SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1443

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J.
Mrs. Shalini Saincher And Another - Appellant
Vs.
Sayeeda Abood And Others - Respondent 
Writ Petition Nos.45203 of 2022, 14737 of 2024 and 5348 of 2025
Decided On : 17-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S Nagesh Reddy
For the Respondent: GP For Assignment

Disputed title, possession, and authenticity of documents in property matters must be resolved in civil courts; fraud vitiates transactions and is grounds for nullifying registrations.

Headnote:(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 5(3), 10(4), 27(1), and the Registration Act, 1908 - Challenge to ULC proceedings and sale deeds - Petitioners allege fraudulent transactions in ULC permissions and sale deeds executed without legal authority. (Paras 2-6, 19, 34)

(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot resolve disputed questions of title or ownership; such matters require resolution in a civil court. (Paras 30, 34)

(C) Legal possession versus permissive possession - The legal possession remains with the title holder, and any unauthorized alienation by a licensee is void ab initio. (Paras 17, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenge the legality of ULC proceedings and registered sale deeds based on fraud and failure to follow required protocols, asserting that the original land holder's title remains unchallenged until proper proceedings are established. (Paras 2-6, 8-10)

Findings of Court:
The court found that serious questions about title, possession, and authenticity of documents could not be resolved in writ proceedings, indicating the proper remedy lies in civil suit litigation. (Paras 30, 34)

Issues: The main issues centered on whether due process was followed in the ULC proceedings, the legitimacy of sale deeds, and the appropriate forum for resolving the disputes. (Paras 25-28)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that fraud vitiates transactions, and the legitimacy of documents, especially in property disputes, is best adjudicated in civil courts rather than through writ petitions. (Paras 30, 34)

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the writ petitions and their claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 19)
2. petitioners' arguments and claims based on historical ownership. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11)
3. respondents' defenses and counterarguments. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. court's analysis on jurisdiction and nature of proceedings. (Para 25 , 26 , 32)
5. final dismissal of writ petitions. (Para 34 , 35)

ORDER :

C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J.

The issues involved in these writ petitions are intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.45203 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners-Smt. Shalini Saincher and another, seeking following relief :

“…issue a Writ of Certiorari filed Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the A) ULC Proceedings in C.C.No.E/5946/76 dt.22-6-1982 and 11-09-1982, C.C.No.E/6384/76, C.C.No.E/8948/76 proceeding Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, 6870 of 1979 dt.27-4-1980, B) Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1937 of 1980 dt.06-10-1980 and Doc.6451/1982 dt.07.09.1982 and quash the same as they are illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, fraudulent, without Jurisdiction and Null & Void, made in violation of the Provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the REGISTRATION ACT 1908, in violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India with a consequential prayer to declare the Registered Development Agreement bearing No.4801/2021 dt.08-07-2021 as null and void and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case…”

3. W.P.No.14737 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners-Mohammed Fayazuddin Khan and others seeking following relief:

“…to issue a Writ or Writs more appropriately a Writ of Mandamus declaring the ULC proceedings Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, 6870 of 1979 dated: 27.04.1980 in C.C.No.E/5946/76 dated:22-06-1982 and 11-09- 1982, С.С.No.E/6384/76, CC No. E/8948/76 issued by the respondent No.2 to 5 as illegal, void, ultra virus and unconstitutional and consequently declare the Registered Development Agreement bearing No.4801/2021 dated: 08-07-2021 as null and void in the interest of justice and equity and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..”

4. W.P.No.5348 of 2025 is filed is filed by the petitioners- Mohammed Fayazuddin Khan and others seeking following relief:

“…to issue a Writ or Writs Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.10 issuing the proceedings vide Lr.No.B/12258/2024 dated 10.02.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and equity...”

5. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred as they were arrayed in W.P.No.45203 of 2022.

6. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petitions are stated as under:

7. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.45203 of 2022 that Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad, was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.7-00 guntas in Sy.No.396 (correlated to Revision Sy.No.225), situated at Shaikpet Village, presently falling within Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It is stated that the subject land was originally recorded in revenue records as Jubilee Hills Gyra Jirayatti Patta. The entire Shaikpet Village was an ex-Sarf-e-Khas village and vested with the-then Hyderabad Government upon the merger of Sarf-e-Khas with Diwani in 1358 Fasli (1949 AD). It is further stated that original Sethwar was prepared in 1326 Fasli (1916 AD) after revenue survey, wherein the land admeasuring Ac.3220.02 guntas in Sy.No.129 is classified as Government land. A Supplementary Sethwar of 1331 Fasli (1921 AD) was issued in favour of one Moinuddin Hassan, sub-dividing Sy.No.129 into 10 parts, and Sy.No.129/1 was classified as Kancha Tattikahana, while Sy.Nos.129/2 to 129/10 were

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top