Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 55
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
Nalla Bhaskar Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.15703 of 2020
Decided On : 28-01-2026
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Land Ownership and Rights
Act Referred
TELANGANA RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS RULES : R.26(6)
ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS ACT : S.5(a)
Headnote
(B) Writ jurisdiction - The court emphasized the significance of factual examination and document verification in appeals concerning property claims, indicating that evidence is crucial for affirming transactions. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to declare the dismissal of his revision petition regarding a purported sale of agricultural land by his deceased mother as illegal, claiming fraudulent actions by the respondent. Vital concerns included the nature of the document as either a sale deed or an agreement of sale.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the document in question was an agreement of sale, not a sale deed and could not be regularized, basing its decision on previous legal precedents.
Issues: Whether the Bhuvikraya Dastaveju constitutes a sale deed or an agreement of sale, and whether the validation process was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that agreements of sale cannot be regularized under Section 5A of the Act and asserted the necessity of properly examining claims before validation.
Result: Writ petition allowed; earlier orders set aside regarding petitioner's claim.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : J KANAKAIAH
For the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE (TG)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and possession of agricultural land (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. dispute over alleged sale deed authenticity (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. counterarguments regarding validation of sale deed (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. issue of sale deed versus agreement of sale (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court's final ruling on land claim (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the Order dated 06.07.2020 in file No.F2/4502/2017 of respondent No.2, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as illegal, unlawful and contrary to the provisions of Telangana State Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and for consequential relief.
2. Heard Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri K.Lakshmi Manoher, learned Counsel for respondent No.5.
3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ petition are that petitioner’s mother late Nalla Suvarnamma, was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.3 – 25 gts in Sy.No.265/U, Ac.1 – 03 gts in Sy.No.266/EE, Ac.0 – 23 gts in Sy.No.267/U, Acs.0 – 25 gts in Sy.No.268/U and Ac.0 – 07 gts in Sy.No.269/U, totally admeasuring Acs.6 – 03 gts, situated at Yennaram village, Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject lands); that Suvarnamma got two sons i.e., petitioner herein and one N.Madhusudhana Reddy, who are pursuing their studies in Hyderabad and due to old age, petitioner’s mother and father gave the subject lands on lease cum crop share basis to respondent No.5 in the year 2004-05. Subsequently, the petitioner’s mother and father shifted to Hyderabad and were staying with the petitioner; that the names of petitioner’s mother and father were recorded in pahanies for the year 2004-05, however, respondent No.5 in collusion with V.R.O, got created false and fabricated document in the style of ‘BHUVIKRAYA DASTAVEJU’ (Sale deed), dated 21.08.1999, as if the subject lands were sold to respondent No.5 by petitioner’s mother for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/-.
4. It is further averred that respondent No.5 made an application to M.R.O for validation of the document in the year 2006 and the said document was kept pending till 2011 and on coming to know about the submission of application, petitioner’s mother filed an objection stating that she did not sell the subject lands to respondent No.5 nor received any consideration and that the said document was fabricated and also disputed her signature and further got issued legal notice through Advocate; that while the matter was pending before the Tahsildar, petitioner’s mother executed sale deed Nos.733 and 734 of 2010, dated 11.05.2010 in favour of her two sons to an extent of Acs.2 – 20 gts each out of subject property, however, the respondent No.4 passed an Order dated 22.07.2011, regularizing the Bhuvikraya Dastaveju, to an extent of Acs.5 – 02 gts as against Acs.6 – 03 gts, ignoring the objections submitted by the petitioner’s mother.
5. Aggrieved by the Order dated 22.07.2011, petitioner’s mother and his brother preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 without calling for records and without verifying the documents, dismissed the appeal vide proceedings No.D/14/2013, dated 30.08.2013; that petitioner’s mother expired during the pendency of the appeal and as such, the petitioner and his brother filed revision under Section 9 of A.P.Lands in Rights and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971, before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 without examining the issue independently, dismissed the revision on 06.07.2020. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred the present writ petition. The petitioner’s brother independently filed W.P.No.13440 of 2020, and during the pendency of writ petition, he expired and since no steps were taken to bring the legal heirs on record, this Court by Order dated 07.07.2025, dismissed the writ petition as abated.
6. Le
