THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.967 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

01.07.2025, passed in W.P.No.18475 of 2025 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Heard Sri Dilip Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kasireddy Mohan Chandra Has, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7.

3. It is the case of the appellants that appellant No.2 purchased open plot admeasuring 374 Square Yards in Survey No.122, vide situated at Tandur Town and Mandal, Vikarabad District, registered Sale Deed, dated 05.03.2025, from appellant No.1, who in vide turn, purchased the land in question from its original owners registered Sale Deed, dated 02.07.2018. While so, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have submitted representations, dated 13.03.2025 and 25.03.2025, before respondent Nos.7 and 6, respectively, contending that they have purchased the land in question at an earlier point of time i.e. in the year 2012 and sought to cancel the Sale Deed, which was executed in favour of appellant No.1. When respondent Nos.6 and 7 have not passed orders on the said representations, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have approached this Court by filing the vide subject W.P.No.18475 of 2025. The learned Single Judge impugned order, dated 01.07.2025, disposed of the subject Writ Petition directing the official respondents to consider the representations filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the net effect of the representations submitted by respondent Nos.1 to 4 is to cancel the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the appellants. Learned counsel further contended that respondent No.7 has no power to cancel the Sale Deeds, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. State of A.P.1. When respondent No.7 has no power to cancel the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the appellants, the question of disposing of the subject Writ Petition by directing the official respondents to consider the representations submitted by respondent Nos.1 to 4 would not arise.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that there are civil Suits already pending between the parties and without disclosing about the pendency of the litigation before the competent civil Court, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have approached this Court seeking a direction to pass appropriate orders on the representations submitted by them. If respondent Nos.1 to 4 have purchased the land in question at an earlier point of time, they have to work out their remedies before the competent civil Court, but a Writ Petition is not maintainable. Even if the Writ Petition is maintainable, respondent No.7 has no power to cancel the Sale Deeds, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme

1 (2010) 15 SCC 207

Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi’s case (supra). Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order, dated 01.07.2025, and allow the Writ Appeal.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7 had contended that respondent No.7 has no power to cancel the Sale Deeds. If respondent Nos.1 to 4 are aggrieved by execution of Sale Deeds in favour of the appellants, they must take appropriate steps before the competent civil Court for cancellation of the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the appellants. The learned Single Judge could not have given such a direction.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 had contended that since respondent No.7 has no power to cancel the Sale Deeds, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Thota Ganga