K.V.V.Lalitha Reddy & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare action of respondent No.4 - the Tahsildar cum Joint Sub-Registrar, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in mutating the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the revenue records under the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act 2024 (for short 'Bhu Bharati Act') in respect of the following lands, total admeasuring Acs.59.00 guntas, though the same have been converted for non-agriculture purpose vide Proceedings No.A/2191/2007 dated A/2192/2007 dated 26.05.2007 and respondent Nos.5 and 6 have already sold them to the writ petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction; and consequently to cancel the pattadar pass books issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 under the Bhu Bharati Act 2024:

The case of the petitioners is that out of Acs.59.00 of land;

After issuing mutation proceedings, pattadar pass books have been issued by respondent No.4 - the Tahsildar cum Joint Sub-Registrar, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to the petitioners vide Patta Nos.1261 and 1262 respectively.

In 2007, petitioner No.2 executed Agreement of Sale cum Irrevocable General Power of Attorney with Possession through the registered Document No.2618 of 2007 dated 05.02.2007 in favour of respondent No.7 and handed over possession of the subject land. The petitioners got the land converted into non-agriculture (NALA) use vide Proceedings No.A/2191/2007 and A/2192/2007 dated 26.05.2007 issued by respondent No.3.

The G.P.A. Holder of the petitioners obtained layout permission from the office of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) vide Layout Permit No.49/LO/HMDA/08 dated 12.11.2008 in File No.2187/LO/Plg/HMDA/2008 dated 07.11.2008 and several plots have been sold to various individuals.

The petitioners came to know that their vendors (respondent Nos.5 and 6) made Applications No.RC2500003336, RC2500003337, RC2500003338, RC2500003340 and RC2500003341 to respondent No.4 for issuance of pattadar pass books in their favour in respect of the subject lands by suppressing the facts. Earlier, when respondent Nos.5 and 6 have made applications through Dharani Portal vide Application Nos.RC2300005820, RC2300005824, RC2300006442 and RC2300006444, the GPA Holder of the petitioners challenged the same by filing W.P. No.4441 of 2024 and those applications were rejected by respondent No.2. Suppressing the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted new applications to respondent No.4 through the Bhu Bharati Portal under the Bhu Bharati Act 2024.

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 unilaterally cancelled the sale deeds dated 08.10.2004 executed in favour of the petitioners vide registered Cancellation Deed bearing document Nos.14942 and 14943 of 2006 dated 30.08.2006 which are void. That behind the back of the petitioners, respondent Nos.5 and 6 approached the revenue authorities based on the cancellation deeds and got their names recorded in the revenue records as if the subject lands are still continuing as agricultural lands. The petitioners raised objections before respondent No.4, however without issuing any notice to them, mutations have been effected in the revenue records in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the subject lands.

The G.P.A. Holder of the petitioners filed W.P. No.19026 of 2025 when applications were made by respondent Nos.5 and 6 for mutation of their names in respect of the subject lands. In the said writ petition, there was a direction to implead the original owners. As the petitioners are affected parties, the present writ petition is filed.

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioners have purchased the subject lands from them by paying sale consideration through the post-dated cheques which were dishonoured, as such, sale deeds executed by them were cancelled. The petitioners filed O.S. No.817 of 2006 before the learned I Additional District Judge, L.B. Nagar, and obtained ex parte decree by the order dated 14.08.2017 without

service of summons on respondent Nos.5 and 6. Subsequently, when respondent Nos.5 and 6 came to know about the ex parte decree, they have filed I.A. No.834 of 2018 to set aside the ex parte decree. By the order dated 21.01.2019, the trial Court has set aside the ex parte decree. Subsequently, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. An application was filed by the petitioners for restoration of the suit along with an application for condonation of delay of 622 days which are pending.

After dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.817 of 2006, the petitioners and their G.P.A. Holder obtained approval of the tentative lay out from the HMDA. On the complaint lodged by respondent Nos.5 and 6, the authorities of the HMDA have inspected the subject lands and found that there was no development, as such, the request of the petitioners for re-validation of draft layout Lr.No.2187/LO/PLG/HMDA/2008 dated 07.11.2008 was cancelled and withdrawn. Thereafter, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed applications for mutation of the subject lands in their names and mutation was sanctioned in their names.

The GPA Holder of the petitioners filed O.S. No.71 of 2024 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, for perpetual injunction. Thus, the petitioners do not have any right to make claim over the subject lands.

Heard Mr. C. Raghu, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. G. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Raja Sreepathi, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6; Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. G. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.7; and Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue; and perused the material on record.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that unilateral cancellation of sale deeds is not valid as per the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. No notice was issued to the petitioners before mutation was sanctioned in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are only agreement holders, as such, mutation cannot be

issued in their favour. The petitioners have executed Agreement of Sale cum Irrevocable G.P.A. with Possession dated 05.02.2007 in favour of respondent No.7. As per Section 8 of the Bhu Bharati Act 2024, a notice has to be issued to all the interested persons. Admittedly, notice has not been issued to the petitioners, as such, mutation proceedings are illegal and liable to be set aside. Objections dated 16.06.2025 have been submitted by the petitioners and without considering the same, online entries have been made in the Bhu Bharati Portal in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. The earlier applications filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 were rejected, and therefore, the question of second application being maintained does not arise. An application for restoration of the suit in O.S. No.817 of 2006 along with an application for condonation of delay is pending.

The learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as, admittedly, suit filed by the petitioners in O.S. No.817 of 2006 was dismissed for non-prosecution, and application filed for restoration of the suit along with an application for condonation of delay is

pending. The petitioners cannot pursue parallel remedies before two Courts. Unilateral cancellations made by respondent Nos.5 and 6 are challenged and it is subject matter of the suit, as such, legality or otherwise of the cancellation deeds cannot form subject matter of this writ petition. By the date of filing of this writ petition, the sale deeds, NALA proceedings and the layout issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of the subject lands were cancelled. In case of vacant land, possession follows title. As on today, the petitioners do not have any title over the subject lands. Disputed questions of fact are involved. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

The learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.7 submitted that he is adopting the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Respondent No.7 is GPA Holder of the petitioners. Unilateral cancellation of sale deeds is void. Even if suit in O.S. No.817 of 2006 was dismissed for default, it will not alter the situation as the cancellation deed is a nullity.

The issue involved in this writ petition centers around validity of the two sale deeds bearing document Nos.3245 and 3246 of 2004 dated 08.10.2004 and two cancellation deeds bearing document Nos.14942 and 14943 of 2006 dated 30.08.2008.

The sale deeds bearing document Nos.3246 and 3245 of 2004 dated 08.10.2004 were executed by one Mr. Kothapally Chinna Narsimha Reddy through his Agreement of Sale cum G.P.A. Holders - respondent Nos.5 and 6 in favour of the petitioners for the agricultural land admeasuring Acs.59-00 guntas as stated in the aforementioned paragraph Nos 2.1 and 2.2. However, these sale deeds dated 08.10.2004 were unilaterally cancelled by the Cancellation Deeds bearing document Nos.14942 and 14943 of 2006 dated 30.08.2006 as stated in the aforesaid paragraph Nos.2.5 and 2.6.

It is mentioned in both the cancellation deeds that at the time of execution of the sale deeds dated 08.10.2004, the vendees (petitioners) have not paid total sale consideration by way of cash as stated in the sale deeds, but have given post-dated cheques in

favour of the vendor which were bounced and the vendor has not delivered possession of the schedule mentioned property in favour of the vendees (petitioners).

It is not in dispute that both the cancellation deeds dated 30.08.2006 were signed only by respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are G.P.A. Holders of the vendor of the petitioners. In the sale deed bearing document No.3246 of 2004 dated 08.10.2004, it is clearly mentioned that sale consideration of Rs.5,51,000/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty one thousand only) was already paid by cash by the vendee and it was acknowledged by the vendor; and similarly in the sale deed bearing document No.3245 of 2004 dated 08.10.2004 also, it is clearly mentioned that sale consideration of Rs.5,70,000/- (Rupees five lakhs seventy thousand only) was already paid by cash by the vendee and it was acknowledged by the vendor. Thus, subsequent unilateral cancellation deeds dated 30.08.2006 executed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 contrary to the terms of the sale deeds dated 08.10.2004 mentioning that sale consideration was not received in cash, but received by way of post-dated cheques cannot be accepted. It is settled principle of law as held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh^{11.(2010) 15 SCC 207} that unilateral cancellation deed is a void document.

It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 that the petitioners have instituted a suit for cancellation of cancellation deeds and the said suit was dismissed for default, and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It needs to be noted that there is no legal necessity for the petitioners to file a suit for declaration of unilateral cancellation deeds as void. A document which is already void by operation of law need not be declared as a void document. It is a common practice wherein aggrieved parties, for various reasons and as a precautionary measure, file suits for declaration of unilateral cancellation deeds as void so as to ensure that the entries made in the encumbrance record of the Registration Offices are deleted. In Thota Ganga Laxmi’s Case (Supra 1), the Hon’ble Court held as under:

In the light of the above settled principle of law, dismissal of suit of the petitioners in O.S. No.817 of 2006 for default will not alter the situation. Consequently, the impugned mutation issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the basis of cancellation deeds dated 30.08.2006, which are void, is liable to be set aside.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the mutation proceedings and consequential patta pass books / title deeds and entries in the revenue records issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 by respondent No.4 - the Tahsildar cum Joint Sub-Registrar, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through Dharani Portal vide Application Nos.RC2500003336, RC2500003337, RC2500003338, RC2500003340 and RC2500003341, in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.59.00 guntas i.e., (1) Acs.8-28 guntas in Survey No.54 (New Survey No.54/1/4), (2) Acs.8-02 guntas in Survey No.57 [New Survey Nos.57/1/3/1 (Acs.8.00 guntas) and 57/1/3/2 (Ac.0-02 guntas)], (3) Acs.12-10 guntas in Survey No.58 (New Survey No.58/ru/1) belonging to petitioner No.1; and (4) Acs.20-20 guntas in Survey No.53 (New Survey No.53/1) and (5) Acs.09-20 guntas in Survey No.54 (New Survey No.54/1/3) belonging to petitioner No.2. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.