Puli_Badraiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No. 4 to suspend the operation of the registered sare deed bearing Doc NO. 15g60 0f 2022 dated 1tgt2o22 and Mortgage deed Doc No. 17292 of 2022 dzrted 1st1ot2o22 Joint-sub registered office, Rangareddy (R.o) pending disposar of the writ petition, in the interest of justice pending disposar of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt M JAYASIMHA REDDY counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 4: SMT s SRAVANTHT AGp FoR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No 5: SRt G MADHUSUD GHMC REDDY SC FOR Counsel forthe Respondents No 6 & 7 : ___ The Court made the following: ORDER i) THE HONOURABLD SRI JUSTICE K'SARATH No.33818 of ORDER: Heard Sri M.Jayasimha Reddy, learned counsel for and Smt S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant tLre Petidoner pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing Government ndent Nos.l to 4 and perused the material on record for respo Learned, counsel for the petitioner submits that the questioning the inaction of respondent No.4 in 2 petitioner cancelLing the registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.15960 of 2022 dated OL.O9-2O22 and the Mortgage Deed bearing Doc.No. 17292 of 2022 dated L5.1O.2O22, on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar Office, Rangareddy (R.O), is illegal and arbiffary' g. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner purchased a plot bearing No.21, admeasuring 4Lg.S Sq.Yards in Sy.No.184 (Part), situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal (GHMC Serilingampally Circlel, Ranga Reddy District, under a registered Sale Deed from its owner' Sri Shaik Mohammad uide Document bearing .a J \-'..-t No.a49l2ol7 dated 18.01.2017 registered before the Joint Sub-Registrar-ll (R.O) Ranga Reddy District' - Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

4. after purchasing the said property, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the salne. wkrile it being so, respondent No.7 altegedty created a fake Adhaar card in favour of respondent No.S and executed a registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.1596O of 2022 on the file of the Sub 'l'hereafter, the Registrar office, Rangareddy District. respondent No.7 erected a sign board on the subject property, claiming that the same has been belonged to respondent No.7. Subsequently, respondent No.7 executed a Mortgage Deed bearing Doc.No. 17292 of 2022 dated 15. t0.2022 on t]rle file of Joirrt-Sub Registrar office, Rangareddy (R.o) in favour of respondent No.S. Now, the petitioner is questioning the inaction of the respondent authorities in not cancelling the subject documents. i

5. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that, without any cause of action, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the inar:tion of the 3: respondent No.4 in cancelling the documents already registered by respondent No.S in favour of respondent No.7. The petitioner has not made any representation before the respondent authorities mentioning that the respondent No.7 created a fake Adhaar Card in favour of respondent No.S and executed a registered SaIe Deed bearing Doc.No.15960 of

2022. Moreover, the petitioner mentioned that the respondent No.7 created a fake Adhaar Card and registered documents cannot be decided by this Court disputed questions of facts in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I i \t

6. If the petitioner has any right over the subject property, he has to approach competent Civil Court seeking cancellation of the registered documents. Aftef conducting ! trial and recording evidence, the competent Civil Court has to decide the right over subject property. Without doing so, the petitioner has approached this Court and this Court cannot direct the respondent authorities to cancel the documents executed in favour of the third parties. Therefore, the said contentions of the petitioner are not acceptable and there is no valid ground to issue Mandamus in the instant writ 24i petition. In view of the sarne, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed on devoid of merits. However, this order shall not prech-tde the petitioner from approaching the competent Civil Courl. to question the impugned documents i.e. Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.15960 of 2022 dated O1.O9.2022 and Mortgage Deed bearing Doc.No.l7292 of 2022 dated 15.10.2022 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar Office, Rangareddy (R.O). Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, 1>ending in this writ petition shall stand closed SD/. C.DEEPIKA ISTANT REGIS I I { //TRUE COPY// i I 1 '.i ON OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI tM JAYASIMHA REDDY Advocate [OpLtC] 2. Two CCs to SMT S SRAVANTHT cP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. TOUTI

3. one cc to SRI c MADHUSUDHAN REDDY sc FoR GHTMC [opuc] 4. Two CD Copies D.N TKS I I t HIGH COURT DATE D:10111t202s ORDER WP.No.33818 of 2O2S liiE SI4 o o f- t 2 5 1l0ll 2[6 * ,i I : DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITI N AS DEVOID OF MERITS WITHOUT COSTS o ?{ \\