2026 (1) TMI 563 - SC - Indian Laws

Alleged land sale and possession claims challenging state dispossession denied; sale agreements unregistered, injunction refused

Dominant issue: whether petitioners were entitled to injunctive relief against state dispossession based on asserted possession and sale agreements. The ... Seeking an order against dispossession and demolition - failure to establish actual and physical possession of the land - restraining the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TSIICL), the first respondent, from attempting to enter into the land of the writ petitioners - HELD THAT:- The agreement of sale executed by the GPA holder of the original declarants, in favour of M/s. Bhavana Society is produced as Annexure P33. The agreement is dated 19.03.1982 and the extent of the property agreed to be sold is 125-35 acres. Clause (2) of the agreement clearly indicates only a payment of Rs.50,000/- by cheque towards part of sale consideration, the balance sale consideration to be paid within six months from the date of obtaining permission under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. The original declarants represented through the GPA, termed as the vendors in the agreement, also spoke of the delivery of vacant possession of the land to the intending purchaser - The petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected on 23.02.2004 as seen from Annexure P-36. After this, the revalidation was done on the agreement of sale, as is produced at Annexure P-37, a copy of which also has been produced by respondents Nos.1 to 7 as Annexure 2 in IA No. 83765 of 2025; but without registration, which in any event is not possible at this distance of time. An instrument of conveyance is compulsorily registrable as required under the Registration Act. Section 23 prescribes four-months’ time for presenting a document for registration from the date of its execution. Section 24 provides that if there are several persons executing a document at different times, such document may be presented for registration or re-registration within four months from the date of such execution. In the instant case, all the executants, parties to the agreement, have signed on the day shown in the agreement. The proviso to Section 34 also enables the Registrar to condone the delay, if the document is presented within a further period of four months, on payment of a fine. The validation of the sale agreement, which clearly is shown to be not one executed by the declarants, by reason of it materially differing from that produced as Annexure P-33, on the strength of which a suit for specific performance was filed by the vendor, the Bhavana Society, which is also the intended purchaser in the sale agreement of 1982, it smacks of fraud. The agreement of 1982, the original one and the revalidated one, cannot result in a valid title, merely for reason that the subsequent instrument had been registered - the learned Single Judge did not decide the title but only raised valid suspicion insofar as the title of the vendor in the deed of conveyance. Even according to the writ petitioners, their claim stems from a sale agreement, which is not a proper deed of conveyance, especially since it is not a registered document. When dispossession by the State is alleged on the strength of possession, mere reliance on interim orders passed in writ petitions earlier filed cannot establish such actual and physical possession - The power of absolute right over lands is on the State and the person in occupation, is only there, by virtue of the grants, which can be brought to an end by the State which has the power of eminent domain. Here there is a statutory vesting of property and prima facie, guile employed in making conflicting claims before the authorities under the Land Reforms Act and the Land Ceiling Act as also entering into multiple transactions to defeat the statutory vesting with successive litigations, all in vain, which travelled up to this Court twice earlier. The cloud on title and the doubts raised on possession by the learned Single Judge, as affirmed by us are merely prima facie observations to deny discretion to invoke the extra ordinary power under Article 226. So are the misgivings expressed on the claim of repossession by the original declarants through their GPA and the skepticism regarding their very right to obtain repossession of property already vested in the State, under a Statute, which Statute also does not provide for any review of the notification issued under the Act; the notification having merely affirmed the statutory vesting - It goes without saying; then, the parties would be entitled to agitate their respective causes, in the appropriate civil forum or if statutorily prohibited, avail of the remedies made available under the statute which proceedings will not be governed by the findings in our judgment, we having only prima facie declined invocation of the discretionary, extraordinary jurisdiction. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is restored, and the appeals stand disposed of. Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitioners were entitled to relief against dispossession of the 53 acres on the basis of the documents and interim orders relied upon by them; (ii) Whether the validated agreement of sale dated 19.03.1982 and the registered conveyances founded on it establish a valid title and possession such as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.Issue (i): Whether the writ petitioners have established actual and physical possession or a right to protection against dispossession such that the High Court should have granted writ relief restraining dispossession.Analysis: The Court examined the evidence of possession relied upon by the writ petitioners, including interim orders of coordinate benches, and compared factual material concerning possession over the larger tranche of lands. The Court applied the principle that actual and physical possession must be proved to sustain a claim for injunction against dispossession and found that interim orders and documentary assertions did not establish such possession. The Court noted earlier proceedings concerning statutory vesting and the need to preserve State interests pending statutory action.Conclusion: The writ petitioners have not established actual and physical possession or entitlement to protection against dispossession; this issue is resolved against the writ petitioners and in favour of the appellants in the appeals before this Court.Issue (ii): Whether the validated agreement of sale of 19.03.1982 and subsequent registered instruments confer a valid title that precludes the State's statutory vesting or the Single Judge's prima facie skepticism.Analysis: The Court analysed the agreements of 19.03.1982 (original and revalidated), the chronology of vesting under the Land Reforms Act and the Land Ceiling Act, the suit for specific performance and its dismissal, anomalies between instruments (including inconsistent recitals and consideration), the requirement of registration under the Registration Act, and precedent regarding the limited conclusive effect of registered documents. The Court held that the registered instruments and validation suffer from material infirmities and suspicious revalidation, and that the presumption of validity of registered conveyances is rebuttable in the face of such anomalies and evidence of possible fraud. The Court observed that statutory vesting and State possession cannot be lightly set aside without proper and conclusive proof in appropriate forums.Conclusion: The validated agreement and the registered conveyances do not establish a conclusive valid title or possession; the plea based on those documents is rejected and this issue is decided against the writ petitioners and in favour of the appellants.Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 on prima facie material; the learned Single Judge's refusal of writ relief is restored while preserving the parties' rights to pursue appropriate statutory or civil remedies and the State's ability to act under the relevant land statutes.Ratio Decidendi: A claimant seeking injunctive protection against dispossession must prove actual and physical possession and a valid title on cogent evidence; registered conveyances afford a rebuttable presumption and may be displaced where material anomalies, conflicting instruments, or evidence of fraud and statutory vesting render title and possession doubtful.