Telangana High Court
Sri Lingareddy Venkata Subba Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.366 of 2026
Dated: 01.04.2026
Between:
Sri Lingareddy Venkata Subba Reddy
...Appellant
and
The State of Telangana,
Represented by Principal Secretary Revenue (Registration and Stamp),
Government of Telangana, at Secretariat,
Tankbund, Hyderabad,
and 6 others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Learned counsel Sri Keerti Prabhakar, representing learned counsel Sri G.Manjira Venkatesh, appears for the appellant.
Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Stamps and Registration), appears for respondents No.1 to 4. 2
Learned Senior Counsel Sri B.Mayur Reddy, representing learned counsel Sri Atla Abhinandhan Reddy, appears for respondents No.5 to 7.
2. The present writ appeal arises out of the judgment dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned writ court disposing of W.P.No.40502 of 2025 filed by the appellant herein.
3. On the application of the appellant dated 08.09.2025 seeking validation/impounding of Agreement of Sale dated 17.03.2017, no decision was taken by respondent No.4 - District Registrar of Sangareddy, which compelled the appellant to approach the learned writ court. The learned writ court disposed of the writ petition with a direction upon respondent No.4 to consider the representation of the appellant dated 08.09.2025 as well as the counter affidavit filed by respondents No.5 to 7 where they have taken some objections regarding the document i.e., grounds of delay in its presentation for impounding and that it contained certain overwriting.
4. The appellant has preferred this writ appeal being aggrieved by that part of the impugned judgment whereby the learned writ court has directed respondent No.4 to consider the objections of respondents No.5 3 to 7 while taking the decision on the application of the appellant for impounding of the Agreement of Sale.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.5 to 7 submits that the learned writ court has only asked respondent No.4 to take into consideration the objections relating to delay in presentation of the document and certain overwriting on it.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Stamps and Registration) submits that he has to take instructions in the matter as to whether any decision has been taken by respondent No.4 pursuant to the impugned judgment.
7. On consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, we are of the view that in matters of impounding in respect of instruments which are not duly stamped, there is no scope under the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, such as Section 33, to get into those questions. As such, the operative part of the impugned judgment which has directed respondent No.4 to take into account the counter affidavit of respondents No.5 to 7 containing certain objections while examining the document was unnecessary. The impugned judgment is accordingly modified deleting the said operative part.
4
8. We are also surprised as to why on the application of the appellant before respondent No.4, no action was taken which compelled the appellant to approach the learned writ court.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and on consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment is modified to the aforesaid extent.
10. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ ______________________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J 01.04.2026 vs