The High Court · 2025

3. The Diatrict Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, At L.B Nagar, Telangana State. 4. The Sub Regisfrar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy'District 5. Smt.K.Yashoda, D/o Late K.Peda Venkata Rama Rao, aged about 63 years' Occ Teacher, Fl/o H.no.1-1-421lfu3, Gandhi Nagar, Road No.9, New Bakaram, Hyderabad.

6. Er.P.N.Murthy, S/o P.C. Purushotham, aged about 64 years, Occ Doctor, Rl/o H.no.1-1-4211N3, Gandhi Nagar, Road No.9, New Bakaram, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the:refusal of the Respondents No. 4 vide Letter No. 337t2023 dated '19- 10- 2023 in entering the Award dated 01- 04- 2015 passed in PLC No. 2812015, whereby the Respondents No. 4 and 5 gave up all their claims in respect of Plot No.3 admeasuring 175 Sq. Yds in Sy. No. 9, 9/2 and 9/3 of Saroor Nagar Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District and further confirmed the title, rights and possession of the Petitioner, in the prohibition register in terms of standing order 219 as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, to direct the Respondent No.3 to make the necessary entry in the Prohibition Registrar to restrain the 61 Respondents No. 4 and 5 from presenting any document for r ,gistration in respect of the said property pass. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cl'( rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 and 4 not to entertain any registratir ns of any Deed or Deeds presented for registration by Respondent No. 5 anr 6 in respect of Plot No.3 admeasuring 175 Sq. Yds in Sy. No. 9, 9/2 and 9/3 of I aroor Nagar Village and lrrlandal, Rangareddy District pending disposal of the abcr r Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci'< .lmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court ma! be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 and 4 to make the necessary errlr' in the Prohibition Registrar to restrain the Respondents No. 5 and 6 from pre:;r nting any document for registration in respect of the said property pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.TARUNESH FOR SRI SRI\ IVAS VELAGAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: Ms. D.HARITHA t{l tAN' AGP FORREVI NUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: SRI R.DHEERAJ Slt GH The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANTL KUMAR JUI{ANTI WRIT PETITION No.31498 of 2o23 ORDER: This Writ Petition is iiled seeking the following relief: "...to issuc a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Maldamus to declare the refusa-l of the Respondents No.4 vide ktter No.337/2023 dated 19.1O.2023 rn entering the Arvard dated 01.04.2015 passed in PLC No.28/2015, whcreby the Respondents No.4 alrd 5 gave up a.ll their claims in respect of Plot No.3 admeasuring 175 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.9, 9/2 and 9/3 of Saroor Nagar Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District and lurther confirmed the title, rights ald posscssion of the Petitioncr, in the prohibitiorr rcgistcr in tcrms of standing order 219 as illegal and arbitrary. Consequcntly, to direct thc Respondent No 3 to make the necessar), cntry in the Prohibition Registral to restrain the Respondents No.4 and 5 from presenting any document for registration in respect of the said property pass..."

2. - Heard Mr. A.Tarunesh, iearned counsel representing Mr. V.Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. R.Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and Ms. D.Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Petitioner and unofficial respondent Nos.S and 6 vide award dated 01.04.2015 passed in P.L.C.No.28 of 2015, have compromised the matter. The terms of memorandum of 2 JAI(,J r.l'.N r,.l l19ti ol202l compromise, at Page No.21 of the writ materiaI papers are as follows: "1) The Petitioners hcrebv declarc artd crl l they purchased thc Plot bearing No.3, adrneas sq.yarcls out of 350 sq.yards. in Sun'cy Nos.') 913 of Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Rar:1 District, from Sri. Mohammed lbraheem, Registercd Sale Deed dated 9-lO-2O02. Doc.No.313 of 2002. The said Sri.Mohammed I represented that he in turn purchased the salii admeasuring 350 sq.yards from Smt.Kogant Kumari, under an unregrstercd Sale Deed d:rt.' 1982. On further verification, the Petitioners rr:'l the said Sri. Mohammed Ibraheem brought intc the said unregistered Salc Deed dated 30- I. Impersonation and forge ry and the same is rLr ' Petitioners, therefore, herebl, give up all their , respect o[ thc said propcrl\'. r-m tl)at 'rng 175 )12 and r Rcddy .ndcr a beiuing ,raheem, prol)cIty l(rishna I 30- 12- zcd that xistcncc t98:2 by rhd. The laim s in 2) Thc Petitioners also reafized that the s rid Smt 'r oi' the pondent r Sun,ey Malda.l, of land l;een in absolute Koganti Krishna Kumari herself is not the o\\'r Plot No.3 and no way related to the same. The R' is the owner of an extent of Ac.2-2O Gts of la-ncl i Nos.9, 9/2 and 9/3 of Saroornagar Village alr,l Ranga Reddy District and thc sard 35O sq.yarrl forms part of the samc. The Respondent har; possession and enjoyment of the sard propcrtv a i owner. 3) Thc Petitioners hereby declare that tht:'. claims whatsoever over thc said property. have no

4. It is not even averred in the mcr lorzrndum of compromise as to who is the true owner o- the property, without there being true owner of the properh, the parties of PLC have been compromised. It is only averl, d in the PLC that the respondent therein is the owner of pro )erty and. that no documents are Presented 3 JAK,J W.P.No.3l498 of 2023

5. Writ petition is filed by the respondent in the PLC, seeking a direction against the alleged purchasers of the property, bearing Plot No.3 admeasuring i75 sq. yards out of 350 sq. yards in Sy.Nos.9, 912, 913 of Saroornagar Village and Mandal, that no further registration be carried out by the office of Sub-Registrar with respect to the said property. In the PLC the unofficial respondents herein have declared that they have no rights and no claims with respect to subject property. From the facts and crrcumstances of the case, it is apparent that the writ petition appears to be frivolous and vexatious.

6. Be that as it may, petitioner counsel seeks permission to.withdraw the writ petition. Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/-A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANTREGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER o U of Telangana, at 'l . One CC to SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI' Advocate 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for the Hvderabad. [OUT] Ohe CC to SRI R DHEERAJ SINGH, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To J 4 PSK. BS & I I HIGH COURT DATED:1 810912025 ORDER WP.No.31498 of 2023 =:,! L 'I .tlt RU 0 I \ 11116 ,.']\: ^ L-\ ( z. -\ a DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS 'Ll, /t b