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) 58877

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

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