Dismissed

Mohammed Ahmed, v. The Inspector General

Telangana HC16 Oct 2012WP/32409/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the respondents' inaction on a representation concerning property title disputes. The Court held that serious factual disputes regarding ownership validity must be resolved by the civil Court, not the Registering Authority, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs, granting no relief to the petitioner.

Mohammed Ahmed, Vs The Inspector General — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32409 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not considering the petitioner’s representation in respect of property bearing plot No.15 vide municipal No.8-2-693/15 covered by Survey No.129/104 situated at Road No.12 (rear side), Banjara Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted representation, dated 03.09.2012 to respondents 1 to 4 seeking deletion of entry pertaining to registered document bearing No.3522/2009, dated 13.11.2009. In spite of the same, no steps are being taken by respondents 1 to 4.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that he along with two others, namely, Mir Ashfaq Ali Khan and Syed Abdul Kasheef, purchased plot No.15 admeasuring 458.00 sq.yards or 383.88 sq.meters, vide municipal No.8-2693/15 covered by Survey No.129/104 situated at Road No.12 (rear side), Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village,

¶6

Hyderabad. It is stated that originally, the said property belonged to one Trimbak Rao, who in turn, sold the same by a registered sale document bearing No.2856/1967 to one Yadaiah and Shaik Meeran Saheb. It is further stated that subsequently, one Smt. Eera Bai purchased the above said property under a registered sale deed in 1968 and she died in 1986 but before her death, she sold the property to her sister, by name, Smt. S.K.Hyma Chowdhary. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the fifth respondent misused the name of one Madnamma along with her basti leader and impersonated the said Smt. Eera Bai and brought into force a document, which is Agreement of Sale-cumIrrevocable General Power of Attorney, with regard to aforesaid property. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the said facts were brought to the notice of respondents 1 to 4, no steps are being taken.

¶7

When it is the allegation of the petitioner that the document executed by some third party in favour of the fifth respondent with regard to the aforesaid property, upon which, the petitioner is claiming ownership and title, is not a valid one, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court seeking appropriate declaration. But, at the same time, during the course of arguments, the

¶8

learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court any provision under the Registration Act, 1908 to make enquiries on such allegations, by the Sub-Registrar. In view of serious factual disputes which arise for consideration, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court. But, alleging that the registering authorities are not looking at his representation, the petitioner cannot request this Court to issue a mandamus by way of directions to such authorities to consider the representation.

¶9

For the aforesaid reasons, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail any other remedy available under law, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶10

In view of disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.41311 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶11

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶12

16^th OCTOBER, 2012. kvni

Mohammed Ahmed, v. The Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ahmed, v. The Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunny Vs Regional Passport Office

D.Nizam Ali Khan, S/o. D. Rasool Khan Vs The Joint Sub-Registrar-I

P.Sharmila Banu W/o Anif Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Mr. Yerramada Ashok Reddy Vs The Inspector General of Registration

K.A. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. K. Anjina Reddy, Vs The District Collector, Anantapur.

Gogineni Vinaya Kumar, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh