Dismissed

Smt.Nakka Padma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Feb 2023WP/44117/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition seeking mandatory registration of sale deeds for agricultural land. The Court held that since the vendor had lost a suit for specific performance and lacked title, enforcing the transaction would facilitate fraud and multiple litigations, precluding the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim order dated 21.12.2022 vacated; no order as to costs.

Smt.Nakka Padma Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

N/ONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOi 44117 OF 2022

¶8

Between

¶9

Smt. Nakka Padma, Wo. Jitendar, Age. 34 Years, Occ. House wife, R/o. H.No. 4-91, Buggaram, Jagtial District. 505454, T.S.

¶10

Thatipamula Raju, S/o. Lachaiah. Age.4'l years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.410414, Pegadapelly, Jagitytal District, Telangana State - 505532.

¶11

Kothakonda Srinu, S/o. Rajamallu, Age.45 Years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No 2-1 84, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Distrrct, Telangana State- 505001 .

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Dastrict Collector, Karimnagar Dlstrict, Kanmnagar.

¶16

The Tahsildar, and Joint Sub Registrar, Kothapalli, Karimnagar District. 4. Erram Kanaka Reddy, S/o Bhoom Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kothapelli (haveli) Village and mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶17

(Respondent No.4 is impleaded as per Court Order dt.27 .02.2023 in l.A. No. 1 of 2023)

¶18

...RESP.NDENTS

¶19

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS by declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in refusing to receive the documents presented by the petitioner No.1 in favour of Petitioner No. 2 and 3 in respect of Agricultural Land admeasuring an extent Ac 0.0500 Gts to petitioner No.2 and Land admeasuring Ac 0.0500 Gts to petitioner No.3, both situated in Sy. No. 7761778E11, of Kothapalle (Haveli) Village and Mandal, Karimnagar Diskict, by referring to the Docket Order in t.A. No. 3 of 2021 inA.S.No. 24 of 2021 as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to receive the documents presented by the petitaoner No.1 for registration rn respect of Agricultural Land admeasuring an extent Ac 0.0500 Gts

¶20

in favor of^{petitioner No} 2 and^{Landadmeasuring Ac 0.0500 Gts in favor of} petitioner No 3. both situated in Sy. No 7761778E1 1. of Kothapalle (Haveli) Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District,^{without referring to} the Docket^{Order passedby} Vll Additional Sessions Judge. Karimnagar in l.A. No.³ of 2021 in A.S. No. 24 of 2021.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^Court may be^pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to receive forthwith and register the document^presented by the petitioner No.1 for registration in respect of Agricultural Land admeasuring an extent Ac 0.0500 Gts in favor^petitioner No 2 and Land admeasuring Ac 0.0500 Gts in favor of petitioner No.3, both situated in Sy. No. 7761778E11, of Kothapalle (Haveli) Village and Mandal. Karimnagar District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶24

Between:

¶25

Erram Kanaka Reddy. S/o. Bhoom Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Kothapelli (haveli) Village and mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶26

-..PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESPONDENT

¶27

AND

¶28

Smt. Nakka Padma, Wo. Jitendar, Age. 34 Years, Occ. House wife, R/o. H.No. 4-91, Buggaram, Jagtial District, 505454, T.S.

¶29

Thatipamula Raju, S/0. Lachaiah, Age.^.41 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 4- 104/A, Pegadapelly, Jagitytal District, Telangana State - 505532.

¶30

Kothakonda Srinu, S/o. Rajamallu, Age. 45 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 2-1-84, Karimnagar, Karjmnagar District, Telangana State- 505001.

¶31

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS

¶32

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Regiskation and Stamps) Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad.

¶33

The District Collector, Karimnagar District,. Karimnagar.

¶34

The Tahsildar, and Joint Sub Registrar, Kothapalli, Karimnagar District.

¶35

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3

¶36

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court maybe pleasedto}

¶37

vacate the interim order dt21l12l2O22 in lA No.1 ot 2022 tn WP No.441 17 ot 2022 and dismiss the said writ^petition with costs.

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G.SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY

¶40

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶41

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.44117 of 2022

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleacler for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for respondent 4.

¶44

This Court by an order, dated 21.)2.2022, directed respondent No.3 to forthwith receive and register the document presented by petitioner No.1 for registration in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.05 guntas in favour of petitioner No.2 and Ac.0.05 guntas in favour of petitioner No.3 situated in Survey No.776 / 778El 1 of Kothapalle (Haveli) Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶45

Respondent No.4 filed I.A.No. 1 of 2O23 seeking to implead him in the main writ petition as well as in the miscellaneous petitions, along with the vacate petition seeking to vacate the interim, order dated 21.12.2022, granted by this Court.

¶46

From the material on record, it is noticed that the vendor of petitioner No.1 herein, namely, Gunda Rajamallu, filed O.S.No.157 of 2008 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge,

¶47

i,,

¶48

I(arrninagar,^{seeking spscificperfor:nauceof etgrecrnent of sale} daterl 1.5.06,2005^{and also seckingcancellationof the documcr.rt} bearirrg No.2288^{of 2OO8 stancling in the namr:of respondentNo.4} herein and^{also the} 'locument^{of the vendc,'ofrespondentNo.4} herein bearing^{No. 1296O of 2005. The said suit rvas originaliy} decreed by^{judgmentanddecreedaLe'l27.O9.2O16 and in terms of} the said decree,^{Gunda Rajamallu obtaineda sale deed in his} favour. Ho,wever,^{on an appeal filed by respcndent No.4herein in} A.S.No.121^{of 2016, the matter wztsremanCed back to theU^ial} Conrt by^{judgment and decree,datcd 14.1O.'2O19,and thereafter} the said suit^{came to be dismissedby .judgmentand decree datcd} 17.O2.2O21.^{Aggrievedthereby,the said GunciaRajamallu filed an} appeal in^{A.S.No'24of 2O2l on the hle of the VII Ad<litional} Sessions Judge,^{Karimnagar,and in the se.id appeal' an interim} order *,as^{passedrestrainingrespondentNo'4 from alienating the} subject property.^{During the pendencyof the said appeal,} Gunda Rajamallu^{executed a registered sale deed in respect of the} very sarne property in^{favour of petitionerNc. Ihereinand the} salne was registered^{by responclent No.3,q'ithout any objection.} However, when the^{petitioners hereiu} intencied to executer further sale deed in respect of the very san-re property, respondent No.3 refused to carry out the same by placing retiance on the interim

¶49

I \

¶50

order passed in A.S.No.24 of 2021. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶51

As noted above, this Court passed an order on 21.12.2022 and there is no dispute on the factual aspects, as noted hereinabove, the vendor of petitioner No. I herein, namely, Gunda Rajamallu, who lost the suit filed by him seeking specific performance of agreement of sale, taking advantage of the pattadar passbook and title deeds standing in his name, though he lost his suit, executed a registered document in favour of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 is now taking steps to execute further documents in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

¶52

Taking into consideration the undisputed facts and circumstances that as on date the execution of the sale deed in favour of pelitioner No. t herein, her vendor, Gunda Rajamallu, was not having any title over the slrbject property consequent upon the dismissal of the suit hled by him seeking specific performance, the petitioner No. 1 also did not acquire any title over the subject property.

¶53

In the light of the above, the^jurisdiction of this Court under Arncle 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to^be invoked to make fraudulent transactions and to create multiple

I I l (

litigations causing prejudicc to the itrnocent persons, who are una'.^,are of the'pencling litigations. As orr Cate, adrrittedly. the vendor of thc petitioners namciy, Gunda Rajamallu, does not have an-v title as on the r-late of execution of the sale deed in favour ttl peiitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.1 tras also not acquired any right or tifle over the subject property.

¶58

In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Ho.,vever, in case, if the vendor of the petitioners, narnely, Gunda Rajamaliu succeed.s in A.S.No.24 of 2021 pending orr the file of the VII Arlditional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, it is open to ttre petitioners to take further steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

The interim order granted by this Court shall sterlrd vacated.

¶60

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pcnding in this writ^petition

¶61

shali stand closed.

¶62

SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY/i secrroff6;ilin

¶63

'" I ?'13 3SJlfEi?34-JiX^3ASX^41:iqB+?"^YiJ- Hish court^{ror the} 4. .^g*:""E Two CD^{1""'s CoPiesA? fl ihfl} 'lllflXt€s 0f? H]1"",^t" ro^{p u ct} PSK.

us g*

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710212023

ORDER

WP.No.44117 ot²⁰²²

ti. l.
t'<br>4$'
I
st"
";<br>,

¶70

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶71

a
\fi
\o6
)'
gss

Smt.Nakka Padma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Nakka Padma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. K. Nirmala W/o late Mr. K.v.S. Tirupati Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal

Rajendar Kumar jain Vs Sri Somesh Kumar

Kokkirala Narayana Rao Vs R.V Karnan and another

Ravinder Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Smt. Thangallapalli Raju Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Manthena Dayakar Vs The State of Telangana