i\o 2, Ashoknigar, Hyderabad, TS ...RESPONDENTS Petition under A(icle 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in addressrng Letter No. Bl 160412017 dated 23-09-2017 to the 4th Respondent requesting him to cancel the previously registered sale deed No. 143/200g dated 20-12-2007 with respect to the land to an extent of Ac. 26-16 guntas in Sy No. 56 situated at Bahadurguda Village, shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in which Ac. 06-00 guntas purchased by the Petitioner from the Sth Respondent herein and the consequential action of the 4th Respondent'in entertaining the said letter and registering the cancellation Deed Vide No. 4980 of 2017 dated 23-09-2017 without any notice as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutional, without jurisdiction, in violatron of the Rule 26 (kxi) of the Rules made under the Registration Act and violative of Article 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly set aside the c.S. No. 591612017, Doc. No. 4980t2017. 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, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of cancellation Deed vide c.S.No. s914t2o17, Docunlent No. 4978/20fi' of the previousry registered sale deed No. 143 of 2008 dated 20-12-2007 with respect to the land to an extent of 26-16 guntas in sy. No.56, situated in Bahadurguda Village, shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in which Ac. 06-00 guntas purchased by the petition from the 5th Respondent herein and not to give effect to the same pending disposar of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.SRIDHARA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SMT TEKURU SWETCHA, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SMT S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH IIIRIT PETITION Nos. 36478 of 2OL7 16657 of2O2O and 128O of2024 COMMON ORDER:

1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are questioning the action of the respondent/ Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District in entertaining and registering the Cancellation Deeds dated 23.09.2017, pursuzrnt to letter No.El/429412017 dated 22.O9.2017 addressed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad, who has addressed letter to the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad in Lr.No. 1604 l2Ol7 dated 23.O9.2017 to cancel Seventeen (17) sale deeds including the sale deed of . the petitioner 1n WP No.36478 of 2Ol7 and sale deeds of the vendors of the petitioners in WP Nos.16657 of 2O2O and 1280 of 2024 in respect of lands covered in Sy.Nos.38, 54, 55 and 56 situated at Bahadurguda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to 2 as 'subject property'), without issuing aly notice to the petitioners or their respective vendors and requested to revive the cancelled documents.

2. Sinct: the lis inuolued in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by way of this common order

3. Heard Sri P.Sashidhar Reddy, Sri S.Srinivasa Chary, ald K.Sridhara Chary, learned Counsel for the petitionr:rs, and Mrs. Tekuru Swetcha, learned Assistarr.t Government Pleader for Revenue and Mrs. S. Sravanthi, learned Assistalt Government Pleader flor Stamps and Registration appea,ring for the respondents. if FACTS OF THE CASE IN WP No.36478 of 2OL7

4. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7.21 guntas 1n Sy.No.38 and another extent of Ac. 18.34 Guntas in Sy.No.55, total admeasuring an extent of Ac.26.1,5 Guntas situated at Bahadurguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal, through registered sale deed dated 20. 12.2OO7, registered as No. I33/2OOS on the file of Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad from one Mr.Khader Ali Khan and others, represented by the AGPA Holders, for a valuable sale consideration and since then he has been in possession of the said land. After purchase of the said land, the petitioner made an application for mutation and for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds. Pursuant thereto, the then Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal issued a Memo No.434 l2OO4, dated 11.04.2008 to the effect that the application hled by the petitioner for grant of mutation in respect of the lands purchased by him cannot be considered.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar, Shamshabad in refusing for mutation, the petitioner along with others have filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Oflicer, Chevella, 4 in Case No.C/1795|2OOB under Section 5 (5) of A.P. Rights in lald and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the said appeal was dismissed on 27.O5.2OOA on the ground of limitation. Challenging the sarne, the petitionr:r and others have filed a revision before the Joint Coliector, Ranga Reddy District in File No.D/390 1l2OO8 and the said revision was disposed of on 16.08.2008 remanding the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella with a direction to conduct de nouo enquiry and pass appropriate orders.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that upon remand of the said matter, the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Chevella, taken up the enquiry and passed orders <tn 22.12.2OO8 in File No.C/a159l2OOB with a direction to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad for updating thc current pahanies of Bahadurguda Village based on the entries of Sethwar', 1954 and Khasara Pahani 1954-55 and its subsequent purchases and also directed t o take into consideration of the request for - rectifying the survey number-wise by recording the name of Smt. Lateefunnisa Begum, original Pattadar on record and for the ba,lance area of land without disturbing the present pattadars as well as the Government land. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar, passed orders 1n File No.B/434/2OO8/ l, dated

17.O2.2OO9 to incorporate the names of the purchasers of the lands as pattadars under Section 5(3) of the ROR Act against Sy.Nos.38 and 55 of Bahadurguda village over an extent of Ac.26.15 guntas in terms of the registered sale deed dated 20. 12.2OO7, registered as document No. 133 of2O08.

7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that while the things stood thus, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy issued letter No.E l / 4294 / 20 17 , dated

22.09.2017 directing the Tahsildar to take necessary steps for cancellation of Seventeen (l7l sale deeds including the petitioner's registered sale deed dated

20.12.2OO7, registered AS No.133/2008 and the I 6 ) Tahsildar has executed Cancellation Deed No. CS-5924120 17-Document No.4987 of 2Ol7 , cancelling the registered sale deed of the . petitioner Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed tiil FACTS OF THE CASE IN WP No. 16657 of2O2O

8. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner- company is the owner and possessor of land in admeasu.ring to an extent of Ac.6.O0 guntas 1n Sy.No.5,l situated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad, having purchased the same from its owTler namely, S.Srikanth Reddy, vide document No.139/2010 dated 22.Ol.2OlO, for a valuable sale consideration and since then the petitioner-company has been in possession and enjoyment of the same The Verrdor of the petitioner-company purchased the subject land, along with other lands in Sy.Nos.52, 53, 54 and 59, with A,B, C and D schedule lands, total admeasrrring to an extent of Ac.45.37 Guntas vide document. dated 20.12.2OO7, registered :rs document (' 7 ! No.140 of 2008, from Mr.Khader Ali Khan and others. Out of which, the petitioner-company purchased an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas out of Ac15.O3 guntas in Sy.No.54, situated at Bahadurguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal

9. After purchase of the lands by the vendor of the petitioner-company, made an application to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad for mutation and a-lso for lSSl-lance of Pattadar pass book and title deeds. In response thereto, the Tahsildar, issued Memo No.434 of 2OO4, dated 11.04.2008 to the effect that the application hled by them for grant of mutation of the above said lands cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the said Memo, the vendor of the petitioner-company along with others hled Appeal No.C/4159/2OOB and the same was dismissed on 27.O5.2OO8. Against the same, Revision was liled in File No.D/390 1/2OOB under Section 9 of the Act, 197 I and the said revrsl0n was disposed of and remanded to the Revenue ) 8 I Divisional Officer, with a direction to conduct de nouo enquiry in respect the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.45.37 guntas covered by Sy.Nos.Sz, 53, 54 and

10. It is further case of the petitioner that, while it being so, the Tahsildar, addressed a No.B/ 1604l2Ol7 dated 23.O9.2077 to the Sub Registrar', Shamshabad, to cancel the (17) sale deeds letter dated 2Cr. 12.2OO7 including the registered document No.14O ol 2008 pertaining to the Vendor of the petitioner and the same was cancelled by Cancellation ol Sale Deed No.497812017, dated 23'09'2017, without any notice to the petitioner or his vendor, S.Srikarth Reddy. liii FACTS OF THE CASE IN WP No.128O of 2o24 11. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the orvncr and possessor of lald admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.OO guntas 1n Sy.No.56, situated at Bahadurgrrda Village, Shamshabad, having purchased 9 l from its Owner S.Ramachandra Reddy through sate deed No. t27T of 2009 dated 3O.O4.2OO} for a valuable sale consideration. The said Ramachandra Reddy purchased the said land along with other tands, total an extent of Ac.26.16 Guntas in Sy.No.56 vide registered document dated 20. |2.2OOT, registered as document No. 143 of 200g, from Mr.Khader Ali Khan and others, out of which the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.6.OO Guntas. Since the date of purchase, lhe petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment o[ the said land. L2. It is further stated by the petitioner that while things stood thus, the Tahsildar, addressed a letter No.B/ 1604 /2Ot7 dated. 23.O9.2OI7 to Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, directing him to take steps for cancellation of (17) saJe deeds, including the sale deed of the Vendor of the petitioner in Document No.143 of 2008 and accordingly the sale deed of the Vendor of the petitioner was cancelled vide 10 ) Cancellzrtion of Sale Deed No.CC No.59 16/ 17 Doc.No.,49BO/2017 dated 23.O9.2O17, without any notice to the petitioner or his Vendor. SUBMISSTONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS

13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner WP No.36478 of 2O17 would submit that the District Collector, Ranga Reddy ought not to have issued directions to the Tahsildar, Sharnshabad and the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad to cancel the saLe deeds of the petitioners and their vendors in the absence of aly Government Orders. The Tahsildar ought not to have prescnte:d the subject registered cancellation deeds cancelling the sale deeds though he is not empowered to present the same by the Government of Telangana by misconstruing the Rule 26 (i) (k) of Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 and also wrongly quoting Rule-243 of Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 t' 11 )

14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no declaration by a competent Civil Court nor the High Court and the Government Orders contrary to the Rule 26 (i) (k) of Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 19O8 to unilaterally execute and register the cancellation Deeds without any notice to the petitioners or their vendors.

15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Sub-Registrar ought to have seen that there are neither executants nor any decrees or order of the competent Civil Court or this Court or any Government orders were presented before him to entertain and register the unilatera_l cancellation without any notices to the petitioners or their vendors.

16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the acts of the District Collector, Tahsildar and the Sub-Registrar in unilaterally cancelling the registered sale deeds of the petitioners is t2 arbitrar)' imd without any power or authority to do so. If they are under the impression that the registered sale deeds of the petitioners and their vendors are not valid, they can approach the competent Civil Court to redress their grievance , but not by misinterpreting and violating the Rules 26 (0 (k) and 243 of Telangana ){r. Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 for cancellation of the sarne and requested to set aside the cancellation deeds and revive the cancelled deeds. L7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further strbmit that O.S.No.4788 of 2006 was hled by one Mir Khader Ali Khan along with others on the hle of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to declare them as legal heirs of Smt.Lateefunnisa Begum and the salne was decreed declaring them as legal heirs, thereby the decree holders are entitled to claim alt the patta lands which were earlier recorded in the name of Smt.Lateefunnisa Begum and accordingly they executed a registered GPA bearing document 'Ia , No.6325/2OO7 dated 23.08.2007 and the vendors of the petitioner executed sale deed in favour of the pe titioner on 20.12.2OO7, registered as document No.133/2008

18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that since the date of purchase through the document No.133 of 2OO8 the petitioner has been possession and enjo5rment of the saine to the knowledge of the one and all including the respondents. If the respondents are under misconceived impression that the registered sale deed of the petitioner is not va1id, they can explore their legal remedies but not indulging in unilateral cancellation of the validly executed registered sale deeds by violating Rule 26 (i) (k) of Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned cancellation deed 74 L9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner 1n WP No.16657 of 2O2O wouid submit that the canccilation deeds were executed by all the executalts and claimart parties of the previously registered conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil Court or High Court or State or Centra-l Government annulling the transaction containerd in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sa-le

20. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that all the 17 sale deeds have been canceiled in the year 2Ol7 , while there has been some deeds registered for about Ac. 148-OO acres in the name oi M/s.Dream India and others vide SaIe Deed Nos.1568 of 2017,7370 of 2077 and 7369 ol 2077 which were not cancelled proves that there has been I 1 selective cancellation of the sale deeds of the petitionr:rs. Further, in ROR Proceedings of various 15 ! sale deeds of M/s Dream India and others, SAINC survey numbers have been issued in March, 2Ot7, whereas the cancellation of sale deeds of the vendors of the petitioner have been done on 23-09'2017 which shows arbitrary action of the respondents and requested to restore the sale deed of the vendor of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned cancellatibn deed. 2L. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No.128O of 2ot24 would submit that the action of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy and the Tahsildar, Shamshabad in issuing impugned letters and the consequential action of the Sub-Registrar in entertaining the same and thereby unilaterally cancelling the previously executed registered sale deeds without any notice and without following due process of law is not only against the principles of natura-l justice but also violation of Rule 26 (i) (k) of \ Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 and t6 requested to set aside the canceilation deed of the Vendor of the petitioner and revive the same

22. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of their respective contentions, placed reliance on the following Judgments:

1.. State of {Ittaranchal and. Another us., Sanil Kumcr Vaish and othersl

2. Thota Ganga l_axmi and dnother Vs., Goaernment o.f Andhra prad.eshz Y.Ramalq.kshrni ys. State of Telanganas

3. 4. Gaddam Laxmaiah and. others Vs., Cornmisstoner -General, Registration and Stamlts, and. Insepctor Hgderabad and. others a 5 Nagubandi Surendrc Bo.bu us Shqmshabad a.nd. anotheF The Sub-Registrar, CONTENTION SOF THE LEARNED A GOVERNMENT PLEADERFO R REVENUE: SSISTANT

23. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue based on the counter would submit that as per the entries in the Revenue Records i.e. pahanies of Bahadurguda Village, there are 76 survey numbers in ' (2O I 1) 8 SCC 670 ', (2010) l5 scc 207 ir 2023 SCC Onlrne TS 2727 4 2016 SCC t)N LINE Hyd 8 1 5 " Judgment ir.r WA No. 1484 of 20 17 Daetd 03.03.12022 of TS I{igh Court t7 ) the said village comprising an area of Ac.I212.26 guntas. The Bahadurguda village was left un-sur-veyed prior to abolition of Jagirs in Telangala Area i.e. before Jagir Abolition Regulations 1358 Fasli (1948). Consequent on implementation of the said Act, pahanies were prepared and on verihcation of entries recorded in Khasra (1954-55) and Seesala (1955-58), it was revealed that all the lands situated at Bahadurguda Village were recorded as patta lands, except the lands specihcally situated in Survey Nos.28 and 62 admeasuring to arr extent of Ac. 150.00 guntas and Ac.500.00 guntas respectively. (In the counter the respondents have specifically mentioned in some paras that the subject lands are situated in Sy.Nos.25 and 26 and in some paras it is mentioned as 28 and 62,b:ut during the course of arguments by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue mentioned that the subject lands are situated within Sy.Nos.28 and 62.1 & , 18 ,

24. Thr: learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue would further submit that consequent on abolition of the Jagir Act, a resurvey was conducted in BahaduLrguda village by dividing the entire extent of land situated in the village into 101 Survey numbers comprising of an extent of Ac. l32l.lg guntas while showing that the land situated in Sy.Nos.2g and 62 as Governrnent lands and all remaining parcelsr/ survey numbers were clearly classified as patta Lands in the name of one Smt.Lateefunissa Begum. Despite conducting resurwey and preparing village rnap, no Wasool Baqui Register was prepared and the entries were not updated in the subsequent pahanies and the old entries were carried out as intact without subsequent amendments.

25. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue. would further submit that in the year, 2OO4 an enJoynlent survey was conducted over the subject lands and entire extent of lalds situated in t9 ) Bahadurguda village including the parcel in Sy.Nos.28 and 62. During which it was noticed that various people were found to be in possession of the Government land situated in Sy.No.28 ald 62 Subsequently proposals were submitted to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy for regtiarization of said lands in favour of the encroachers, who were in possession bf the same for many years. Accordingly, the District Collector referred the matter to CCLA vide later No.E1/7158 l2OO3 seeking for relaxation and exemption/exclusion of the said survey numbers to a,ffect from conditions laid in G.O.Ms.No. 1409, Revenue Department, through which the assignments were barred. In response thereto, the Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, vide reference No.B1l102212006l dated 29.06.2006 has informed the District Collector, Ranga Reddy not to assign any lands in Sy.Nos.28 and 62 of Bahadurguda Village though the villagers are in possession as the same is abutting the Urban limits of Hyderabad. Aggrieved by 20 l the denia-l of assignment of the subject lalds, the individuals have started filing various suits/cases before various forums seeking the reliefs.

26. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue would submit that, one Mr.Khader Ali Khan along u'ith others have hled a Civil Suit on the file of VIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad to declare them as legal herrs of Smt.Lateefunissa Begum W/o.Late Shams-sul-Dowla-Il and the sarne was decreed declaring them as legal heirs of Smt.Lateefunnisa Begum. As such the individua-ls who got the decree erre ver). much entitled to claim a-11 the patta lands recordecl in the name of Smt.Lateefunnisa Begum, but do not possess to claim the subject lalds which are purely Government lands.

27. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue would further submit that, in the meantime the G.P.l\ holders of Sri Mir Khader Ali Khan S/o. Late Nawab (iulam Murtuza Khan arrd others have filed 2l applications before the Tahsildar, Shamsahabd Mandal, seeking mutation orders in their favour in respect of lands situated in Sy.Nos. 1 to 101 of Bahadurguda village to an extent of Ac.502.OO guntas claiming that they have purchased under the registered documents dated 20.12.2OO7 , registered as document Nos.133 to 149 of 2008. In turn, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad has issued Memo in Iile No.B/434/20O4 dated ll.O4.2OO4 and rejected their claim. Aggrieved by the said Memo, an appeal was hled and the s€une was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella vide Case No.C/1795/2OOB, dated

27.O5.2OO8. Being aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vide case No.D1/3901 l2OO8 and the said revision was disposed of on 16.08.2008 and remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct de nouo enquiry. Consequent on remanding the matter, the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, vide case No.ClaA9/2008 passed orders on 2l.l2.2OOB directing the Tahsildar, Sharnshabad to make necessary corrections while rectilying surve.y numbers, extents by recording the namc: rtf Smt.Lateefunnissa Begum as pattadar of the baiernce extent of lald without amending the names of present pattadars and the Government. Thus, the indivirluals never allowed to claim the subject lands as the same purely belongs to the Government. 2a. The learned Assistant Government pleader lor Reventre would further submit that in compliance of the orders of the Revenue Divisionat Officer, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal issued 17 mutation orders in file No.434/2OOg, dated 17.O2.2OO9 to an extent of Ac.5O2.34 guntas covered by document Nos. 133 of 2OOB to 149 of 20Og on the lile of the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad in respect of subject surve.y numbers and other survey numbers. However, the said mutations were not implemented in the revenue records. As per re-survey records, supplementarJz Sethwars and new village map ) prepa-red in respect of lands situated at Bahadurguda village, the lands in Sy.Nos.28 and 62 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.65O.OO guntas were shown as Government lands and an extent of Ac.502.34 guntas was shown as patta lands. The entire Government land is in the possession of local villagers since way back. The supplementaqr Sethwar was not implemented in the revenue records as on this date

29. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would further submit that, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad submitted report to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy in frle No.B/ 1604/2017 dated

14.O7.2017 stating that the 17 mutations were sanctioned without implementation of Sethwar in revenue records as per the orders of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dated 16.08.2008, the mutation orders are required to be set aside under Section 9 of the ROR Act, I97I and therefore, the cancellation proposals were submitted to the Revenue 24 Divisional Officer, Rajendra Nagar vide ref. No.B/ 1604 l2OtT datcd 10.07.ZO|T. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad cancelled the 17 sa,le deeds on 23.O9.tLol7. Further, the mutation orders passed by the 'I'ahsildar, in frle No.B/43412OO8, dated O7.O2.2OO9 were set aside by the Special Tribuna_l, Ranga Rcddy District vicle orders dated 06.02 .2021 in file No.D5/3 4O8 /2017 .

30. The learned Assistant Government pleader would further submit that all the ofhcial respondents have taken ',,ery care while passing the orders and the subject sale deeds were rightly cancelled and there are no merits in the writ petitions and requested to clismiss aJ1 the writ petitions.

31. Tht: learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue in support of their contentions, relied on the following citations: l. Kailash Vs. State of Telangana, rep. bg its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Departmen| Hgderabad 6

2. P.S.Parthasarathg Vs. State of Telangana, rep. bg its Principal Secretary Reuenue Departtnent, Hgderabad and others 7 ) CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED ASSISTANT GO\rERNMENT PLEADER FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATTONS

32. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, while adopting the contentions of the Revenue Department, would submit that, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad, represented before the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, stating that the District Collector has issued letter No.tr1 14294 l2Ol7, dated22.O9.2OI7 for cancellation of 17 Registered Sa-le Deeds and accordingly the Tahsildar, presented cancellation deeds before the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad requesting for registration of cancellation of sale deeds, as such the Sub-Registrar, has registered the said cancellation deeds by following the instructions of the District Collector and the 6 2018 SCC Online Hyd 2O96 7 2019 SCC OnLine TS 2504 26 Tahsildal and thus there is no illegality in cancellation of the subject sale deeds and there are no merits in the writ petitions and requested to dismiss all tlee writ petitions. CONSIDERATION S AND FINDINGs 33. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire nr.aterial on record, this Court is of the considered view that in all the writ petitions the petitioners are questioning the impugned letter of the District Coilector, Ranga Reddy, in Lr. No.EI/4294/ 2Ol7 dated 22.09.2017 addressed to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad directing him to take steps to cancel the registratron of Sevcnteen (17) documents including documents pertaining to the petitioners or their Vendors and others on various dates in respect of the lands situated in Sy.Nos.3B, 54, 55 and 56, situated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad Malda1. In pursuanoe to the said letter, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar, ) Shamshabad in letter No.1604/2O17 dated 23.O9.2017 to cancel the seventeen (17) sale deeds and the cancellation of sale deeds were executed on

23.09.2017 including the Sale Deeds of the petitioner in WP No.3647812017 and also the Vendors of the petitioners in WP Nos. i6657/2O2O and l28O/2024.

34. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners or their vendors have purchased the subject properties through valid registered documents on different dates from their respective Vendors i.e. Mr.Khader Ali Khan and others, who are the legal heirs of Smt.Lateefunnisa Begum, as declared by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.4788 of 2006 on the hle of VIII-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Before cancellation of the documents by the respondent authorities, the petitioners or their vendors have approached the revenue authorities for mutation of their narnes in respect of the subject lands. Initially, the Tahsildar, rejected the applications 2B for mutation of the records in Memo No.434/2OO4 dated I l.O4.2OOa. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners or their respective vendors have approached.the Revenue Division al Officer, Chevella and filed appeai in No.Cll'/9512008 and the said appeal was also dismissed on27.O5.2008. Chailenging the same, they have hled a revision before the Joint Collector in file No.D/3901 /2OO8 and the said revision was disposed of by retnanding the matter to the Revenue Divisional Oflrcer urith a direction to conduct d,e nouo enquiry and pass appropriate orders on 16.0g.200g. Upon remand of the said matter, the Revenue Divisiona_l Officer, Chevella taken up the enquiry and passed orders on 22.12.2OO8 in file No.C/ 4ISg/2OO8 with a direction to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad for updating the paharies of Bahadurguda Viilage based on the entries of Sethwar, 1954 and Khasara pahani 1954_55 an<l its subsequr:nt purchases and also directed him to take into consicleration of the request for rectifring the area survey number-wise by recording the names of the 29 v original pattadars on record ald for the balance of land without disturbing the present pattadars as well as the Government. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar, passed orders in File No.B/434 12008/1, dated

17.O2.2OO9 to record the names of the vendors of the petitioners or the petitioners as Pattadars.

35. While it being so, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy issued impugned Proceedings in Letter No.trl 1429412017 dated 22.09.2017 directing the Tahsildar to take necessary steps for calcellation of seventeen (17) sa-le deeds including the sale deeds of the petitioners and their vendors. In turn, the Tahsildar, executed cancellation deeds and the same were entertained by the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad. Now, the Proceedings of the District Collector in Lr.No.E l I 429 4 I 20 17 dated 22.09 .2O 17 and registering the cancellation of the sale deeds of the petitioners or their vendors are the subject matters in these writ petitions. 30

36. The main contention of the petitioners is that the lands situated 1n Sy.Nos.38, 54, 55 and 56 of Bahadurguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal are not in the prohibited list and there is no proceeding to show that the said lands were prohibited from Registration under Section 22_A of the Registration Act, 1908. The legat heirs of Smt.Lateefunisa Begum, declared by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.47gg of 2006, sold the property to the petitioners or their vendors through valid registered documents and at no point of time the said property was shown as Governntent land in the revenue records. The petitioners stated that only after verifying the revenue records as well as the Encumbrance Certihcates, the petitioners have purchased the lands through valid registered documents. Now, the respondent authorities without issuing any proper notice to the petitioners, behind back of the petitioners, issued impugned proceedings and cancelled the registered sale deeds of 31 the petitioners or their vendors through cancellation ) deeds. At the sarne time even after issuing the impugned proceedings by the District Collector in Lr.No.EL/4294/2OL7 dated 22.O9.2QI7, the respondent authorities are entertaining the registrations of others in respect of the salne survey numbers treating as private lands. The said action of the respondents 1S arbitrarlr, illegal and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

37. The contention of the respondents is that the subject property fa-lls in Sy.Nos.28 and 62, but the respondents failed produce any document or proceedings issued by the competent authority declaring that subject lands were merged in Sy.Ns.28 and 62. This Court specihcally qrrestioned the respondents, whether any Notifrcation was issued under Section 22-A of the Act prohibiting the said survey numbers from registration, they failed to produce any such record or documents. The iI 32 Tahsildar, Shamshabad executed cancellation deeds rn respect of the lands of the petitioners and their vendors basing on the letter addressed by the District Collector in Letter No.El /4294 /2OI7 dated 22.09.2017. At the same time, the contention of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities are registering the documents in respect of the very sarne survey numbers even after issuing the letter of the District Collector d.ated 22.09.2017 and there is no denial by the respondents in their counter-s 1br this contention.

38. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners and the rearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue produced a letter No.E1 /4,+32/2OO4 dated 05.02.2025, addressed by the District Oollector, Ranga Reddy to the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad giving list of immovable properties under Section ',22-A of Bahadurguda village, Shamshabad .1.' Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the said list, the lands in Bahadurguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal, admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 150.00 guntas ln Sy.No.28 was shown as Poramboke, an extent of Ac.1.OO guntas 1n Sy.No.43, an extent of Ac. 1.00 guntas in Sy.No.45 was shown as Bhoodan and an extent of Ac.500.00 Guntas in Sy.No.62 of Bahadurguda was shown as Poramboke. It clearly shows that in the recent Prohibited list a-lso there is no mention about survey numbers i.e. 38, 54, 55 and 56 of Bahadurguda Village, in which subject lands are situated. Without there being any notihcation under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 in respect of the subject lands, the question of invoking powers under Rirle-243 of Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 19O8 and cancelling the registered documents of the petitioners or their vendors unilaterally is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, the cancellation deeds executed by the Tahsildar, Shamshabad are liable to be set aside. \ .-t+

39. Tlee contention of the respondents is that mutation of revenue records for the suit schedule property was calcelled by the Special Trjbunal, Ralga Reddy District in File No.D5/3408 /2Ot7 dated 06.02.2021 and the petitioners cannot rely on the revenue records. In fact, after regisl.ration of the cancellzrtion deeds, the mutation proceedings were cancelled pending the writ petitions in wp Nos.3647g of 2OI7 and 1665T of 2O2O. In view of the same, the said proceedings cannot be taken into account for disposal of these writ petitions. The validity of said proceedings c€ln be decided in appropriate proceedings.

40. The .Iudgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the ltetitioners squarely apply to the facts of the instant c.ase. The relevant portions of the Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are extracted as under: ) In State of Uttaranchal and another Vs'' Sunil Kumar and others (supra lt the Honble Supreme Court held as follows: "23. It is settled law that a-ll executive actions of the Gorernme.rt of India and the Govemment of a State are to be taken in the name of the President or the ;"il;; Governor of the State concerned' as the case may be [Articles ia 166(1)1. orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of tlle president or- the Governor of a State, as the case t""V tt, are required to-be authenticated in specifred'in rules mide by the President or the ;n;";;";. and 166(2)]ln Governor, as the case may be lArticles .77{Z) other words, unlts" ar:' ord"er is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor and is authenticated in the malner pt"""iiU"a by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an order tn behalf of the Government" In Thota Ganga Laxmi Vs' Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra 21, the Honble Supreme Court held as under: - * 5. In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26 (k) (1) ..l.ti.rg to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, which states: "i) The registering ofhcer shall ensure at the time of preparation i"gl"ti^tior, 6r cun.etirtlon deeds of previously registered rJ, deed of .oarrr"yr'.,""" on sale before him that such cancellation ty all the executant and c.taimant parties to J""J" *" ,fr" p.""i""=fy ,tglsi"tta conveyancc on sale ald that such .itt^tion i."a i" at<:ornp'nitd by a de-claration showing "ut naturalConsentorordersof.acompetentCivilorHighCourt.or si^a" o. centra_l Government annulling the transactlon contained il the previousiy registered deed of conveyance on sale: "*"",t"d Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of cancellatiJn deeds by executant ar1d claimant parties to the previously registered- deeds of conveyarlces on saLe before him f the cLttii'tion deed is executed by a Civil JO Judge or a government officer competent to execute government orders declaring the p.op.r-t-i-;."'-"orr,rrr"O r,r rn" prer,,iotr sl,v registered conr, on sale to be governmenr or assignr:d;. .;;;;.;l'j:{T* mds or properties not registerable by any provrsion of law.,, i\ reading of the above. Rule also supports the observarions we have made above- lt i"1, ryi"i".n !1. a"".1 i" lT_".lr,d by a comperenr courr rhar rh" ";;;ir;;il a""a .r., De regtstered and that too , notice to ttle parties concerned I" th;;-;;";, ;id#ijtll'"r r., n, l. *, ;;".';"?,i:"JIiH: rt;: I ::fl SiaT: " t r, :: ",. arso rnakes ir ctear rhat borh.the *"tr ";:.ll;;;",;:ll.r. rcgrstraLion thereof were *h.lly ;;i;'*;j "" meaninglcss transactions. u.,d ",.r|i..", -,rl -r" In Gaddam Laxmaiah and others Vs. Commissioner and fnspector (supra 4) , the Hon,ble Supreme court held as under: = " 28. r\s seen earlier. Se - lo.;;;;1-11""1."."";,I:.X:fl ",1i,.: Acr dears with r ht:' ill;'jil'3:.H"o"1;11':th'd";fi ;;;;".;"..*::[x,l j"""x 'r^eof pro"rdes that evcr; documenr. ".ffi ";LHX whether its registration I g,., ea I.,1 :, "Ti:'H".t "ff: ::; i;, ; iii, l: n i::,'' I i :, :"H::: -'*! 3 1 ^ t' n*i ""i"i" Jol, J p- r i:X :.ur,:f ;rljff +i::deii:,n#,$,"0[:l:*,#::,ni,:; presenled tor regisiraiion. u.,a". .rur"f [i ir"Jr'01:"i::'ment. th,ereof registering authoritv rs oblig.d ro enquire b.r"::11-ttl ;;;;;,";" ;:;:h ji:"]::l: tij;:,T :,, ;# : ; : :i d o c u m"e r r,". .rry " j."i-.lf havc ber..n cxecured. A sate or .;; ", .,-,,* nature is essentially an executed "o.rt.""t U.iir""".,*. prr,r"" ;?.f;:J'i'";-'""?.::';X':'"" th; ;;;;oi' ,", ",r,"."ro.", rr* : l *^ #ii",,}, .ii", ::F,":x'".t:i;xiti; j jf l,:];:"#".j,iir!l?,ffi xl,i;,r",i fl:ji to thrs 1'rr,vision, anv ,.r"..l:t"d perform ed. According contract',,aniJ;"#ir",i"Jili;.:.,::l::ffi m j,"ffi :[.;".:.? ,""H;;:.f '* r, a r .be. " (- t . of cancellation, in our opinion, amounts to rescission of contract and if the issue in question is viewed from that algle' in the light of the provisions of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 7872, any rescission must be only bilateral' We High Court agree with the view expressed by the Madras I(atyan v. Inspector General of Registration Having liE.f. regard to tlie above provisions, in our opinion, a registered sale de"ed or aly other document such as Developmeht Agreement- cum-GPA, which creates right in favour of the party in the subject-matter of document, if sought to be calcelled' registration of such deed must be at *re instance of both the pa-rties. In other words, even execution of a deed of cancellation ;f the registered document which created rights in favour of the othe. pJty il the subject-matter of the document, cannot be registered unilaterally but it should be bilateral' In any case' thi document, which is compulsorily registerable, some restrictions, in our opinion, must be applied even for cancellation of such document as well. The Commissioner has' therefore, rightly issued ttle circular, restricting registration of a deed of cincellatio., of any document, such as Development Agreement-cum-GPA, at the instance of only one/Iirst party to srich document. We are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any provision specihcally empowering registering authority to entertarn a document of carcellation for registrat"ion, without signatures of both the parties, a deed of caircellation cannot be entertained and registered and that the impugned circular issued by the lnspector General is binding on^alf parties. Having so observed, we find no infrrmity in the impugied circular issued by the Commissioner./lnspector Ceneial, in exercise of the powers of general superintendence contemplated by Section 69(1) of the Reqistration Act' By issuing the impugned circular, in exercise of the powers under sub-sition (li oi Section 69 of the Registration Act, this very objective, in our opinion, sought to be achieved'

29. Thus, having regard to the law lard down by the Supreme Court and provrsions of the Act, in our opinion, whenever registered documents such as Development Agreement-cum- CFa, i" sought to be cancelled, execution ald registration of such a docu"ment/deed must be at the instance of both the parties i.e., bilaterally and not unilaterally lf a deed of cancellation is allowed to be registered without the knowledge and consent of other party to the deed/document, sought to be cancelled., such registration would cause violation to the principles of naturaljustice and lead to unnecessary litigation' therefrom. In any case, as stated earlier' in the .-rl absence o1 aly provision specifically empowering the Registrar to entertain a document of cancellation for registration without the signatures of bot1 the parties to the document, the deed "ti.rg 38 ) calnot be entertained. M( tocnrertain";;;-;;'"'fi :5.;,,ti",T..*xu,,J,11,fl.;,i?,J:l srgnatures of both the Da car r-r,,cd. J;.; ;";:; Ifli.l1 iL|IT:::TT :"",?:: : ;;, I: pou.er to decide disputed questions U"t*".r,. ,iJ, o_,,"", ,. parry to the document *oua .*..ppi;;n ;;..:;:.uarion of i;:':;;:i';],T':i Tt::'-'r. "" rl,l" *,.." l" l'a,.-',, lct of the subject malter of the ",r,,, clocrr.lent 4L. Moreover, the Tahsildzrr, Shamshabad cancelled the seLle deeds by referring Rule_243 ol. Telalgana Rules under the Registration Act, 190g. The said Rules reads as follor.r,s: '243 The Authoritg/ offi.cer competent mau execute a docurnent cancerling ang preuiouslg registered document exeatted bg unauthorized. persons affecting the interest in immouoble properties listed in Section 22_A; and notu.tithstanding angthing contained. in the Act or these Rules. rhe Registering Offiter shall register it., As per the above said Rule, when the property was declarr:d as prohibited Propert5r under Section 22-A of th<: Registration Act, the authoritSz may execute calcellation deed unilaterally without issuing notice. In the instant cases, though the subject properties are not notified as prohibited property under Section 22-A 2C) , of the Act, without any power or authority, the respondent authorities have unilaterally executed cancellation deeds cancelling the sale deeds of the petitioners or their vendors and the Registering authority registered the same, which is arbitrary and illegal.

42. Further, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his property of any kind without specihc legal authority as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Yerikala Sunkalamma and another Vs'' State of Andhra PradeshE. The relevalt portion of the said Judgment is extracted as under: * L25. Article 3O0-A provides that the property of a person can be deprived by authority 9f lal The phrase isrre by authority of iaw" came before the Court for interpreiation. This Court in the case of W azir Chand v' State of H.P., reported in (195a) 1 SCC 787 held that under the Constitution, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his propert5r of any kind without specihc legal be established in Court of law' authority whiih howeveilaudable the motive behind such deprivation may be. ln the same decision, this Court also held that in case of dispossession of property except under the authority of 1a*, ti-t. owner may obtain restoration of possession by a proceeding for mandamr-rs against the governmental authoritiel. Further, this Court in Bishambhar Dayal -can 8 2025 SCC Online SC 630 40 I Chandra Mohan v. Str of Uttar Pradesh reporred in (lrrg21 , sCi'bl'n.ia',rale m.ans by or under jt *:, o11-,": "bv authoritv of larv r-cgi*r,rur'c i;. .;;: ;",1j:'" ffi:i..?..,T, ff,TrJj:?l rn the ca se of Jitubh: Nanbhai Khachar v' Statc of e t jarat reporred i,-, rqll ha . r,.,6.n' ;;*;"d' J;,"," "i:i,I",.rrBT ".;f "lX l*- po\r,ers of the State that pr(,p{.ry savc by rr;;;i,;o:;"?;*:'?il* ;:J,i:. ;j T: dclrril;11r6n rvithout anv sanc.tion of fr*,.. O.|-.irrtlon Uy anl rrrhcr mode is noi u.q"i;itior"'.. ,rul"*"11r".""io., untle r Article 300_4. In otner words' ir there is no law, there is;;;;r;;;;"11,r (Elmphasts ad.ded)

43. 'lhe .Iudgments relied on by the learned Assistant Government pleader in Kailash Vs. State of Telangana (supra-6) and p.S.parthasarathy Vs. State of Telangana (supra-7) are not apply to the facts of the case, as there are no valid proceedings to show that the respondents authorities have issued any notilrcation under section 22_A of the Registration Act prohibitinq the suit schedule lands as on the date of purchase o1'the subjects lands by the vendors of the petitioners or the petitioneis ald as on this date also there is no prohibition in respect of the subject iands for registration under Secton 22_A of the Registration Act and there is no document to show that the suit J i 4l properties are in the instant cases merged in Sy.Nos.28 and 62 of Bahadurguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' In the instant cases, it clearly shows that ttre impugned

44. registering authority registered the cancellation deeds, cancelling the earlier documents of the petitioners and their without any order from the competent authority under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and the contrary to the Rules 26 (i) (k) and 243 of the Telangana Rules registered vendors, under the Registration Act'

45. The respondent authorities have cancelled the sale deeds of the vendors of the petitioners in WP Nos. 1665712O2O and l28Ol2O24 without taking intoaccountofthesubsequentsaledeeds,whichwere executed in favour of the petitioners and without issuing any notice to them and the said action of the respondent authorities is also arbitrary and illegal' 42

46. Further, with regard to the aspect of marntainability of the instant writ petitions under Article 2126 of the Constitution of India, in the similar crrcumstances, the Hontlle Supreme Court in Asset Reconstr-uction Compang (India) Linited a S. P.Velaguthqm and. otherss, held as under: "57. In suits for declaration of title and/or suits for declaration that a registered document is null and void, all the aforesaid threc steps which comprise the entire process of execution and registra tion come under challenge. If a party questions the very execution of a document or the right and titte of a person to execute a document and present it for registration, his remedy wiil only be to go to the civil court. But where a pargr questions only the failure of the registering authority to perform his statutory duties in the courst: of the third step, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Artjcle 226 stands <:ompletely ousted This is for the reason that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is to ensure. that statutory authorities perform their duties within the bounds of lar.v. 58. It m.ust be noted that when a High Court, in exercise of its j urisdiction under Article 226 hnds that there u,as utter failure on the part of the e 2022 (8) SCC t2 1o 43 registering authoriLy to stick to the mandate of law' the Court merely cancels the act of registration' but does not deciare the very execution of the document to be nul1 and void' A declaration that a document is null and void, is exclusively within the domain of the civil court, but it does not mean that the High Court cannot examine the question whether or not the registering authority performed his statutory dulies in the manner prescribed by 1aw

59. It is well settled that if something is required by law to be done in a particular manner, it shali be done only in that manner and not otherwise' trxamining whether the registering authority did something in the manner required by law or otherwise is certainly within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 However' it is needless to say that the High Courts may refuse to exercisc jurisdiction in cases where the violations of procedure on the part of the registering authority are not gross or thc violations do not shock the conscience of the Court Lack of jurisdiction is completely different from a refusal to exercise jurisdiction." {EmPhasts added) In the instalt cases also, the registering

47. authority failed to perform their statutory duties while - 44 ! registering the impugned cancelation deeds. In view of the same, the writ petitions are maintainable under Articie 21,26 of Constitution of India.

48. The petitioner in W.p.No. 16657 of 2O2O questioned the Calcellation of Document dated 20.I2.2OO7, vide document No. 140/200g, pertaining to the tota_l extent of Ac.45.37 Guntas, with A, B, C ard D Schedule lands, situated in Sy.Nos.52, 53,54 and 59 situated at Batradurguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, but the petitioner is concerned only with regard to land to an extent of Ac.6.OO Guntas of land in Sy.No.54 purchased by him vide document No. l3g/2OlO dated. 22.OI.2O7O. The vendor ol'l_he petitioner or other purchasers have not questioned before this Court about the cancellation of documenl_ No.140 of 2008.

49. Likewrse, the petitioner in W.p.No.l2gO of 224 questioned the Cancellation of Document dated 20.72.2OO7, vide document No. 143/2OOg, pertaining 45 ) to the total extent of Ac'26'16 Guntas' situated in Sy.No.56 situated at Bahadurguda Village' Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' but the petitioner is concerned only with regard to land to an extent of Ac.6.OO Guntas of land in Sy'No'56 purchased by him vide document No' 1277 of 2OO9 dated 3O.O4.2OO}. The vendor of the petitioner or other purchasers have not questioned before this Court about the cancellation of document No' 143 of

50. In view of the above circumstances' the action of the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad' in entertaining registration of the impugned cancellation deeds unilaterally at the instance of the District Collector' Ranga Reddy in Lt'No'El1429412017 dated 22.Og.2017 and the letter of the Tahsildar' Shamshabad. in Lr.No. 1604 12017 dated 23'09 '2OI7 ' is totally illega-l, arbitrary and contrary to Rules-26 (i) (k) arrtd 243 of Telangana Rules under the Registration 46 I Act, 1908 and accordingly the sarne are liable to be set aside in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

51. In the light of the above findings, all these writ petitions are allowed, by setting aside the impugned Cancella.tion Deeds (i) CS No.5924/2017 & Document No.4987/2017 dated 23.O9.2O1 7 in respect of entire extent mentioned in document No.133/2OOg dated 2O.12.2OOT; (ii) CS No.5914 /2017 & Document No.4978/'2O17 in so far as the lald to an extent of Ac.6.OO Guntas only in Sy.No.54, situated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Drstrict, purchased by the pctitioner in WP No.1665T of 2o2O and (iii) CS No.59 t6/2o17 & Document No.49go/2017 in so far as the rand to an extent of extent of Ac.6.OO Guntas only in Sy.No.S6, srtuated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad Mandat, Ranga Reddy District, purchased by the petitioner in Wp No.l2gO/2024 and the respondent authorrties are directed to take all necessary steps 47 ) accordingly for making necessary entries in the relevant registers. It is also made clear that this order does not preclude the Government/District Collector to take appropriate steps as warranted by law and to assert its title. If aly proceedings/suit/appeal pending between the executants of the documents / Government or any other interested property, the registered documents will be subject to proceedings/suit/appeal' No order as to costs' the result of Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed' SD/. . PONNA KRISHNA TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'bte SRI JUSTICE (F6r His LordshiPs Kind Perusa r) ARATH 'l . The PrinciPal Secretary to Secretariat, HYderabad. Govt., Revenue Department, Telangana

2. The Principal Secretary to Govt',. - Registratiori), Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad' Revenue Department (Stamps and To, 1 \

3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad' 4. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad lrlandal, Rangagareddy District' 5. The Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, Rangareddy District' 6. 11 LR Copies 7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of l-aw, Justlce and Company n Affairs, New Delhi.

8. The Secretary, Telangana Buiidings, HYderabad. Advocates Association, Library, High Court 9 One CC to SRt p SAS|DHAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl '10. One CC to SRI S.SRTNIVASA CHARY, Advocate tOpUCl 1 '1. One CC to SRt K.SRTDHARA CHARY, Advocate tOpUCl '' Iyo""lr3:ot:fr?,to* REVENUE. Hish court ror the State of reransana at 13 Two CCs to Gp FOt or %ri n'i"i"" "ri,fi s,rtttYj|r& R E G I srRArl o N, H ig h c o u rt ro r the state

14. Two CD Copies BSR HIGH COURT SKJ \ DATED: 26109t2025 COMMON ORDER ) , ( * t ) .J ,\* ') l0[i M i. * W.P.No.36478 ot 2017, W.p.No.16657 of ZO2O W.P.No.1280 of 2024 ALLOWING ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS $