WRIT PETITION NO: 18419 OF 2024 v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in registering the Doc.No.1160 of 1996 dt 2610211996 in favour of the 6th respondent to an extent of Ac.2.O4 gts in Sy.No.349 ol lndriyala Village, B.PochampalliMandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri Distract inspite of the revenLe record issued by the Resprncie'tt Nos 2 and 3 for Sy No'349 is to a total of F c 16 00 gts occupiedbytheva.ious;personsandnolandavailableforregisttatiorasillegal, arbitrary, unconstittti()nal rnd consequently direct the Respondenl Nor'; 2 and 3 to conduct enquiry as trl how the alienation was accepted by the 5th respondent even though there s ro lernd for registration more than Ac 16 00gts ir liy-No 349 of lndriyala Villag=. El PochampalliMandal' Yadadri Bhuvanagiri [)istrict and thereby direct the llesporrdent Nos 4 and 5 to cancel the sale deed r:;recuted in favour of the 6th rer;p':nrte nt dt 26'02' 1 996. IA NO:'l OF 2024 Petition undt;i-Se,;tton 151 CPC praylng that in the circumstancei stated in the affidavit filed ir ';up port of the petition' the High Court mav be lrieased to direct the Resportdr:nt Nos 2 to 5 to conduct enquiry into th€ fabricated Doc.No.1160 of 1996, d .;26.02.1996 as to how the registration was al owed wh6n there is no land avaiarble in Sy.No.349 situated at lndriyala Village, B' PochampalliManc]at\,adadriBhuvanagiriDistrictandtocalcellhesame, pending disposal of the rbove writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M'JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Resporrdents No' 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Resl:orrdlent No' 6: SRI PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA TheCourt made the folrowing: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR R.EDDY WRIT PETI TION No. 18419 of 2024 ORDER: This writ petition is hled seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in registering the document No.l160 of 1996, dated 26.02.1996 in favour of respondent No.6 to an extent of Ac.2.04 grs., in Sy.No.349, situated at Indriyala Village, B. Pochampalli Mandal, yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, in spite of the revenue record issued by respondent Nos.2 & 3 for Sy.No.349, total to an extent of Ac. 16.00 gts, occupied by various persons and no land available for registration, as consequently prayed for other appropriate reliefs. illegal, arbitrary and

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

3. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3.30 gts., in Sy.No.349/U and Ac.3.3O gts., in Sy.No.349/RU, total admeasuring Ac.7.2O gts., situated at Indriyaia Village, B. pochampalli Mandal, yadadri_ Bhuvanagiri District, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing <locument No.3963 of 1996, dated 03.07. 1996. It is further stated that the revenue authorities have 2 CVBR, J Wp 8 419_2024 also issuecl f)at -a dar passbook in his favour and his na.rrre is also recorded irr thr: revenue records in respect of the r;ub..]ecL l)r'operq7. It is further statod that when respondent No.6 interfe'red vrith the peaceful p()s:iess on of the petitioner over the subjcct prolrr:rty, he was constraine I to institute a suit ulde O.S.No. 134 of 2t)2O re- numbered ar; (t. S.No.938 of 2O2l on the hle of the .Juni:r Civii Judge, Choutr:ppra1, and the said Court, in I.A.No.299 of i.|(t20 has granted te :ol)ora ry injunction in favour of the petitioner zLnd the said suit ir; llerding. It is further stated that resJronient I\o.6, by creating fzLbricrLled document uide document No.1 160 i' 1996, dated 26.O2.19()(;, in respect of land admeasurinll Ac 2.Ol gts., in Sy.No.349, vritlL the connivance of the Sub Regist,rar, is making claim over the subject property of the petitioner. It is [-.rr[h er- stated that the to,al rakba in Sy.No.349 is Acs. 16.O0 gts., an(l thr' ;ame is sub-dividerl rLs 1o [ows: "Sy.Nc.3z9/A - Ac.3.25 gts., Sy.No.349/UU Ac.O.2tr gts., Sy.llo.34'),'AAl 2 - Ac.O.26% gts., Sy.N,r.34lltu!,/ 1 - Ac.Q.261.i 11ts., Sy.No.349/Ruu - Ac.O.O9 gts., S]'.1{o.3-;9/tr - Ac.l,13 ,;ts., Sy.No.349/EE - Ac. 1.14 gts., lSv.No.i)4),i U - Ac.Ii.3O gts.. Sy.No.349/Ru - Ac.3.30 gts., thus. total to erftent of Ac. . 6.(X.r gts.,, It is further s.ated that the aforesaid lands in S1'.No 349 are recorded in tl: e names of various persons as pa tad rr s. The grievance cf the F,etitioner is that suppressing the lact that the said 3 CVBR, J Wp_lE419 2024 sub-division numbers are already recorded in favour of the third parties, a fabricated sale deed has been executed in favour of respondent No.6 for non-existing land. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted detailed representations to the respondent authorities requesting to conduct enquiry as to why the registration is allowed in favour of respondent No.6 when no such land is availabie and to cancel the fabricated document executed in favour of respondent No.6. However, no action has been initiated by the respondent authorities till date. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has contended that respondent No.6 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.2.O4 gts., in Sy.No.349, situated at Indriyala Village, B. pochampalli Mandal, yadadri_ Bhuvanagiri District, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1160 of 1996, dated 26.02.1996 and the petitioner, disputing the nature of the land and the extent mentioned under the above said sale deed by approaching the competent Civil Court, inviting this Court to decide the disputed issues relating to title, validity of ttre registered sale deed in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such the writ petition hled is _---./-.| I I 4 CVBR, J \Vp lBr 19 2024 misconceiv,lcl a t t( l prayed for dismissal of the sanre lt ir ' lurther submitted ,hrrt. the sale deed executed in favour of resporrcert No.6 is much trrri tl t I the sale deed relied upon bv lhe p :titioner' Therefore, -h,t s 1le deeds, if any executed over and above tlte extent of land irL S1,'Irlo.349, the petitioner alone is responr;ible for manipulatior, ol -ecords and not by respondents or [LLe rtrgistering authorities.

5. Sect.otrs 31 and 82 of the Registration Act, L9()8 ( or short' 'the Act, 1)08') irrposes Penalty for incorrectly endorsit'tg t:opying' translatinSl ,tr r:gistering documents with intent to in ittre and Penalty fcr rrL:tl:ing false statements, delivering falsc r:c pies or translations. 1'z ll;c personation and abetment' Secti'ln ii: of the Act, 1908 c<,nlt:rs power on the Registering ofhcel' for cor rtnencing prosecuhc n:i 1o r any offence under the Act co linl I to the knowledge r ,f i t registering officer in his ofhcial capacit'' may be commenct:d b1 or with the permission of the Inspectcr rieneral' Registrar or S.: b-Registrar, in whose territories, Di:;tric I or sub- District, as l.he ( ase maY be. In vieu, of the above, as the Registration Act, 190B and the

6. Rules ma,1e t.he:eunder have provided remedies ']ndr]1 $r]<:tion 81' this Cout t de,:rns it appropriate to dispose of the wr t petition ,7 5 CVBR, J Wp_t8419 2024 permitting the petitioner to make an appropriate application on the file of the District Registrar, it he is having any grieva;rce with regard to incorrect registration or making false statements or transactions over the subject property by way of registration, within a period of two weeks (02) from the date ol_receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of such application is submitted, the District Registrar is directed to conduct enquiry. It is needless to observe that in addition to the above, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court and seek cancellation of the registered documents arrd also institute criminal case, against the petitioners herd responsible for fraudulent transactions. 7 With the above observations, this Writ petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-C. DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR A SECTION OFFICER To, riat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 1 . Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secr 2. The District Collector, yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. 3. The Tahsildar'. Bhcdhan pochampalli Mindal yadadri Bhuvanagiri District 4. The District Registrar, Bhongir, yadadri Bhuvanagiri District 5. The Sub-Registar, Presenfly Bhuvanagiri SRO B.-B.Nagar, yadadri 6. One CC to SRt M.JANARDHAN RAO Advocate [OpUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court forifre Staie of Telangana. Bhuvanagiri District a I S BG BS louTI One CC to SRI PAPATAH PEDDAKULA Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies 6 HIGH COURT DATED: 0310412A25 ORDER WP.No.18419 of 2024 o {tl o 1 3 t o DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .9@w :_-,-- :: \ E S ,i ;:i \1 \ L ., .\ .r. ...r,' JUN ?flii : l) ,.,,19.,/ .'J,''/ -u | ..,1 \11 -,7