N. Ajit Kumar Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

7. tt4/s Rudra lnfrastructure, a partnership firm Rep. By its Partners Gangidi Om Prakash Reddy s/o Gangidi Narsimha Reddy, aged 48 years r/o H.No. 4-1 17, Kokapet village, Gandipet Mandal, R.R.Distrct. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitutlon 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 l the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inacti ) I of the respondent authorities in considering the representation dt. 1811) 2O19 submitted for cancellation of the Sale Deed bearing Doc.No. 375112019 d 151312019 executed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in favour of the 7th resporr ent in respect of the land in Sy.No. 14lAAIAA, admeasuring Ac. 2- 31 gts., r; .uated a Kismathpur village, Gandipet l\/andal, R.R.District, wherein the said pr: )erty is mentioned in the List of the Prohibited .property, as being illegal. irbitrary, unjust and u nco nstitutiona I and consequently direct the respondent arr rorities to cancel the above mentioned Doc.N 375112019 dI. 151312019. l.A.NO:1 OF 2021 Petition Under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the cir lumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nri y be pleased to pass orders directing the respondent authorities to consider an( pass orders on the representation dt. 18/10/2019, pending disposal of the mair vrit petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s K.JAYASREE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Ms D.HARITHA f:l tAN, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI PRAMOD MALIGI The Court made the following ORDER - t t I I I , t, I I I ; !- : i t I 6 THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.26373 of 2O2L ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled seeking the following prayer: ". . . to issue an appropriate Wi| Order or Direction, more particularlg one in the nature of Wnt of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the respondent authorities in consideing lhe representation dt. 18.10.2019 submitted for cancellation of the Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.3751/2O19 dt.15/3/2019 executed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in fauour of the Vh respondent in respect of the land in Sa. No. 1 4 / AA/ AA, admeasuing Ac.2 -3 1 gts., situated a Kismathpur uillage, Gandipet lwanda| R.R. Distict, uherein the said propefty is mentioned in the List of the Prohibited propertA, os being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutionol and consequentlg direct the respondent authoities to cancel the aboue mentioned Doc. No. 37 5 1 / 2 O 1 9 dt. 1 5/ 3 / 2 O 1 9, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deerns fit and proper in the circumstances of the case -"

2. Heard Ms. K. Jayasree, learned counsel petitioner, and Ms. D.Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and Mr. Pramod Maligi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.7 \ . _' ::l - 2 JAK, J ,/.P.Na.26373 of 2O21 -

3. Petitioner is son of respondent No.4' t is averred that respondent No.4 is the absolutc owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.2-3 1 gur tas situated at Kismathpur Village, Gandipet Mandal, I anga Reddy District, he was issued Pattadar Passll rok bearing Khatha No.260.

4. It is averred that respondent No'4 .cquired the subject property out o[ earning and fund i of the joint family in the name of Naaram Bhoomi Reddl , petitioner's paternal unc1e, who filed a suit in O'S.No 2 i 3 of 1997 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, lalga Reddy District, for partition and the said suit vas a-llowed. Respondent No.4-father of petitioner hled I .S.No.128 of 2009 before this Court and an interim direcl Lon of stay of passing of the hnal decree proceedings rntil further orders was granted. It is the specific cast: of petitioner that suppressing the pendency of the legat proceedings, respondent No.4 is trying to dispose of ttr : property to third parties. A sale deed bearing Doc.Nr .37 51 / 2Ot9 , I I t l I i I ! I I 3 JAK, J w.P.No.26373 of 2o2I dated 15.03.20i9 executed by respondent No'4' in collusion with respondent Nos'5 and 6' in favour o[ respondent No.7 in respect of the said land admeasurlng Ac.2-31 guntas was registered'

5. Petitioner claims that he frled a representation dated 18.10.2019 for cancellation of sa-le deed dated 15.03.2019 but the said representation has not been disposed of by the respondent Nos' 1 to 3' Hence' the writ petition is hled seeking direction to dispose of the said representation.

6. Learned counsel for Petltloner submitted that respondent Nos'4 to 6 have a mala ftde intention to sell the ProPertY. It is submitted that Petitioner 1S son of respondent No'4, who has a legitimate share in the property and that his right is being denied' It is further pointed out that a public notice was issued in the newspaper cautioning the general public not to enter into the transaction/agreement/development agreement 1n l-! 4 JAK,.] tV +'No.2637 t oI2O2l respect of the property admeasuring Acr;2-31 guntas situated in Survey No.1a/AA/AA. It is a|; r pointed out that the subject property is in the prohil; I :d propcrties list as per the records of the Registration ald Stamps Department and as such the sale deed dat( I 15.03.2019 executed uide Docurnent No.375 I of 2019 1 y respondent No.4, is an inva-lid document. Therefore, r:presentation dated 18.10.20 19 is made, but it hi s not been considered in spite of the property being claced in the prohibited list (as per trx.P3). 7 . Learned counsel for petitioner inviteri the attention of this Court to representation dated 18. 11.2019 of the petitioner and submitted that insl ite of the representation, dated 18. 10.2019, the sir e deed dated

15.03.20 19, (Ex.P2 at page No.11 of the rr aterial papers annexed has not been cancelled).

8. On the other hand, Iearned Standi: g Counsel for respondent No.7 contended that respondr nt Nos.4 to 6 5 JAR, J W.P.No 26373 of 2O21 entered into an agreement and executed a sale deed dated 15.03.2019, much prior to passing of the interim orders granted in A.S.No. 128 of 2OO9 and as such it cannot be said that the same is in prohibited' That directions were issued in I.A.No. 1 ol 2019 in A'S'No'128 of 2OO9.lt is also pointed out that a representation dated 18.10.2019 is made to cancel the sale deed dated 15.03.2019, which is also much prior to the interim orders granted by the appellate Court in A'S'No'128 of 2OO9. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is seeking cancellation of the sale deed' g. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that cancellation of sale deed has to be by a competent civil Court and the said carcellation cannot carried by respondent authorities. That the respondent authorities are not empowered to cancel. Learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex 6 JAK,. \u.P.No.2637:l of 2021 Court in Satga Pal Anand o. State of Matlhga Pradesh and Othersr and invited the attention of his Court to paragraph No.34 and submitted that the p: u/er to cancel a registered docume nt is a substantive r r etter and no express provision has been made under ltL, Registration Act, 1908 (for short, the Act, 1908') t nd the Sub Registrar lacks power to cancel the sale r eed. Learned counsel has invited the attention of r I :is Court to paragraph No.36 and has reiterated the corr ention.

10. On the other hand, learned Assistan Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that is it is tnlv after the interim orders have been passed in A.S.N: l2B of 2OO9, the Sub Registrar has placed the pr,r rerty in the prohibited list. It is also pointed out I hat the Sub Registrar can only deny registration sultr; :quent to the passing of the order by a Court in A.S.N:128 of 2OO9, I (2016) 10 SCC 767 I I I I I ! I i 7 JAK, J W P.No 26373 oJ 2021 but he cannot deny registration of sale deed or any other deed prior to passing of the order of the Court'

11. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions'

12. Petitioner is son of respondent No'4' Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are daughters of Respondent No'4' Petitioner himsetf stated in affidavit at paragraph No'3 of the afhdavit that his lather is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs'2-31 guntas in Survey No.|a/AA/AA situated at Kismathpur Village' Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' and he was issued pattadar passbook arrd title deed bearing Khatha No.26O. As per the averments of the afhdavit' it is also the case of petitioner that a suit in O'S'No'283 of 1997 was filed by his paternal uncle for partition of the property and same was ailowed' An Appeal in A'S'No' 128 of 2OO9 before this Court is hled by father of petitioner and an interim stay of passing of hnal decree proceedings \ '_.--.l 8 ]AK, J ,t/ P.N0.26:173 at2021 - was obtained. Respondent No.4-father of p etitioner, by suppressing the pendency of the legal Jlr',,ceedings, IS trying to sell the said subject property to hird parties, u,herein petitioner has a legitimate share r nd therefore made a representation dated 18.10.2( l9 seeking cancellation of the registered sale. These far ts are not in dispute.

13. It is trite law that cancellation of a ri gistered sale deed cannot be done by respondent author .Lies. It is for the appropriate Court to cancel the sale leed bearing Doc.No.375l of 2O19, dated 15.03.2019.

14. Interim stay of passing of final decree , ,,as passed in I.A.No.l of 2079 in A.S.No.128 of 2OO9 o r OB.1l.2OI9 and extended on 27.O2.2O2O.

15. Sa,le deed is executed prior to the :lssing of the interim orders. If at all, petitioner had anl grievance, he could have filed an application before tlr : appropriate Court i.e., First Appellate Court. This recr urse was not 9 JAK, J w.P.No.26373 of 2O21 adopted by petitioner, instead he approached this Court for cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing document No.3751 of 2019.

16. The contention that subject property was placed in the prohibited list earlier cannot be held to be a tenable contention. As rightly contended by learned Standing \ Counsel appearing for respondent No.7, respondent I Nos. 1 to 3 have no power to cancel a sale deed' As held by the Hon'.ble Apex Court in Satga Pal Anc,nd's case (supra), the power of cancellation of registration of a document, after registration, is a substantive matter and in the absence of any express provision in the Act, 1908, the Sub Registrar has no power to cancel the registration of the document i.e., sale deed dated 15.03.2019 in the present case.

17. Writ petition is devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed, petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies available under law. t0 \-: v,t.P.io.2537:t of 2A2 I JAK, J ,

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismrs,r ed. No order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendirl , shall stand dismissed //TRUE COPY// SD/.' .SREENIVAS REDDY ^(\Sil,ISTANT REGTSTRAB _---" I , SECTION OFFICER To Hyderabad [OUT] -c-e lOR REVENUE, High Court for the S:i tlr Tetangana at 1 . Two CCs t9 2. One CC to IV/s. K.JAYASREE, Advocate tOpUCl 3 one CC to SRI PRAMOD I\4ALIG|, Advocate-(Opl C) SA TKS

4. Two CD Copiesv HIGH COURT DATED:1410812025 I HES t c,') c20/6 .t- iPrrtctl t I I I ! I I I ! ORDER WP.No.26373 of 2021 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. €