Telangana High Court
Mohd.Nizam vs The State Of Telangana on 24 February, 2025
Author: T.Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Writ Petition No.5252 of 2025
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent
Nos.1 and 3 and Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.4 and perused the record. With the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and
disposal at the stage of admission.
2. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dt.27.12.2024
passed in L.G.O.P.No.4 of 2023 (old LGOP No.821 of 2003) on the file of
the III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Tribunal under
the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at
Kukatpally, whereby the petitioner herein had been declared as land
grabber of the land admeasuring 120 square yards situated on the
western side of Plot No.72 in Sy.No.27 situated at Allapur Village,
Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, directing him to vacate
and handover vacant possession of the aforesaid extent of land by
removing the structures raised by the petitioner therein, to the
respondents herein within three months from the date of the order, failing
which, the 3rd respondent herein was directed to evict the petitioner
herein from the said property.
3. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the Court below
had failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner herein is claiming
title to the subject property under a notarized agreement of sale and
thus, having set up a rival title to the subject land, the Special Court could
not have declared the petitioner as a land grabber.
4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing
for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the 4th respondent would submit that the petitioner is claiming the subject
land on the basis of a notarized agreement of sale and as such the same
would not confer any right or title on him, and thus, the Court below
taking note of the aforesaid fact had rightly allowed the LGOP filed by the
4th respondent herein declaring the petitioner as land grabber.
5. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
6. Admittedly, the title to a land of immovable nature can only be
claimed under a registered document as mandated under Section 17 of
the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the Act').
7. It is now well settled that mere agreement of sale that too an
unregistered agreement of sale in respect of an immovable property does
not confer any right or title to the person claiming thereunder, firstly, as
the document is only an agreement showing the intention of the vendor
to sell the immovable property in favour of the purchaser and that by
itself would not confer any right or title; secondly, that in respect of
immovable property in order to get the rights transferred, a document is
required to be registered compulsorily, then only a person claiming under
the said document can establish his title to the property. Section 49 of the
Act deals with effect of non-registration of document required to be
registered under the Act.
8. In a recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sanjay Sharm a v/ s. K otak M ahindra Bank Lim ited and others 1
had held that mere agreement of sale in relation to an immovable
property without the same being registered in terms of Section 17 of the
Act cannot be held to be a valid document.
9. Since, in the facts of the case, the petitioner is claiming title to the
subject property of land of 120 square yards only on the basis of
notarized agreement of sale, the said document cannot be considered as
conferring any title in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the order of the
Court below taking note of the aforesaid facts and the position of law, in
the considered view of this Court does not suffer from any infirmity for
SLP(C) No.330 of 2017 dt.10.12.2024
being interfered by this Court in the present Writ Petition in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Thus, the Writ Petition as filed fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
__________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:24.02.2025
_________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
GJ
