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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 31047

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUSTICE, J
Rock Hills Realty Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Ranga Reddy District – Respondent
Writ Petition No.14639 of 2023 | O.S. No.88 of 2002 | A.S. No.998 of 2010 | Civil Appeal No.5822-5824 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. D. Prakash Reddy
For the Respondents: Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao

The District Collector exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating title issues in succession proceedings, which should remain summary in nature.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 300-A - Succession proceedings - The petitioner challenged the order granting succession to the legal representatives of the deceased owner, claiming the sale deed executed in favor of the petitioner is valid and not void. The court found that the authority exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating title issues in a summary succession proceeding. (Paras 1.1, 1.12, 12, 21, 24)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court held that the District Collector could not decide on disputed title matters in succession proceedings, which are meant to be summary in nature. (Paras 14, 20)

(C) Fraud - The court noted that if the sale deed was obtained through misrepresentation, the remedy lies with the civil court, not in succession proceedings. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased land from vendors who claimed rights through agreements of sale and powers of attorney. Respondents claimed legal heirship and sought succession, leading to the contested order.

Findings of Court:
The court held the succession order void as the authority overstepped its jurisdiction by deciding on title issues.

Issues: The main issues included whether the District Collector had jurisdiction to decide title matters and whether the sale deed was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that matters of title should be resolved by a competent civil court and not by the District Collector in succession proceedings.

Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of land ownership and agreements. (Para 5)
2. details of legal proceedings related to land. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. petitioner's actions regarding land registration. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. respondents' claims and succession application. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. court's analysis on jurisdiction and title disputes. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

ORDER :

1.1. The order dated 06.10.2023 in File No.D2/2075/2023 passed by respondent No.2 - the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Kongara Kalan, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District whereby respondent Nos.5 to 9 (claiming to be the legal representatives of late Debbad Narayana, S/o. Viswanatham) were granted succession is challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner as being illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

1.2. The petitioner - Rock Hills Realty Private Limited claims to have purchased the land admeasuring 1,94,568 square yards equivalent to Acs.40-08 guntas, covered by Survey Nos.301 (Part) admeasuring Acs.9-14 guntas, Survey No.302 admeasuring Acs.11-14 guntas, Survey No.303 admeasuring Acs.10-27 guntas and Survey No.304 (Part) admeasuring Acs.8-33 guntas, situated at Budvel Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under the registered document bearing document No.10698 of 2022 dated 19.10.2022.

1.3. It is submitted that Debbad Narayana, Debbad Vishweshwar Rao, Debbad Srinandan Rao, Sriram Chandrashekar and Tadkamalle Narasimha Rao were owners of the agricultural land admeasuring Acs.141-05 guntas covered by Survey Nos.300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308 and 309 situated at Budvel Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

1.4.1. The original owners entered into an agreement of sale dated 19.03.1994 in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.127-29 guntas forming part of Survey Nos.301 (Part), 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308 and 309 situated at Budvel Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with one (1) Smt. K. Vijayalakshmi, (2) Smt. K. Sujatha Reddy, (3) Smt. Veeramreddy Anjamma, (4) Smt. Kamireddy Geetha Reddy, (5) Smt. Mudi Lalithamma, and (6) Smt. Vaddireddy Ramadevi. In terms of the agreement of sale, the agreement holders agreed to exclude Acs.12-00 guntas for roads and passages while agreeing to purchase the remaining Acs.115-29 guntas.

1.4.2. It is stated that in terms of the agreement of sale dated 19.03.1994, the purchasers / agreement holders formed into two independent groups / branches wherein an extent of Acs.40-08 guntas fell to the share of Mrs. K. Sujatha Reddy and K. Geetha Reddy of Branch-I, who are stated to be vendors of the petitioner; and the remaining land fell to the share of Smt. Karnati Vijayalakshmi, Smt. Veeramreddy Anjamma, Smt. Mudi Lalithamma and Smt. Vaddireddy Ramadevi jointly of Branch-II.

1.4.3. In furtherance of agreement of sale dated 19.03.1994, the members of Branch-I and Branch-II have executed a common General Power of Attorney in favour of Mrs. K. Sujatha Reddy of Branch-I and Smt. Karnati Vijayalakshmi of Branch-II vide document No.875 of 1994 dated 30.04.1994 for an extent of Acs.65-29 guntas and document No.68 of 1995 dated 28.03.1995 for an extent of Acs.50-00 guntas.

1.4.4. Thus, Branch-I is represented by Mrs. K. Sujatha Reddy and Smt. K. Geetha Reddy acting on behalf of the original owners have entered into an agreement of sale dated 26.03.1997 for an extent of the land admeasuring Acs.38-15 guntas and another agreement of sale dated 27.03.1997 for an extent of the land admeasuring Acs.1-33 guntas, total admeasuring Acs.40-08 guntas, with M/s. The Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited.

1.4.5. It is stated that Branch-II does not have any right in respect of the land covered by the agreements of sale dated 26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997 entered by Branch-I. Likewise, Branch-I does not have any right in respect of the remaining land of Acs.75-21 guntas covered by the agreement of Branch-II.

1.5. It is stated that as The Hy

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