Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 788

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M/s. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6600 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.1866 of 2024) With Civil Appeal No. 6601 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3660 of 2024) Civil Appeal No. 6602 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3661 of 2024) Civil Appeal No. 6603 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13816 of 2024) (@ Dy. No. 19071 of 2024)
Decided On : 07-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): 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 the Respondent(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

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Injunction – When dispossession by State is alleged on strength of possession, mere reliance on interim orders passed in writ petitions earlier filed cannot establish such actual and physical possession.
(2) Registration of instrument of conveyance – 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 date of such execution.
(3) Registration of a document – Registration of a document which gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed is not to confer unimpeachable validity on all such registered – Presumption coming forth from a registered deed of conveyance is rebuttable.
(4) Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance – Transactions of nature of “GPA sales” or “SA/GPA/will transfers” do not convey title.

Headnote:
(A) Injunction – Grant of – When dispossession by State is alleged on strength of possession, mere reliance on interim orders passed in writ petitions earlier filed cannot establish such actual and physical possession – Validated agreement based on which conveyance is claimed by writ petitioners, cannot be sustained on clear terms in the agreements – Power of absolute right over lands is on State and person in occupation, is only there, by virtue of grants, which can be brought to an end by State which has power of eminent domain – Writ petitioners have not established a valid title – Prima facie title is suspect, which would disentitle them from claiming rightful possession, which also has not been proved – judgment of the learned Single Judge is restored. (Paras 25, 27 and 29)
(B) Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 23, 24 and 34 – Registration of instrument of conveyance – Section 23 prescribes four-months’ time for presenting a document for registration from date of its execution – 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 date of such execution – In instant case, all executants, parties to agreement, have signed on the day shown in agreement – Registrar can condone delay, if document is presented within a further period of four months, on payment of fine – Validation of sale agreement, which clearly is shown to be not one executed by declarants, on strength of which a suit for specific performance was filed by vendor, which is also intended purchaser in sale agreement of 1982, smacks of fraud – Agreement of 1982, original one and revalidated one, cannot result in a valid title merely for reason that subsequent instrument had been registered. (Para 22)
(C) Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17 and 49 – Registration of a document – Legal implications – Registration of a document which gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed is not to confer unimpeachable validity on all such registered – Presumption coming forth from a registered deed of conveyance is rebuttable – Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance – Transactions of 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. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
These appeals arise from order of Division Bench of High Court of Telangana in a writ appeal filed from judgment in a batch of writ petitions dismissed by a common order. Appeal was only against the judgment in W.P No.30855 of 2016; which writ petition essentially prayed for restraining Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, first respondent therein from attempting to enter into land of writ petitioners, with prayers also against demolition of fencing and structures without any notice or without any right or authority.
Findings of Court:
Parties would be entitled to agitate their respective causes, in appropriate civil forum or if statutorily prohibited, avail of remedies made available under statute which proceedings will not be governed by findings in this Judgment, we having only prima facie declined invocation of the discretionary, extraordinary jurisdiction.
Result : Appeals disposed of with observations and reservations.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

Dispossession and Possession: Alleged dispossession by the State, even when supported by interim court orders, does not automatically establish actual and physical possession of the land. Mere reliance on previous interim orders cannot suffice to prove possession (!) (!) .
Validity of Conveyance and Title: A registered deed of conveyance is the only lawful method to transfer or convey immovable property. Transactions such as GPA sales, will transfers, or unregistered agreements do not convey title and are not recognized as valid modes of transfer. Even if a document is registered, its validity can be rebutted if obtained through fraud or misrepresentation (!) (!) .
Registration of Documents: Registration provides notice to the public but does not guarantee the unimpeachable validity of the underlying transaction. The presumption of validity from registration is rebuttable, especially if there is evidence of fraud or irregularities (!) .
Validity of Agreements: An agreement of sale that is not registered cannot serve as a valid transfer of title. Discrepancies in the agreement details, such as the extent of land or consideration payments, raise suspicions about the authenticity and enforceability of such agreements (!) (!) .
Revalidation of Agreements: Revalidating an unregistered agreement after the suit for specific performance was dismissed does not confer valid title, particularly when the original agreement was not registered and was based on documents with inconsistencies (!) (!) .
Land Vesting and Rights: Land vested in the State under land reform statutes cannot be retracted or disturbed unless explicitly permitted by law. The finality of vesting and allotments made under statutory provisions is recognized, and attempts to revert such land to original owners are subject to legal scrutiny (!) (!) .
Possession and Title Disputes: The mere assertion of possession or ownership through documents or interim orders does not establish legal possession or title, especially when there are serious doubts about the validity of the documents or the circumstances of possession (!) (!) .
Legal Remedies and Proceedings: Parties are entitled to pursue their claims through appropriate civil or statutory remedies. The court's observations in the judgment are prima facie and do not preclude parties from challenging their rights in proper forums (!) .
Court's Discretion: The court has declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in this case, emphasizing that the parties should pursue their respective causes in suitable legal proceedings, and that the current findings are provisional and do not settle the underlying rights (!) (!) .
Overall Judgment: The judgment of the lower court is restored, and the appeals are disposed of with the noted reservations and observations. Pending applications are also disposed of accordingly (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or any other assistance.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Vinod Chandran, J.)

1. 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 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[For brevity ‘the TSIICL’] , 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 M/s Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.²[Bhavana Society hereinafter] 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[(hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Land Reforms Act’)] and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976⁴[(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Land Ceiling Act’)] 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 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 LRs and Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1 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 sin