IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY DATED: 18.03.2026 Between:

Jangili Sattaiah and others …Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.4 in directing petitioners to compromise and to give Ac.2-00 gts to respondent No.5 during the pendency of O.S. No.51 of 2016, before the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, filed by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.5 and also O.S. No.35 of 2016, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Tungathurty, Suryapet district filed by petitioner Nos.2 to 4, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri B. Subhash, learned Counsel for petitioners Ms.T.Swetcha, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue and Sri D.L.Pandu, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

3. Brief facts of the case, as averred in the writ affidavit are that petitioner No.1 is the father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.7-05 cents in Sy.No.628 of Phanigiri Village, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District; that respondent No.5 taking advantage of nature of petitioner No.1 and by coercion, got executed registered sale deed No.8495 of 2010, dated 27.01.2010, in her favour, to an extent of Acs.2-00 cents (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property), though the subject property was devolved upon the elder brother of petitioner No.1, by name Dattaiah, towards his share; and that petitioner No.1 had no title or ownership over the subject property.

4. It is further averred that the respondent No.5 filed an application before respondent No.4 for mutation of her name in the revenue records on the basis of registered sale deed No.8495 of 2010, dated 27.01.2010; that respondent No.4 issued notice in Form-V vide proceedings No.B/1220/2017, dated 14.09.2018, to petitioner No.1 as well as respondent No.5 under A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, directing them to appear before him along with relevant records for enquiry on 22.09.2018. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, as per the report of respondent No.4 vide Letter dated 17.01.2017, no land stands in the name of the father of the petitioners as on the date of registration and in fact, stands in the name of senior paternal uncle of petitioner No.4 namely Dattaiah, therefore, the registered sale deed executed by petitioner No.1 is void ab initio and nullity in the eyes of law. He further submitted that legal heirs of Jangili Dattaiah namely Jangili Simhaiah and Laxminarayana, succeeded to the said property and have filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.5259 of 2019, and the same was disposed of on 14.03.2019 and pursuant to said Orders, respondent No.4 issued Pattadar passbooks in their favour vide Proceedings No.B/267/2019, dated 07.06.2019. He further submitted that there is no need to seek cancellation of document, which is void ab initio and in support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shanthi Devi (died) through LRs vs. Jagan Devi and Others, 2025 INSC 1105, wherein, it was held as under:-

“When a document is valid, no question arises of its cancellation. When a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary, as the same is non est in the eyes of law and would be a nullity.”

6. Learned Counsel for petitioners further submitted that respondent No.5 is tracing his title through a simple sale deed and subsequently, through a registered sale deed and as per Counter filed on behalf of respondent No.4, the regularization proceedings of simple sale deed and Certificate under 13-B are not traceable, which clearly shows the attempt of