Smt. Bollam Venkata Ramana v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition [Jnder Article 226 of lhe 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 the respondent No. 5 in entertaining the unilateral registration on the open plot of the petitioner to an extent of 300 sq. yards in plot No. 71, in Sy. No. '1286, which is situated at Ward No.7, Block No.9, Sree Ram Nagar Colony, Nalgonda Town and executed registered sale deed on the plot of the petitioner throug-r vide document No. 347512023 dt.01- 03- 2023 and non- initiating to cancel the unilateral registration of the respondent No, 6 which is executed without any consent and knowledge to the petitioner on the name of respondent No. 7, is illegal, arritrary and violative of Articles, 14, 15,21 and 300 of Constitution of lndia and also violative of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondent No. 5 tc c,lncel the unilateral sale deed of the respondent No. 7 vide document No. 347512023 on the file of SRO, Nalgonda, on the plot of the petitioner to an extent o 3tl0 sq. yards in plot No. 71 , in Sy. No. 1286, which is situated at Ward No. 7, Block No. 9, Sree Ram Nagar Colony, Nalgonda Town which is executed without any consent and knowledge to the petitioner and do the needful justice to the Petitioner. |.A.NO:'f OF 2023 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 rnay be pleased to direct the respondent No. 5 to cancel the unilateral sale d(rec of the respondent No. 7 vide document No. 347512023 on the file of SRO, Nalgcrnda, on the plot of the petitioner to an extent of 300 sq. yards in plot No. 7'l , irr Sy. No. 1286, which is situated at Ward No. 7, Block No. 9, Sree Ram Nagar Cc,lony, Nalgonda Town which is executed without any consent and knowledge to thir pr-'tttioner and do the needful justice to the Petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : SRI T.SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY The Court made the following ORDER / a THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH lIIRIT PETITION No.3OOL4 OF 2o23 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and R.egistration for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, Iearned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 arrd 7 and perused the entire material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absoiute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of 300 Sq.Yards 1n plot No.71 in Sy.No.1286, situated at Ward No.7, Block No.9, Sree Ram Nagar Colony, Nalgonda Town and District, having acquired the same through registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.lO727 12011 executed by the respondent No.6, who is the mother of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner enjoyed the said plot without any interruption from anybodf in the Village. Due to family disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.6, the respondent No.6 fi1ed a complaint 2 against the petitioner under the provis;ions of the .i Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 belore the respondent No.4. Mt:anwhile, the respondent No.4 without following any proc:dure passed orders on 01.1O.2O22 directing the respondent No.5- Sub-Registrar, Nalgonda District, to carLcel the gift settlement deed document No.70727/2011 obtained by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the p:titioner fled an Appeal uide Appeal No.Cll76761202?. before the respondent No.2. After hearing both sides,, the Appeal was disposed in favour of the petitioner and se t aside the orders passed by the respondent No.4 ar:d remanded back the matter to the respondent No.4 ulde orders dated

77.O7.2O23. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 issued memo utde AF/2074/2022, dated 10.02.1)023 stating that the orders passed on 01.10.2022 shtll be stayed until further inquiry is concluded. In spite of orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, the respondent No.6 has executed sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent No.7 uide document No.3475 of 2023 on O1.O3.2O23 without cancelling the gift settlement deed granted in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.6, without any right over the property, had executed the sale deed in lavour of the respondent No.7 without disclosing the registered gift settlement deed in favour of the petitioner and also the orders passed by the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.S is not having any power or authority to entertain the registration. The respondent Nos.6 ald 7 were colluded with each other and hatched a plan to extract the land of the petitioner and the said action of the respondents is contra5r to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the document executed by the respondent No.6 has to be cancelled and requested to cancel the registered sale deed executed by the respondent No.6 to the respondent No.7 in respect of the suit schedule property uide sale deed No.3475 of 2023, dated OI.O3.2023 by allowing the writ petition. 4

4. On the other hand, learned cour-rsill for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 basing on the cortnier-affidavit submits that the respondent No.6 herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, having acquired the same by way of the r,:gistered sale deed. The respondent No.6 herein filed a complaint before the respondent No.4 under the pro'dsions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents arrd S,lnior Citizens Act, 2OO7 and the respondent No.4 after conducting thorough enquiry and hearing, has passed orders in favour of the respondent No.6 by <iirecting the respondent No.5 to cancel the gift set.-lement deed executed by the respondent No.6 in ftrvour of the petitioner as the petitioner herein- has faile<l to look after the respondent No.6 and not providing basic amenities and basic physical needs, the respondent No.5 has rightly cancelled the above gift settlement <leed. In view of the cancellation of the gift settlement deed by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.6 sold the said property by executing registered sale deec. in favour of 5 the respondent No.7. In view of the same, the question of the cancellation of the gift settlement deed in favour of the petitioner does not arise as the same was already cancelled by the respondent No.4

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 further submits that the cancellation of the gift settlement deed in the present case origins from the powers conferred under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 and there is no illegality in executing the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7 by the respondent No.6. Once the competent authority i.e., the respondent No.4 has cancelled the gift settlement deed, the question of cancelling the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No.7 does not arise and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

6. After hearing both sides this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner and the respondent No.6 are the daughter and mother and there is no dispute with regard to the registration of the gift 6 settlement deed in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No.6 uide document No.1O727 cf 2!.011, dated

08.08.2011. The respondent No.6 hled a complaint under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 beflore the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 passed orders in U. SI.No.G/ 2O7 4 / 2022, dated 0 1. 10.2022 directing the respondent No.5 to cancel the gift deed ext:cuted by the respondent No.6 in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the :respondent No.3 and lrled an Appeal uide AppealNo.Cl/7676/2022. After hearing both sides, the respondent No.3 has disposed the said appeal on 17.O1.2O23 by setting aside the orders passed by the respondent No.4 and remanded the matter back to the respondent No.4 for iresh enquiry by issuing notices to all the children of th: respondent No.6.

7. In view of the orders passed by tht: respondent No.3, the respondent No.4 issued n:erao, dated IO.O2.20'23 stating that the orders passed by th-e-- 7 respondent No.4 on 01.1O.2022 were stayed, till conclusion of enquiry. While it being so, the respondent No.6 executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7 and the same was registered in the office of the respondent No.5 uide doc.No.3475 /2023, dated O1.O3.2023. Once the competent Authority i.e., respondent Nos.3 and 4 stayed the operation of the earlier orders with regard to the cancellation of the gift deed in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.6 without making any efforts to cancel the gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner and suppressing the fact that the gift deed was executed in favour of the petitioner and also the proceedings of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7.

8. As on the date of execution, the Respondent No.6 without having any right and title over the subject property and executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7. Once the respondent No.4 stayed the orders of the cancellation, the question of executing the 8 registered sale deed in lavour of the resporrdent No.7 by the respondent No.6 and registering the same by the respondent No.5 is contrary to the Registration Act,

1908. The contention of the respondent Nc.6 is that the gift deed was already cancelled and the respondent No.6 has executed the sale deed in favour of th.e respondent No.7 as per the Registration Act, 1908 and the said contention is not acceptable as the orders ltassed by the respondent No.4 is not in force, in view of the orders passed by the respondent No.3 on 17.O1.2O23. Moreol,er, the respondent No.4 himself pas'se<1 orders on 1O.O2.2023 staying the operation of the earlier orders. In view of the same, without having any title over the property, the respondent No.6 has execttted the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7 and the same has to be cancelled. In view of the same, the irnpugned sale deed executed by the respondent No.6 is liable to be cancelled.

9. In view of the above findings, the w::it petition is allowed by cancelling the registered docunrent No.3475 I 9 of 2023, dated 01.03.2023 on the hle of the Sub- Registrar, Nalgonda District, executed by the respondent No.6 in favour of the respondent No.7. However, this order shall not preclude the respondent No.4 from passing appropriate orders independently without getting influenced by the hndings of this Court in the proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2OOZ. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER at Building, ent, Nalgonda, 1 The PrinciP al Secretary, Revenue DePartment, Se Secretariat, State of Telang ana at Hyderabad 2. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Naigonda District 3. The District Registrar, Regist ration and StamPs DePa Naloonda District- ?fr.'He"vl;j;''fiisional officer, Nalgonda' Nalsonda District +ii: ;;i'd; -i6 i.t|.u|.' nlgl ;ti'tio"n uno' sta'i ps Depa rtme nt N a lso nd a' Naloonda District. i;l#i;6 Gi; ;OR REVENUE, Hish court for the state of Telansana at Hvderabad. [OUTI ijl".'#ildniriipor-u BHASKAR' Advocate IoPUCI - - ^. 5.# & i" Siiii.snulAlr rurt'rAi neoov' Advocate (oPUC) . Two CD CoPies To 4 5 A 7 o o SA GJP ,.'-'- / \-,\\ \' I Si; L) ( PE M I 3 * D a. z a r) 4+ HIGH COURT DATED:2210712025 ORDER WP.No.30014 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. b\qlu(