[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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.
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
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.
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
