Disposed

Sri Jaipal Reddy Tankasala v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jul 2025WP/3775/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging refusal to register a Rectification Deed and Sale Deed for a plot at Mahindra Hills, Secunderabad. Following dismissal of connected W.P. No.19106 of 2010, the court made absolute its earlier interim order directing registration and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 11.02.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 made absolute; writ petition disposed with clarification that registration confers no title; no costs.

Sri Jaipal Reddy Tankasala Vs State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^{3302 l}

¶2

H'GH^couRr'?T IlED8IiIis: ]':,onoo (SPecial^{Original Jurisdictron'l}

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THE TENTHDAY OF JULY} 'i.,Vii"r"'rousnND AND TwENTY^FlvE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE^{HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEK' SARATH}

¶6

WRIT PETITI^{ONNO:3775oF2o22}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri^JaiPal Redd ,,k1131'it;]fi hSisT:i;3;,Eil'J;,ff^{#iB3Hi""'*Y:H;3"ffi;} Business' R/o Road,^{Secunderbad -500o20.}

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 R$:sJi?ifl?1';ffi ?:",::i]:1*::{':J':'':?isi',ifi"ietaryDepartmentof

¶12

¶13

¶14

The District^{Registrar' Hyderabad District'Hyderab.ad.}

¶15

The Sub-Registrar,^{Bowenpally'Secunderabad}

¶16

.....RES'.NDENTS

¶17

Petition^{UnderArticle 226 of the Constitutionof lndi) praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Court may be} pleased^{to issue an Order' Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of} Writ of^{Mandamus dectaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in refusing to} receive^{andregister tne ReJtificationDeed and Sale Deedin respect of all that} open^{plot No 67 forming part of Sy No 7416situated at MahindraHills' East} Manedpally,^{SecunderabadCantonment' Secunderabad admeasuring 34666} Sq.Yds,^{by declaring G O lvls No 60g dated18tOBt2OO4'as illegal'arbitrary'} unconstitutional^{and against the provisions of law and consequently direct the 3rd} Respondent^{hereinto registerthe Rectification Deedand Sale Deedpresented by} the^{petitioner and releasethe same'}

¶18

l..A.NO:1 o F 2022

¶19

Petition Undr:r Section i 51 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 3rd Respondent to receive and register the Rectification Deed and Sare Deed in respect of ,rll that \irah ndra H s, Ea st r*ffi:,lJ:tJ:rT:Tl; :T::::]; :::;::ffi : admeasuring 346 66 sq yds, and rerease the same pending disposar of the writ petilion.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner : SRt SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA Counsel for the Respondents : AGp FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK'SARATH}

¶23

WRIT^{PEf,ITION No.3775ot 2022}

¶24

oRDER:

¶25

Heard learned^{counsel for the petitionerand learned} Assistant^{Government Pleader forStampsand} Registration^{appearing for the respondents and perused} the material^{on record'}

¶26

2 Learned^{counselfor the petitionersubmitsthat at the} time of^{ad.mission, thisCourt granted interim order} on 11.O2.2022,^{directingthe RegisteringAuthoritiesto} receive^{and register thedocument Presented bY the} petitioner^{if it is otherwise found to be in compliance with} the requirements^{of the Registration Act'ttgog, and tne} Indian^{StamPAct, 1899'}

¶27

TodaY,^{when the matter rstaken uP for hearing,} learned.^{counsel for the petitioner submitsthat1n} pursuance to the^{interim orrler passed by this Court} on 11.O2.2022,^{theRegistering Authorities have} registered the^{subject document'}

¶28

¶29

Learned Counsel for both sides submits that the connected matter in W.p.No.19106 of 2Oi.O filed bv the State Government against the order in LGC.No. .167 of 1997 passed by the Special Court under the A.p. Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad, was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28.O5.2025.

¶30

5 In view of lhe submissions made by both sides and in view of the ,lismissal of W.p.No.19106 of 2OIO on 28.05.2025, rhe interim order passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.377S of 2022 dated 11.O2.2O22 is made absolute. Accordinglv, the writ petition is dispc,sed of.

¶31

It is made clear that mere iegistration of the document does not confer title on the subject property and it is also made clear that this order would not have any bearing on all those matters where title/rights of the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision/appeals Ibr adjudication and in any other case this order also does not preclude the parties in asserting

¶32

their rights before^{a competentCourt of law' There shall}

¶33

be no order^{as to costs.}

¶34

Miscellaneous^{Petitions, if any, pendingin this writ}

¶35

petition shall stand^closed.

¶36

sD/- \ REKHA^RANI / ANT REGISTRAR

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

CTION OFFICER

¶39

To 1. The PrinciP^{al Secretary,DePa rtmentof Revenue, Sta} and registration, Secretariat,^{Stateof Telangana at Hyderabad}

¶40

2 The District^{Registrar, Hydera bad Diatrict, Hyderabad} The Sub-Registr^{ar, BowenPallY,Secunderabad}

¶41

4 Two CCs to GP^{FOR REVENUE, HighCourt for the State} of Telangana at Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶42

s ij;;"bCi;Sit^{sntNtvnsaRAo PACHWA, Advocate [oPUCl}

¶43

Two CD^CoPies

GJP rr

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010712025

ORDER

WP.No.3775 of 2022

/- - ., , - - -,:<br>,- ..,1 ,f . :i> _--<br>().,\
,' \
?A SFP ?W
t

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶53

AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION

¶54

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶55

q.,fld
Yr-
6{a'

Sri Jaipal Reddy Tankasala v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jaipal Reddy Tankasala v. 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

Salvaji Venkata Ramana Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Cheruku Sree Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

The Vimalananda Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs State of Telangana

Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

M/s. Gvns Toll Way Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Parvathi Madhav Yejage, Vs State of Telangana