Allowed

M Sudarshan Goud v. Prl.Secy., Revenue Hyd., and 4 Others

Telangana HC20 Feb 2023WP/19402/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a sale deed by the Revenue Officer under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. The Court held the Act did not apply due to lack of egotiation that the property belonged to the senior citizen and struck down the order for lack of notice to the purchaser.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the registered sale deed was set aside; the writ petition was allowed.

M Sudarshan Goud Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Hyd., and 4 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 l

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION : 19402 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

M. Sudarshan Goud, S/o. Late. M.Ga nga Goud, Aged 58 years, Occ: Business, &o.^{H. No.3-69/1, village, KisanNagar,} Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Offic'er, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. Smt.G.Narsu BaiWo. Gangaram, Age 76 years, No.1-7911, Kisan Nagar Village, ; Ba lkonda Mandal,-N izamaiad Oidtrict.

¶15

Smt.G.Narsu Bai, Wo. Gangaram, Age 76 years, R/o. 1 -7911, Kisan Nagar Village, Balkonda [Vlandal, Nizamabad District.

¶16

Qgngam Devidas, S/o. Late Gangaram, Aged 52 years, Occ: Running School, R/o. Nirmal Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiq praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus, the action of the 3rd Respondent in declaring the Regd. Sale Deed No. 1 19312015 dt: 1810312015 of the Petitioner as null and void in favour of the 4th Respondent by passing lmpugned Order in Proc.No. Lr.No. 8413018812015 dt: 2811212015 without making the Petitioner party to the lmpugned Proceedings and without notice, as arbitrary, illegal, without Authority, Jurisdiction and in violation of Sec. 23 of the [Maintenance And Welfare of Parents And Senior Citizens Act 2007, the provisions of the Registrations and Stamps Act and Rules, Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the lmpugned Ordei in Proc.No. L1.No. B4l3O18Bl2O15 dt:2811212015 forthwith, in the interest of justice.

¶19

|.A.NO:1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 23629 OF 2017)

¶20

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{HighCourt may be pleasedto} suspend the impugned order in Proc.No.^{Lr.No.84l301BBl2015dt: 2811212015,of} the 3rd Respondent,^pending the^{above Writ Petitionin the interest of justice.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.PONNAM^MAHESHBABU

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1to 3 : AGP FOR REVENUE}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4: M/s.PUL|PAT! RADHIKA}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.5 : SRI.MOHDSUBHAN PASHA}

¶25

The Court made the^{followingORDER}

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT No.1 of 2OL7

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶29

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in passing the impugned order vide proceedings No.Lr.No.84/3ol8gl2ors, dated 28.12.2015, wherein the registered sale deed, dated 19.03.2015, vide document No.l193 of 2015 obtained by the petitioner was cancelled behind the back of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

The facts of the case are that respondent No.4 filed a complaint before respondent No.3 under the provisions of the Maintenance and welfare of^parents and senior citizens Act, 2oo7 (for short, 'the Act, 2oor) alleging that respondent No.s, who is the son of respondent No.4, sold the house bearing No.3-69, wherein respondent No.4 was residing, without information to respondent No.4. Respondent No.3, after having conducted enquiry, issued the impugned proceedings cancelling

¶31

¶32

the sale deed, dated^{18.03.2015,vide document No.1193} oi 2015, under which the^{petitioner herein purchased the house} covered by said saie^{deed for a valuable considerationfrom} respondent

¶33

No.S herein.

¶34

The power of respondent^{No.3hereinunder Section23 of} the Act, 2OO7 comes^{into play only in case of any transfer of} property by way of^gift or^{otherwise,subject to condition that the} transferee shall^{provide thc basic amenities and the basic} physical needs to the transferor^{and in case, if the transferee} refuses or fails to^{providesuch amenitiesor physicalneeds,} such transfer shall^{be deemed to have been made by fraud or} coercion or under undue^{influence and shall at the option of the} transferor be declared^{as void by the Tribunal'}

¶35

No counter affidavit^{is filed by any of the respondents.}

¶36

From a perusal of the^{material on record, it is evident that} respondent No.S^{purchasedthe subjectproperty under a} registered sale,^{deed dated O2.O2.!994,vide documentNo.84of} lgg4 and the said^{property was sold in favour of respondent} No.4 by respondent No.5 under a registered sale deed, dated 18.o3.2o15, vide document No 1193 of 2ors. There is nothing

¶37

¶38

on record to show that the said propert5r'belongs to respondent No.4 nor the said propert5r was inherited from her father or her ancestors. In the absence of there being any material on record to show that the subject property was transferred in favour of respondent No.5 by respondent No.4, the question of invoking the provisions of the Act, 2OO7 does not arise.

¶39

Even otherwise, the petitioner herein is the beneficiary under the sale deed, dated 18.03.2015, and the said sale deed was executed on receiving a valuable consideration by respondent No.S, and as such cancellation of such sale deed cannot be undertaken by respondent No.3 without putting the petitioner herein on notice, who is prejudicially affected by the impugned order.

¶40

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous^petitions, if &oy, pending in this writ

shall stand closed

SD/.N.

//TRUE COPYII

ASSISTANT REG

SECTION

To 1 The Principal Secretary (Revenue), (Revenue.) Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶49

t 3 Ii: R5l::":"Ji"'':?*)J'=&[T':fl,3^{i$iiau,to'fi=**rou'^- --^</sup>

¶50

I smt.G.Narsu^Bai ryg'^{G3?s.ql9Als^1?S,.'"-"*'il;"1-7eiilxit'n Nasar </sup> Village, lt'lftonO'^{Mandal'-Nizamabad District'}}

¶51

1. fwo^{CC's to Gp FOR REViitiUE,rl',gn Corrt'iorttre State of Telanganaat}

¶52

. HYderabad' IOUTI 5.oneCCtoSRI.PoNNAI/TVIAHESHBABU,Adv-o19!9[oPUC] 6. One^{CC to M/s'PU-Ll.PrAIi nnoHtxn'-AdvocateIOPUCI} 7. one ic^{to SRl.tvlonosu'sl-inr'r CA5HA' Advodate (oPUC)} 8. Two^{CD CoPies}

¶53

S.A GJP pgrr

\ \

J 1 i ! ;

HIGH COURT

DATED i2010212023

ORDER

WP.No.19402 of 2017

-i. ::i- - :.1 '-: a.!\r i.\It
i.' .
2 B rlAH 2023
,:,.ri ':-: -' ^ 'a
. -+ : 1i!? r- :.' -

¶64

ALLOWING THE W.P

¶65

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶66

il
ruW,

M Sudarshan Goud v. Prl.Secy., Revenue Hyd., and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Sudarshan Goud v. Prl.Secy., Revenue Hyd., and 4 Others

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

Smt. Chida Saidamma Vs Sri Patil Hemanth Kesav I.A.S. and 2 others

M.Vijay Raja, Vs Sri Ramalingam, The Commissioner

Pulimamidi Ashwin Reddy Vs Sri.Dr.B.Gopi, I.A.S

P. Babu Pears and 5 Ors. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 3 Ors.

Mir Mujahid Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Tirunahari Vivekananda Swamy Vs The State of Telangana