Allowed

Jillapalli Venkatesham v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Dec 2022WP/23510/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the registration of a Cancellation Deed that cancelled his sale deed without his presence. The court held that the cancellation was illegal under registration rules as the petitioner was not a party. The petition was allowed, setting aside the cancellation and directing record amendments.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned Cancellation Deed set aside; respondent No.4 directed to amend records and pay Rs. 10,000 costs.

Jillapalli Venkatesham Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

<br>

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23510 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

Jillapalli Venkatesham, S/o. Late Aashaiah, Age: 4 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No. 12-168, Mancherial, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, for Regisration and Stamps department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Commissioner and lnspector, General of Regisration and Stamps, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶13

The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps, [t4ancherial, N/ancherial District

¶14

The Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Mancherial, Adilabad District

¶15

Bolisetti Rajalingu, S/o.Bheemaiah, Aged. 53 years, Occ.Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No.1-216/1, Maruthinagar, Mancherial, Adilabad District

¶16

Baljepally Sathaiah, S/o.Bhumaiah, Aged. 53 years, Occ. Agriculture, Doragaripalli, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District

¶17

Gollapalli Anjaiah Chari, S/o.Raghavulu Chari, Aged. 51 years, Occ. Carpenter, R/o.Devapur, Kasipet Mandal, Adilabad District

¶18

Gollapalli Marutheeswarachari, S/o.Raghavulu chari, Aged.48 years, Occ. O.C.P. Employee, Rl/o,Devapur, Kasipet Mandal, Adilabad District

¶19

Bandari Chandrasekhar, S/o.Narayana, Aged.38 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl,/o Rl/o. Devapur, Kasipet [/andal, Ad ilabad District

¶20

Ragi Laxmi, W/o.Prakash, Aged. 42 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o. R/o.Devapur, Kasipet Mandal, Adilabad District

¶21

11.Vadde Venkaiah, S/o.Ramaiah, Aged. 51 years, Occ. Singareni Employee, Rl/o. Nagarjuna Colony, Naspur, Adilabad District

¶22

'1 2. Gadepalli Jyostana, Wo. G.V. M.S.Chandradatt, Aged. 53 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.Near fi/ancherial Club, Mancherial, Adilabad District

¶23

Gadepalli G.V.M.S.Chandradatt, S/o.Seetharamamurthi, Aged.58^years, Occ. Doctor, Rl/o.H.No.1 1-100, Club Area, Mancherial, Adilabad District

¶24

l4.Thokala Posha nma @lndarapu Posu, W/o late Ralaiah, ,\1ted- 82^years, Occ Housewife, RJc .H. No-1 - 1 1 6/1, Ramgampet, Laxetipel Man<jal, Adilabad District

¶25

.RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition under Arti,:le 226 of the Constitution of lndie ;,raying that in the circumstances state I in the affidavit filed therewith, the -igh Court may be pleased to issue an rppropriate Writ, Order or Direction, mo r; particularly one in the nature of Writ r f Cr:rtiorari, to declare the action of t1o 4tr' Respondents impugned cancella'ion deed vide Document No 1044 I of 2017 , dated 25-09-2017 , by can:elling the petitioner's Registere,l Sal,: Det:d No.3470 of 2013, dated 13-03- l0'1 3 as per the request of the Resp,rndert Nos.s to 13 though they have no right or title against the land to an extenl of ,Ac.0.16 1/2^gts in Sy.No.99 situatr,d at Kyathanpalli village, Mandamarri Grampanchayat, Mancherial District^{</sup> /ithout issuing notice either to the^petiticner or his vendor who is the Respondt nt No.'14 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, vio ation of principles of natural^justice and r iolatron of articles 21 and 300-4 of the C,)nstitution of lndia and consequently to call for the records of the impugned c: rrr;ellation deed vide Document No.'1 0441 of 2017, dated 25-09-2017 and quash t re sarre.}

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶28

Petition unde Ser;tion 151 CPC praying that in the cir(rurnstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Cou,1 rray be pleased to direct the 4rt' Respo ldent to restore the Petitioner's registererl serle deed baring No.3470/2013, date^j 13,-03-2013 in the records by suspenrling the impugned cancellation deed b< aring No.'10441 o'f 2017, dated 25-09-2017 pr..nding disposal of the main Writ Pet tion.

¶29

Counsel for the Pet tioner : SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI

¶30

Counsel for the Res pondent Nos.'l to 4 : GP FOR REVENtIE.

¶31

Counsel for the Res pondent Nos.S to 13 : SRI BANKATLAI- MANDHANI : ORDER The Court made the following

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR U/RIT PETITION No.2351O of 2O18 ORDER:

¶33

Heard Sri Y.Pulla Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 13.

¶34

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.4 in registering the Cancellation Deed urde document No. 10441 of 2017, dated 25.09.2017, cancelling the registered Sale Deed, dated 13.03.2OL3 uide document bearing No.3470 of 2013 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.O-16 h guntas in Survey No.99 dituated at Kyathanpalli Village, Mandamarri Grampanchayat, Mancherial District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶35

A perusal of the impugned Cancellation Deed, dated 25.09 .2017 , shows that the said document, executed by respondent No.S herein, represented by his GPA holder, cancelled the Sale Deed, dated 13.03.2013 uide document No.3470 of 2013, executed in favour of petitioner herein without making the petitioner herein as party to the impugned cancellation deed.

¶36

Rule 26 (i) (k) of the Telangana Registration Rules under Registration Act,^TOd-S 6o. short, 'the RulesJ mandates that

j
I

in case of regi itration o{, Cancellation Deed, the parties to the principal docun rent are required to be parties to the Canr:ellation Deed and with the consent of the said partics aiole, the SubRegistrar is en itled to register any such cancellation deed. As already noted r rbove, the beneficiary under the Sale De:ed uide document No.3 170 of 2013, i.e., the petitioner her:in, is not a party to the im pugned Canccllation Deed. Hence, t-ie impugned Cancellation D:ed uide document No. 1O441 of 2017, dated 25.09.2017, reg istered by respondent No.4 is in violation of Rule 26 (i) (k) of the t:ules, 1908.

¶41

Ac:ordingiy, the Writ Petition is e lbwed with exenplary costs setting aside the impugned Cancr:llation Deed dated 25.09 ,20 t 7 and respondent No.4 is directed to carryout necessary amer rdments in his records, duly acknou'ledged the cancellation of t:e irnpugned Cancellation Deed, daterl 25.09.2O 17 uide document No. 10441 of 2021. Respondent No.4 i.e., the person who ent,:rtained registration of the impugned Cancellation Deed, dated 25 O9.2Ol7 uide document No. 1O441 o1 2021 shal1 pay costs of R s. 10,OO0/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the petitioner withi: r a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Miscellaneor.rs petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

shall stand closed.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

w.P.NO.23510 0F 2018

Rs. Ps

Costs Quantified by Hon'ble Court (That the Respondent No.4 herein is directed to pay costs of Rs.10,0001 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the Petitioner herein within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order

10,000-00

TOTAL

10,000-00

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( /--llJ SECTION OFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, for Regisration and Stamps department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶55

The Commissioner and lnspector, General of Regisration and Stamps, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶56

The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Mancherial, Mancherial District

¶57

The Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps, lvlancherial, Adilabad District

¶58

The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana.

¶59

The Section Officer, Non- Service Section, High Court for the State of Telangana.

¶60

One CC to SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI, Advocate IOPUC]

¶61

B. One CC to SRI BANKATLAL MANDHANI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. louTl

¶63

10.Two CD Copies

KSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 3112120122

Note: Post crn 19-01-2023 fol cornpliance.

¶72

ORDER

¶73

WP.No.23510 of 2018

¶74

( ii THE SI4
oJ
/l 'l 6Eg 2tr4
;l
r): - r) *
ii F t.: ^ \11

¶75

WRIT PETITI)N IS ALLOWED

¶76

WITH COSTS.

¶77

Jillapalli Venkatesham v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jillapalli Venkatesham v. The State of Telangana

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

Mohammad Abbas , Mohammad Vs The state of Telangana

G.Dileep Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Bureddy Anantha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Purma Papi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Saddela Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana and 11 others

Harijan Esanna , Yesanna Vs The State of Telangana and 12 Others