Allowed

Bavaraju Seeta v. M/s.Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri

Telangana HC11 Jul 2008WP/9179/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an authority cannot unilaterally invalidate a registered sale deed. The writ petition challenging the cancellation of sale deeds by the Urban Development Authority was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed, directing the authority to seek proper cancellation through civil courts.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders cancelling the sale deeds were quashed. Liberty was given to the respondent-authority to approach the civil court or follow the prescribed procedure for cancellation.

Bavaraju Seeta Vs M/s.Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagi… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9179 of 2006

¶3

Between:

¶4

1 Bavaraju Seeta D/o.Seethapathi

¶5

R/o.LIG(H)-146, VUDA Colony Payakapuram, Vijayawada,

¶6

Krishna District

¶7

2 Viswatmula Bharathi, W/o.Durga Prasad R/o.F-F107, Kollati Towers, Ratnamamba Street, Prajasakthi Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District

¶8

..... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

1 M/s.Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, (VGTM-UDA) Office at Governor Pet, Apasara Theatre, Vijayawada - 520 015, Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Vice-Chairman, V.Durga Das, Service, R/o.Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The District Registrar, Registration Department, Krishna at Vijayawadad

¶11

.....RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to set-side the proceedings in R.C.A1/3463/2004, dt.1/4/2006 of the 1st respondent addressed to the Petitioner No.1 thro' which declared the registered sale deed no.7230/2004, dt.24/2/2004 in respect of the Plot No.LIGII-194 in R.S.32(Part), admeasuring 165 Sq.yards, situated in Payakapuram of Vijayawada Muncipal Corporation, Krishna District as NULL & VOID & CANCELLED together with the earlier proceedings of the 1st respondent in R.C.A3/3463/2004, dt.10/8/2005 addressed to the 2nd respondent thro' which requested not to entertain registration of the property, as arbitrary, unjust, illegal and without power or authority or jurisdiction apart from being violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and section 5, 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and also being violative of the terms contained in the Registered sale deed thereof and to grant such other relief or the relief's as the petitioner found entitled to in Law, by issuance of a writ more particularly a Writ in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or order or direction as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.RAMESH BABU

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.ARUNA(SC FOR V.G.T.M.U.D.A) The Court made the following :

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are two in number, assailing the action of the 1^st respondentM/s.Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (VGTM-UDA) in setting aside the sale deed executed in their favour vide proceedings in RC.No.A1/3463/2004, dated 1.4.2006.

¶17

The petitioners came to be the allottees of sites from the 1^st respondent authority. They also obtained registered sale deeds after paying the consideration. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent resorted to cancel the sale deeds on the ground of some irregularity in allotment of house plots to the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition.

¶18

When the writ petition came up for hearing, the counsel appearing for the parties represented that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a Judgment of this Court in WP.No.13032 of 2006 and batch, wherein it has been held as follows:

¶19

“The above analysis of the legal provisions makes it clear that a person, who seeks cancellation of a registered document, has two remedies available under law. They are: (1) to seek invalidation of the registered sale deed by approaching the competent Court of Law under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; or (2) to seek cancellation of registered document by following

¶20

the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 (k)(i) of the Rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Act. Except these two remedies, no person or authority has the right to unilaterally invalidate a registered sale deed on any ground. Undisputedly, the Vice-Chairman was rest content by passing the impugned orders and he has not availed either of the above mentioned two remedies either before or after the amendment of the Rules. It is, therefore, beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the respondent-authority or its ViceChairman to treat the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners as null and void and purport to cancel the same. Until and unless the competent authority, viz., the Registering Authority, under Rule 26 (k)(i) of the Rules or the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction exercises its powers/jurisdiction and cancels the sale deeds, the sales made in favour of the petitioners remain unaffected.

¶21

For all the above mentioned reasons, all the writ petitions are disposed of and the impugned orders, whereby the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners were cancelled, are quashed. Liberty is, however, given to the respondent-authority to avail the remedies indicated above.

¶22

Learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that pursuant to the order passed in the above referred writ petition and batch, the first respondent approached the civil Court for cancellation of the sale deeds.

¶23

Such is the situation, the writ petition is disposed of and the impugned order, whereby the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners were cancelled, are quashed. Liberty is, however, given to the respondent-authority to avail the remedy of approaching the civil Court seeking cancellation of the sale deeds or to seek the relief by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 26(k)(i) of

¶24

the Rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Act or Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. No costs.

¶25

__________ 11-07-2008

¶26

rkk

Bavaraju Seeta v. M/s.Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bavaraju Seeta v. M/s.Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Steel City Shipping Services (P) Limited, a Company Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Dr.Potluri Venkateswar Rao, S/o Hari Purushothama Rao Vs The Vice-Chairnam

Smt. Varanasi Surya Kumari Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Vattikuri Das Babu, Vs M/s. Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban -

M.Jayaram Reddy Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

S.Mahaboob Basha Vs The Kadapa Municipal Corporation rep.by its