Telangana High Court
Nimmaneni Srinivasa Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 29 July, 2025
1
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
WRIT PETITION NO.8397 of 2025
Between:
Nimmaneni Srinivasa Rao
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and six others
...Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 29.07.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment : Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of
judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
2
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
+ WRIT PETITION NO.8397 of 2025
%Dated 29.07.2025
# Nimmaneni Srinivasa Rao
...Petitioner
and
1. $ The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and six others
...Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao
Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for N.Hari Prasad, Learned Counsel
for the petitioner
^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mrs.S.Sravanthi
Learned Assistant Govt. Pleader
for the respondent Nos.1 to 3
Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 : Sri Avinash Desai,
Learned Senior Counsel, appearing
Sri T.P.S.Harsha,
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1.(2011) 7 SCC 69
2 (2010) 4 SCC 728
31 MANU/AP/0709/2017
4 MANU/TL/1298/2023
5 (1969) 2 SCC 343
6 (2016) 10 SCC 767
7 2024 SCC Online SC 2490
8 2024 SCC ONLINE TS 4119
9 (2012) 1 SCC 656
10 2023 SCC ONLINE 1266
11 (2021) 19 SCC 263
12 Unreported judgment of this court in
FCA NO.75 OF 2022 DT.27.01.2023
13 MANU/MH/1136/2025
14 1950 SCC Online MAD 153
15 (2004) 8 SCC 785
16 2025 SCC Online 740
17 (2006) 4 SCC 322
18 (2014) 4 SCC 108
3
SK, J
WP No.8397 of 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.8397 of 2025
ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in registering the Deed of Cancellation bearing document No.2115/2022, dated 17.03.2022 whereunder Registered Agreement of Sale- cum-General Power of Attorney (for short 'AGPA') bearing document No.12902/2019 dated 18.10.2019 was cancelled without any enquiry by exceeding his authority and jurisdiction and consequently sought a direction to the respondent authorities to cancel the Deed of Cancellation bearing Doc.No.2115/2022 dated 17.03.2022.
2. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N.Hari Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Avinash Desai, learned 4 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 Counsel representing Sri T.P.S.Harsha, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 and perused the record.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the respondent No.5 namely P.Ravindra Babu, who was engaged in real estate business under the name and style of Bhoomi Projects, Ameerpet, Hyderbad, had purchased the land in Sy.Nos.25, 33, 37, 39, 40 and 41 situated at Immulnarva village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from its lawful owner i.e. the respondent No.4 by virtue of registered Agreement of sale-cum-GPA bearing No.12902/2019 dated 18.10.2019 (for short 'AGPA') and later the said land was converted into 100 House Plots. Subsequently, the husband of the respondent No.5 offered to sell the entire 100 house plots and accordingly, the petitioner purchased said plots and paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards part 5 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 sale consideration i.e. Rs.17,00,000/- by way of cash and Rs.13,00,000/- through RTGS in favour of M/s Siri Bhoomi Projects on 19.09.2020 and the possession was also delivered to the petitioner. At the time of receiving the part sale consideration, the husband of the respondent No.5 agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner or his nominees. Unfortunately, the said Ravinder Babu expired, leaving behind him, the respondent No.5 and his two minor sons. Consequent on death of his vendor, the petitioner approached the respondent No.5 several times, who is well aware of the transaction and about receipt of substantial sale consideration, to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. While things stood thus, the respondent No.5 in collusion with the respondent No.4, who is the original owner, presented Deed of Cancellation of the AGPA executed in favour of husband of the respondent No.5 and the respondent No.3 exceeding his authority and 6 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 without conducting any sort of enquiry registered the Deed of Cancellation vide document bearing No.2115/2022 on 17.03.2022. In view of unilateral cancellation of the AGPA, the petitioner is put to immense loss. Now, the respondent No.4 under the guise of cancellation of AGPA, trying to sell away the subject plots to third parties.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that Section 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 does not confer quasi judicial power on the registering authority. Further, it is only when the sale deed is cancelled by a competent Court, the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after putting notices to the parties concnered. The role of the Sub-Registrar stands discharged once the document is registered and there is no express provisions in the Registration Act, to recall the registration. In the absence of any express provision it 7 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 cannot be assumed that the Sub-Registrar is competent to cancel the registration of the documents.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that having come to know about cancellation of the registered AGPA, the petitioner got issued a notice to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to cancel the Deed of Cancellation bearing document No.2115/2022 dated 17.03.2022 and to maSke note of the same. However, having received the notice, the respondent-authorities did not choose to take any action nor given any reply and in view of the same present writ petition is filed seeking to direct the respondent authorities to cancel the Deed of Cancellation bearing document No.2115/2022 dated 17.03.2022 forthwith and requested to allow the writ petition.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, basing on the counter filed by the 8 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 respondent No.4 would submit that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the material facts including but not limited to filing of the criminal complaint by the petitioner against the respondent No.4 and obtained interim orders. The petitioner, after death of husband of the respondent No.5, on the very same issue of Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 18.10.2019 had already filed a Criminal case in Karimnagar-II Town Police Station against the respondent No.4 and the police after conducting investigation closed the criminal case on 30.06.2024 stating that the complaint is in civil nature. The petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact of criminal complaint. Thus the suppression of material facts amounts to serious abuse of the process of law. The respondent No.4 never entered any agreement with the petitioner.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondnet No.4 would further submit that the land claimed by 9 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 the petitioner, being an extent of Ac.1.11 guntas in Sy.Nos.37/W1, 37/UU/2, 37/AA, 37E1, 37U, 37U under the AGPA, is already part of HMDA-approved layout vide permission No.0000380/LO/PLG/HMDA/ 2021 with multiple third party rights have been created in the lay out. In fact, the part of the subject land has already been gifted to the Inmulnarva Gram Panchayath and the petitioner despite knowledge of the same, has maliciously filed the writ petition by suppressing the material fact.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4 would further submit that the petitioner is challenging the Deed of Cancellation dated 17.03.2022 executed between the unofficial respondents and the AGPA, admittedly, the petitioner is neither a party to the said AGPA or Deed of Cancellation. Further, the petitioner is relying on an unstamped receipt and the alleged receipt dated 10.09.2020 which the petitioner claims to be an agreement without any basis. Even if 10 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 the argument of the petitioner is accepted, the said unstamped receipt dated 10.09.2020 was issued to one Mr.Sanjeev Rao but not to the petitioner. The subject lands under AGPA are different from the land mentioned in the receipt dated 10.09.2020, which would speak about Sy.Nos.25, 33, 37, 39, 40 and 41, therefore the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. Further, the writ petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4 would submit that the AGPA did not create any right in the subject land in favour of Sri P.Ravindra Babu as it is settled principle of law that registered power of attorneys did not create any interest in immovable property and as such the question of any right in the subject land accruing to the respondent Nos.5 to 7, after demise of Sri Ravindra Babu does not arise, thereby the said Ravindra Babu himself did not 11 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 have title to the subject land. Therefore, what is mutually cancelled is an agreement and there is no sale of lands on behalf of the minors.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4 would further submits that the respondent No.4 was never in communication with the petitioner at any time in the past. The petitioner does not have any relationship with P.Ravindra Babu and as such the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present petition seeking cancellation of the registered cancellation deed, as he is stranger even as per the documents filed by the petitioner himself.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4 would further submit that even if the interest of the petitioner in the schedule property is accepted for the sake of argument, the cancellation of a registered document cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India and it can be 12 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 done only by a competent civil Court. Even if the so-called unstamped and unregistered receipt exists, the remedy for the said Sanjeev Rao would to be file a Civil suit for recovery of money against the legal heirs of Mr.Ravindra Babu.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4 would further submits that there is no pleading on the validity of the Cancellation Deed on the basis of the minority of respondent Nos.6 and 7 as such the said contention cannot be accepted. Even if the non- pleaded argument is considered, it is not for any stranger who has nothing to do with the subject land to such or any pleas. The petitioner, apart from making vague and baseless allegations about cancellation the absence of the parties, has not demonstrated any legal violation committed by the Sub-Registrar in registering the Cancellation Deed. The Cancellation Deed was admittedly a mutual 13 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 cancellation deed and was executed by the parties mentioned in the Deed and it is not unilateral but mutual deed which the Sub-Registrar has to necessarily register and therefore there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
13. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4 in support of their contention relied on the following Judgments:
1. Amar Singh Vs. Union of India 1
2. Oswal Fats & Oil Ltd Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division and others 2
3. NCC Limited Vs. Sembcorp Gayatri Power Limited and others 3
4. Mohammad Fareed Pasha Vs. The State of Telangana and others 4
5. M.C.Chacko Vs. State Bank of Travencore, Trivendram 5
6. Satyapal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 6
7. Beena and others Vs. Charan Das (D) Thr.LRs and others 7 1 (2011) 7 SCC 69 2 (2010) 4 SCC 728 3 MANU/AP/0709/2017 4 MANU/TL/1298/2023 5 (1969) 2 SCC 343 6 (2016) 10 SCC 767 7 2024 SCC Online SC 2490 14 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025
8. A.R.Nagar Gudisevasulu Sangam Vs. Y.Ramakumari and others 8
9. Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Ltd., Vs. State of Haryana and another 9
10. N.S.Balaji Vs. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal 10
11. Beereddy Dasaratha Rami Reddy Vs.V.Manjunath and another 11
12. Division Bench Judgment of this Court in FCA No.75 of 2022 12
13. Pooja Vs. State of Maharashtra 13
14. Ramalingam Reddy (Minor) by next Friend Vinjakshi Ammal Vs. Babanambal Ammal 14
15. Nangali Amma Bhavani Amma Vs. Gopalakrishnan Nair & others 15
16. K. Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and others 16
17. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. K.Thangappan and another 17
18. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs. T.T.Babu 18
14. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is challenging the registration of the Cancellation Deed bearing document 8 2024 SCC Online TS 4119 9 (2012) 1 SCC 656 10 2023 SCC Online SC1266 11 (2021) 19 SCC 263 12 Unreported judgment of this Court in FCA No.75 of 2022 dt.27.01.2023 13 MANU/MH/1136/2025 14 1950 SCC Online MAD 153 15 (2004) 8 SCC 785 16 2025 SCC Online SC 740 17 (2006) 4 SCC 322 18 (2014) 4 SCC 108 15 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 No.2115/2022 dated 17.03.2022 by the respondent No.3, executed between the respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.5 to 7, on the ground that the petitioner has purchased suit schedule property mentioned in the Registered Deed of AGPA dated 18.10.2019 from the husband of the respondent No.5 namely, P.Ravidnra Babu, by paying part consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- i.e. Rs.17,00,000/- cash on 10.09.2020 and Rs.13,00,000/- through RTGS transfer in favour of M/s Siri Bhoomi Projects and to that effect the husband of the respondent No.5 also issued a receipt on 10.09.2020.
15. Both the Counsel for the petitioner and the unofficial respondents have vehemently argued with regard to the rights of the parties in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner failed to show the transaction between the him and husband of the respondent No.5 for seeking cancellation of the subject 16 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 document executed between the respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.5 to 7.
16. In the writ affidavit, the petitioner stated that he paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the husband of the respondent No.5 vide receipt dated 10.09.2020 and obtained receipt to that effect from him. In fact, on perusal of the said receipt dated 10.09.2020 it shows that the husband of the respondent No.5 received the amount from one Sanjeeva Rao and moreover there is no mention in the said receipt about the suit schedule property mentioned in the impugned cancellation deed dated 17.03.2022. The husband of the respondent No.5 is only AGPA holder of the respondent No.4. After death of the husband of the respondent No.5, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 being legal heirs of the said Ravindra Babu executed Deed of Cancellation of earlier document No.12902/2019 dated 18.10.2019 through impugned Deed of Cancellation No.2115/2022 dated 17 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 17.03.2022. It is settled principle of law that mere Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney cannot create any rights in the subject lands in favour of Ravindra Babu.
17. The petitioner relied on an unstamped and unregistered receipt dated 10.09.2020 and the same cannot be taken into consideration for cancellation of the impugned document executed between the respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 to 7 in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Moreover, the unstamped and unregistered receipt dated 10.09.2020 was issued in favour one Mr.Sanjeev Rao, who is not a party herein. The petitioner is a stranger to the said receipt as rightly contented by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4.
18. The contention of the petitioner with regard to execution of document by guardian of the minors 18 SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025 cannot be taken into account as there is no bar with regard to execution of a document by the guardian on behalf of the minors.
19. Further, the petitioner contended that the subject property was converted into 100 plots and respondent No.4 sold the same to third parties. The respondent No.4 contended that HMDA approved the Layout vide permission No.000308/LO/PLG/HMDA/ 2021 for 100 plots and some of them sold third parties. The petitioner without impleading the effected parties, filed the writ petition. In view of the same, the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of effected parties.
20. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 in support his contentions relied on number of Judgments and some of them apply to the facts of the instant case.
19
SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025
21. In a recent Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and others (supra 14), relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.4, held as under:
"15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer"
The above Judgment squarely apply to the facts of the instant case.
20
SK, J WP No.8397 of 2025
22. In view of the above findings, the registration of impugned Cancellation Deed bearing Document No.2115/2022 dated 17.03.2022 by the respondent No.3 needs no interference in this writ petition. If the petitioner has any rights over the subject property, he can initiate appropriate civil proceedings for ascertaining his rights. In view of the same, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
23. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date:29.07.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked trr