TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....., Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Yelamanchili. Shiva Santosh Kumar, Adv. And Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Hiren P. Raval, Sr. Adv., Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv., Mr. Vidisha Swarup, Adv., Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv., Mr. Aryan Rachh, Adv., Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR, Mr. S Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv., Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR, Mr. S.uday Bhanu, Adv., Mr. Akhila Palem, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR, Mr. Kasi Nageshwar Rao, Adv., Mr. Shyam Vasudevan, Adv., Ms. J. Akshitha, Adv., Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv., Mr. J. Venkat Sai, Adv., Mr. D. Srinivas, Adv., Mr. T. Ratnakar, Adv., Mr. Somanatha Padhan, AOR, Mr. Ashwini Kumar Das, Adv., Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR, Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR And Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR JUDGEMENT K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.: 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana in a writ appeal filed from the judgment in a batch of writ petitions dismissed by a common order. The appeal was only against the judgment in W.P No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 1991 before the jurisdictional civil court which had been dismissed for default on 06.04.2001 and the application for restoration was also dismissed on 23.02.2004. Finding no valid explanation as to how another agreement of sale of the same date i.e., 19.03.1982 surfaced, relying on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (D) by LRs v. Jagannath (D) by LRs and Ors.[(1994) 1 SCC 1] emphasised the fraud perpetrated by the petitioners. The subject land was comprised in a total of 99 acres 17 guntas, covered by the agreement of sale dated 19.03.1982; stated to be in the possession of the Government as on the date of the agreement, having vested in the Government under the Land Reforms Act. The possession was said to have been redelivered to the General Power of Attorney (GPA) of the original declarants, thus, negativing the claim of possession with M/s. Bhavna Cooperative Housing Society from 1982. The writ petition filed on the ground of possession stood dismissed. 4. In the appeal, the Division Bench found that the State was concerned with only 470 acres of land out of the total 525.31 acres, as per the learned Advocate General and hence the 53 acres stood distinct and separate. The learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance, but the title of the vendor was suspect. Likewise, possession, on the ground, in reality, had not been proved was the essence of the findings of the learned Single Judge. Before we look at the sustainability of the impugned judgment, we have to notice that the subject land, rather the total larger extent; the original owners being the 11 individuals, predecessors in interest of the appellants herein, had a chequered career as is seen from the decisions produced in the records; State of A.P and Ors. v. N. Audikesava Reddy and Ors. [(2002) 1 SCC 227] and Omprakash Verma v. State of A.P. [(2010) 13 SCC 158] 7. We notice the facts from Omprakash Verma [Omprakash Verma8] which, at the outset, found that one Mohd. Ruknuddin Ahmed and 10 others were the original owners of a land admeasuring 526.07 acres in Survey No.83 situated at Village Raidurg (Panmaktha) of Ranga Reddy District in the State of Andhra Pradesh; comprised in which is the subject land of this litigation having an extent of 53 acres. On 07.07.1974, the owners executed registered GPA in favour of a partnership firm known as Sri Venkateswara Enterprises, represented by its Managing Partners A. Ramaswamy and A. Satya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iety claimed that the proceedings of the competent authority under the Land Ceiling Act stood restored by the judgment in N. Audikesava Reddy and Ors. (supra) The Division Bench rejected the writ petitions against which SLPs were filed which were decided in Omprakash Verma's (supra) case. The learned judges in Omprakash Verma's (supra) case rejected the contention that the original owners had filed the declaration on a misconception and confusion. We extract paragraph 86 to 88 of the cited decision: - "86. It is not in dispute that the panchnama has not been questioned in any proceedings by any of the appellants. Though it is stated that Chanakyapuri Cooperative Society was in possession at one stage and Shri Venkateshawar Enterprises was given possession by the owners and possession was also given to Golden Hill Construction Corporation and thereafter it was given to the purchasers, the fact remains that the owners are not in possession. In view of the same, the finding of the High Court that the possession was taken by the State legally and validly through a panchnama is absolutely correct and deserves to be upheld. 87. It is relevant to point out the conduct of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lands were agricultural lands, not included under the Land Ceiling Act, the GPA of the original declarants filed a petition before the Land Tribunal pointing out the proceedings taken under the Land Ceiling Act, asserting that the provisions of the Land Reforms Act are not applicable since the entire land in Survey No.83 was treated as vacant land under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. The GPA sought release of the extent of 99.07 acres which was rejected. Four appeals were filed before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority-cum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy in which there was a remand. The Land Tribunal on remand accepted the plea of the declarants and directed the extent of 99.07 acres to be released to the declarants; which according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State was not permissible. 12. Subject of the present appeals; 53 acres, is said to be comprised in the 99.07 acres of land allegedly reverted to the declarants on 25.04.1990, the possession allegedly having been handed over to the GPA of the declarants. In so far as the remaining 46.20 acres, there is said to be a writ petition pending before the High Court in which the High Court has permitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....declarants who had claimed the said lands to be agricultural lands when the Land Reforms Act came into force. Shri S. Niranjan Reddy also points out Section 9-A of the Land Reforms Act which provides for reopening of cases. It is also pointed out that though the Land Ceiling Act, 1976 has been repealed in 1999, the vesting cannot be disturbed and the decisions of this Court on the earlier two occasions has brought about a finality to the vesting under the repealed Act. 15. The respondents herein who were the writ petitioners have emphasised their claims on the basis of the decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr. [(2012) 1 SCC 656]. The said decision has been cited to argue that the title deeds; registered instruments of conveyance, are to be deemed valid unless set aside or declared void by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. There is no such dictum in the said decision wherein a Division Bench of this Court was concerned with conveyances made on the strength of agreements of sale, General Power of Attorney and Wills. The issue addressed was avoidance of execution and registration of deed of conveyances as a mode of transfer of a free hold i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ales" or "SA/GPA/will transfers" do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognised or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales." 17. It is in this context that we must examine the document of 19.03.1982, an agreement which is said to have been validated in the year 2006. We immediately notice that the very contention of the writ petitioners is only that they have obtained proper conveyances by registered sale deeds from Bhavana society, whose claim i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 99.17 acres out of the total extent of 525.35 acres. Here, we must specifically notice that there was a demarcation of 99.17 acres of land out of the total extent when the land had been declared vested in the State under the Land Reforms Act and possession taken by the State in 1975. In 1982 when the agreement of sale validated subsequently was executed, that extent had vested in the State and was in the State's possession. The alleged reversion of such land to the original declarants occurred only in the year 1990 and hence there was no reason for the sale of the specified extent as seen from Annexure P-37 at that point of time. These are not two separate transactions since the consideration paid is Rs.50,000/- by cheque issued on Andhra Bank, Mukharamjahi Road, Hyderabad. However, the cheque numbers differ in so far as Annexure P-33 showing the number of 738569 while Annexure P-37 indicates it to be 238569; obviously a printer's devil. 20. Further clause (2) in the said agreements also differ which stands extracted hereunder: Annexure P-33: - "2) That in pursuance of the above said offer and acceptance, the Second party purchaser has this day paid a sum of Rs. 50,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich 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. As we noticed at the outset, 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. 23. The Division Bench has found possession on the appellants and the writ petitioners by virtue of two interim orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of the High Court. The first one is in W.P. No. 29547 of 2011, wherein the Lok Ayukta was directed not to pass any further orders but the State Government and the APIIC Ltd. were not restrained from taking any action in accordance with law. The interim order in W.P. No. 4466 of 2012 also does not establish possession on the writ petitioners. Undoubtedly, the 53 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....based on the oral and documentary evidence was overturned by the First Appellate Court and the High Court drawing inference of possession from applications filed in an earlier suit. This Court restored the order of the Trial Court, finding that actual and physical possession must be proved, which principle would apply even in a writ petition under Article 226, more strictly since there is no evidence led and the consideration is only based on documents produced on affidavit. 27. 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. We have also noticed that the validated agreement of 19.03.1982, based on which conveyance is claimed by the writ petitioners, cannot be sustained on the clear terms in the two agreements. We noticed on a comparison of the actual agreement on which a suit for specific performance was filed and the latter agreement, which stood validated but not registered even now that the original declarants and the writ petitioners have been approbating and reprobating. The power of absolute right over lands is on the State....