Allowed

Y.Ramalakshmi, W/o.Y.S.Brahmam v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary -

Telangana HC16 Jun 2023WP/18097/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the unilateral registration of a cancellation deed by the Sub-Registrar. The Court held the registration illegal and arbitrary under Telangana Registration Rules, as the absent party did not consent, and quashed the deed, directing the removal of entries.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned cancellation deed set aside; Respondents directed to remove entries from registers including encumbrance register within four weeks.

Y.Ramalakshmi, W/o.Y.S.Brahmam Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:JE097 OEal]T

¶8

Between:

¶9

Y.Ramalakshmi, W/o.Y.S.Brahmam, Occ : Business Rl/o.Plot No.593/A, Vijaya Sal Nilayam Road No.31, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 33.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Joint Sub-Registrar Atmakur, presently Wanaparthy, District Telangana State.

¶14

Mrs.Farha Shams, Wo.Mir Mujahid, Occ : Housewife R/o.H.No.21-4-829, Petla Bud, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 Mir Mujahid Ali, S/o.Mir Sarfaraj Ali, Occ : Business R!/o.H.No.21-4-829, Petla Bud, Hyderabad-

¶16

Mrs.Sayada Qaiser Sultana, W/o.Mohammed Arif Aziz, Occ : Housewife R/o.H.No.21 -4-829, Petla Bud, Hyderabad.

¶17

M/s.Cosmo Hatcheris Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at H.No.,21-4-829 Petla Bud, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director Mir Mujahid Ali, S/o.Mir Sarfaraj Ali Aged about^r[8 years, Occ : Business And its Directors : 1) Mir Azam Ali, S/o.Mir Sarfaraz Ali Aged about 56 years, Occ : Business 2) Mir Munawer Ali, S/o.Mir Sarfaraj All aged about 46 years, Occ : Business 3) Mir Wajahat Ali, S/o.Mir Sarfaraz All aged about 54 years, Occ : Business

¶18

The Sub-Registrar, Jadcherla Mahaboob Nagar District, Telangana State. 8. The Commissioner & lnspector General Registration and, Stamps M.J.Road, Jambagh, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in entertaining the cancellation deed Doc.No.1728 of 2014 dt.28.05.2O14 cancelling the development agreement cum General Power of Attorney Doc.No.2040 of 2009 dt.05.03.2009 as illegal, arbitrary and without^jurisdiction and consequently set aside the said cancellation deed document No.1728 of 2014 dt.28.05.2014 and further declare that any consequential document is executed is a void document.

¶21

l.A. NO: 2OF 2017^(WPMP. NO:29443 oF 2017)

¶22

Petition under Section 15't CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleasedto} issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more^{particularly onein the natureof} WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of^{the 2nd respondentsin} entertaining the cancellation deed^Doc No.^{1728 of 2014 daled28.05.2014} cancelling ihe development agreement^{cum General Power of Attorney Doc No.} 2040 of 2009 dated 05.03.2009^{as illegalarbitrary and without jurisdiction and} consequentially set aside the said^{cancellation deed document No. 1728 of 2O14} dated 28.05.2014 and further^{declarethat any consequentialdocument is} executed is a void document,^{and pass such other orderor orders as this Hon'ble} court may deem fit and^{proper in the circumstancesof the case. To, Hon'ble} court may be^pleased to^{issue an appropriate writ, order or directionmore} particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF^{MANDAMUS declaring the action of} ine ZnO respondents^{in entertaining and registeringthe unilateral cancellation} deed Doc No. 1728^{of 2O14 cancelling the development agreement cum general} power of attorney Doc No.^{2O4O of 2009 dated 05.02.2009 as illegal arbitrayand} without^jurisdiction and^{consequentially deed documenlNo. 1728 of 2014 dated} 28.05.2O14 and further^{declare that any consequential documentis executed is a} void document and^{quash the sameand alsodirect the concerned sub registrars} to remove the entries^{in the encumbrancecertificate with regard to the said} documents.

¶23

.A. NO: 1OF 2017 WPMP-^{NO: 22096 OF 2017}

¶24

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleasedto} grant interim direction direct the Bth^{respondent to issue necessaryinstructions} io all the Sub-registrars^{within his} iurisdiction^{not to entertainany document for} registration in reiation to Sy.Nos.134^{(ac.10.20gts), 137 (Ac.04.01gts),-1 16/4} (A;.01.37 gts), 1 12 (Ac.01.00^gts), 117^{(Ac.02.03 gts), 1 18' 121 & 122} in".OO.Oegti),^{128 (ac.06.03sts),123 (Ac.18.f3 gts), 135 (Ac.01.38 gts)' 138} iR".o.to^{gt.i, rae (Ac01.09 Gts), 113 (Ac.08.28 gts), 133 (Ac.02'00gts),r34&} iss (nc.og.zz^gts), 124 &^{125 (Ac 03.19 gts), 132 (Ac.05'36gts)' 124 Et 't25} Rc.OO.OO^gts), i2O,¹²⁷ Et^{128 (Ac.1707 gts), all that situated at Motighanpur} Village and 6rampanchayat,^{Balanagar Mandat, Mahaboobnagar Districtwhich} are [he subject matter oi the^{development agreementcum General Power of} Attorney Doc.No.2040 of^{2009 dt.05.03.2009.}

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR}

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents^{No.1, 2, 7 & 8 : GP FOR REVENUE} Counsel for the Respondents^{No.3to 6 : SRI Y KRISHNA MOHAN RAO} The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶27

THE HOI{'BLE SRI JT'STICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER^KUMAR WRIT PE-TITION lto.18G)Z OF 2Ol7

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard Sri Rapolu Baskar, learned, counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and Sri Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Nos.3 to 6.

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in entertaining the registration of cancellation deed dated 2a.O5.2O14 vide document No. 1728 of 2014, thereby cancelling the Development Agreement - cum - General Power of Attorney (for short DAGPAJ dated 05.O3.20O9^vide document No.2O4O of 2OO9 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

The admitted facts are that the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein have executed a registered DAGPA dated 05.03.2009 vide document No.204O of 2OO9 in favour of the^petitioner herein in respect of land situated in various survey numbers of Motighanpur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District u,ith various terms and conditions, creating rights and obligations on either of the parties to the document. The said registered DAGPA was cancelled by the respondent Nos.3 to 6

¶32

2 MSK,J W.P.NO.18097^()F 2017

¶33

herein by executing and registering the cancellation deed dated 28.05.2014 vidc document No.1728 of 2Ol4 on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to discharge her obligations under the said development agrecment and that she has committed breach of the terms of the said DAGPA.

¶34

It is the contention ol the Iearned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.S crores to the responder-rt Nos.3 to 6 at the time of execution of DAGPA and that the respondent Nos.3 to 6 never cooperated with the petitioner in obtaining various pcrmissions for the purpose of development of the subjcct land and inspite of the same the petitioner has taken severa I clcvelopmental activities incurring huge expenditure over the sr-rbjcct land and it is only because of the failure of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in discharging their obligations undcr the DAGPA, the obligations of the petitioner could not bc complied with. It is further contended that in case, if there are any disputes th:rt arise between the parties to the DAGPA, the parties are at libcrty to invoke the arbitration clause provided under thc said agreement, but under no circumstances, the respondcr-rt Nos.3 to 6 are entitled to cancel the DAGPA by registering rhc cancellation deed thereby, cancelling ttre said DAGPA. l-carned counsel for the petitioner

¶35

3 MSK,J W.P.NO.1EO97 0F 2017

has also placed reliance on various^judgments in Gaddam Laxmaiah and others v. Commissioner and Inspectbr General, Registration and StampS, Hyderabad and othersr, Thota Ganga Laxmi and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others2, N, Surendra Babu, Hyderabad v. The Sub Registrar, R.R. District3 and various other^judgments of other High Courts

¶40

On the other hand, Sri Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6 has contended that the petitioner has committed breach of terms of DAGPA and failed to undertake any activit5r in the subject land even after lapse of five years, as such respondents got issued legal notice dated 29.O3.2014 and inspite of receipt of the said legal notice, the petitioner failed to respond to the same and thereby, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 were forced to execute and register the cancellation deed cancelling the DAGPA. He further contended that the respondent Nos.3 to 6 are well within power to cancel DAGPA and raised objections about maintainability of Writ Petition under Artlcle 226 of the Constitution, contending that if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of the

¶41

r2ol8(r)AI_D512(Du)

¶42

r (l0lo) l5 Supreme Coun ( ascs !07

¶43

' \'r rt Appcal No. I.184 of l{) | ? (tlrsposcd on 03.03.2022)

¶44

MSK,J W.P.NO.18097 0F 2017

¶45

¶46

impugned cancellation dcecl, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and seek cancellation or setting aside of the said cancellation deed. I{e also^placed reliance^{on various} judgments in Satyapal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others4 and P. Veda Kumari and another v.^Sub - Registrar, Hyderabad and^anothers.

¶47

This Court carefully considered the^{submissions made on} either side and^{perused the rnatcrial available on record.}

¶48

The registration of canceliation deed^{czLncellingthe} previously registered bilateral clocuments^was in^{vogue prior to} the year 2006. ln the^year 2006 an amendment^{was made to the} then A.P.Rules under Registrzrtion Act, t9O8 by^introducing Rule 26 (!(kxi), rvhich rcads ;rs under:

¶49

'26.^{(il Eueru documentshall, before acceptance} .for^{reoktration,be exantined bu tLrc Reqisterinq} Offtcer to ensure tlrut all the requirements prescibed in the Act and in these rules haue been mmplied uith, for instance:

¶50

(a)......

¶51

(b) (c) .. .. - (d) (e)...-(fl ....

¶52

a 12016) I0 Suprcrne Court r'asc. -,''zorz^{1oy ato zo}

¶53

MSK,J w.P.!ro.18097 0F 2017

@)......

(h) .

(i) . .....

(i) .

tft)ft)^{The registratingoffrcer shallen sare at} the time of presentation for^{registration of} canellation deeds of^{preuiouslgregistered} deed of conueAances on sale^{beforehim tlnt} such cancellation deeds are executed bg^all the exealant and claimant^parties to^the preuiouslg registered conueAance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied^bA a declaration shouing mutual @rtsent^or orders of a competent Ciuil or High Court^or State or Central Gouemment annulling tle transaction contained in the^preuiously registered deed of conuegane on saleN"

¶61

The said amended rule came into force with effect from 29.11.2006. From the said date, an embargo was created on the registering authorities in entertaining registration of cancellation deeds cancelling the previously registered bilateral deeds. By virtue of the said rule, the registering authoriLies are under an obligation to ensure that the registration of cancellation deeds cancelling previously registered documents shall be by alt the parties, who are parties to the^previously registered documents and they shall consent for cancellation of previously registered documents. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner herein, who is one of^{the parties to the} previously registered DAGPA, is not before the^registering authority, u,hile entertaining the registration^{of the impugned}

¶62

6 MSK,J W.P.NO.1aO97 0F 2017

¶63

cancellation deed nor consented for such cancellation. In the absence of petitioner hcrein being a signatory to the Cancellation Deed, any action of respondent No.2 in entertaining registration of cancellation deed cancelling the said DAGPA, is contrary to the above said rule. Thr: said rule 26 (i)(k)(i) of A.P. Rules was very much applicable to the registration of cancellation deeds that l-rave taken^place even in^{the State of} Telangana till 01.06.2014. Thc said rule was substituted by the State of Telangana by issuing G.O.Ms.No.121^(Revenuefor registration - I Department) dated 01.06.20 16 with^{effect from} 02.06.2014, whereby the f<rllowing Rule 26^{(k) weLs substituted} in the place of previous nile 26 (i)(k)(i) and it reads^{as follows:}

¶64

'26. (i) Euery doanment shall, before^acceptance for registration examined by the Registering Officer^to ensure that all the requirements^prescribed in the Act and in tlese rules haue been complied Luith, for instance:

¶65

(a) . .. . (b)...... (c) ...... (d)......

¶66

(e) .-... . a.^. @)...-.(h)...... (il...... a)....^.

¶67

MSK,J W.P.NO.1EO97 0F 20L7

¶68

¶69

k)^{That the CanellationDeed of the preuiously} registered deed of^{conueyanceon sale of} immouable propertg is^{exeantedby both tLe} exeanting and tlte claiming^{partiestlereof unless} such Cancellation Deed is^{exeantedunder the} orders of a competent Court or^{under Rule 243."}

¶70

g. Even after the above said amendment,^{the effect of the} said rule continues to be^the same.^{The affect of the said rule} has come up for consideration^{before the Division Bench of this} Court in Gaddam Laxmaiah case^{(supra|, wherein this Court} after considering the entire case law on the subject, held as under:

¶71

'29. Thus, hauing^regard to the lau laid down bg the Supreme Court and prouisions of the Act, in our opinion, wheneoer registered documents such crs Deoelopment Agreementatm-GPA, is sought to be cancelled, execution and registrotion of such o document/ deed must be at th-e instance of both the parties i.e., biloterallg and not unilaterally. If a deed of cancellotion is alloued to be registered uithout the knouledge and consent of other partA to the deed/ document, sought to be cancelled, such registration uould cause uiolation to the principles of notural^justice and lead to unnecessary litigation, emanating therefrom. In ong case, as stated earlier, in the obsence of ang prouision speciftcallg empouering the Registrar to entertain a document of^canceLlation

¶72

MSK,J W.P.NO.1aO97 0F 20L7

¶73

¶74

for^{registrationuithoutthe signatures of boththe} parties to the document, tLe deed connot be entertoined. Moreouer. if the Registrars are aLlowed to entertain a deed of cancellation for registration without signahtres o.f both the parties tct the document sought to be cancelled, such pouter u.tould tantamount to anfaing tlrc pou.ter to decide disputed questions betueen the parties. No paty to the doqtment uould euer approoch for cancellation of registered docltment unilaterollg unless there is a dispute uith the otller pdrtA in respect of the subject matter of the document."

¶75

lO. The Honourable Apex Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi^case

¶76

(supraf also took a similar view and held as under:

¶77

"5. In our opinion, there utos no need for^tlrc appellants to approach the Ciuil Court as the said concellation deed datecl 4.8.2OO5 as well^cts registration of th.e same tuas wlnllg uoid and non est and con be ignored altogettLer. For illustrcttion if 'A' transfers a piece of lond to 'B' by a registered sale deed, then, if it is not disputed thot 'A' had the title to the Land, thot tile passes to 'B' on the registration of the sale deed (retrospectiueLy liom the date of tLLe exed.Ltion of tLrc same) ond 'B' then becomes the otaner of the Land. I 'A' utant:; to subsequently get that sole deed canceLled, he has to fi.le a ciuil suit for carrcellotion or else he can request 'B' to sell the' land- back to 'A' but bg no

¶78

![SK,J W.P.NO.1aO97 0F 20L7

¶79

¶80

stretch of imagination,^can a^{cancellattondeed be} exeotted or registered.^{This is unheard of in laut.}

¶81

In this connectian, ue^{maA olso referto} rub 26(t)(k) relating to Andhra^{Pradeshunder 5-69} of the Registration Act, uhich^stales.'

¶82

'The registeing oJficer shall ensure at the time of preparotion for^registration of^correLlation deeds of preuiouslg registered deed or^conueAances on saLe before him thnt such cancellotion deeds^are executed bg all the executant ond claimant^porties to the preuiously registered conueAonce on sale and that such carrcellation deed is acampanied bg a declaration shotaing natural consent or orders of a competent Ciuil or High Court or State or CentraL Gouernm.ent annulling the transaction contained in the preuiouslg registered deed of conueAance on sale:

¶83

Prouided that the registering olftcer shall dispense utith the execution of canceLLation deed bg exea)tant and claimant parties to the preuiouslg registered deeds of conueAonces on sale before him if the cancetlation deed is executed bg a Ciuil Judge or a Gouentment Offtcer competent to execute Gouernment orders declaring tLLe properties ontained in the preuiously registered conueAance on sale to be Gouemment or Assigned or Dndoument lands or properties not registerable bg ony prouision of laut."

¶84

10 MSK,J W.P.NO.18097 0F 20t7

¶85

1 1. In the said judgment, the Honourable Apex Court considered the very same rule , which is extracted herein above and came to the conclusion that registration of cancellation deed behind the back of one of the parties is wholly void and nonest and can be ignored altogether. It was further held that one need not approach Civil Court questioning such cancellation deed. In N. Surendra Babu case^(supra), the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1484 of 2Ol7 also took a similar view.

¶86

Thus, the law on this aspect is well settled. In all cases of registration of cancellation deed, without all the^parties consenting for the same, registration of such cancellation deed is impermissible under law and such registrations are contrary to Rule 26 (k) ol Telangala Rules under Registration Act, 19O8. The Honourable Apex Court in the recent judgment in Asset

¶87

Reconstruction Company (Indial Limited v. S.P.Velayutham and others6 held that in case of violation of any rule or provision of Registration Act or failure of registering authorities in following the law, this Court is well within its power to entertain Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution o[ India for cancellation or setting aside of such documcnts

¶88

"^(2olt) 8 scc 2 to

¶89

MSK,J W.P.NO.rEO97 0F 2017

¶90

¶91

registered by the parties. The^{relevant portion of the said}

¶92

judgment reads as under:

¶93

"58. Tlerefore, in the light^{of (i) the Tamilnadu} Registration Rules discussed aboue; (ii)^the statutory schefiLe of Sections 32^to 35 of^{the Act} as uell as other prouisions as amended bg^the State of Tamilnadu; and (iii) the distinction between a challenge to the fvst 2 steps in^the pro@ss of execution of a document and tLe third step concerning registration, u)e^(tre of the considered uietu that the Diuision bench of the High Court was not ight in setting aside the order of the learned single Judge. If the Registeing Officer under the Act is anstrued as performing onlg a mechanical role uithout ang tndependent mind of his ou)n, then euen Gouernment properties mag be sold and the doanments regi.stered bg unscrupulous persons diuing tle parties to go to ciuil aurt. Such an interpretation maA not aduance the cause of justice.

¶94

Therefore, in fine, tle appeals are alloued, the impugned order of tLe Diuision Bench is set aside and tle order of tLte leamed single Judge is restored. Tlere will be no order as [o cosfs. "

¶95

Coming to the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the un-official respondent Nos.3 to 6 in Satyapal Anand case lsupraf and P. Veda Kumari case (supral are concerned, the said^judgments have no application to the case on hand. The case of Satyapal Anand [supraf is a case of disputed question of fact and there is no rule like Rule 26 (ixk[i) of Telangana Rules came ti fl'. .o.,"iaeration in the said case.

¶96

¶97

l2 MSK,J W.P.NO.1aO97 0F 20L7

¶98

In the instant case, there are no disputed questions of facts are involved. [n so far as P. Veda Kumari case (supral is concerned, the said judgment categorically held that unilateral cancellation of previously registered document was^permissible only prior to the introduction of Rule 26^(iXk) but not thereafter. ln the instant case, admittedly the document in^{question was} registered on 28.05.2O 14 and whereas the Rule 26^{(i)(k)(i) was} introduced with effect f.om 29.LL.2006 and^{u'as further} amendcd with effect from O2.06.2014. Therefore, the^said judgment in Veda Kumar case is also of no help to advance the case of respondcnt Nos.3 to 6.

¶99

tn the light of the above, the action of respondent No.2 in entertaining registration of the impugned cancellation deed unilatcrally at the instance ol' respondent Nos. 3 to 6 is totally i[[egal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 26 (ixk) and accordingly the same is set aside and respondent Nos.2 arrd 7 are further dircctcd to Lake all necessary steps for making necessary entries in the relevant registers ir-rcluding the encumbrance register withitr a pcriod of lour weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of thrs ordcr.

¶100

¶101

MSK,J W.P.NO.1aO97 0F 20L7

¶102

l U

¶103

It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of respondent Nos.3 to 6 in pursuing their remedies against the petitioner in the matter of alleged breach of terms of DAGPA in accordance with law including for cancellation of the said DAGPA, if they are so advised.

¶104

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶105

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous

¶106

applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶107

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN, on this FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSANO AND TWENTY THREE

¶108

SO/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶109

//TRUE COPY//

¶110

SECTION OFFICER

¶111

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar (For His Lordships Kind Perusal)

¶112

To,

¶113

'1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶114

The Joint Sub-Registrar Atmakur, presently Wanaparthy, District Telangana State.

¶115

Mrs.Farha Shams, Wo.Mir Mujahid, R/o.H.No.21-4-829, Petla Bud, Hyderabad-

¶116

Mir Mujahid Ali, S/o.Mir Sarfaraj Ali, R/o.H.No.21-4-829, Petla Bud, Hyderabad.

¶117

Mrs.Sayada Qaiser Sultana, Wo.Mohammed Arif Aziz, R/o.H.No.21-4-829, Petla Bud, Hyderabad.

¶118

The Managing Director Mir Mujahid Ali, S/o.Mir Sarfaraj Ali Aged And its Directors : 1) Mir Azam Ali, S/o.Mir Sarfaraz Ali 2) Mir Munawer Ali, S/o.Mir Sarfaraj All 3) Mir Wajahat Ali, S/o.Mir Sarta.az All M/s-Cosmo Hatcheris Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at H.No., 21-4429 Petla Bud, Hyderabad.

¶119

The Sub-Registrar, Jadcherla Mahaboob Nagar District, Telangana State. 8. The Commissioner & lnspector General Registration and, Stamps M.J.Road, Jambagh, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶120

One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate IOPUCI

¶121

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

¶122

.l 1. One CC to SRI Y KRISHNA MOHAN RAO, Advocate [OPUCI

¶123

11 LR Copies.

¶124

13.The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

¶125

14.The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶126

15.Two CD Copies. BSK

¶127

-..--,-,-+-r..,?----:.s,E!F?.rrqgrr;g!11+F:r:.=-

¶128

BSK $t( -:^g!Q- uf€*-.

¶129

HIGH COURT

¶130

DATED: 1 6 10612023

¶131

I rAI e: tJ,c ,{
-'',i
NB ri
n 1 \r\t - ?l
| ...,
t,
-' -t-'=";:'t"

¶132

ORDER

¶133

WP.No.18097 of 2017

¶134

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶135

2<br>? ,
Lr)
6s(-

Y.Ramalakshmi, W/o.Y.S.Brahmam v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Ramalakshmi, W/o.Y.S.Brahmam v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Sameeruddin Vs The State of Telangana

Shameeza Faiz, Vs Union Of India

Animugh Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Palamuru University and 2 others

Howjekar Anjana Bai Vs Gaikwad Girija Bai

Manda Satyanarayana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Miryalakar Chandra Mohan Vs Sri G.Prasad