Telangana High Court
Mrs. Shalini Saincher And Another vs Sayeeda Abood And 20 Others on 17 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.45203/2022, 14737/2024 and 5348/2025 COMMON ORDER:
The issues involved in these writ petitions are intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.45203 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners-Smt. Shalini Saincher and another, seeking following relief:
"...issue a Writ of Certiorari filed Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the A) ULC Proceedings in C.C.No.E/5946/76 dt.22-6-1982 and 11-09-1982, C.C.No.E/6384/76, C.C.No.E/8948/76 proceeding Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, 6870 of 1979 dt.27-4-1980, B) Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1937 of 1980 dt.06-10-1980 and Doc.6451/1982 dt.07.09.1982 and quash the same as they are illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, fraudulent, without Jurisdiction and Null & Void, made in violation of the Provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Registration Act 1908, in violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India with a consequential prayer to declare the Registered Development Agreement bearing No.4801/2021 dt.08-07-2021 as null and void and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case..."
3. W.P.No.14737 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners-Mohammed Fayazuddin Khan and others seeking following relief:
"...to issue a Writ or Writs more appropriately a Writ of Mandamus declaring the ULC proceedings Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, 6870 of 1979 dated: 27.04.1980 in C.C.No.E/5946/76 dated:22-06-1982 and 11-09- 1982, С.С.No.E/6384/76, CC No. E/8948/76 issued by the respondent No.2 to 5 as illegal, void, ultra virus and unconstitutional and consequently declare the Registered Development Agreement bearing No.4801/2021 dated: 08-07-2021 as null and void in the interest of justice and equity and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.."2
4. W.P.No.5348 of 2025 is filed is filed by the petitioners- Mohammed Fayazuddin Khan and others seeking following relief:
"...to issue a Writ or Writs Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.10 issuing the proceedings vide Lr.No.B/12258/2024 dated 10.02.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and equity..."
5. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred as they were arrayed in W.P.No.45203 of 2022.
6. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petitions are stated as under:
7. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.45203 of 2022 that Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad, was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.7-00 guntas in Sy.No.396 (correlated to Revision Sy.No.225), situated at Shaikpet Village, presently falling within Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It is stated that the subject land was originally recorded in revenue records as Jubilee Hills Gyra Jirayatti Patta. The entire Shaikpet Village was an ex-Sarf-e-Khas village and vested with the-then Hyderabad Government upon the merger of Sarf-e-Khas with Diwani in 1358 Fasli (1949 AD). It is further stated that original Sethwar was prepared in 1326 Fasli (1916 AD) after revenue survey, wherein the land admeasuring Ac.3220.02 guntas in Sy.No.129 is classified as Government land. A Supplementary Sethwar of 1331 Fasli (1921 AD) was issued in 3 favour of one Moinuddin Hassan, sub-dividing Sy.No.129 into 10 parts, and Sy.No.129/1 was classified as Kancha Tattikahana, while Sy.Nos.129/2 to 129/10 were shown as patta lands in favour of Moinuddin Hassan. It is stated that Moinuddin Hassan sold an extent of Ac.186.32 gts to Moulvi Syed Mohmed Mehdi Saheb under registered document No.395 of 1358 Fasli. It is further stated that Syed Mohmed Mehdi divided the land into plots and sold them to several eminent individuals of that era. It is specifically stated that in the year 1930, Syed Mohmed Mehdi orally gifted (Hiba) Plot No.4 to an extent of Ac.7-00 gts to Maharaja Kishen Pershad, which was accepted and acted upon by the Maharaja Kishen Pershad, who constructed a building on the said land, and his name was entered in revenue records such as Sethwar and Wasool Baqi. It is submitted that boundaries in subsequent sale deeds executed in 1933 by Mohmed Mehdi (vide document Nos.383, 394 and 413 of 1343 Fasli) clearly mention Maharaja's possession of the subject land, thereby corroborating his ownership and physical possession. It is further submitted that in 1334 Fasli (1924 AD), the number of survey numbers in Shaikpet Village was reduced from 353 to 352 due to boundary disputes with Yellareddyguda. Again, in 1346 Fasli (1936 AD), one more Supplementary Sethwar was issued, and the previous sub-divisions of Sy.No.129 were deleted and replaced with new Sy.Nos.352 to 404. The present subject land was assigned Sy.No.396 4 with an extent of Ac.7.00 gts. It is stated that a Revision Survey was conducted in 1349 Fasli (1939 AD), and corresponding Revision Setwar and Wasool Baqi registers were prepared, wherein Sy.No.396 was shown as Revision Sy.No.225, with Maharaja Kishen Pershad as the pattedar under Khata No.131. Column No.24 of the Setwar describes the land as "Non-agricultural - Bungalow". It is submitted that Khasra Pahani of 1954-55, along with subsequent Pahanies till 1980-81, consistently shows Maharaja Kishen Pershad as the pattedar and possessor of the subject property. It is further submitted that Town Survey was conducted between 1964 and 1971 under the provisions of the-then Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, culminating in final notification dated 06.08.1977. As no suit was filed within three years, the records attained finality. The Town Survey Register reflects TS No.1, Ward No.11, Block-E corresponding to Sy.No.225/396, showing Maharaja Kishen Pershad as the registered holder and Asadullah Khan (his son through Muslim wife) as the person in possession, by inheritance. It is the case of petitioners that Maharaja Kishen Pershad passed away in the year 1940 and succession was declared by Farman dated 13.12.1943 in favour of his son, Khaja Arjun Pershad. Upon his death in 1943, the estate was placed under the supervision of the Sarf-e-Khas Department. Following Virasat and Atiyat enquiries, succession was granted in favour of Raja Ratan Gopal, Raja Prem 5 Gopal, Raja Narender Lal, and Raja Chaman Lal. A Munthakab was issued vide No.1154/1959. It is stated that Raja Narender Lal and Raja Chaman Lal relinquished their rights in favour of Raja Ratan Gopal and Raja Prem Gopal under registered deed No.1159/1968. It is stated that petitioners No.1 and 2 are legal heirs of Raja Prem Gopal, and the Respondents 14 to 16 are legal heirs of Raja Ratan Gopal. It is further submitted that Khaja Asadullah Khan, son of Maharaja Kishen Pershad through his Muslim wife, was residing in the house (Rock Cliff) as a permissive licensee and he had no title. It is further submitted that Khaja Asadullah Khan passed away in 1974, and his widow Khairunnisa Begum was permitted to stay and collect rent as a permissive licensee and Respondents 11 to 13 are his legal heirs. It is stated that in July, 2022, petitioners noticed unauthorised activity in the subject land and came to know that Respondent No.10, a construction company, was undertaking measurements and on further enquiry, petitioners found that Respondents 1 to 9 claimed rights under a development agreement vide document No.4801/2021 based on fraudulent title claims. It is submitted that Respondents 1 to 9 claim ownership based on sale deeds bearing document Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982, alleged to have been executed by the heirs of Asadullah Khan in favour of Ahmed Bin Saleh Bin Mahfooz and others. The said documents are fabricated and obtained in 6 collusion with officials, contrary to law and in violation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "ULC Act, 1976"). It is the case of petitioners that all the revenue records stand in the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad and there is no valid gift deed in favour of Asadullah Khan and his name was never entered in any revenue record. It is submitted that forensic report dated 14.11.2022 from Truth Labs confirms that the questioned signatures on the alleged gift deed do not match with the Sub-Registrar's authenticated signatures, thus proving it as a forged document. It is submitted that petitioners are the rightful successors of Maharaja Kishen Pershad, and Respondents 1 to 13 have created fraudulent documents to usurp the schedule property. The transactions are void under the ULC Act, 1976 particularly Sections 5(3), 10(4), and 27(1), as no prior permission was obtained from the competent authority before effecting alienation. It is further submitted that no notice as required under Rule 5(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Rules, 1976 (for short "ULC Rules") was served on the petitioners and therefore, the entire ULC proceedings and permissions are vitiated by fraud and non-compliance of mandatory provisions. It is submitted that mutation obtained by Respondents based on forged and fraudulent sale deeds is a nullity and not binding on the petitioners. It is submitted that the concept of permissive licence does not confer ownership or leasehold rights. As per settled law, the legal 7 possession always remains with the licensor, and any alienation by the licensee is void ab initio. Thus the petitioners sought to set aside the fraudulent transactions and consequential documents and to protect their lawful title and possession over the subject property. Hence the writ petition.
8. The respondent Nos.1 to 9 filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the writ petition filed questioning the registered sale deeds vide documents Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982, after 40 years from the date of execution is not maintainable. It is further stated that even if the allegations of fraud and forgery are taken to be true, it is only the competent Civil Court, which can declare the sale deeds as null and void after examination of evidence and documents in support of the pleadings. While denying the averments of the writ affidavit filed by the petitioners, the respondents stated that the land admeasuring Ac.7-00 gts bearing Plot No.4 in Sy.No.129 of Shaikpet Village, Asif Nagar Taluq, Artaf Balda (presently corresponding to Banjara Hills, Hyderabad) was owned and possessed by Syed Mohammed Mahdi @ Mahdi Nawaz Jung, who gifted the portion of the property in favour of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan S/o. Maharaja Bahadur Sir Kishen Pershad under registered gift deed bearing document No.250/1937 dated 23rd Isfindar 1347 Fasli (1937 AD) and the said Nawab Khaja 8 Asadullah Khan, during his lifetime constructed the house known as "Rock Cliff" bearing Municipal No.8-3-323/324 on the land admeasuring Ac.5-15 gts situated at Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It is further stated that Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan died on 27.08.1974 leaving behind his wife-Khaiserunnisa Begum, sons i.e, Khaja Ahmedullah Khan and Khaja Mohammedullah Khan and daughter Jafferunnisa Begum as his legal heirs and thereafter, the Khaja Ahmedullah Khan, has gifted his 7/20th share in the property in favour of his niece Durre Shahwar, by way of oral Hiba on 17th November, 1974 and the wife of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan i.e, Khaiserunnisa Begum and his daughter Jafferunnisa Begum, executed registered General Power of Attorney bearing document No.81/1978 dated 11.07.1978 appointing Khaja Mohammedullah Khan as their power of attorney holder. It is further case of respondents that the legal heirs of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan has obtained permission for sale of the property under the provisions of ULC Act vide Proceedings No.6816, 6831, 6842 and 6871 dated 29.04.1980 in respect of land admeasuring 9,928 sq.mtrs vide Proceedings No.C/743/27/1982 dated 13.08.1982 in respect of the land admeasuring 21,816 sq. mtrs including the land admeasuring 9,928 sq.mtrs and thereafter, they have executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.1937/1980 dated 06.07.1980 in respect of land admeasuring 9,928 sq.mtrs in favour 9 of Ahmed Saleh Bin Sareefa Begum, Saleh Bin Mahfooz and Amer Bin Mahfooz and also executed supplementary sale deed bearing document No.6451/1982 dated 07.10.1982 to an extent of land admeasuring 11,499 sq.mtrs, thus the total extent of 21,427 sq.mtrs (25,626.48 sq.yards). The vendors therein have entered into a registered development agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney vide document No.4801/2021 in favour of respondent No.10-M/s. Prestige Estates Projects and thereafter, the respondent No.10 has obtained necessary permission from the competent authority and proceeded with the construction. The respondents denied the contention of oral gift by Syed Mohammed Mehdi in favour of Maharaja Kishen Pershad and consequential constructions by Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is stated that the subject property belongs to the respondents predecessors-in-interest and the petitioners themselves have admitted that Moinuddin Hassan sold an extent of Ac.186.32 gts to Syed Mohammed Mehdi Saheb under registered sale deed bearing document No.395/1338 Fasli dated 20th Behman 1338 Fasli, which clearly indicates that the vendor of the respondents is owner of the subject land in dispute and they denied that the respondent Nos.14 to 16 are legal heirs of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. The respondents also denied that H.E.H Nizam Hyderabad has issued Farman dated 13.12.1943 declaring the son of Maharaja Kishen Pershad namely Khaja Arjun Pershad as his successor under 10 Atiyat enquiry proceedings and Virasat was issued vide D.O dated 11th Safar 1358 (1948 AD) in the name of Raja Ratan Gopal and others. The respondents have denied that after the death of Maharaja Kishen Pershad, his successors have permitted Khaja Asadullah Khan to reside as licensee for maintaining and administering the subject property and he also leased out the property to the State Bank of India and continued to enjoy the property as permissive licensee. It is further contention of respondents that even according to petitioners, they made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "RTI Act") on 23.08.2021 and received documents on 02.09.2021 and filed writ petition on 12.12.2022, after a lapse of 15 months, which itself shows that the petitioners approached this Court with unclean hands and the writ petition filed is misconceived and prayed for dismissal of the same.
9. The Respondent No.10 filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the writ affidavit and contended that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that the petitioners, while questioning the ULC proceedings have also sought cancellation of the registered sale deeds on the alleged ground of fraud, with an inordinate delay. The petitioners are seeking adjudication of disputed questions of title and possession of the subject property by placing reliance on certain proceedings purportedly obtained under the Right 11 to Information Act, 2005. In the absence of authenticated and admissible evidence, the genuineness of such documents cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.22 to 40 have instituted a Civil Suit vide O.S.No.1 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking the very same relief of cancellation of registered sale deeds dated 06.10.1980 and 07.09.1982. Therefore, the present writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
10. During the pendency of the Writ Petition No.45203 of 2022, respondent Nos.22 to 40 (the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1 of 2023) claiming succession rights over the subject property under dispute as legal heirs of Late Maharaja Kishen Pershad filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 seeking to implead them as party respondents in the writ petition and the same was allowed. The respondent Nos.22 to 40 also filed W.P.Nos.14737 of 2024 and 5348 of 2025 raising similar contentions of the petitioners in W.P.No.45203 of 2022 and in the said writ petitions, counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 9 and respondent No.10 taking similar stand as that was taken in W.P.No.45203 of 2022.
11. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.
12
12. Mr.D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.45203 of 2022 submitted that Maharaja Kishen Pershad, the predecessor-in-title of petitioners has acquired the subject property under oral Hiba (gift) from Mohommed Mehdi Nawaz Jung. The said oral gift was accepted and the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad was recorded in Supplementary Sethwar and in the sale deed Nos.394/1343 Fasli (1933) and 413/1343 Fasli (1933) executed by Mohd. Mehdi Nawaz Jung, in favour of third parties, the boundaries describe the land of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is also submitted that Jamabandi register prepared in the year 1346 Fasli, the lands were shown in the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad for the land in Sy.No.396 to an extent of Ac.7-00 gts and in remarks column it is shown that the building is existing in the said land. While relying on the revenue entries, the learned Senior Counsel denied the execution of registered gift deed and ownership of Mohd. Asadullah Khan, i.e, predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 9. It is also contended that the entries in Wasool Baqi, Revisional Sethwar, ROR record from 1954 to 1982 and Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) prepared as per provisions of Telangana Survey Boundaries Act, 1923 would clinchingly prove that Maharaja Kishen Pershad was the owner and pattadar and at no point of time, any documents have been executed by the pattadar Mohd. Mehdi Nawaz in favour of Khaja Asadullah 13 Khan. It is stated that the oral Hiba/gift requires no registration when the same is acted upon. It is further stated that in order to establish that the oral hiba was acted upon, the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad was recorded in the Sethwar, thereby evidencing that the property was gifted by the pattadar in favour of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that after the death of Maharaja Kishen Pershad, H.E.H Nizam has conferred rights by issuing Farman in favour of Khaja Arjun Pershad S/o. Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is submitted that Asadullah Khan, who is the son of Maharaja Kishen Pershad was allowed to live and enjoy the property as licensee without transferring the rights and permissive possession is never considered to be transfer of title. It is further submitted that the declarations filed by the vendors of the respondent Nos.1 to 9 claiming to be successors of Late Asadullah Khan and pending finalization of the same, has fraudulently created permissions under Section 27(3) of ULC Act, 1976 vide Permission No.6816/1979, 6833/1979, 6842/1979 and 6870/1999 dated 27.04.1980 in Proceedings No.E/ 5946/76 dated 22.06.1982 and 11.09.1982, C.C.No.E/6384/76, C.C.No.8948/76 and executed the subject sale deeds dated 06.10.1980 and supplementary document No.6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982 as if the exemptions were granted under the provisions of the ULC Act and as no such permissions are available on record, the same has to be treated as fraudulent 14 documents and hit by Section 5 of the ULC Act read with provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. It is submitted that the note file produced by the Government reveals that the proceedings in C.C. Nos.E/6384/76 and E/8948/76 did not culminate in a Final Declaration under the ULC Act, 1976. Therefore, the claim of the respondents that exemption orders were issued stands falsified, and the recitals in the sale deeds vide Document Nos. 1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982 are contrary to record. It is contended that the said sale deeds are not valid in law, as fraud vitiates all judicial acts, whether ecclesiastical or temporal, and can be challenged even in collateral proceedings. It is further contended that the petitioners, upon obtaining information under RTI Act, came to know that the respondents had misrepresented facts by stating that permission had been granted by the ULC authorities for execution of the subject sale deeds. In view of such discovery, it is submitted that the principles of limitation and laches do not apply to the maintainability of the present writ petitions. It is further submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare the proceedings under the ULC Act as void, illegal, or non-est, and therefore, the present writ petitions, which challenge the proceedings initiated under the ULC Act, are maintainable even after the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short "ULC Repeal Act, 1999"), as adopted by the State of 15 Telangana. Consequently, this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is competent to declare the said sale deeds as null, void, and non-est in the eye of law. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions in Ameer-un-Nissa Begum and others vs. Mahboob Begum 1; Director of Endowments, Government of Hyderabad and others vs. Akaram Ali 2; Ningawwa vs. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar and others 3; Syed Shah Ghulam Ghouse Mohiuddin vs. Syed Shal Ahmed Mohiuddin Kamisul Quadri 4; Bankey Bahadur Srivastava vs. District Judge, Varanasi 5; State of Gujarat and others vs. Parshottamdas Ramdas Patel and others 6; K.S. Mariyappa vs. K.T. Siddalinga Setty 7; The Government of A.P. vs. J. Raghothama Reddy 8; Col. Denzyl Winston Ferries vs. Abdul Jaleel 9; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kumar and Ors. 10; Uppari Muttamma vs. Special Tribunal 11; Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian and others12; 1 (1955) SCC Online SC 23 (Paras 19 & 20) 2 (1955) SCC Online SC 62 (Paras 10 & 11) 3 (1968) SCC Online SC 206 (Paras 5 & 6) 4 (1971) 1 SCC 597 (Para 19) 5 1982 SCC Online (Paras 5 & 6) 6 (1988) 1 SCC 132 (Paras 10 & 12) 7 (1988) SCC Online Kar 53/ I.L.R 1989 KAR 425 (Para 12) 8 (1991) SCC Online AP 30 (Paras 16 & 21) 9 (1992) SCC Online AP 1 (Para 14) 10 (1995) 2 SCC 627 (Paras 3, 4 & 5) 11 1997 SCC Online AP 433 (Para 49) 12 (2001) 7 SCC 549 (Para 48) 16 Joseph Severance and others vs. Benny Mathew and others 13; Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala and others 14; Prem Singh vs. Birbal 15; A.V.Papayya Sastry and others vs. Government of A.P and others 16; Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat 17; Ritesh Tewari vs. State of UP 18; Hafeeza Bibi and others vs Shaikh Farid (dead) by LRs. and others 19; Union of India vs. Ibraheem Uddin and another 20; P. Vijaya Jyothi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 21; State of Orissa vs. Fakir Charan Sethi 22; Madhukar Sadba Shivarkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others 23; State of UP vs. Adarsh Sevs Samithi 24; S.P.S. Rathore vs. CBI 25; Sunil Kumar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others 26; Jamila Begum vs. Shami Mohd. (D) through L.Rs. and others 27; The Competent Authority, Calcutta vs. David Mantosh and others 28; Partap Singh vs. Shivram 29; Saurav Jain and another vs. A.B.P. Design and 13 2005 7 SCC 667 (Paras 7 & 8) 14 (2006) 8 SCC 210 (Paras 15 & 16) 15 (2006) 5 SCC 353 (Paras 16, 17 & 18) 16 (2007) 4 SCC 221 (Paras 21, 22, 27, 28 & 30) 17 (2008) 12 SCC 353 (Paras 18-22, 24 -25) 18 (2010) 10 SCC 677 (Paras 21, 27, 31, 32 & 35) 19 (2011) 5 SCC 654 (Paras 26 & 27) 20 (2012) 8 SCC 148 (Paras 85.3 & 85.4) 21 (2013) SCC Online AP 418 (Paras 14, 15 & 16)) 22 (2015) 1 SCC 466 (Paras 17 & 18) 23 (2015) 6 SCC 557 (Para 27) 24 (2016) 12 SCC 493 (Paras 4, 5 & 6) 25 (2017) 5 SCC 817 (Para 47) 26 2019 SCC Online Bom 959 (Paras 9 to 12) 27 (2019) 2 SCC 727 (Paras 21 & 22) 28 (2020) 12 SCC 542 (Paras 44, 47 & 64) 29 (2020) 11 SCC 242 (Paras 25 & 26) 17 another 30; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ghisilal 31; Asst Commissioner of Proh. and others vs. K.Anjaiah and others32; Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P.Velayutham and others 33 and Umadevi Nambiar vs. Thmarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese 34.
13. On the other hand, Mr.Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Saleha Begum, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.22 to 40 in W.P.No.45203 of 2022/petitioners in W.P.No.5348 of 2025 argued that the respondent Nos.22 to 40 are the successors of Late Maharaja Kishen Pershad through his wife Ghousia Begum. It is submitted that a Civil Suit vide O.S.No.1 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, seeking to pass a preliminary Decree by allotting 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs, 2/3rd share to the defendant nos.1 to 3 in respect of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds as shown in the plaint schedule; to pass a final decree pursuant to preliminary decree by appointing Advocate-Commissioner for partition of the suit property by metes and bounds by allotting the share to the plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 3; to declare the registered Sale Deeds document Nos.1937/1980 dated 06-10-1980 and 6451/1982 dated 30 (2022) 18 SCC 633 (Paras 20 to 22, 43 & 44) 31 (2022) 17 SCC 657 (Paras 11 & 12) 32 2022 SCC Online TS 1162 [DB] (Paras 72, 73 & 74) 33 2022 8 SCC 210 (Paras 53 to 58) 34 (2022) 7 SCC 90 (Paras 12 & 13) 18 07-09-1982 as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs; to declare the registered Development Agreement-cum-GPA vide document No.4801/2021 dated 08-07-2021 as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and to grant Perpetual Injunction against the Defendant No.13, their agents, representatives, GPA holders or anybody claiming through them from changing the nature of the property in any manner whatsoever in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the defendants (respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking to reject the plaint and pending adjudication of the same, the respondent Nos.22 to 40 filed I.A.No.599 of 2023 seeking permission to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file fresh suit. However, the trial Court vide order dated 28.04.2023 dismissed the suit as withdrawn but did not grant liberty to file fresh suit. Challenging the same, the respondent Nos.22 to 40 filed C.R.P.No.2379 of 2023 on the file of this Court and the same is pending for adjudication. In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.22 to 40 filed W.P.No.5348 of 2025 questioning the Proceedings vide Letter No.B/12258/2024 dated 10.02.2025 granted in favour of respondent No.10 on the development agreement vide document No.4801/2021 dated 08.07.2021 said to have been executed by the respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein. It is contended that the initial application submitted by respondent Nos.1 to 9 and their developer for issuance of No 19 Objection Certificate (NOC) was rejected by the District Collector vide Endorsement No.B/30/2025, on the ground that writ petitions were pending before this Hon'ble Court. However, contrary to the said stand, respondent No.10 subsequently granted NOC vide Letter No.B/12258/2024 dated 10.02.2025, on the ground that no Government interest was involved. It is submitted that such action is inconsistent with the earlier stand taken by the authorities and is tainted with malice. Thus it is submitted that the action of official respondents in issuing the impugned NOC is illegal and prayed to set aside the same.
14. Mr. Wasim Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 9 would submit that Syed Asadullah Khan S/o. Maharaja Kishen Pershad acquired the property under registered gift deed in the year 1937 from its lawful owner Moinuddin Saheb Mehdi and after enactment of ULC Act, the children of Late Syed Asadullah Khan filed declarations in CC No.E/5946/76, C.C.No.E/6384/76, C.C.No.8948/76 in respect of the subject property and the declarants therein obtained the permission to alienate the property under the provisions of ULC Act and thereafter, the respondent Nos.1 to 9 purchased the subject property under registered sale deed dated 1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982. The learned counsel denied that petitioners are successors of Late 20 Maharaja Kishen Pershad and issuance of Farman by the-then Nizam Government in favour of Khaja Arjun Pershad and obtaining Munthakab No.1154/1959 dated 07.01.1959. It is further submitted that the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest are in possession of the property from the year 1937 and at no point of time, neither the petitioners nor any others claiming the rights as successors have disputed the ownership and possession of the respondent Nos.1 to 9 and in fact, for the first time, the petitioners filed O.S.No.154 of 2023 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking mandatory injunction and consequential eviction of the respondent Nos.1 to 9 and on the application filed by the respondents herein/defendants therein, the plaint was rejected on 26.02.2024 and the writ petitioners filed an appeal vide C.C.C.A.No.96 of 2024 and the same is pending for adjudication. It is further contended that petitioners in W.P.No.45203 of 2022 are not having any right to question the sale deeds and with a mala fide intention, taking advantage of repeal of ULC Act, 1976 and destruction of the records, on vague allegations, W.P.No.45203/2022 has been filed. There is no foundation for the allegations in W.P.No.45203/2022 on the teeth of ULC proceedings Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, 6870 of 1979 dated 27.04.1980 in C.C.No.E/5946/76 dated 22-06-1982 and 11-09-1982 and in view of serious disputes relating to title, possession and succession and 21 entries made in the ULC proceedings, the writ petition is not a proper remedy to agitate their grievances and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Competent Authority, Calcutta vs. David Mantosh and others (supra); The Auroville Foundation vs. Natasha Storey 35; Rattan Singh vs. Nirmal Gill36; Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley 37; Uma Devi vs. Anand Kumar 38 and Damodar Narayan Singh vs. Sardar Hira Singh 39.
15. Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Rohit Pogula, learned counsel for respondent No.10 in W.P.No.45203 of 2022, vehemently contended that respondent Nos.1 to 9 are the lawful owners and possessors of the subject property, having purchased the same from the rightful owners after obtaining necessary permission for alienation under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976. It is submitted that such ownership is substantiated by the documents filed in support of I.A. No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.45203 of 2022. It is argued that the registered sale deeds in question were executed much prior to the insertion of Section 22-A into the Registration Act, 1908, introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 4 of 1999, which came into force on 01.04.1999. The 35 Civil Appeal No.13651 of 2024 dated 17.03.2025 = 2025 INSC 348 36 Laws (SC) 2020-11-21 37 Laws (SC) -2024-4-50 38 Laws (SC)-2025-4-11 39 2002 2 CalLJ 68 = 2002 0 Supreme (Cal) 305 22 learned Senior Counsel submitted that even a perusal of the photocopy of the note file in C.C. No. B/5946/76 makes it evident that exemption orders were passed under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the ULC Act and the same is supported by the records in File Nos.E/8947/76 and E/8948/76, wherein orders dated 10.08.1982 reflect that the declarants were protected under Section 4(11) of the ULC Act and that there was no excess vacant land available for vesting. It is therefore contended that in the absence of any excess land vesting with the State Government, neither the State nor the petitioners in W.P. No.45203 of 2022/respondent Nos.22 to 40, have the locus standi to challenge the ULC proceedings or the sale transactions, particularly after the lapse of several decades and following the repeal of the ULC Act. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908 do not confer any power upon the Registering Authority to adjudicate upon the validity or legality of the documents at the time of registration. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions in Shri Sohan Lal vs. Union of India & another 40; Mohan Pandey & another vs. Usha Rani & others 41; State of Rajasthan vs. 40 (1957) SCC OnLine SC 39 41 (1992) 4 SCC 61 23 Bhawani Singh & others 42; State of Rajasthan vs. Mangilal Pindwal 43; Bina Murlidhar Hemdev vs. Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev 44; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar vs. Arthur Import & Export Co., 45; Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. vs. Sukamani Das 46; Dilboo (Dead) By LRS and others vs. Dhanraji (Dead) and others 47; Syed Kazim Bahadur vs. District Collector, Hyderabad 48; Raidurg Co-operative House Building Society Limited vs. Government of A.P. & others 49; Yanala Malleshwari vs. Ananthula Sayamma 50; Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd vs. State of Haryana 51; Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil 52; Swati Ferro Alloys Private Limited vs. Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation & Others 53; Uma Devi & others vs. Anand Kumar & others (supra); Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 54; Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez & others 55; Popat Rao vs. Patil vs. State of Maharashtra 42 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 43 (1996) 5 SCC 60 44 (1999) 5 SCC 222 45 (2019) 3 SCC 191 46 (1999) 7 SCC 298 47 (2000) 7 SCC 702 48 2002 SCC OnLine AP 437 49 2003 SCC OnLine AP 323 50 2006 SCC OnLine AP 909 51 (2009) 7 SCC 363 52 (2010) 8 SCC 329 53 (2015) 4 SCC 204 54 (2016) 10 SCC 767 55 (2019) 2 SCC 329 24 & others 56; Gaurav Jaiswal vs. Union of India & others57; Ganesh Industrial Estate vs. Addl. Deputy Collector and others 58; Padhiyar Prahladji Chenanji (Deceased) through LRs vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) through LRs and others59 and Rushali Khera vs. Govt of NCLT of Delhi 60.
16. Mr.D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.17 to 21 in W.P.No.45203 of 2022 submitted that the original records pertaining to Files in C.C.Nos.6384/76 and 8948/76 have been produced before this Court along with a Memo dated 02.05.2025. It is submitted that as per the entries in the revenue records, the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad is duly recorded. However, the petitioners, who claim to be his legal successors, have not filed any declaration under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976, and are now disputing the declarations made therein while seeking a declaration that the sale deeds in question are null and void. It is submitted that in view of the repeal of the ULC Act in the year 1999 and its adoption by the State of Telangana on 22.04.2008, the reliefs sought in the present writ petitions are misconceived and not maintainable. It is contended that in the absence of any challenge to Proceedings No.6816, 6831, 6842, 56 (2020) 19 SCC 241 57 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3456 58 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 749 59 (2022) 12 SCC 128 60 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1320 25 and 6871, all dated 29.04.1980, the petitioners in W.P.No.45203 of 2022, as well as respondent Nos.1 to 9 and 22 to 40, are at liberty to agitate their respective rights, if any, before the competent Civil Court by instituting a comprehensive civil suit for declaration and partition of the subject lands. It is further submitted that, in the absence of availability of the original file in C.C. No.5946/76 and the proceedings emanating therefrom, this Court cannot rely upon Photostat copies of the note file, particularly when the same are seriously disputed by the contesting parties and when such documents do not bear any conclusive relevance to the determination of title among the inter se disputants. Therefore, the present writ petitions are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned Government Pleader relied upon the decision in Smt. Uma Devi and others vs. Sri Anand Kumar and others (supra).
17. A copy of the instructions filed in W.P.Nos.45203 of 2022, 14737 of 2024 and 5348 of 2025 by the Special Deputy Collector, Urban land Ceiling, Hyderabad, along with the Memo, is reproduced below:
2627 28
18. The brief history relating to subject lands is necessary to decide the nature of claims of the parties.
19. The lands under dispute originally forms part of ex-Sarf-e-khas village (previously under the ownership and control of the H.E.H. Nizam of Hyderabad) and vested in the Diwani Hyderabad regulated under the provisions of Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. 29 The Diwani Estate in Hyderabad, also known as Diwani lands, was merged with the State's land holdings in February, 1949. This merger occurred following the Hyderabad Sarf-e-khas (Merger) Regulations and the Hyderabad (Jagirs) Abolition Regulation, 1949. Original Sethwar (Settlement Register) was prepared in 1326 Fasli (1916 AD) showing the lands in Sy.No.129 with an extent of Ac.3,220.02 gts classified as Government land. It is stated that a supplementary Sethwar of 1921 AD was issued in favour of Moinuddin Hassan subdividing Sy.No.129 into 10 parts and Sy.No.129/1 was classified as Kancha Thattikana, while Sy.Nos.129/2 to 129/10 were shown as patta lands in favour of Moinuddin Hassan. It is further stated that Moinuddin Hassan sold an extent of Ac.186.32 gts in faovur of Moulvi Syed Mohmed Mehdi Saheb, under registered sale deed vide document No.395/1358 Fasli (1948 AD). It is further stated that Syed Mohd. Mehdi Saheb, divided said land into various plots and sold to several eminent individuals of the era. It is also stated that in the year 1930, Syed Mohd. Mehdi, orally gifted (Hiba) Plot No.4 to an extent of Ac.7-00gts in favour of Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad Bahadur Yamin us-Sultanat, (Prime Minister (dewan) of Hyderabad), and the said Hiba was acted upon by Maharaja Kishen Pershad and a bungalow was constructed and the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad was recorded in all the revenue records, such as Sethwar, Wasool Baqi and other records. It 30 is stated that in 1334 Fasli (1924 AD), the Survey Numbers were re- assigned varying extents and reducing the survey numbers in view of boundary disputes with Yellareddyguda Village. It is the case of petitioners that Sy.No.129 was divided and allotted new Sy.Nos.352 to 404. It is further stated that after adopting Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 for the Telangana Area of the Andhra Pradesh, the Town Survey was conducted and the property in dispute is corresponding to T.S.No.1, Ward No.11, Block No.E corresponding to Sy.No.225/96 showing the names of Maharaja Kishen Pershad as registered holder and Mohd. Asadullah Khan, (his son through Muslim wife) as possessor.
20. The case projected in the present writ petitions is that one Mohd. Mehdi Saheb @ Mehdi Nawaz Jung was the original pattadar of land admeasuring Ac.186-00 guntas in Sy.No.396 of Shaikpet Village, which correlates to Revised Sy.No.225. It is submitted that this property was subsequently divided into several parcels and sold to various eminent individuals. It is the specific case of the petitioners that in the year 1930, Syed Mohmed Mehdi orally gifted (Hiba) Plot No.4, to an extent of Ac.7-00 guntas to Maharaja Kishen Pershad. Pursuant thereto, the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad was entered in the revenue records. It is also stated that a bungalow 31 was constructed by him on the said plot, and the appurtenant land remained in his possession.
21. On the other hand, respondent Nos.1 to 9 contend that their vendors are the successors-in-interest of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan, who was the son of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. According to them, Syed Mehdi Saheb executed registered gift deed bearing Document No.250/1937 dated 23rd Isfindar 1347 Fasli (1937 A.D.), in favour of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan, who was in possession of the subject property. The vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9, being the legal heirs of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan, claim to have lawfully alienated the property in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 9 under registered sale deeds. It is further submitted that the successors of Late Asadullah Khan, namely Khaiserunnisa Begum, Khaja Ahmedullah Khan, Khaja Mohammedullah Khan, and Jafferunnisa Begum filed declarations under the ULC Act, 1976 vide C.C.Nos.E/5946/76, E/6384/76, and E/8948/76. Pending final determination of surplus land, they submitted applications seeking permission to alienate the land under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the said Act and permission was granted vide File Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, and 6870/1979 dated 27.04.1980. It is the categorical stand of respondent Nos.1 to 9 that the sale deeds executed by their vendors are lawful and valid, and that neither the petitioners nor 32 respondent Nos.22 to 40 ever asserted any claim over the subject land until the repeal of the ULC Act, and are now belatedly disputing the sale transactions.
22. The Respondent Nos.22 to 40 claim to be children of Muslim wife of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is their case that the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9, who were in permissive possession of the property, misused such possession and alienated the land under Document Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982, falsely representing that permission was granted by the ULC authorities. It is submitted that they instituted a suit vide O.S.No.1 of 2023, seeking partition and cancellation of the aforementioned sale deeds, which was withdrawn on 28.04.2023 with certain conditions. Aggrieved by the refusal of liberty to file a fresh suit, they filed C.R.P. No.2379 of 2023 on the file of this Court and the same is pending for adjudication.
23. The above pleadings disclose a tri-partite dispute over the subject property. The petitioners claim succession through Maharaja Kishen Pershad and allege that the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9, who are also the declarants in C.C.Nos.E/5946/76, E/6384/76, and E/8948/76, committed fraud by executing sale deeds even before a lawful partition among the heirs of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. The petitioners also instituted O.S.No.154 of 2023 on the file of the III 33 Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking injunction and eviction of respondent Nos.1 to 9. Upon rejection of the plaint, they preferred C.C.C.A. No.96 of 2024 on the file of this Court, and the same is pending for adjudication. The main contention of the petitioners is that no valid permission under sub- section (3) of Section 27 of the ULC Act was granted for the said alienation, and that the documents relied upon by respondent Nos.1 to 9 are forged and fabricated, as evidenced from the Photostat copies of the alleged ULC note files. It is further contended that once fraud is established and it is shown that no such proceedings exist, the sale deeds cannot be saved merely by virtue of registration, as fraud vitiates all transactions and relied upon the decisions in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath 61 and A.V.Papayya Sastry and others vs. Government of A.P and others (supra). The petitioners further contend that registration of a document comprises three essential steps: 1) execution of the document by the executants signing or affixing thumb impression 2) presenting the document for registration and admitting the execution of the document and 3) Act of registration. If any of these steps are tainted by fraud or are in contravention of the prevailing law at the relevant point of time, then such documents are liable to be declared as null and void. In this 61 1994 SCC (1) 1 34 regard, reliance is placed on the judgment in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P.Velayutham and others (supra).
24. Contrarily, Mr.D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment, relying on the written instructions and the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, submitted that the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority under the ULC Act, 1976 had issued proceedings dated 29.04.1980 under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the Act in favour of the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9, namely, Jafferunnisa Begum and three others. It is further submitted that the original file pertaining to C.C. No.5946/76 is not traceable, and as per the applicable rules, the proceedings were destroyed after the statutory retention period of one year. In the absence of availability of original file and in view of the passage of over four decades since the execution of the sale deeds, and more than fifteen years since the coming into force of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999, the petitioners cannot now challenge the validity of ULC proceedings or consequential sale deeds. The learned Government Pleader contended that when there are serious disputes relating to title, possession, succession and allegations of fraud coupled with the non-availability of original ULC records, the proper remedy is to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. In the absence of any illegality or procedural 35 irregularity apparent on the face of the record, the validity of registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982 cannot be examined by this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thus prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petitions.
25. This Court has carefully examined the rival contentions of the respective parties and the decisions relied upon by them in support of their case. Prima facie, it appears that there is a serious title dispute in respect of the subject property. While it is true that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are not amenable to jurisdiction of Civil Court, it is settled law that a declaration made under the ULC Act neither confirms title nor extinguishes the rights of any party so as to validate or invalidate the registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982. The core contention of the petitioners is that in response to their RTI application dated 10.01.2024, the Public Information Officer, Urban Land Ceiling Wing, Hyderabad, vide Memo No.A4/RTI/27/2024 dated 31.01.2024, furnished information stating that the Proceedings Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, and 6870/1979 dated 27.04.1980 were not issued by their office. In contrast, respondent Nos.1 to 9 rely on Photostat copies of 36 proceedings dated 27.04.1980 in support their claim. Whereas, the stand of the Government is that the said proceedings were destroyed within the prescribed period of one year in accordance with the rules, and no original records are presently available. The learned counsel for the respective parties placed reliance on internal note files to support or question the validity of the sale deeds. It is settled law that a note file is an internal record or documentation and, unless it culminates into a formal order or proceeding, it does not constitute legal action so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present cases, there is no material on record to show that the ULC authorities ever passed final orders under Sections 8(4), 10(3), 10(5), or 10(6) of the ULC Act. In fact, it appears that pending ULC proceedings, the ULC Act, 1976 was repealed and the same was adopted by the State on 22.04.2008. In the absence of any concluded proceedings under the provisions of the ULC Act, and having regard to the destruction of original records in accordance with the applicable rules, the claims of the petitioners, which are based on unverified note files, cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra) observed that if a party questions the very execution of the document 37 or the right and title of a person to execute the document and present it for registration, the remedy is only to go to Civil Court, but where a party questions the failure of the Authority to perform its statutory function in the course of act of registration, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stands completely ousted. In the instant case, as on the date of execution of the documents, there is no provision under the Registration Act, 1908 prohibiting the documents for registration at the threshold and Section 22A was inserted into the Act in the year 2007 as such it cannot be said that the Registering Authority failed to discharge its statutory duty.
27. The facts of the present case are similar to the decision rendered by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Yanala Malleshwari and others vs. Ananthula Sayamma and others (supra), wherein it was observed as follows:
"97. As already referred to in these cases, there are serious disputed questions of fact regarding the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation played by the vendors as well as vendees against each other. There are also questions raised regarding the competence and entitlement of a person executing the document. In some cases (W.P.Nos.22298, 23005 and 23088 of 2004), the sale deeds were cancelled sometime in August, 2003, but the writ petitions are filed with considerable delay: In some cases, there are complaints of cancellation of deeds/ instruments after lapse of ten years after execution of the original deed. In the opinion of this Court, these are the matters which are to be decided based on evidence and the affidavit evidence available on record is hardly sufficient to decide the issues in such a manner to meet the ends of justice. Indeed, in some of the matters W.P.Nos.879,880, 881,882,979,980 and 981 of 2006) suits are already filed for injunction and the orders of status quo are in force. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that the parties should be relegated to 38 the civil Court to file suit either under Section 31 or under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act.." (emphasis supplied)
28. The above decision was followed in Thota Ganga Laxmi and another vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 62, and challenging the same, a Civil Appeal No.317 of 2007 was preferred on the file of Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 13.07.2010 63 while reversing the findings recorded in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case (supra), overruled the judgment of this Court in Yanala Malleshwari's case (supra) on the ground that the cancellation of document without issuing notice amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The judgments of this Court in Yanala Malleshwari's case (supra) and Thota Ganga Laxmi's case (supra), came to be considered by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 25.08.2015 in Satyapal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). In view of difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Judges of Apex Court, the matter was referred to Division Bench (three-Judges Bench). The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 26.10.2016 64, while approving the reasoning of the Full Bench in Yanala Malleshwari's case (supra), observed as under:
"46. In our considered view, the decision in Thota Ganga Laxmi [Thota Ganga Laxmi v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 207 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 1063] was dealing with an express provision, as applicable to the State 62 2010 Law Suit (SC) 1243 63 (2010) 15 SCC 207 64 (2016) 10 SCC 767 : 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1202 39 of Andhra Pradesh and in particular with regard to the registration of an extinguishment deed. In absence of such an express provision, in other State legislations, the Registering Officer would be governed by the provisions in the 1908 Act. Going by the said provisions, there is nothing to indicate that the Registering Officer is required to undertake a quasi- judicial enquiry regarding the veracity of the factual position stated in the document presented for registration or its legality, if the tenor of the document suggests that it requires to be registered. The validity of such registered document can, indeed, be put in issue before a court of competent jurisdiction."
29. The facts in the present cases are that the registered sale deeds were executed in the years 1980 and 1982 vide document Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982. As on that date, there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908 prohibiting to entertain the registrations and the Registrar has no power to examine the validity or otherwise of the documents. Therefore, the principles laid down in Yanala Malleshwari's case (supra), as approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 26.10.2016 passed in Satyapal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh's case (supra) squarely apply to the cases on hand.
30. Further, the petitioners in support of their title relied upon the entries made in the revenue records, in the name of Late Maharaja Kishen Pershad. The entries made in the revenue records or mutations would not have any bearing on the title or possession of the parties, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur 65, Balwant Singh and another vs. Daulat Singh 65 (1996) 6 SCC 223 40 (dead) by LRs and others 66, Narasamma and others vs. State of Karnataka and others 67 and Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited vs. Collector, Hyderabad 68.
31. Whereas respondent Nos.1 to 9 are relying upon the registered gift deed bearing document No.250/1937 dated 23rd Isfindar 1347 Fasli (1937 AD) executed by the pattadar Mohammed Mehdi @ Mehdi Nawaz Jung, in favour of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan S/o. Maharaja Bahadur Sir Kishen Pershad. The said registered document was disputed by the petitioners and respondent Nos.22 to
40. The contention of the petitioners is that no permission was granted to the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9 (Jafferunnisa Begum and others) for alienation of the subject land under the provisions of ULC Act and the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9 are in permissive possession. Having taken plea that vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9 are not having any title, no reasons are forthcoming as to why the petitioners or the respondent Nos.22 to 40 or their predecessors, have not filed any declaration during the subsistence of ULC Act, 1976 or initiated proceedings for eviction of Jafferunnisa Begum and others (vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9) from the subject property. The main contention in these writ petitions is that no permission was granted by ULC Authorities and suppressing the said fact, fraudulent 66 (1997) 7 SCC 137 67 (2009) 5 SCC 591 68 2001 (3) ALD 600 41 registered sale deeds have been executed in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 9. If that is the case, the aggrieved parties are not the petitioners or the respondent Nos.22 to 40 and it is for the State to exercise its powers as per the Registration Act, 1908 seeking cancellation of the registered sale deeds, on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. The codicils referred in the disputed documents are admittedly binding the parties to the said documents and the same cannot extinguish any rights of the third parties and the registration binds inter se parties to the said documents. If the petitioners are under the impression that the aforesaid documents were executed fraudulently taking away their rights, they are always entitled to agitate their grievance before the competent Civil Court. Even if some of the conditions in the sale deed were made with a fraudulent intention to circumvent the proceedings under the ULC Act, it is evident from the orders passed by the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority under the ULC Act, vide Proceedings No.CC E1/8948/1976 dated 11.08.1982, that the land, which is the subject matter of the declaration, is exempted under Section 4(11) of the ULC Act. As on that date, no proceedings were issued under Sections 8(4), 10(3), 10(5), and 10(6) of the ULC Act, 1976. Accordingly, the benefit under the ULC Repeal Act, 1999, would enure to the declarants. In addition, the Special Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad has placed written 42 instructions dated 01.05.2025 stating that they have issued proceedings under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of ULC Act, granting permission to alienate the subject lands. (scanned copy of instructions is reproduced above).
32. The parties to these writ petitions are inviting this Court to adjudicate upon the issues relating to right, title, and possession/ alleged fraudulent execution of documents (sale deeds) in respect of the subject property. In view of the serious disputes with regard to right, title, possession and nature of documents and its authenticity, a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve the inter se disputes between the parties, especially in the absence of original records being traceable. The questions as to who is the rightful owner of the land in question; who is in possession of the subject property, and if so, since when, how, and under what circumstances they claim to be in possession and title; whether such possession can be regarded as legal vis-à-vis the true owner, whether the documents relied upon by the parties are genuine or fabricated etc., are material questions that arose for consideration in these writ petitions. In my view, these are pure questions of fact, which can only be appropriately addressed by a civil court in a properly instituted civil suit, based on the evidence adduced by the parties, but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of 43 India. It has been consistently held by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court that a regular civil suit is the proper remedy for the adjudication of disputes relating to property rights. Admittedly, in the cases on hand, in respect of the subject property, C.C.C.A.No.96 of 2024 and C.R.P.No.2379 of 2023 are pending for adjudication on the file of this Court. The Proceedings vide Lr.No.B/12258/2024 dated 10.02.2025 issued by the Government recommending the request of applicant for construction of residential building/ apartment is of no consequence as the Government is not having any power to issue no objections for the patta lands/private lands, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in District Collector, Chittoor District and others vs Smt.Nakka Jayalakshmamma 69.
33. It is a well-settled principle of law that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is governed by self-imposed restrictions, as laid down in various judicial pronouncements. It is equally settled that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from entertaining writ petitions where serious questions arise regarding the existence, genuineness, validity, or authenticity of documents, or where even a fraction of doubt exists as to their existence or non-existence. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under the summary 69 Judgment dated 01.10.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No.1653 of 2013 by a Division Bench of this Court 44 jurisdiction of this Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, these issues are required to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for granting any relief as sought by the petitioners and the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed.
35. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. The observations made in this common order are only for disposal of these writ petitions and they will not have any bearing over any proceedings between the inter se parties.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 17.06.2025 scs