Unregistered sale agreement and unproved possession defeat writ protection against dispossession over land subject to prior vesting.

An unregistered agreement of sale does not convey title to immovable property, and inconsistencies in the relied-upon documents further weakened the claimed transaction. Protection against dispossession under Article 226 also required proof of actual and physical possession, which was not established on the materials, as interim orders in prior proceedings were insufficient for that purpose. Where the land had already been subject to prior statutory vesting and earlier land ceiling proceedings, the asserted title and possession were treated as prima facie doubtful, making extraordinary writ relief unsustainable. The writ protection was therefore denied and the appellants' position restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitioners established a valid title capable of supporting protection against dispossession on the basis of a validated but unregistered agreement of sale and subsequent conveyances; (ii) Whether actual and physical possession of the subject land was proved so as to justify relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (iii) Whether, in the backdrop of prior statutory vesting and earlier proceedings under land ceiling laws, the impugned writ relief could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitioners established a valid title capable of supporting protection against dispossession on the basis of a validated but unregistered agreement of sale and subsequent conveyances.

Analysis: A valid transfer of immovable property requires a registered deed of conveyance. An agreement of sale, even if later validated, does not by itself convey title. The materials also disclosed inconsistencies between the two versions of the agreement relied upon, including differences in the extent of land and the recital regarding consideration, which undermined the reliability of the claimed transaction. The title asserted by the writ petitioners was therefore viewed with serious suspicion.

Conclusion: The writ petitioners did not establish a valid title; the claim to title was found to be suspect.

Issue (ii): Whether actual and physical possession of the subject land was proved so as to justify relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Mere reference to interim orders in earlier proceedings was not enough to prove possession. In a claim resisting dispossession, the person seeking writ protection must show actual and physical possession. On the materials before the Court, possession of the disputed extent was not satisfactorily established by the writ petitioners, and the reliance on interim orders did not amount to proof of possession.

Conclusion: Actual and physical possession was not proved, and the writ petitioners were not entitled to protection on that basis.

Issue (iii): Whether, in the backdrop of prior statutory vesting and earlier proceedings under land ceiling laws, the impugned writ relief could be sustained.

Analysis: The land had a long and disputed history under the land reforms and urban land ceiling regimes, and a substantial extent had already attained finality through statutory vesting and earlier judicial proceedings. The Court treated the title and possession claims as at least prima facie doubtful, which made the grant of extraordinary writ relief inappropriate. Since the petitioners had not shown a clear legal right to retain possession against the State's asserted statutory powers, the injunction against dispossession could not stand.

Conclusion: The writ relief granted by the Division Bench was unsustainable and the order of the Single Judge was restored in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, and the writ petitioners were denied protection against dispossession on the materials placed before the Court, leaving them to work out their remedies in appropriate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered agreement of sale does not convey title, and a claim for writ protection against dispossession requires proof of actual and physical possession, especially where the land is subject to prior statutory vesting and the asserted title is prima facie doubtful.

---