1. Petitioners contend unilateral cancellation deeds are void and require notice; respondents argue the writ is not maintainable due to pending litigation and default on payment. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 541
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.
Mrs. K.V.V. Lalitha Reddy, W/o. K.V.V. Sathyanarayana Reddy and Another - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, Telangana & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.22372 of 2025
Decided On : 31-08-2026
Important Points
Unilateral cancellation of a registered sale deed is void ab initio and cannot serve as a basis for mutating revenue records, regardless of whether a civil suit challenging the cancellation was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Subject
Property Law - Land Revenue & Mutation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2024 - Section 8 - Mutation of revenue records - Unilateral cancellation of registered sale deed - Validity - A registered sale deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the vendor; any such cancellation deed is a void document and "none est" and can be ignored altogether (Paras 11, 12).
(B) Civil Procedure - Suit for declaration - A document which is already void by operation of law does not need to be declared void by a civil court; dismissal of such a suit for default does not validate a void document (Para 12).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners purchased agricultural land through registered sale deeds and subsequently converted the land for non-agricultural use. The vendors unilaterally executed cancellation deeds and obtained mutation of the subject lands back into their names in the revenue records. The petitioners' suit to declare these cancellation deeds void was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Findings of Court:
The unilateral cancellation deeds executed by the vendors are void and cannot override the title transferred by the registered sale deeds. Mutation proceedings based on void documents are illegal and liable to be set aside.
Issues: Whether a registered sale deed can be unilaterally cancelled by a vendor and whether the dismissal of a civil suit for default validates such a cancellation for the purpose of revenue mutation.
Ratio Decidendi: Based on settled law, a unilateral cancellation deed is void and a nullity. Once title passes through a registered sale deed, the vendor cannot unilaterally cancel it. Such a document is void ab initio, and consequently, any revenue mutation based on it is illegal, regardless of the status of related civil litigation.
Result: Writ petition allowed setting aside the mutation proceedings and consequential patta pass books/title deeds and entries in the revenue records issued in favour of the respondent vendors.
(B) Civil Procedure - Suit for declaration - A document which is already void by operation of law does not need to be declared void by a civil court; dismissal of such a suit for default does not validate a void document (Para 12).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners purchased agricultural land through registered sale deeds and subsequently converted the land for non-agricultural use. The vendors unilaterally executed cancellation deeds and obtained mutation of the subject lands back into their names in the revenue records. The petitioners' suit to declare these cancellation deeds void was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Findings of Court:
The unilateral cancellation deeds executed by the vendors are void and cannot override the title transferred by the registered sale deeds. Mutation proceedings based on void documents are illegal and liable to be set aside.
Issues: Whether a registered sale deed can be unilaterally cancelled by a vendor and whether the dismissal of a civil suit for default validates such a cancellation for the purpose of revenue mutation.
Ratio Decidendi: Based on settled law, a unilateral cancellation deed is void and a nullity. Once title passes through a registered sale deed, the vendor cannot unilaterally cancel it. Such a document is void ab initio, and consequently, any revenue mutation based on it is illegal, regardless of the status of related civil litigation.
Result: Writ petition allowed setting aside the mutation proceedings and consequential patta pass books/title deeds and entries in the revenue records issued in favour of the respondent vendors.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. G. Anil Kumar, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raja Sreepathi, learned Sr. Counsel for Mr. P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel, Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Sr. Counsel for Mr. G. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel, Mr. L. Ravinder, AGP for Revenue.
For the Petitioners: Mr. C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. G. Anil Kumar, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raja Sreepathi, learned Sr. Counsel for Mr. P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel, Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Sr. Counsel for Mr. G. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel, Mr. L. Ravinder, AGP for Revenue.
Table of Contents
2. The court found unilateral cancellation deeds void as they contradict the clear terms of prior registered sale deeds and were executed without statutory notice to interested parties. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. A registered sale deed transferring valid title cannot be extinguished through an unilateral cancellation deed, as that document is non est and void by operation of law. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the mutation proceedings, title deed entries, and passbooks issued in favor of respondents. (Para 14 )
5. Can a vendor unilaterally cancel a registered sale deed?
No. A registered sale deed that has transferred title cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the vendor. Such a document is considered void and nonexistent in law, and rights must be settled through a civil suit rather than unilateral registration. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Does the dismissal of a civil suit for default preclude seeking relief against a void cancellation deed in a writ petition?
No. Because a unilateral cancellation deed is fundamentally void and a nullity, it does not require a formal declaration from a civil court to be treated as such. Therefore, the dismissal of a prior suit regarding the deed does not prevent the court from declaring the action based on that void document illegal. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. Is notice mandatory before mutating land records following an adverse claim?
Yes. Statutory provisions require revenue authorities to provide notice to interested persons before effecting mutations. The failure to issue notice and the reliance on void documents renders mutation proceedings illegal and liable to be set aside. (Para 5 , 13 )
ORDER :
B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare action of respondent No.4 - the Tahsildar cum Joint Sub-Registrar, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in mutating the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the revenue records under the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act 2024 (for short ‘Bhu Bharati Act’) in respect of the following lands, total admeasuring Acs.59.00 guntas, though the same have been converted for non-agriculture purpose vide Proceedings No.A/2191/2007 dated A/2192/2007 dated 26.05.2007 and respondent Nos.5 and 6 have already sold them to the writ petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction; and consequently to cancel the pattadar pass books issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 under the Bhu Bharati Act 2024:
(1) Acs.8-28 guntas in Survey No.54 (New Survey No.54/1/4),
(2) Acs.8-02 guntas in Survey No.57 [New Survey Nos.57/1/3/1 (Acs.8.00 guntas) and 57/1/3/2 (Ac.0-02 guntas)],
(3) Acs.12-10 guntas in Survey No.58 (New Survey No.58/ru/1),
(4) Acs.20-20 guntas in Survey No.53 (New Survey No.53/1) and
(5) Acs.09-20 guntas in Survey No.54 (New Survey No.54/1/3).
2.1. The case of the petitioners is that out of Acs.59.00 of land;
(a) petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring Acs.8-28 guntas in Survey No.54 (New Survey No.54/1/4), Acs.8-02 guntas in Survey No.57 [New Survey Nos.57/1/3/1 (Acs.8.00 guntas) and 57/1/3/2 (Ac.0-02 guntas)], and Acs.12-10 guntas in Survey No.58 (New Survey No.58/ru/1); total admeasuring Acs.29-00 guntas; situated at Pulimamidi Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under the registered sale deed bearing document No.3246 of 2004 dated 08.10.2004 and her name was mutated in the revenue records vide Proceedings No.B/3346/2004 dated 29.04.2007; and
(b) petitioner No.2, husband of petitioner No.1, has purchased the land admeasuring Acs.20-20 guntas in Survey No.53 (New Survey No.53/1) and Acs.09-20 guntas in Survey No.54 (New Survey No.54/1/3); total admeasuring Acs.30-00 guntas situated at Pulimamidi Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under the registered sale deed bearing document No.3245 of 2004 dated 08.10.2004 and his name was mutated in the revenue records vide Proceedings No.B/3345/2004 dated 29.04.2007.
2.2. After issuing mutation proceedings, pattadar pass books have been issued by respondent No.4 - the Tahsildar cum Joint Sub-Registrar, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to the petitioners vide Patta Nos.1261 and 1262 respectively.
2.3. In 2007, petitioner No.2 executed Agreement of Sale cum Irrevocable General Power of Attorney with Possession through the registered Document No.2618 of 2007 dated 05.02.2007 in favour of respondent No.7 and handed over possession of the subject land. The petitioners got the land converted into non-agriculture (NALA) use vide Proceedings No.A/2191/2007 and A/2192/2007 dated 26.05.2007 issued by respondent No.3.
2.4. The G.P.A. Holder of the petitioners obtained layout permission from the office of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) vide Layout Permit No.49/LO/HMDA/08 dated 12.11.2008 in File No.2187/LO/Plg/HMDA/2008 dated 07.11.2008 and several plots have been sold to various individuals.
2.5. The petitioners came to know that their vendors (respondent Nos.5 and 6) made Applications No.RC2500003336, RC2500003337, RC2500003338, RC2500003340 and RC2500003341 to respondent No.4 for issuance of pattadar pass books in their favour in respect of the subject lands by suppressing the facts. Earlier, when respondent Nos.5 and 6 have made applications through Dharani Portal vide Application Nos.RC2300005820, RC2300005824, RC2300006442 and RC2300006444, the GPA Holder of the petitioners challenged the same by filing W.P. No.4441 of 2024 and those applications were rejected by respondent No.2. Suppressing the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted new applications to respondent No.4 through the Bhu Bharati Portal under the Bhu Bharati Act 2024.
2.6. Respondent No
