Dismissed

Jella Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jun 2023WP/565/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed writ petitions challenging the registration of a General Power of Attorney revocation deed. The Court held that a Principal has the sole discretion to revoke an agency, even if the agent had already entered into a sale agreement, as the GPA does not create an estate or interest in the attorney. A Statutory Right to an opportuntiy for the agent to intervene was

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Jella Krishna Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

[^32s6 ]

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE NINTH^{DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOS:5811 565 82450F 2023

¶8

WP NO.5811 0F 2023:

¶9

Between:

¶10

Jella Krishna,^{S/o Shankarayya, Aged about 43. years'Occ} Business,^R/o H.i'6. i-a-l7i,^{kiianNagar, buvangiri,Yadadri-Bhonsir District} ...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State^{of Telangana,Rep by its Principal} 9lcr9tary'^Revenue

¶13

,'ff sffi?{"'-".:i:irlli''"lr:mAELf^ffi Medchal-Malkaigiri^District '^{,r,-,,.^i,} 3. The District^{Coltector ai tiedchal' Medchal-Malkaigiri District'} "etJi?[P8li;commissioner' l, ii: Eq:xt^qtf, [,ffi^{p5isiffiffii!il} fii{i?# r D s'ir^c'i 6 The Tahsildar,^{Alwal Il} i. iii" ii^{o"i;srtrar' Variauhanag3l:} $ig"J'31'lt?l-il113k, s/o^Paidakura 8. Sri^{Sai lnfra, Rep' ol'in"r",%7.;J;;.,} b;;. qr^.',"*s,^{Fr/o.H.No.4-33'}

¶14

[[',ift1*,tll3fl^{:il1il^d;;d"rllt':';t-t^t^i1ir"h?fff} il:e!.ro"" ' ;s."s:a: u gi:lllJl3,:3lllf, '$il'3"[x]: t District "'RE.P.NDENTS Petition^{under Article226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in tfre affiOavitfiledtherewith' the High Court may be} pleased^{to issue a writ or writs' order or direction' more particularlyone in the} nature^{of Writ of Mandamus' declaring that the action of the RespondentNo'4in} allowing^{the AppealUo slzoza daled 13'022023 by setting aside the refusal} order^{of the 7th Respondent' inspite of the orders in W'P'No565 of 2023and} petitioners^{application dated 02'01'2023' petitioner pertainingto the propertyof} the^{petitioner situatedin Sy.No.566to an extent of BB2'00 sqYards'} Yards^{and in Sy No 571/A to an extent of} Sy,No.568/AA^{to an extentof U'nOo} 'o' 3267.00^{Sq' Yardstot"r tO}*ring4838'00 Sq Yards' situated at Alwal Village

¶15

and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, violative of the Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 4th and 7th Respondents not to alienate or tranfer or create any kind of charge over the petitioner property situated in Sy.No.566 to an extent of 882.00 sq. Yards, sy.No 568/AA to an extent of 689.00 Sq. yards and in Sy.No.571lA to an extent of 3267.00 Sq. yards totar admeasuring 4g38.00 Sq. Yards, situated at Alwal Village and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District in favour of any third parties in accordance with the standing orders No. 21g(b) as substituted in G.o-Ms. No. 620 Revenue (Regn.r) Dept. dated 28.09.2002 and amended in G.O.Ms. No. 497 Revenue (Regn.l) Dept. dated 07.04.2003

¶16

lA NO: 1 oF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent Authorities not to transfer or create any kind of charge over the petitioner's property situated in sy.No.566 to an extent of 882.00 sq. yards, f]-!o1uuu'oo to an extent of 689 0o Sq. yards and in sy.No.5 71rAto anextent of 3267'00 sq yards totar admeasuring 483g.00 sq. yards, situated at Alwar Virage and Mandar' Medchar Markajgiri District to any third parties in accordance with the Standing Orders No. 2i9(b) as substituted in G.O.tr No 620 Revenue (Resn.r) Dept. dated 2'.os.2oo2;;;"",-"::''j:.::" dated 07 04 20., ,;",'::;:::::,[:ffi]l;",,i1"]"*,," rn"gn rr t-upt Counset for the petitionet''

¶18

FSi'.i [,l'liXfl L?H f,. t 8i,iR g ffi ..

¶19

COUNSEI fOr RESPONdENT NOS. 1 tO 7: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶20

Counset for Respondent Nos. g & 9: ___ WP NO;565 OF 2023

¶21

Between:

¶22

AND *:,li31l5iPP'#[UI?f ;,tyfir3l3li,.trJffi ,3,i,i,Business,R,o

¶23

...PEIITIOl\IER 1. 2.

¶24

trrffi,ffi,,g1.$r,l,1tr,&-{,1H,,ffi !j,i{:tu,x"*,," rchar Medchar_;;ilH;commissioner,

¶25

f')

¶26

¶27

r i^{i* F,#il#ry} [l{*1iff;ft#3ffift,iH#,::r,,,iffi

¶28

r i ilHir#f,'ni{

¶29

,s#F:{nTsu*utffirf,ffi',Fdffi

¶30

¶31

}'i.:,1,;};.,

¶32

...RESPoNDENTS petition under Article 226 of the constitutir ot lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit riteo .lrere,) h' the High court may be preased to issue a writ or writs, order o,. oir".,,o,'i more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring *rat tri Authorities in not takins action on the representa,"""::tff;lr[rff"#:"J the petitioner pertaining to the property of the petitioner situated in sy.No.566 to an extent of 982.00 Sq. yards, Sy.No.56g/AA to an extent of 689.00 Sq. yards and in sy.No'571rA to an extent of 3267.00 sq. yards totar admeasuring 4838.00 sq' Yards' situated at Arwar virage and Mandar, Medchar Malkajgiri District, as illegar' ',mprope r, arbitrary, unjust, viorative of the Articres 14, 21 and300_A of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 7th Respondent not to alienate or tranfer or create any kind of charge over the petitioner property situated in Sy'No'566 to an extent of882.00 Sq. yards, sy.No.s6B/AA to an extent of689.00 Sq. Yards and in Sy.No.571iA to an extent of 3267.00 Sq. yards total admeasuring 4B3B'00 sq. yards, situated at Arwar virage and Mandar, Medchar Malkajgiri District in favour of any third parties

¶33

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶34

Petition under section 1s'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased preased to direct the 7th Respondent and 4th Respondent to dispose of the Representation dated 02 0'1.2023 made by the Petitioner pertaining to not to alienate or tranfer or create any kind of charge over the petitioner's property sy.No.566 to an extent of 882.00 Sq. Yards, Sy.No.S6B/AA to an extent of 689.00 Sq. yards and in Sy.No.S71lA to an extent oI 3261.00 Sq. yards lotal admeasuring 4838.00 Sq. Yards, situated at Arwar virage and Mandar, Medchar Markajgiri District to any third parties, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SMT. KOMMULA HIMA BTNDU

¶35

¶36

'.'

¶37

Counsel^{for Respondent Nos'1 to 7: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶38

Counsel^{for Respondent Nos' 8 & 9: ----}

¶39

WP NO:8^{245 0F2023}

¶40

Between:

¶41

"!tB'Silf;,3itJ.Srt"t-ti,"..'l,'R,'""#'hS"& 3XS'X3,::W:I''PH1i'" ...PETITIONER District

¶42

AND

¶43

iig5!ffiig!,1iffi*.

¶44

Petition^{under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the} "i,",m.tznl-".-.i,i"o-in^ti"':nl^{j[r:f :,$;:'il;ff ,i,l;:?i{:T11]::i} i,l,?ft^{'"?Jil::'f,3':::#f} i1{r["iil;:i{:,'l:'f ifl :Tii"'}"Ji1",1'' altowins^{the Appeal No s'oY )i'?t i'i"j''g 'oz'zoz,z-rt.cdbv the 5th respondent} bv settins^{aside the} '""'u'"o"0""?"^{i'")-& zozz' aateooz'oi zo23 passed by the} following^{the procedure contemplated under the} 4ih respondent^{authority r.i} "", Reoistration^{Act, 1908} ';;^{;tn'r"t i"O without oivinq giving any proper} ooiortunitv^{to the petition"i"'t'"'"g'ili*Jioper'aroitraiv'uniust'violativeof the} nrti"les 14,21^{and aO0-O''or",n;'&'"riiirti""of tnJia and firinciples of Natural} Justice^{and unconstitutio narir rg"rin.ttn" provisions of Reqisiration Act,1908 and} oz'zoz.z^{made in-AppealNo' 5 of 2023'} consequently^declare 'n"^{l'0""'f i"i 'li} which was^{passed by tn"'iJ i:'ponolnt is illegal' arbitrary and set aside the} same IA NO: 10^{F 2023} 1 51 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated. in} Petitio^{n under Section} the affidavit^{filed in suPPort} "i^{inl p-"tltl"i', irt" Hign court mav be pleased be} , ori"i is^{oi.zozain nppeat No' 5 of 2023 on the.file} p leased to susPend^{the orde} ';;;;ft"dr.p;iuL ot t'" above writ petition pendins of 3rd^{resPondentauthoritY'} disoosal^{of the above writ petition} Bi[i'"} iii^it "^{i"tition"i' sRl cH' vENKATRAMAN}

¶45

counsel for^{Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR STAMPSAND REGISTRATION}

¶46

Counsel for Respondent No. 5: ---

¶47

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶48

i't

¶49

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUD}IEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.58 11. 565. 8 245 of 2023 coMMONORDER:

¶50

The subject matter of all the three writ petitions is one and the same and hence all the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶51

The parties are referred to as per their status in W. p. No.5B1l of 2023 for the sake of convenience. The facts of the case that red to fiIing of these writ petitions are as under:

¶52

,^{3. RespondentNo.g being the} absolute owner and possessor of the land situated in Survey Nos.566, 568/4,{ and 57 1 / A admeasuring 882.00 sq. yards, 689. oo sq. yards and 3267 sq. yards, totally admeasuring 4B3g sq. yards situated at Alwal Village and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, executed a registered General power of Attorney vide document No.54g9 of 2023 dated 20.O9.2022, in favour of respondent No.9 authorizing her to act on behalf of the respondent No.B and to deal with the above said property, in terms of the said GpA.

¶53

The said General power of Attorney was sought to be cancelled by respondent No.B by issuing a public notice and approached respondent,-,N o.Z for the purpose of registering a cancellation deed cancelling the said GpA dated 20.09.2022. The

¶54

¶55

MSK,J wp,5811-2023^{and batch}

¶56

said^{canceilationdeedln'as refused to be registered by respondent} No.7^{by passingan order dated 07'O1'2023on the ground that} the said^{revocation of GPA lr'as executedby respondentNo'8} unilaterally^{and all the parties to the principledeed i'e' 'GPA} have not^{executed the deed of revocation of General Power of} AttorneY

¶57

Aggrieved^{thereby' respondent No 8filed an appeal} under^{Sectio n72 ofthe Registration Act' 1908 before respondent} No.4^{and the said appeal rvas allowedby respondent No'4 by an} order in^{AppealNo 5 of2023 dated l3'O2'2O23'Aggrieved} thereby,^{respondent No'9 herein filed W'P' No'8245of 2023' The} petitioner^{in W'P' No'5811 of 2023 is claiming to be the person} entered^{into an agreement of sale in respect of the subject} property under^{an agreementof sale datedI 2 'lO '2022 executed} by respondent^{No'9 representingrespondent No'S As the GPA} which was the^{basis for respondentNo'9 to executethe} agreement^{of sale in favo ur of the petitioner herein is sought to} be cancelled^{by revokingthe sarne' the petitioner herein} approached this^{Court by filing this writ petition questioningthe} order passed by respondent No.4 in Appeal No.5 of 2023 dated 73.O2.2023

¶58

¶59

,r-rrrr-r.ra rr, iltli]

¶60

The petitioner also filed W.p. No.565 of 2023 on 05.01.2023 complaining against respondent No.7 on the ground that he is not taking any actiqn on the representation dated 02.O1.2023 submitted by the petitioner objecting for registration of the deed of revocation of GpA presented by the respondent No.B.

¶61

7 . From the material on record, especially the public notice that was got published by respondent No.g in the newspapers, it is noticed that respondent No.g intended to revoke the registered GPA executed by him in favour of respondent No_9 on the ground that respondent No.9 is acting detrimental to the interest of the respondent No.g

¶62

It is the case of respondent No.9 that she in exercise of her authority as GpA holder of respondent No.B already executed an agreement of sale in respect of the subject property in favour of the petitioner herein and respondent No.B already received an amount of Rs.Z,94,TB,4OO/_ out of the total agreed sale consideration of Rs.g,12,7B,4OO/_ thereby leaving only an amount of Rs. 1B,OO,O0O/_ as balance of sale consideration. It is also claimed that when the petitioner and respondent Nos.B and 9 approached responttEft No.7 for registration of sale deed,

¶63

¶64

¶65

M5K,l Wp 5811-2023^{and batch}

¶66

respondent^{No.7 refused to entertain registrationof the saledeed} on the^{ground' that the subject land' is notified as ceiling land'} Thereby,^{respondent No'B claimedto have approachedthis Court} No.3871^{of2022questioningthe actionof} by filing^W.P' in not^{registeringthe conveyancedeed and the} respondent^No'7 same^{is stated to be pendingfor consideration before this Court'}

¶67

g. The case^{of the petitioner herein is also the same as the} case of^{the respondent No'9 herein' In nutshell'respondent No'8} herein,^{who executed the registered General Power Attorney in} favgur^{of respondentNo'9 intended to cancel the said GPA on the} ground that^{respondentNo 9 is acting detrimental to the interest} of respondent^{No.8' The same was refused to be registeredby} respondent^{No,7 on the groundthat the deed of revocationis} executed^{byrespondent No 8unilateral'lywithoutthe} participation^{of respondent No'9 who was also the signatoryto} the registered^{General Po"t'er Attorney'GeneralPowerAttorney is} a document^{creating an agencyfor the principal to act for and on} behalf of the^{principaland also during the subsistenceof the said} GPA. So long^{as that authoritycontinues to operate' the agent} witl have authority to act for and on behalf of the principal.

¶68

¶69

MSK,I Wp_5811_2023 and barch

¶70

Whether to continue the agency so created^{or not is always at the} sole discretion of^the PrinciPal.

¶71

From the^{perusal of the contents of the registered GPA} in question, there^{is nothingto indicate that any interest was} created over^{the propertywhich is the subject matterof the said} General Power Attorney^{infavour of GPA Holder' The said} document is a^{simple General Power Attorney authorizing} respondent No.9^{to act for and on behalf of respondentNo'8' In} the absence^{of creating any interest in favourof respondentNo 9} over the^{propertywhich is the subject matter of the said General} Power Attorney,^{it isalways open for the principali'e' '} respondent^{No'8 whether to permit respondentNo'9 to continue} to act on^{his behalf or not and there cannotbe any impediment} on the^{freedom of the principal either to continue the attorneyor} to cancel^{the attorney' The attorney has no right or interestover} subj ect^{matterof the GPA' In the} the ProPertY^{which is the} or interest^{created in favourof the} absence^{of anY such right} pal to^{cancelor revoke the registered} agent,^{the right of the Princi} under^{anY circumstancesi'e'' the} GPA^{cannot be restricted} power^{that respondent No'8 intendedto exercise by presenting a}

¶72

r .,:

¶73

¶74

M5(,1 Wp_5811_2023 and batch

¶75

deed of revocatlon proposing to revoking the registerecl General Power Attorney executed bv it in favour of respondent No.9.

¶76

It is sel.tled la-"v that any such revocatjon of GpA r.r,.ould come into force oniy from thc date of such revocation and alr the acts and deeds committed b,v'' the agent on behaif of and for the principal prior to date of revocation of GpA would continue to be binding on the principal, as if the sajd documents were executed by the principar, ho*,ever, subject to proof of such acts having been done by attorney on behalf of the principal subject to compliance of the conditions if any imposed under the said GpA, and such acts are done in t(,rms of the GpA.

¶77

The contention of Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for tl-re petitioners that no opportunity IS afforded either to respor-rdent No.9 or to the pe titioner before presentation of the cleed of revocation for registration and also before passing the impr_rgned order by the respond"rrt fVo.+ i" concerned, this Court does not find any force or substance jn the said contention. In the Iight of the observatrons made herein above, neither the petitior_rer herein rruno r the Lrl€ respondent 1v0.9 is entifled for atty opportu.irr, ".:-' no,ice before*"".iilI:fl.:;:;;,,r., to be pur on on for registratron

¶78

¶79

MSK,] Wp 5a11_2O23 and batch

¶80

before respondent No.7 or before respondent No.4 while passing the order on the appeal filed by respondent No.B.

¶81

The reliance placed by Sri L. Ravichander on the judgments reported in (2010)15 SCC 207 and 2O1B (t) ALD S32 (DB) are concerned, in the considered view of this Court, the said judgments have no relevance nor application to the case on hand, as the said judgments dealt with the case of cancellation of conveyance deed/sale deed where a transfer of title and creation of interest in favour of the vendee/purchaser was there. Unrike a saJe'deed' in the instant case, no such right or interest is created in favour of the attorney. Hence, the said judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel is of no aid to advance the case of the petitioners.

¶82

If at ar any rights are created in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the agreement of sale stated to have been executed by respondent No.9 while acting for and on behaif of respondent No.8 by virtue of the registered GpA dated 22.09.2022. it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies by approaching competent Civil Court. Respondent - No.4 herein having entertained the appeal filed by respondent No.g has recorded reason for allowing the appeal which reads as under:

¶83

¶84

¶85

MSK,] wp-5811^2021andbatch

¶86

Lo is^ptot "As ueifu:d from^{the document' the propert-A} 'rekrred in su.no.S(tl/^{B' s71/ A} 'd;i":;;;;s" ;8,5u^,:o Il:;,"ii,i'1Lo"ff5[. oi^{no.t ond} .btock "X,":::;i:r\f",i i"i*ent and^aler Medctrtt^{-Motk o igi} I^{Di t!} ., u "sri' il)o',2",i. Vattabh n_uga r. ir i s fou nd i;:1ril""{:;il:tiiitin7?z':,:zi^,'::.:Zx^:1:;,1i,:i1 d oe)^{me n ti s in correc t'.i} "^o i il,'i'tr,", r,.,ilg ii,a9, h o d. t^{h e} n^{p roceede d} ?:!:::,Li:,'iioiTi"till,,' t i' o "'t "ed'^{ihe pin ci p.atis ho uin s e uery} t:;;"i;-"'o",'"i'i ii'' o'o,'' :',X.'n:,:;,i'r:;":f0".:r":::":i';,:7;; ilectins^{tt is th.e.-'',!} i! J":"[rii,^i"['ia" rhe refusat order^{uide No'} iitus,^{the appeal} .is.ollowe-^'-"" r'ioi, vouoannagar ancl^{the sub'} 02/2023 i:ri;;;r,-iottobnn'ogo'^{possed bg SUD is r<egrsrru'' ierebv d[rected} :::::,-;^to ;" tdmi lhe^atsaid ;Z;;;;,^{iI it othen'iscin ordcr'"}

¶87

The^{reasoning given by respondentNo 4 while passtng} the imPugned^{order'in the consideredview of this Court ts} perfectly^{valid and in accordance with law'}

¶88

The^{other contention oflearned SeniorCounsel} appearing^{for the petitioners by placing reiiance on standing} order^{No.219is concernecl, in the consideredview of this Court'} the said^{staIlding order does not come to the aid of the case of} the petitioner^{as the same can be invoked by the registration} authorities^{only in the case of any restraint order passedeither} by the Civil^{Court or by this Court restraining alienation of any} property either^{by the parties to the lis' or restraining the} entertaining^{registrationof} registering^{authoritiesfrom} docurnents. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no such restraint order passed by any Civil Court or by this CoUrt, except the lact that the wri t ncr ir i .,- r\T^ E,r r petit on No.565 of 2Oi3 filed by the

¶89

¶90

MSK, ] Wp_5E11-2023 and batch

¶91

',/,

¶92

petitioner is pending before this Court. The relief sought for in W.P.No.565 of 2023 also cannot be granted as the registering authorities a-re not conferred with any such power to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.01.2023 on the grounds mentioned therein, as the same is out of the scope and power conferred upon the registering authorities under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and registering authorities have no power to adjudicate thle inter se disputes of rival claimants. Neither infraction of any provision of law is pointed out nor any legal or constitutional right of the petitioner is shown to have been 'riolated by the respondent authorities.

¶93

In the light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petitions and all these writ petitions are dismissed, however, it is left open to the petitioners to work out their remedies by approaching the competent Civil Court if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶94

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶95

closed.

¶96

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶97

To, '1 . One CC to Sri Paramkusham Sri Harsha Advocate IQPUC] 2.TwoCCstoGPForStampsAndRegistration,HighCourtfortheStateor Telangana. [OUT] 3 d; iC to Smt. Kommula^{Hima Bindu, Advocate(oPUC)-} 4. iwo CCs to GP For^{Revenue,HighCourt for the State of Telangana' luu I I} 5. One CC to Sri Ch.^{Venkat Raman, Advocate(OPUC)} 6. Two CD Co^pres MBC GJP

¶98

HIGH COURT

¶99

DATED: 0910612023

¶100

1 11F- SiAr
( o o
Jo
c) 3O JIJN 2023 r li
'; 'l
,,,:,i
.'Srri',
-t-'

¶101

COMMON ORDER

¶102

565,8245 OF 2023

¶103

WP NOS: 5811,