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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 56770

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
Khasim Sab – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 10854/2025



HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10854 of 2025

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not considering the notice, dated 07.03.2025 issued by the petitioner not to make registration, in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.31/AA3, situated at Neelahalli Village, Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District, in favour of third parties pending disposal of O.S.No.362 of 2023 and O.S.No.107 of 2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, prayed for other appropriate reliefs.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.31/AA3, situated at Neelahalli Village, Daroor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. It is further stated that respondent No.4 by creating fraudulent documents got registered the Gift Deed vide document No.766 of 1997, dated 29.03.1997 by impersonating the petitioner and basing on the said Gift Deed he also instituted a suit for bare injunction vide O.S.No.107 of 2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal. It is further stated that after coming to know about the fabricated Gift Deed, the petitioner also instituted a suit vide O.S.No.223 of 2016 seeking for cancellation of the Registered Gift Deed. It is further stated that the suit instituted by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the land mentioned in the earlier suit was not that of the land mentioned in the Registered Gift Deed vide order in I.A.No.225 of 2019. It is further stated that respondent No.4 herein also filed I.A.No.110 of 2016 in O.S.No.107 of 2016 seeking for grant of temporary injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property and the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal, vide order, dated 07.12.2016, the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 herein filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2017 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal and vide order, dated 14.07.2017, the said appeal was allowed and challenging by the same, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.3892 of 2017 before this Court and vide order, dated 23.02.2023, this Court disposed of the said C.R.P. directing the trial Court to dispose of the main suit i.e., O.S.No.107 of 2016 within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and meanwhile, both parties are directed to maintain status quo over the suit schedule property. It is further stated that the petitioner also filed O.S.No.362 of 2023 seeking for declaration of his title and recovery of possession and the same is pending. It is further stated that pending adjudication of the said suit, when respondent No.4 is trying to register the subject property in favour of third parties, the petitioner got issued a notice, dated 07.03.2025 to respondent No.3 not to make any registration in respect of the subject land. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after receipt of the said notice, dated 07.03.2025, respondent No.3 did not consider the same.

3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with.

4. Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, has submitted that unless there is prohibitory order not to entertain any transactions or any other orders passed as per the Standing Order 219 (b) of the Registration Manual Part-II, the revenue authorities are bound to entertain to cha

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