SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Friday, June 27, 2025

Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1062

In the Supreme Court of India

(Before Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.)

Civil Appeal No…..…. of 2025

(@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1866 of 2024)

Mahnoor Fatima Imran and Others … Appellant(s);

Versus

Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Others … Respondent(s).

With

Civil Appeal No…….……. of 2025

(@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3660 of 2024)

Civil Appeal No…….……. of 2025

(@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3661 of 2024)

Civil Appeal No…….……. of 2025

(@Special Leave Petition (C) No……….of 2024)

(@Dy. No. 19071 of 2024)

Civil Appeal No…..…. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1866 of
2024), Civil Appeal No…….……. of 2025, (@Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 3660 of 2024), Civil Appeal No…….……. of 2025, (@Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 3661 of 2024) and Civil Appeal No…….……. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No……….of 2024) (@Dy. No. 19071 of
2024)
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decided on May 7, 2025

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Yelamanchili Shiva Santosh Kumar,
Adv., Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv., Mr. Rudrajit Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Ruchir
Ranjan Rai, Adv., Ms. Khyati Chhabra, Adv., Ms. Vriti Gujral, Adv., Mr.
Bikram Dwivedi, Adv., Mr. Manu Abhishek Bharadwaj, Adv., Mr. Avi
Leuna, Adv., Mr. Maria Jerome J, Adv., Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR, Mr.
Gaurav Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR, Mr. Kasi
Nageshwar Rao, Adv., Mr. Shyam Vasudevan, Adv., Ms. J. Akshitha,
Adv., Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv., Mr. J. Venkat Sai, Adv., Mr.
Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Yelamanchili Shiva Santosh Kumar, Adv.,
Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Yelamanchili.
Shiva Santosh Kumar, Adv., Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR, For Petitioner
(s)

Mr. Hiren P. Raval, Sr. Adv., Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh
Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv.,
Mr. Vidisha Swarup, Adv., Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv., Mr. Aryan Rachh,
Adv., Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR, Mr. S Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv., Ms.
Devina Sehgal, AOR, Mr. S. Uday Bhanu, Adv., Mr. Akhila Palem, Adv.,
Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR, Mr. Kasi
Nageshwar Rao, Adv., Mr. Shyam Vasudevan, Adv., Ms. J. Akshitha,
Adv., Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv., Mr. J. Venkat Sai, Adv., Mr. D.
Srinivas, Adv., Mr. T Ratnakar, Adv., Mr. T. Ratnakar, Adv., Mr.
Somanatha Padhan, AOR, Mr. Ashwini Kumar Das, Adv., Mr. Tarun
Gupta, AOR, Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR, Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR, For
Respondent(s)

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.:— Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from the order of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Telangana in a writ appeal filed from the judgment in a batch
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of writ petitions dismissed by a common order. The appeal was only

against the judgment in W.P No. 30855 of 2016; which writ petition
essentially prayed for restraining the Telangana State Industrial

Infrastructure Corporation Limited1, the first respondent therein from

attempting to enter into the land of the writ petitioners having an
extent of 53 acres, situated in Survey No. 83/2 of Raidurg Panmaktha,
Village Serilingampalle Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with prayers also
against demolition of the fencing and structures without any notice or
without any right or authority. The connected writ petitions also
claimed similar reliefs as against the first respondent, but with respect
to smaller extents of property, said to have been purchased from the
original owners. The appellants before the Division Bench claimed that
they are in possession of the subject property on the strength of
registered title deeds in which the vendor is one Bhavana Co-operative
2
Housing Society Ltd. who obtained possession of the land under an
agreement of sale on 19.03.1982. We are not concerned with the other
writ petitions since the impugned judgment in the SLPs are concerned
with only an appellate order reversing the judgment in WP No. 30855
of 2016 and allowing the said writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge after dealing with the various proceedings
taken against the total extent of 525 acres 31 guntas in Survey No. 83
of Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampalle Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, originally belonging to 11 individuals, under the Andhra

Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 19733

4
and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 confined the
consideration to the 53 acres. It was noticed that the agreement of
sale dated 19.03.1982 was validated by proceedings of the Assistant
Registrar, Ranga Reddy District on 11.09.2006 which validation was
held to be fraudulent by the District Registrar, Karimnagar by order
dated 12.08.2015. The No Objection Certificates issued by the Urban
Land Ceiling authorities against the writ petitioners also stood
cancelled, against which no proceedings were taken. There was
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nothing to show a valid title having been conferred on the writ

petitioners and the vendor of the writ petitioners had filed a suit for
specific performance; O.S. No. 248 of 1991 before the jurisdictional
civil court which had been dismissed for default on 06.04.2001 and the
application for restoration was also dismissed on 23.02.2004. Finding
no valid explanation as to how another agreement of sale of the same
date i.e., 19.03.1982 surfaced, relying on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu

(D) by LRs v. Jagannath (D) by LRs5 emphasised the fraud perpetrated

by the petitioners. The subject land was comprised in a total of 99
acres 17 guntas, covered by the agreement of sale dated 19.03.1982;
stated to be in the possession of the Government as on the date of the
agreement, having vested in the Government under the Land Reforms
Act. The possession was said to have been redelivered to the General
Power of Attorney (GPA) of the original declarants, thus, negativing the
claim of possession with M/s. Bhavna Cooperative Housing Society
from 1982. The writ petition filed on the ground of possession stood
dismissed.

4. In the appeal, the Division Bench found that the State was
concerned with only 470 acres of land out of the total 525.31 acres, as
per the learned Advocate General and hence the 53 acres stood
distinct and separate. The learned Single Judge, according to the
Division Bench, erred in so far as looking into the title of the writ
petitioners since the prayer was against illegal dispossession, based
merely on the possession of the subject land. As far as the possession,
interim orders by co-ordinate benches were relied on. One in WP No.
29547 of 2011, wherein a Division Bench by interim order dated
01.03.2011 restrained the Lok Ayukta from proceeding further in an
application filed by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure

Corporation Ltd.6, the predecessor of TSIIC. The other order was

passed on 17.02.2012 in WP No. 4466 of 2012 filed by the appellants
wherein there was a stay of demolition of the structures raised by the
writ petitioners (the appellants herein) in Survey No. 83/2 in Raidurg
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Panmaktha, Village Serilingampalle Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Relying on the settled legal position that a person in possession cannot
be dispossessed, except in accordance with law and finding the actions
of the TSIIC, to be in violation of the interim orders issued, restrained
the respondents from dispossessing the appellants from 53 acres
situated in Survey No. 83/2 as also from demolishing the fencing
sheets and construction raised by the appellants without taking
recourse to law.

5. The appeals before us have been filed by the party respondents in

the writ petition who are the legal heirs of the original owners and one,
by individuals claiming smaller extents of property. Before us, for the
appellants Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appeared, Shri
Hiren P. Raval, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the respondents
who are the writ petitioners and Shri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel appeared for the State of Telangana and the petitioners in SLP
(C) Diary No. 19071 of 2024 are represented by Shri P. Mohith Rao,
Advocate on Record, who adopted the arguments raised by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing in the other appeals.

6. At the outset, we notice that the writ petition is only one filed
seeking an order against dispossession, unless in accordance with law,
as noticed by the Division Bench. However, we cannot but say that the
learned Single Judge has not decided the question of title and has only
raised an apprehension on the asserted title and possession by the writ
petitioners. The title was asserted to be validly obtained by
instruments of conveyance, but the title of the vendor was suspect.
Likewise, possession, on the ground, in reality, had not been proved
was the essence of the findings of the learned Single Judge. Before we
look at the sustainability of the impugned judgment, we have to notice
that the subject land, rather the total larger extent; the original
owners being the 11 individuals, predecessors in interest of the
appellants herein, had a chequered career as is seen from the
decisions produced in the records; State of A.P v. N. Audikesava
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 8
Reddy and Omprakash Verma v. State of A.P. .

7. We notice the facts from Omprakash Verma8 which, at the outset,

found that one Mohd. Ruknuddin Ahmed and 10 others were the
original owners of a land admeasuring 526.07 acres in Survey No. 83
situated at Village Raidurg (Panmaktha) of Ranga Reddy District in the
State of Andhra Pradesh; comprised in which is the subject land of this
litigation having an extent of 53 acres. On 07.07.1974, the owners
executed registered GPA in favour of a partnership firm known as Sri
Venkateswara Enterprises, represented by its Managing Partners A.
Ramaswamy and A. Satyanarayana. On 01.01.1975, when the Land
Reforms Act came into force, the said land being an agricultural land,
the owners filed 11 declarations under the Land Reforms Act. About
99.07 acres was found surplus in the hands of 4 declarants and
possession was taken on 11.04.1975, which vested in the State
Government. Later, the Land Ceiling Act came into force and the
owners through their GPA, filed declarations under Section 6 (1) of the
that Act, allegedly on a mistaken impression, since the land in
question was agricultural land and it was not included in the Master
Plan under that Act.

8. Draft statements were issued on 06.12.1979 and 25.01.1980 under

the Land Ceiling Act. The final statements under Section 9 were issued
declaring the surplus area for each of the declarants on 16.09.1980
and 30.01.1980. A notification was issued by the competent authority
under Section 10 (1) by GOMS No. 5013 dated 19.12.1980 vesting the
surplus land determined. The State Government under Section 23 of
the Land Ceiling Act allotted 470.33 acres to the Hyderabad Urban
Development Authority (HUDA), the possession of which was not
surrendered. Later, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section
20(1) of the Land Ceiling Act, certain exemptions were granted,
entitling each holder of excess land to hold 5 acres instead of 1000 sq.
meters. A number of persons, including the appellants purchased
different extents of land which sale deeds were directed to be
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cancelled by the Inspector General of Registrations. The cancellation

order passed by the Registrar was challenged in a writ petition which
was allowed. A Division Bench rejected the appeal against which a SLP

was filed in N. Audikesava Reddy7, in which the decision of the High

Court was reversed. The State Government then took a decision to
allot the excess land to third parties who were in occupation of such
excess land on payment of prescribed regular charges, upon which the
original declarants sought for a consideration providing them to retain
the excess land on payment of requisite compensation.

9. The State Government without taking any action on the

representations allotted 424.13 acres of land in the name of APIIC
against which four writ petitions were filed in the High Court by
individual owners as well as one M/s. Chanakyapuri Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd., Secunderabad which Society claimed that the
proceedings of the competent authority under the Land Ceiling Act

stood restored by the judgment in N. Audikesava Reddy7 The Division

Bench rejected the writ petitions against which SLPs were filed which
8
were decided in Omprakash Verma's case. The learned judges in

Omprakash Verma's8 case rejected the contention that the original

owners had filed the declaration on a misconception and confusion. We
extract paragraph 86 to 88 of the cited decision:—

“86. It is not in dispute that the panchnama has not been

questioned in any proceedings by any of the appellants. Though it is
stated that Chanakyapuri Cooperative Society was in possession at
one stage and Shri Venkateshawar Enterprises was given possession
by the owners and possession was also given to Golden Hill
Construction Corporation and thereafter it was given to the
purchasers, the fact remains that the owners are not in possession.
In view of the same, the finding of the High Court that the
possession was taken by the State legally and validly through a
panchnama is absolutely correct and deserves to be upheld.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

87. It is relevant to point out the conduct of the appellants in the

previous proceedings which were highlighted by the learned Senior
Counsel for the State as well as APIIC. They are:

(a) the appellants themselves described the land in Survey No.

83 as “grazing land” in their declarations filed under Section 6
(1);

(b) the appellants filed declarations under the Land Reforms Act
subjecting the land to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal;

(c) filing declarations under the ULC Act treating the land in
Survey No. 83 as vacant land;

(d) the transaction of agreement of sale entered into between

GPA and Chanakyapuri Cooperative Housing Society;

(e) owners and Society filed applications for exemptions which

were rejected;

(f) Chanakyapuri Society pursued its remedies against such

rejection of exemption up to this Court in which the owners
through their power of attorney were sailing with the Society.

In fact these instances were projected in their counter-affidavit

before the High Court by the State and APIIC to non-suit the
appellants. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
pointed out that these aspects were not highlighted before the High
Court, the conduct of the appellants as regards the above aspects
cannot be ignored.

88. It is pointed out that the owners themselves have described

the land in Survey No. 83 as “grazing lands” and “vacant land” in
the relevant columns of their declaration under Section 6(1) and,
therefore, the proceedings of the competent authority under
Sections 8, 9 and 10 are valid. Though the said aspect had not been
disputed by the appellants, however, it is pointed out that the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mentioning of “grazing lands” in the said declaration is not

conclusive. However, as observed earlier, their statements in the
form of declarations before the authorities concerned cannot be
denied. In fact, we were taken through those entries which are
available in the paper book in the form of annexures.”

10. Hence, in so far as the land allotted to APIIC, now in the

possession of TSIIC, which is 424.13 acres, the vesting and allotment
has attained finality. There can be no dispute either of title or
possession raised on that land.

11. Now, we come to the 99.07 acres, vested under the Land Reforms
Act. While proceedings were continuing under the Land Ceiling Act,
which were also challenged on the ground that the entire lands were
agricultural lands, not included under the Land Ceiling Act, the GPA of
the original declarants filed a petition before the Land Tribunal pointing
out the proceedings taken under the Land Ceiling Act, asserting that
the provisions of the Land Reforms Act are not applicable since the
entire land in Survey No. 83 was treated as vacant land under the
provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. The GPA sought release of the
extent of 99.07 acres which was rejected. Four appeals were filed
before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority-cum-District Judge,
Ranga Reddy in which there was a remand. The Land Tribunal on
remand accepted the plea of the declarants and directed the extent of
99.07 acres to be released to the declarants; which according to the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State was not permissible.

12. Subject of the present appeals; 53 acres, is said to be comprised

in the 99.07 acres of land allegedly reverted to the declarants on
25.04.1990, the possession allegedly having been handed over to the
GPA of the declarants. In so far as the remaining 46.20 acres, there is
said to be a writ petition pending before the High Court in which the
High Court has permitted the State to protect the total 470.33 acres,
including the 424.32 acres earlier allotted to APIIC, now with the
TSIIC. While the appellants herein, the legal representatives of the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

original owners/declarants asserted their possession and ownership,

the respondents who are the writ petitioners equally assert their
possession on the strength of title deeds which have not been
challenged at all.

13. All the parties have filed their detailed written submissions. On the
arguments, suffice it to notice that Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there could be no
conveyance effected by the sale agreement of 19.03.1982 and the title
deeds executed cannot confer any title on the vendees since the
vendor did not have a valid title. The vendor in the said title deeds had
sought for specific performance which suit stood dismissed for default
and the application for restoration was also rejected. Based on the sale
deeds, the writ petitioners had taken loans from banks, offering the
said lands as collateral security, which had led to a CBI investigation
where the sale deeds were found to be fraudulent. Proceedings were
initiated under the criminal law against the writ petitioners and their
Directors. In so far as the 46.20 acres, the appellants would agitate
their cause in the writ petition pending before the High Court. The
remaining 53 acres was admittedly taken possession by the GPA of the
original declarants, which possession is with the appellants, the
ownership having devolved upon them.

14. Shri Hiren P. Raval, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents on the other hand submits that there is no challenge to
the sale deeds and the entire exercise is experimental, especially
considering the development agreement entered into with a builder as
is produced by the Respondent No. 1 to 7 through I.A. No. 83765 of
2025. Behind the scenes, the developer is funding the litigation in the
hope that the appellants who are all living abroad would obtain
possession of the disputed land on which the developer could carry out
their activities. Shri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on the
other hand submits that the State is concerned with 99.07 acres of
land which had vested in the State under the Land Reforms Act. The
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

land having vested with the State, there is no reason for reverting it
back to the original declarants who had claimed the said lands to be
agricultural lands when the Land Reforms Act came into force. Shri S.
Niranjan Reddy also points out Section 9-A of the Land Reforms Act
which provides for reopening of cases. It is also pointed out that
though the Land Ceiling Act, 1976 has been repealed in 1999, the
vesting cannot be disturbed and the decisions of this Court on the
earlier two occasions has brought about a finality to the vesting under
the repealed Act.

15. The respondents herein who were the writ petitioners have
emphasised their claims on the basis of the decision in Suraj Lamp &
9
Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana . The said decision has been
cited to argue that the title deeds; registered instruments of
conveyance, are to be deemed valid unless set aside or declared void
by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. There is no such dictum in
the said decision wherein a Division Bench of this Court was concerned
with conveyances made on the strength of agreements of sale, General
Power of Attorney and Wills. The issue addressed was avoidance of
execution and registration of deed of conveyances as a mode of
transfer of a free hold immovable property, especially in the teeth of
Section 17 and Section 49 of the Registration Act. The tendency to
adopt Power of Attorney sales along with execution of sale agreements
and a bequeath by way of will, instead of execution and registration of
proper deeds of conveyance on receipt of full consideration was
deprecated. We extract paragraphs 15 to 17 of an earlier order dated
15.05.2009 in the said case, extracted as such in para 15 of the
aforesaid decision:

“15. The Registration Act, 1908 was enacted with the intention of
providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to
transactions relating to immovable property and protection from
fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is achieved by
requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

providing for consequences of non-registration.

16. Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any

document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or
operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in
present or in future ‘any right, title or interest’ whether vested or
contingent of the value of Rs. 100 and upward to or in immovable
property.

17. Section 49 of the said Act provides that no document

required by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable
property comprised therein or received as evidence of any
transaction affecting such property, unless it has been registered.
Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a
document has been executed.”

16. The observation that registration of a document gives notice to the

world that such a document has been executed is not to confer an
unimpeachable validity on all such registered documents. Even the
respondents/writ petitioners accept that the presumption coming forth
from a registered deed of conveyance is rebuttable. While reserving
the right of persons who had obtained sale agreement/general power
of attorney/will executed, to complete confirmation of title on them by
getting registered deeds of conveyance, the conclusion of the cited
decision, which acts as a binding precedent, is available in para 24,
which we extract hereunder:—

“24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be

legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed
of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of “GPA sales” or
“SA/GPA/will transfers” do not convey title and do not amount to
transfer, nor can they be recognised or valid mode of transfer of
immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as
completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither
convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent

of Section 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied
upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue
records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of
conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of
leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a
registered assignment of lease. It is time that an end is put to the
pernicious practice of SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA
sales.”

17. It is in this context that we must examine the document of

19.03.1982, an agreement which is said to have been validated in the
year 2006. We immediately notice that the very contention of the writ
petitioners is only that they have obtained proper conveyances by
registered sale deeds from Bhavana society, whose claim is under the
agreement of 1982, which has not till date been registered and hence
cannot be recognized as a valid mode or instrument of transfer of
immovable property, going by the above decision.

18. We refer to the documents from the memorandum of appeal in SLP

(C) No. 1866 of 2024. The agreement of sale executed by the GPA
holder of the original declarants, in favour of M/s. Bhavana Society is
produced as Annexure P-33. The agreement is dated 19.03.1982 and
the extent of the property agreed to be sold is 125-35 acres. Clause
(2) of the agreement clearly indicates only a payment of Rs. 50,000/-
by cheque towards part of sale consideration, the balance sale
consideration to be paid within six months from the date of obtaining
permission under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. The original
declarants represented through the GPA, termed as the vendors in the
agreement, also spoke of the delivery of vacant possession of the land
to the intending purchaser. The plaint in the suit filed by the Bhavana
Society is produced as Annexure P-32 which, while asserting actual
physical possession having been handed over to the plaintiff sought
only for a direction to the defendants 1 to 9 through the defendants 10
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 14 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and 11 to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff society in

respect of the scheduled land admeasuring 125-35 acres. Hence
Bhavana Society was aware that they obtained no valid title from the
agreement of sale. The suit filed in 1991 after possession of 99.07
acres was taken under the Land Reforms Act, was stood dismissed for
default on 06.04.2001. The petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the
10
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was rejected on 23.02.2004 as seen from
Annexure P-36. After this, the revalidation was done on the agreement
of sale, as is produced at Annexure P-37, a copy of which also has
been produced by respondents Nos. 1 to 7 as Annexure 2 in IA No.
83765 of 2025; but without registration, which in any event is not
possible at this distance of time.

19. Moreover, though the agreement of sale dated 19.03.1982 is said

to be one based on which the suit for specific performance was filed
and later revalidated, both differ considerably. The agreement
produced as Annexure P-37, though of the same date and the very
same vendors and vendees, as is seen from Annexure P-34, the extent
differs in so far as it refers to 99.17 acres out of the total extent of
525.35 acres. Here, we must specifically notice that there was a
demarcation of 99.17 acres of land out of the total extent when the
land had been declared vested in the State under the Land Reforms
Act and possession taken by the State in 1975. In 1982 when the
agreement of sale validated subsequently was executed, that extent
had vested in the State and was in the State's possession. The alleged
reversion of such land to the original declarants occurred only in the
year 1990 and hence there was no reason for the sale of the specified
extent as seen from Annexure P-37 at that point of time. These are not
two separate transactions since the consideration paid is Rs. 50,000/-
by cheque issued on Andhra Bank, Mukharamjahi Road, Hyderabad.
However, the cheque numbers differ in so far as Annexure P-33
showing the number of 738569 while Annexure P-37 indicates it to be
238569; obviously a printer's devil.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 15 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. Further clause (2) in the said agreements also differ which stands
extracted hereunder:

Annexure P-33:—

“2) That in pursuance of the above said offer and acceptance, the
Second party purchaser has this day paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousands only) by cheque no. 738569 on Andhra
Bank, Mukharamjahi Road, Hyderabad towards part of sale
consideration and agreed to pay the balance of sale consideration
within six months from the date of obtaining permission under the
provisions of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976.”

(para-2, page 872)

Annexure P-37:

“That in pursuance of the above said offer and acceptance, the

Second party purchaser has paid the total sale consideration of
Rs. 4,95,350/- this day and out of which a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousands only) by cheque no. 238569 on Andhra
Bank, Mukharamjahi Road, Hyderabad.”

(para-2, page-906)

The very recital in Annexure P-37 is anomalous and does not with
certainty declare that the entire consideration was paid or only Rs.
50,000/as part payment by cheque.

21. Annexure P-33 speaks only of a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- and

the balance consideration to be paid within six months from the date
of obtaining permission under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act.
Annexure P-37 speaks of payment of total sale consideration of Rs.
4,95,350/- out of which Rs. 50,000/- has been paid by cheque; the
recital not really lending any assurance of the payment. Though the
extents differ, the schedule of the property in both the agreements
shows the very same boundaries, another anomaly which raises a
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 16 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

suspicion on the actual demarcation and reversion to the original

declarants.

22. Further, an instrument of conveyance is compulsorily registrable

as required under the Registration Act. Section 23 prescribes four-
months’ time for presenting a document for registration from the date
of its execution. Section 24 provides that if there are several persons
executing a document at different times, such document may be
presented for registration or re-registration within four months from
the date of such execution. In the instant case, all the executants,
parties to the agreement, have signed on the day shown in the
agreement. The proviso to Section 34 also enables the Registrar to
condone the delay, if the document is presented within a further
period of four months, on payment of a fine. The validation of the sale
agreement, which clearly is shown to be not one executed by the
declarants, by reason of it materially differing from that produced as
Annexure P-33, on the strength of which a suit for specific
performance was filed by the vendor, the Bhavana Society, which is
also the intended purchaser in the sale agreement of 1982, it smacks
of fraud. The agreement of 1982, the original one and the revalidated
one, cannot result in a valid title, merely for reason that the
subsequent instrument had been registered. As we noticed at the
outset, the learned Single Judge did not decide the title but only
raised valid suspicion insofar as the title of the vendor in the deed of
conveyance. Even according to the writ petitioners, their claim stems
from a sale agreement, which is not a proper deed of conveyance,
especially since it is not a registered document.

23. The Division Bench has found possession on the appellants and the
writ petitioners by virtue of two interim orders passed by Co-ordinate
Benches of the High Court. The first one is in W.P. No. 29547 of 2011,
wherein the Lok Ayukta was directed not to pass any further orders but
the State Government and the APIIC Ltd. were not restrained from
taking any action in accordance with law. The interim order in W.P. No.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 17 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4466 of 2012 also does not establish possession on the writ

petitioners. Undoubtedly, the 53 acres would be comprised in the
99.07 acres alleged to have been resumed to the possession of the
original declarants through their GPA, but there is nothing on record
indicating the possession, either of the respondents/writ petitioners or
the appellants/respondents in the writ petition.

24. We also take serious notice of the submission made by the State
insofar as the invocation of Section 9-A of the Land Reforms Act, as of
now against the 99.07 acres vested in the State, which would ideally
remain in the possession of the State. As far as 46.20 acres is
concerned, it would depend upon writ petitions pending before the
Telangana High Court and the proceedings sought to be initiated by
the State under the Land Reforms Act. But we cannot ignore the
submission of the State that the Land Ceiling Act permits retention of
only 1000 Sq. m. with each declarant. At the same time, we must
8
notice that Omprakash Verma speaks of an exemption granted to the
original declarants to hold 5 acres each instead of 1000 Sq.m. We
notice this not as an entitlement which exemption will have to be
proved in accordance with the Act when a claim is raised or an action
against the land is resisted. Even then the declarants cannot have
possession of 99.07 acres; the reversion of which, physically is not
clearly established. The fate of 53 acres comprised in 99.07 acres also
would be subject to a proposed action by the State under the Land
Reforms Act.

25. We make it clear that we have not said anything about the
possession of 99.07 acres which will have to be agitated in appropriate
proceedings. As far as the writ petition praying for a direction not to
dispossess, we find that the writ petitioners to have not established a
valid title. We prima facie find the title to be suspect, which would
disentitle them from claiming a rightful possession, which also has not
been proved.

26. In this context, we refer to the judgment of this Court in

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 18 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11
Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta . The
dispute was with respect to a tenant and landlord and the bone of
contention was possession. In the suit for permanent injunction filed
by the tenant, the Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence found that the plaintiff failed to prove his actual
and physical possession over the suit property. The finding of the Trial
Court based on the oral and documentary evidence was overturned by
the First Appellate Court and the High Court drawing inference of
possession from applications filed in an earlier suit. This Court restored
the order of the Trial Court, finding that actual and physical possession
must be proved, which principle would apply even in a writ petition
under Article 226, more strictly since there is no evidence led and the
consideration is only based on documents produced on affidavit.

27. When dispossession by the State is alleged on the strength of

possession, mere reliance on interim orders passed in writ petitions
earlier filed cannot establish such actual and physical possession. We
have also noticed that the validated agreement of 19.03.1982, based
on which conveyance is claimed by the writ petitioners, cannot be
sustained on the clear terms in the two agreements. We noticed on a
comparison of the actual agreement on which a suit for specific
performance was filed and the latter agreement, which stood validated
but not registered even now that the original declarants and the writ
petitioners have been approbating and reprobating. The power of
absolute right over lands is on the State and the person in occupation,
is only there, by virtue of the grants, which can be brought to an end
by the State which has the power of eminent domain. Here there is a
statutory vesting of property and prima facie, guile employed in
making conflicting claims before the authorities under the Land
Reforms Act and the Land Ceiling Act as also entering into multiple
transactions to defeat the statutory vesting with successive litigations,
all in vain, which travelled up to this Court twice earlier.

28. The cloud on title and the doubts raised on possession by the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 19 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

learned Single Judge, as affirmed by us are merely prima facie

observations to deny discretion to invoke the extra ordinary power
under Article 226. So are the misgivings expressed on the claim of
repossession by the original declarants through their GPA and the
skepticism regarding their very right to obtain repossession of property
already vested in the State, under a Statute, which Statute also does
not provide for any review of the notification issued under the Act; the
notification having merely affirmed the statutory vesting. The
reservation in favour of the State also arises only from our anxiety to
preserve the property, without creation of any third-party interest, to
avoid any hindrance of the State's power to invoke the provisions
under the Land Reforms Act, if done within a reasonable period, which
would also be subject to legitimate legal scrutiny. It goes without
saying; then, the parties would be entitled to agitate their respective
causes, in the appropriate civil forum or if statutorily prohibited, avail
of the remedies made available under the statute which proceedings
will not be governed by the findings in our judgment, we having only
prima facie declined invocation of the discretionary, extraordinary
jurisdiction.

29. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is restored, and the
appeals stand disposed of, with the above observations and
reservations.

30. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

———

1
For brevity ‘the TSIICL’

2
Bhavana Society hereinafter

3
(hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Land Reforms Act’)

4
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Land Ceiling Act’)

5
(1994) 1 SCC 1
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 20 Friday, June 27, 2025
Printed For: 28th Court Hall .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6
The APIIC

7
(2002) 1 SCC 227

8
(2010) 13 SCC 158

9
(2012) 1 SCC 656

10
(for brevity, ‘the CPC’)

11
(2020) 19 SCC 119

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification.
All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.