Honourable Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. State of A.P

Y V,1"V3 Kumar Red_dy, Sio tt4. Venkata Rami Reddy, Age. 33 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/O. H.NO.4-3-1-2ltu2, Beside lR-A N/bdel S6hool, Near veerashaiva Kalyana [\,4andapam, Valmiki Nagar, Chincholi Road, Tandur- 501141 , Vikarabad Dist. R. Srilatha, Wo. Ir/. Vijaya Kumar Reddy, Age. 32. years, Occ. private Employee, FyO H.NO 4-3-1-2lAl2, Beside I R n rut-oOel School. Near ygerashalva Kalyana l\/andapam, Valmiki Nagar, Chincholi Road. iandur- 5O1141 , Vikarabad Dist. I\/. Ravanamma, W/o. IVl. Venkata Rami Reddy, Age.50 years, Occ. House wife, FYo. H.NO.4-3-1-2lAi2, Beside I R A lVodel School.' Near veerashaiva Kalyana I\,4andapam, Valmiki Nagar, Chincholi Road, Tandur-50.1 14.1 ,Vikarabad Dist. lvl _Ve1ka!q Rami Reddy, S/o. B. Venkat ReddyAge. Tl years, Occ. Business, RlO, H.NO.4-3-1-21N2, Beside I R A lt/ociel - School, Near veerashaiva Kalyana [\,4andapam, Valmiki Nagar, Chincholi Road, Tandur-5O1141 ,Vikarabad District. ...RESPONDENTSM/RIT PETITIONERS The Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 6 The Commissioner and inspector General. uepartmenr,. usmanguni IV J Market. nyderabJO'SOOOOi -' ' . Registration ef,iG;" +th "&" 6ii-, St rr rps FItl r, and Registration Ni.zmashahi Road, 7 Ilr:r,3,rO Registrar (Stamps and Registration), Tarr ur A,4andal, Vikarabad lA NO: 1 oF 2025 ...RESPONt)tr :NTS/RESpONDENTS Petition under Section 'r 51 cpc praying that in th -- circurnstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High c()r rt may be preased to grant interim suspension of the order Dated. O1lO7lZ025 p rssed by the Hon,bte Single Judge in W.p.No..18475 of 2025, pending writ appe,l Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. Dlllp SINGH THAKUR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI S.SATYAM REt Dy, Sr. COUNSEL REP, FoR SRI KASIREDDY MoIIAI.i ciar.ro-ni-rris Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 7: Gp FOR STAMpS ,i REGISTRATION The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY VIT(IT APPEA L No.957 OF 20?5 IUDGMEN T: (Per Hon'bte Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

01.07.2025, passed in W.P.No.18475 of 2025 by a learned Single |udge of this Court.

2. Heard Sri Dilip Singh Tl.rakur, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S. Satyam Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel representing Sri Kasireddy Mohan Chandra Has, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7.

3. It is the case of the appellants that appellant No.2 purchased open plot admeasuring 374 Square yards in Survey No.122, situated at Tandur Town and Mandal, Vikarabad Disnict, aide registered Sale Deed, dated 05.03.2025, from appellant No.1, who in furn, purchased the land in question from its original owners aide ! 2 A{S,J & VRKR,J lV A \o.967 of 2025 registered Sale Deed, dated 02.07.2018. While so, rr:: pondent Nos'1 to 4 have submitted representations, dated l3'03'2025 and

25.03.2025, before respondent Nos.7 and 6, respectir' '[y, contending that they have purchased the land in question at a I t:arlit:r point of time i.e. in the year 2012 and sought to cancel the Ii. Ie Deed, which was executed in favour of appellant No.1. When re;ponclent Nos'6 and 7 have not passed orders on the said epresentations, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have approached this Cotr rt by filing the subject W.P.No.18475 of 2025. The learned Sir gle Judge olde impugned order, dated 01,.07.2025, disposed of t re subject Writ Petition directing the official respondents l( consider the representations filed by respondent Nos.1 h 4 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 4 Learned counsel for the appellants had contrlr ded that the net effect of the representations submitted by respor.rC'nt Nos.1 to 4 is to cancel the Sale Deeds executed in favour o1 the appellants Learned courrsel further contended that responrl"nt No.7 has no polver to canr:el the Sale Deeds, in view of the lar'r aicl down by the 3 AKS,J & VRKR,J W A-No.967 of 2O25 Honourable Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. State of A.P.1. When respondent No.7 has no power to cancel the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the appellants, the question of disposing of the subject Writ Petition by directing the official respondents to consider the representations submitted by respondent Nos.1 to 4 would not arise

5. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that there are civil Suits already pending between the parties and without disclosing about the pendency of the litigation before the competent civil Court, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have approached this Court seeking a direction to pass appropriate orders on the representations submitted by them. If respondent Nos.1 to 4 have purchased the land in question at an earlier point of time, they have to work out their remedies before the competent civil Court, but a Writ Petition is not maintainable. Even if the Writ Petition is maintainable, respondent No.7 has no power to cancel the Sale Deeds, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme ' 1zoro1 rs scc zou I 4 AK.S,J & VRKR,J l;o.967 of 2025 "\'.A I Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case (supra) f'herefore' appropriate ortlers be passed in the Writ Appeal L'' setting aside the irnpugned order, dated 01.07-2025, and allow the Writ Appeal

6. Learnec-l Government Pleader for Stamps a I d Registration appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7 had c rntended that respondent N,r.7 has r1o power to cancel the S rle Deeds' If respondent Nos.l to 4 are aggrieved by execution c I Sale Deeds in favour of the appellants, they must take approprii te stops before the competent civil Court for cancellation of t re Sale Deeds executed in favour of the appellants. The learrLt Ll Single Judge could not havt' given such a direction.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent \os.l to 4 had contended that since respondent No'7 has no po^ cr to cancel the Sale Deeds, in view of the Iaw laid down by he F{onourable Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case (r;r pra), liberty be granted to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take appropri,r't: steps to cancel the Sate Deeds executed in favour of the apptll ants before the competent cir"il Court. 5 AKS,J & VRKRiJ W.,\.No.967 of 2025 8 This Court having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the learned Single |udge could not have disposed of the subject Writ Petition directing the official respondents to consider the representations of respondent Nos.1 to 4 for cancellation of the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the appellants. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 07.07.2025, is liable to be set aside 9 Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order, dated

07.07.2025, passed in W.P.No.18475 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, is set aside. However, liberty is granted to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take appropriate steps for cancellation of the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the appellants. If respondent Nos.1 to 4 take appropriate steps for cancellation of the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the appellants, none of the observations made by this Court will come in the way of respondent Nos.1 to 4. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 A(:J,J & VRKR,J W.A No.967 of 2025 Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pendinl; ln this Writ Appeal shall starrd closed. //TRUE COPY' SCi,K JOI Jsnill INIVAS RAO REGI STR '.1 ;ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 The Principal Secretary-, Stamps and Registration Dep rrtmerrt' Secretariat' Hyderabad. T elangana State' The Commissioner and inspector General Starrn an(l Registration Deoartment. Regrstratron e'ri5""'ii +1r1 ^q 5th Floo: Nizrrashahi Road' b![i,iq'rliirr i Ni",-k;i Hvderabad 500001 The Sub Re:gistrar (Stamps and Registration)' Tancu N4andal' Vikarabad Writ Posting Section' High C c -rrt fo' the State of District. it Non-service Sectron, High ( 'ourt for the State of The Sectior Officer, Telangana aI HYderab The Section Off icer, Wr Telanoana at HYderabad

6. One CC to SRI DILIP SINGH THAKUR' Advocate [OPU 'l] 7. One CC to SRI KASIREDDY MOHAN CHANDRA HAS) Advocate [OPUC] I Two CCs to GP FOR STATUPS & REGISTRATION I T;h Court for the State " ;i%ir;;".a at HYderabad [oUTl 9. Two CD CcPies BSR ort\,r. HIGH COURT DATED: 0110912025 .,'> I .r. rli: Si47 (: a rJ \\ -. \\.. I 1lfl 1r ::-- '..-.'' JUDGMENT WA.No.967 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS c0 f- ft'an'