Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran restored the order of a learned Single Judge, effectively dismissing a plea that sought protection from dispossession of 53 acres of land located in Survey No.83/2, Raidurg Panmaktha, Telangana. The petitioners sought to restrain authorities from entering the land and from demolishing existing structures without legal authority.

The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish either a valid title or actual possession of the disputed property. It stated, "the writ petitioners have not established a valid title. We prima facie find the title to be suspect, which would disentitle them from claiming a rightful possession, which also has not been proved." As a result, the Bench declined to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Suo Motu Conviction In Appeal By Accused | Says High Courts Cannot Invoke Revisional Powers To Enhance Punishment

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the Telangana High Court Division Bench’s order that had granted relief to the petitioners, and restored the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition. The judgment also preserved the State’s authority to proceed under relevant land reform laws.

The dispute concerns 53 acres of land in Survey No.83/2, Raidurg Panmaktha, Serilingampalle Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners claimed ownership based on registered sale deeds derived from a transaction involving M/s Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which allegedly acquired possession under an agreement of sale dated 19 March 1982.

The original owners of the broader parcel comprising 525.31 acres were eleven individuals. On 7 July 1974, they executed a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Sri Venkateswara Enterprises. Subsequently, land reform legislations came into play—first the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, and then the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

Following declarations under these statutes, about 99.07 acres was declared surplus and taken into possession by the State on 11 April 1975. This extent included the disputed 53 acres. In later proceedings, the GPA sought to reclaim the land, asserting that it was agricultural and thus not subject to the Urban Land Ceiling Act. However, the Land Tribunal rejected this request. Though the Appellate Authority initially remanded the matter, on remand the Tribunal ordered release of the 99.07 acres, a decision the State later contested.

In the meantime, M/s Bhavana Society initiated a suit for specific performance of the 1982 agreement. The suit was dismissed for default in 2001, and the restoration application was rejected in 2004. Despite this, a “validation” of the same sale agreement occurred in 2006. Thereafter, the petitioners claimed title through registered sale deeds executed by Bhavana Society.

The respondents challenged the petitioners' claims on grounds that Bhavana Society had no valid title, as it had not obtained one under the original 1982 agreement. Additionally, the validity of the agreement was contested, with evidence indicating inconsistencies between versions of the agreement presented by the petitioners.

The petitioners had earlier obtained interim orders restraining dispossession. These included a March 2011 order restraining the Lok Ayukta and a February 2012 stay on demolition activities. However, the Single Judge of the Telangana High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no proof of valid title or actual possession. This order was set aside by a Division Bench, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court scrutinised the legitimacy of the petitioners' title and possession. It recorded, “the title of the vendor was suspect. Likewise, possession, on the ground, in reality, had not been proved.” The Court added that “the writ petitioners to have not established a valid title. We prima facie find the title to be suspect.”

The Bench considered the relevance of the Suraj Lamp & Industries case and rejected the petitioners’ interpretation. It stated, “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.”

The Court examined inconsistencies in the 1982 sale agreements. It noted: “Annexure P-33 speaks only of a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-, while Annexure P-37 speaks of Rs. 4,95,350/-. The very recital in Annexure P-37 is anomalous.” This discrepancy raised suspicion of fraudulent documentation.

The Court also reviewed procedural and statutory compliance, stating, “an instrument of conveyance is compulsorily registrable as required under the Registration Act.” The agreement of sale had not been registered within the statutory time limits.

It further noted: “The validation of the sale agreement 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.”

On the matter of possession, the Court found no conclusive evidence: “There is nothing on record indicating the possession, either of the respondents/writ petitioners or the appellants/respondents in the writ petition.”

Referring to an earlier precedent, the Court stated, “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.”

The Bench added that, “mere reliance on interim orders passed in writ petitions earlier filed cannot establish such actual and physical possession.” The title being “prima facie suspect” and possession “not established,” the writ petition was deemed unsustainable.

The Supreme Court restored the order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. It stated, “The judgment of the learned Single Judge is restored, and the appeals stand disposed of, with the above observations and reservations.”

It clarified that its findings were preliminary: “The cloud on title and the doubts raised on possession by the learned Single Judge, as affirmed by us are merely prima facie observations.”

Also Read: Chhattisgarh HC Refuses To Quash Rape And Atrocities Charges | Consent Under Promise Of Marriage Is Misconceived And Directs Framing Of POCSO Charges Based On Continued Exploitation

The Court preserved the State’s authority to act under land reform laws: “The reservation in favour of the State also arises only from our anxiety to preserve the property, without creation of any third-party interest, to avoid any hindrance of the State’s power to invoke the provisions under the Land Reforms Act.”

It also recorded, “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.”

The writ petition was thus dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were declared disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Shri Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Advocate; Shri S. Niranjan Reddy, Senior Advocate; Shri P. Mohith Rao, Advocate on Record

For the Respondents: Shri Hiren P. Raval, Senior Advocate

Case Title: Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 646

Case Number: CA @ SLP (C) No. 1866 of 2024

Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran

[Read/Download order]