1. Madarapu Suguna v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of In iirr praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, thr High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, n ore particularly one in the nature of Writ of N4andamus, declaring the action of thr ilespondent Nos.2 to 5 in registering the Doc.No.950 of 2006, dt.25.07.20r r6 in favour of '1 lth respondent at the instance of 12th respondent for the pr )perty in Sy.No.290/1 , 2901115, 2901211, 2901215, 29418.11, 294lDl5 to an e),t(nt of Ac.2.08 gts, Ac.2.07gts, Ac.O.2,l gts, Ac.0.24 gts, Ac.0.28 gts, Ac.0.2t gis total admeasuring Ac.6.39 gts at Kothapally (SM) Village, Bhupalpally \,4andal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District without there being any land as decla .e d by the Competent Civil Court in O.S.l{o.220 of 2006, d1.16.12.2013 on the fi :r Hon'ble ll Additionat Senior Civil Judge, Warangal and the issuance of Pattedi:, rassbooks and Title Deeds and entering the name of the 1 1th respondent n the Dharani portal without considering the representations of the petit o ters dt.14.07 .2025, 10.06.2025, 09.10 2023, 16.10.2023, 13.11.2023, :is iilegat, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Indian Flegistration Act and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 10 to initiat ,: mmediate action as per the provisions of Sec.B1 and 82 of lndian Registration /\:t for registering the above said document by the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 at ftre instance of the 12th respondent in favour of '1 1th respondent and to initiate dis,;iDlinary action and to declare the above mentioned document as null and void ar I the .1 1th respondent cannot rely on the said document pending finalisation of Ci', ! iispute. i, 4.. L-t!i*ti t -{ |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 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 direct the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 to forthwith conduct enquiry into the illegal registration of Doc.No.950 of 2006, dt.25.07.2006 obtained by the 1'lth respondent as per the provisions of Registration Act by duly initiating appropriate action, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI M.JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 : SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 to 10 : G.P FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.11 &12. - The Court made the following ORDER {r v e* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LANII;IIMAN WRIT PETITION No.22785 of 20:2,5 ORDER: Heard Nl Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for tl :: petitioners and Sri L. Ravinder, leamed Assistant Govemment Plea, ler for Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos I and 12 made false statements betbre respondent No.7 and got sirl< deed bearing document No.950 of 2006, dated 25.07.2006, in favrr -u of respondent No. 1 1, in respect of Sy.Nos.290 I l, 290 I 1 I 5, 290121 1, ", q \l2l 5, 294lBl l, 294lDl5 to an extent of Ac.2.08 guntas, Ac.2.07 g,rntas, Ac.0.24 guntas, Ac.O.24 guntas, Ac.0.28 guntas and \:.0.28 guntas respectively, total adrneasuring Ac.6.39 guntas at i..cthapally (SM) Village, Bhupalpally Mandal, Jayashnakar Bhupalprlly District. ln respect of subject propefty, the matter was comprom st.d between the petitioners and respondent No.ll and 12 in O.S.I,o 220 of 2006. Even then, they have obtained registered certiflcat:s in favour of respondent No.ll by providing false certificates. "herefore, the petitioners have submitted representations dat, ,d 09.10.2023,

16.10.2023, 13.1 1.2023,10.06.2025 and 14.01.202i to respondent I t {.;".tor, t\ { E ) 2 No.6 with a request to take action with regard to the said fraudulent transactions. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representatlons, respondent No.6 did not conduct any enquiry. Aggrieved by the said in action of respondent No.6, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

3. Vide the aforesaid representation dated 14.07.2025, the petitioners sought to cancel the alleged fraudulent transaction i.e. sale deed bcaring Document No. 950 of2006. However, respondent No. 6 cannot consider the fraudulent transaction and conduct enquiry. If the transaction is indeed fraudulent, the petitioners have to take steps in accordance with law by filing a suit. They cannot seek cancellation of fraudulent transaction frorn Respondent No. 6. If respondent No. l0 failed to consider the complaint lodged by the petitioners, they are required to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, including filing a complaint under Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Therefore, the petitioners cannot submit the aforesaid representations and file the present writ petition alleging non-consideration of the same.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief, much less the relief sought in the writ petition. a- 3 Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismiss::rl and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitior ers to submit an appropriate rt:presentation to respondent No. 6 ra, t1r a request to conduct an enquiry in accordance with Section 81- ot t,re Registration Act, 1908 and it is for respondent No. 6 to consider irLd dispose of it in accordance u,ith law. No costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shzt I stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Ab I SD/.A. JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR r;tq I s ECTION OFFICER Hyderabad. [OUTI

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the $ tt ) of Telangana at 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State r { Telangana at 3. One CC to SRI IV'I.JANARDHAN RAO, Advocate [OPU r-;] 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] To SA LS F 't 0 [tl :rlm HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 ORDER WP.No.22785 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ,zZ /z ) 2 1;l