High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in Registration of the Agriculture Land Registered sale Deed vide Document No.11s51202Z dated 14.09 2022 and issued the pattadar passbooks vide passbook No T01050190592 situated in sy.No. 92rEt At1t1, to an extent of Ac. 0.37 Gts Gadimunkanpally village, Damaragidda Mandal, Narayanpet District to the 6th Respondent in spite of the father of the petitioner and the petitioner made objection to stop the process to Registration and not to iss;ue pattadar passbooks for the above said Agriculture Land to the 6th Respondenl. as an illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, whimsical, non-applicati:n of mind, malafide intention, ulterior motive, unlawful and in vrolation of principals of Natural Justice and in violation of the Provisions of the Telangana Rightr; in Land and pattadar Passbook Act, 2020 and in violation of the Article 14, 21 and 300-4 of the constitutron of lndia against the catena of Judgments of tris Honble court and an Apex Court and set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the r.;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 5th Respondent to cancel the sale Deed Registered vide Document No.115512022, dated 14.092022 and the pattadar pasr,;book vide passbooks No. T01050'190592 of the Agriculture Land situated in,Sy.No. 92tEl A, to an extent of Ac. 0.37 gts Gadimunkanpally Village, I)amaragidda Mandal, Narayanpet District issued to the 6th Respondent forthwitr, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU Counsel for the Respondents No.1tos: SRt L.RAV|NDER, ,AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.6 : The Court made the following: ORDER / HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.24928 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

2. According to the petitioner, his father late Lal Ahmed was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.92/E/A/l/L situated at Gadimunkanpally Village, Damaragidda Mandal, Narayanpet District. He has agreed to sell the said property to 6,t respondent for sale consideration of Rs.37.00 lakhs, but the 6th respondent did not pay the said amount.

3. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that his father went to the Sub-Registrar Offrce on

14.09.2022 for the pu{pose of execution of the said sale registered deed, but the 6th respondent has not paid the sale consideration. Therefore, he has KL..J W I'. No.24928 oi:2025 2 submitted representation/objection dated 28.O9.2022 to the respondents 2 to 5 against the 6th respondent However, the said representation was not considered The father of the petitioner also reques:ed the 5th respondent to cancel the slot booked by the 6th respondent. Vide order dated 10.lO.2Oi).2, the 3.d respondent directed the Sth respondent to rrnquire the matter and submit a detailed report for taldng further action.

4. Perusal of record would reveal that the 6th respondent hled Writ Petition No.356 1 of 2(;23 seeking direction to the 3.d respondent/District Cdllector to consider the online application No.LM2liOO000854, dated 30.01.2023 submitted by him seekinlg mutation of his narne and issuance of e-pattadar ltass book, basing on the registered sale deed bearing document No.1155 of 2022 dated 14.09.2022. Vide c,rder dated O8.O2.2O2:3, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the 3.d respondent herein -o consider - KL,J W.P.No.2492E ot 2O2S J the said online application submitted by the 6th respondent and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, by putting the 6th respondent and all affected parties on notice and afford them an opportunity.

5. Perusal of record a_lso would reveal that one Mr.Mohmmed Moulana has filed a suit in O.S.No.66 of 2023 against the petitioner's father for specihc performance of agreement of sale dated O4.O1.2O2L. He has a-lso hled I.A.No. tO7 of 2023 in O.S.No.66 of 2023 to restrain the father of the petitioner from alienating, encumbering and changing the physical features of the said property. I Learned Junior Civil Judge, Kosgi, has granted interim injunction. The said suit is pending and the said interim injunction is also subsisting.

6. Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that the said suit was decreed on LO.O2.2O2S. KL,,] W.P.'1o.24928 ot 2O2r 4 -l'l

7. It is a-lso the specific contention of thr: petitioner that his father died on 05.01.2025. Therefore, the petitioner has frled the present Writ Petitiorr to declare the action of the 5,h respondent in executin{:l registered sale deed bearing document No. 1i55 of 2r)22, dated

14.09.2022 and issuance of e-pattadar pass book in respect ol the subject property in fav<,ur of 6th respondent, AS illegal, contending that the (,th respondent has not paid agreed sa-le consirleration of Rs.37.O0 lakhs to the father of the petitioner and the petrtroner

8. As <liscussed supra, petitioner's f,ether has already executed aforesaid registered sale dt:ed bearing document No.1155 of 2022 on 14.09.2022 in favolur of R6. The sale consideration is menl.ione<l as Rs.10,000,/-. On completion of the formalities, the Sth respondent has registered the said documt,:nt. It is a registered document. Therefore, petitioner ,:annrlt fiIe the present Writ Petition seeking cancellat:ion of the 7 KL,J w.P.No.2492a ol 2025 5 said sale deed on the ground of non-receipt of sale consideration. The role of the revenue authorities including the respondents 2 to 5 under the Bhu Bharathi Act, 2025 is very limited. They carnot consider the aforesaid disputed questions of fact, more particularly, non-payment of entire sa,le consideration by the 6ft respondent to the father of the petitioner. Though the petitioner is contending that the total sale consideration agreed between the father of the petitioner and the 6th respondent is Rs.37.OO lakhs, he I { has not hled any document in proof of the same. Even if the 6ft respondent has not paid the Egreed sale consideration of Rs.37.00 lakhs, as contended by the petitioner, he has to Iile a suit seeking recovery of money. He cannot hle the present Writ petition to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not cancelling the said sale deed as illegal. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the relief much less the KL,J W .P No.249t!a of 2025 \ 6 relief sought in the present Writ Petition arrd the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail remedies available under law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, l.f any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/.9:MA ILTKARJUNA RAO SIS IANT REGISTRAR f f, \ //TRUE COPYII I I S CTION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to SRt PRABHAKAR CHtKKUDU, Advocate. tOpUC. 2 Two CCs b GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Sti,rte of 1-elangana

3. Two CD Copies BSK BS(y \ ,/ ,.) -| 16 SEP r9"s- ir_. t' )( + { -^ t HIGH COURT DATE D :2 210812025 ORDER WP.No.24928 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS un{^ YK* rb\'