Dismissed¶35

Vsbv Sharma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Feb 2025WP/5153/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Power of Attorney; cancellation of registered SPA; mandamus against District Registrar and Sub Registrar, Banjara Hills; substitute service of notice on attorney holder whose whereabouts unknown; revocation of agency at will of principal (Section 201 Indian Contract Act, 1872 - counsel's submission); Article 226 writ petition; Section 151 CPC application; W.P. No. 5153 of 2025; decided 20.02.2025; Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar; dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner ought to have filed an application for substitute service of notice on respondent No.4; approaching the Court directly by writ petition without taking that step was improper. ¶34

Vsbv Sharma Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵⁵ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5153 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

VSBV Sharma, S/o Ssrirama Sharma Aaccharya aged about 37^years occupation Business Rr/o H. No. B-2-293l82lJlllu333-8, Plot No. 333-B-lll, Road No. 79 and 82, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad^-500096, Telangana

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary Stamps and Registration Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Registrar, Banjara Hills (R.O), South Code No.1604 Enagadda, Hyderabad- T.G.,

¶13

The Sub Registrar, Banjara Hills (R.O,), South Code No.1604 Erragadda, Hyderabad- T.G.,

¶14

MOHAMMED MUJEEBUDDIN, S/O MOHD QUTUB UDDIN, Resident^of House No.19-5-441N35, Asad Baba Nagar, Kishan Bagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, Telangana state

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^{Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2^and 3^{in not} cancelling the Special Power of Attorney bearing Document No. 690/2024,^dated 0911112024, Registered in the Office of S.R.O, Banjara Hills^{(RO),Hyderabadas} illegal, improper, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the^principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider representation of the petitioner dated 1310212025 tor cancellation of Special^Power of^Attorney bearing Document No. 690/2024, dated 09/1^'112024, Registeredⁱⁿ the^{Office of} S.R.O, Banjara Hills (RO), Hyderabad.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

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 respondents 2 and 3 to consider representation of the petitioner dated 1310212025 for cancellation of Special Power of Attorney bearing Document No. 69012024, dated 09/'1 112024, Registered in the Office of S.R.O, Banjara Hills (RO), Hyderabad pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SAWANARAYANA DHARMAPURI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: - - - -

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JuSTICE N.V.SH RAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.S 153 of 2025

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not cancelling the Special power of Attorney bearing Doc.No.69O/2024 d.ated Og.ll.2024 registered at S.R.O. Banjarahills (RO), Hyderabad as illegal, and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.02.2025 for cancellation of said Special power of Attorney.

¶26

The facts of the case in brief are that petitioner claims to be absolute owner and possessor of schedule property bearing Municipal No.8-2-293/82/J /ilt/333-8, Plot No.333-B-III, Road No.79 and 82, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills purchased by way of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.7748 /2024 dated 09. lI.2024 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It is submitted that petitioner, due to his personal works, executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.4 uide registered Special power of Attorney

¶27

¶28

Doc.No.690l2024 dated 09.12.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation to respondent No.4 for revocation of Registered Special power of Attorney but respondent No.4 was not responding to cancel the above said Special Poq,er of Attorney on one pretext or other. ThereaJter, petitioner approached respondent Nos.2 and 3 and made a representation on 13.O2.2025 for cancellation of said Special Power of Attorney, whereas respondent authorities replied that without the order of this Court the sarne cannot be cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner further subm its that as per Section 20 I of the Indiarr Contract Act, 1872, the authority stands revoked at the u,ill of the principal. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.I to 3.

¶30

On a perusal of the said Special power of Attorney dated 09.11.2024, it is noticed that respondent No.4 is a party to the document and his signature has also been

¶31

¶32

¶33

obtained on the said document. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that no notice of cancellation was issued to respondent No.4 and the whereabouts of respondent No.4 is not known to the petitioner.

¶34

In such view of the matter, petitioner ought to have frled an application for substitute service of notice. Without doing the same, the petitioner has approached this Court directly by way this writ petition. As such the prayer sought in this writ petition cannot be granted and the same is misconceived and no direction can be granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to cancel the said Special Power of Attorney unless petitioner takes diligent steps.

¶35