IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
M/s. Sucheth and Saharsh Holdings Private Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 33571/2010
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.33571 OF 2010
DATE: 23.12.2025
Between:
M/s. Sucheth and Saharsh Holdings Private Ltd.,
rep. by its Authorized Signatory.
…Petitioner
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Commissioner and six others.
…Respondents
:ORDER:
Heard Sri Prithvi Raj, learned counsel representing
Sri B. Adinarayana, learned counsel for petitioners, appeared through
video conference. Heard Sri H. Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant
Government Pleader, representing Government Pleader for Revenue,
appearing for respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the
respondents more particularly respondent No.1 in issuing notice
No.G1/AIG(S)/15718/2007 dated 22.02.2008, as arbitrary,
discriminatory and without jurisdiction.
##PAGE2##2
GPK,J
W.P.No.33571 of 2010
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner is a private
limited company engaged in the business of acquiring, purchasing,
promoting, and selling shares, stocks, bonds, debentures, and
properties, etc. In the course of its business, the petitioner company
purchased dry land admeasuring 2 acres (0.80 hectares) in Survey
No. 490/1, situated at Bonthapalli Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak
District, under a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 2363 of
2005, dated 30.05.2005, from M/s. Vishnu Industries for a
consideration of Rs. 3,30,000/-. Pursuant to the said purchase, the
petitioner company issued a public notice through its counsel calling
for objections, if any. Since no objections or protests were received
from any quarter, the petitioner company proceeded with the
purchase of the said land from M/s. Vishnu Industries.
Subsequently, a representation appears to have been submitted on
03.08.2007 by one Sri Y. Murali Krishna (respondent No.4), seeking
cancellation of Document No. 129 of 2005, alleging that the said
document had been executed by Sri Syed Abdul Azeem (respondent
No.7) by impersonating respondent No.4. Thereafter, Respondent
No.1, vide proceedings No.G1/AIG(S)/15718/2007 dated 22.02.2008,
purportedly exercising powers under Section 69(1)(j) of the
Registration Act, 1908, recalled Document No.129 of 2005 by
##PAGE3##3
GPK,J
W.P.No.33571 of 2010
endorsing that the identity of the vendor was found to be fraudulent
and further cancelled the subsequent registered sale deed bearing
Document No. 2363 of 2005 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office,
Narsapur, Medak District.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner therefore contends that the
action of Respondent No. 1 in cancelling Document No. 2363 of 2005
is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of
natural justice. Moreover, Respondent No. 1 has no power or
authority to cancel a registered sale deed while exercising powers
under Section 69(1)(j) of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence, the
petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition.
5. This Court, vide orders dated 31.12.2010, directed the
respondents to maintain status quo as on that day. Thereafter, the
record reveals that the said interim order has been extended from
time to time.
6. Respondent No. 1 filed a counter-affidavit submitting that
Respondent No. 5 made a complaint before Respondent No. 1 on
03.08.2007, stating that his signature was forged and that his
photograph was impersonated while registering the sale deed bearing
Document No. 129 of 2005, dated 11.01.2005, by Respondent No. 3.
##PAGE4##4
GPK,J
W.P.No.33571 of 2010
Therefore, he requested cancellation of the said document and the
subsequent sale deed executed vide Document No. 2363 of 2005,
which was registered pursuant to Document No. 129 of 2005 at the
Sub-Registrar Office, Narasapur. Pursuant to the said complaint, a
reasonable opportunity was given to the claimant in Document No.
129 of 2005 and to the executant of the subsequent document in
favour of the petitioner vide Document No. 2363 of 2005, in the form
of notices issued through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due
on 11.0
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.