1. Petitioners sought mutation of land purchased via registered sale deed, based on a prior compromise decree confirming vendor's title. (Para 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 269
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
Sayari Narasimhulu (died per LRs.) and others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.18994 & 20681 OF 2019
Decided On : 17-02-2026
Important Points
A compromise decree regarding the subject matter of a suit does not require registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. Additionally, the Joint Collector lacks the power to review their own order under the ROR Act unless the order was vitiated by fraud.
Subject
Civil Law - Property and Revenue Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(2)(vi) - Compulsory registration of documents - Decree or order of a court - A decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise comprising immovable property does not require registration if the property is the subject matter of the suit or proceeding - Non-registration of such a compromise decree does not render it null and void, as it merely asserts a pre-existing right or title (Paras 17-26).
(B) Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 9 - Power of revision - Jurisdiction of the revisional authority to review its own order - The revisional authority lacks the jurisdiction to review, reopen, or recall its own order except where the previous order was vitiated by fraud played and perpetuated by the parties - An order keeping a previous order in abeyance without evidence of fraud is illegal and passed without jurisdiction (Paras 31-32).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the mutation of their names as pattadars in revenue records based on a registered sale deed. The vendor of the petitioners had previously obtained a compromise decree in a civil suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The revenue authorities rejected the mutation request, contending that the compromise decree was not registered and thus invalid. Subsequently, the revisional authority passed an order keeping its own previous decision in abeyance upon a review application.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that since the compromise decree in the civil suit related specifically to the suit schedule property, it was covered by the exception in Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act and did not require registration. Therefore, the refusal to mutate the petitioners' names was contrary to law. Additionally, the Court held that the revisional authority had no power under the relevant land laws to review or stay its own order in the absence of fraud.
Issues: (1) Whether a compromise decree pertaining to the subject matter of a suit must be registered to be valid for mutation in revenue records; (2) Whether the revisional authority has the jurisdiction to review or keep its own order in abeyance under the ROR Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A court decree, including one based on a compromise, is not mandatorily registerable under the Registration Act if it does not transfer interest in property other than the subject matter of the suit. Furthermore, a revisional authority acting under the ROR Act cannot review its own order unless it is proven that the order was obtained through fraud.
Result: Writ Petitions allowed.
(B) Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 9 - Power of revision - Jurisdiction of the revisional authority to review its own order - The revisional authority lacks the jurisdiction to review, reopen, or recall its own order except where the previous order was vitiated by fraud played and perpetuated by the parties - An order keeping a previous order in abeyance without evidence of fraud is illegal and passed without jurisdiction (Paras 31-32).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the mutation of their names as pattadars in revenue records based on a registered sale deed. The vendor of the petitioners had previously obtained a compromise decree in a civil suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The revenue authorities rejected the mutation request, contending that the compromise decree was not registered and thus invalid. Subsequently, the revisional authority passed an order keeping its own previous decision in abeyance upon a review application.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that since the compromise decree in the civil suit related specifically to the suit schedule property, it was covered by the exception in Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act and did not require registration. Therefore, the refusal to mutate the petitioners' names was contrary to law. Additionally, the Court held that the revisional authority had no power under the relevant land laws to review or stay its own order in the absence of fraud.
Issues: (1) Whether a compromise decree pertaining to the subject matter of a suit must be registered to be valid for mutation in revenue records; (2) Whether the revisional authority has the jurisdiction to review or keep its own order in abeyance under the ROR Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A court decree, including one based on a compromise, is not mandatorily registerable under the Registration Act if it does not transfer interest in property other than the subject matter of the suit. Furthermore, a revisional authority acting under the ROR Act cannot review its own order unless it is proven that the order was obtained through fraud.
Result: Writ Petitions allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri Dr. K.Krishnaiah
For the Respondent: Assistant Government Pleader, Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy
For the Petitioner: Sri Dr. K.Krishnaiah
For the Respondent: Assistant Government Pleader, Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued civil court decrees bind revenue authorities; respondents contended compromise decree was unregistered and invalid, and sale deed was void. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. The compromise decree did not require registration as it confirmed pre-existing title over suit property, falling under exception in Section 17(2)(vi) Registration Act. (Para 17 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 24 , 25 )
4. A compromise decree confirming a pre-existing right over suit property does not require registration under Section 17(2)(vi) Registration Act, 1908. (Para 17 , 18 , 25 )
5. Both writ petitions allowed; revisional and endorsement orders set aside as illegal for lacking jurisdiction and misapplying registration law. (Para 35 )
6. Does a compromise decree require registration under the Registration Act?
A compromise decree confirming a pre-existing right over the suit property does not require registration as it falls under the exception in Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908. (Para 17 , 18 , 24 , 25 )
7. Can a Joint Collector review his own order under the ROR Act?
A Joint Collector has no jurisdiction to review or recall his own order under Section 9 of the ROR Act unless the earlier order is vitiated by fraud played by a party. (Para 31 , 32 )
8. What is the effect of continuous possession without title mutation in revenue records?
Continuous and uninterrupted adverse possession for over four decades can confer right, title, and interest, and can be used as a sword as held in Ravinder Kaur Grewal. (Para 28 , 29 )
9. Is a compromise decree valid if the property schedule is omitted due to a typographical error?
Yes, omission of the property schedule in the decree due to a typographical error does not render the decree a nullity when the plaint and compromise petition identify the suit property. (Para 15 )
ORDER :
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
Writ Petition No.18994 of 2019 is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders passed by respondent No.2-Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, in Revision Case No.D1/34/2015 dated 17.08.2019, upholding the orders, dated 30.04.2015, passed by respondent No.3, vide File No.B/ROR/3626/2012 and the orders, dated 18.06.2011, passed by respondent No.4 in file No.A/205/2010, and to quash the same.
2. Writ Petition No.20681 of 2019 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3-Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, in reviewing the order passed in Revision Case No.D1/34/2015 dated 17.08.2019, through the Endorsement order, dated 17.09.2019, and keeping the order dated 17.08.2019 in abeyance, as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same.
3. Since the parties, the subject property and the issues involved in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same, both the Writ Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
4. Writ Petition No.18994 of 2019 is taken up as a lead case insofar as the facts of the case are concerned. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No.18994 of 2019.
5. Heard Dr. K.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8.
6. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as averred in the writ affidavit, are that petitioner No.1 purchased land admeasuring Acs.6-00 guntas in Sy.No.543/B, situated at Polepally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, from one Mahabub Bee for valid consideration through a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.562/1981 dated 13.02.1981 and as such, after his death, petitioner Nos.2 to 6, being his legal heirs, are the absolute owners and possessors of the said land.
6.1. Originally, one Sherfuddin, was owner of land admeasuring Acs.18-31 guntas in Sy.No.543 of Polepally Village, and he had partitioned the said land between his two wives, namely (i) Sindu Bee and (ii) Mahabub Bee, each being allotted half share. Accordingly, Acs.9-15 guntas was allotted to the share of Mahabub Bee, while Acs.9- 16 guntas was allotted to the share of Shameemuddin, i.e., the son of Sindu Bee. Consequently, the revenue records were mutated showing Mahabub Bee as pattadar of land in Sy.No.543/B and Shameemuddin as pattadar of land in Sy.No.543/A; that Sabera Bee (respondent No.5), wife of Shameemuddin, created a fraudulent and fabricated sale deed bearing Doc.No.311/1972 dated 22.02.1972, purportedly executed by Mahabub Bee in her favour and basing on the said void document, the name of respondent No.5 was illegally incorporated as pattadar in the revenue records.
6.2. On coming to know about the said fraudulent transaction, Mahabub Bee filed a suit vide O.S.No.12 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mahabubnagar, against respondent Nos.5 and 6 seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed on 06.08.1980 in terms of compromise petition, wherein respondent Nos.5 and 6 admitted the title of Mahabub Bee and delivered possession of the lands in Sy.Nos.542/B, 543/B and 549/B, total admeasuring Acs.9-15 guntas, to her. The said decree attained finality, as no appeal has been preferred against the same.
6.3. That Mahabub Bee, as averred supra, sold an extent of Acs.6.00 in Sy.No.543/B to petitioner No.1 through a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.562/1981 dated 13.02.1981.
6.4. While so, when Shameemuddin, {husband of Sabera Bee (respondent No.5) and father of respondent No.6}, in collusion with Mahabub Bee, interfered with the possession of petitioner No.1, the latter filed O.S.No.124 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif Court, Mahabubnagar, seeking perpetual injunction and the said suit was decreed on 24.12.1984, granting permanent injunction in h
