Supreme Court Restores Single Judge's Order in Telangana Land Dispute.


07 May 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Dispute over ownership or title over property >> Property & Real Estate  

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment delivered on May 7, 2025, in the case of Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Others v/s M/s. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others, Civil Appeal No. of 2025, restored the order of the learned Single Judge of the Telangana High Court, effectively dismissing a writ petition that sought to restrain dispossession from 53 acres of land in Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampalle Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appeals were heard by the Honourable Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and the Honourable Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The case revolves around a long-standing dispute concerning 53 acres of land, part of a larger 525.31-acre parcel, originally owned by 11 individuals. The land has a complex history, marked by proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the 'Land Reforms Act') and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the 'Land Ceiling Act').

 
 

The writ petitioners, who were respondents in the Supreme Court appeals, claimed possession based on registered title deeds from M/s Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Bhavana Society). Bhavana Society's claim originated from an agreement of sale dated March 19, 1982. This agreement was validated on September 11, 2006, by the Assistant Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, but later deemed fraudulent by the District Registrar, Karimnagar, on August 12, 2015. Furthermore, No Objection Certificates issued by the Urban Land Ceiling authorities to the writ petitioners were also cancelled.

The learned Single Judge had previously dismissed the writ petition, raising concerns about the validity of the writ petitioners' title and their claim of possession. The Single Judge noted that a suit for specific performance filed by Bhavana Society (O.S.No.248 of 1991) was dismissed for default, and its restoration application was also rejected. The Single Judge highlighted a fraud perpetrated by the petitioners, as a different agreement of sale with the same date, March 19, 1982, surfaced. The subject land was part of 99 acres 17 guntas covered by this agreement and had vested in the Government under the Land Reforms Act, with possession taken on April 11, 1975.

The Division Bench of the High Court, however, reversed the Single Judge's decision, focusing on the principle that a person in possession cannot be dispossessed except through due process of law. The Division Bench relied on interim orders from co-ordinate benches, which had restrained demolition and further proceedings by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (APIIC), predecessor of TSIIC.

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that the writ petition was primarily against dispossession, critically examined the asserted title and possession of the writ petitioners. The Court delved into the history of the land, noting that 424.13 acres out of the total 525.31 acres had been allotted to APIIC (now TSIIC) and this vesting and allotment had attained finality, precluding any dispute over title or possession on that portion.

Regarding the 99.07 acres, which includes the 53 acres in dispute and allegedly reverted to the original declarants in 1990, the Supreme Court expressed strong reservations. The Court highlighted inconsistencies in the two versions of the March 19, 1982, agreement of sale—one used for the specific performance suit and the other revalidated. These agreements differed in the extent of property and cheque numbers for part payment. The Court found that the Bhavana Society was aware it did not obtain valid title from the agreement of sale. The Supreme Court emphasized that an agreement of sale, even if validated, cannot be recognized as a valid mode of transfer of immovable property if not registered.

Referencing its previous decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr., the Supreme Court reiterated that immovable property can only be legally transferred by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions based on "GPA sales" or "SA/GPA/will transfers" do not convey title and are not recognized as valid modes of transfer.

The Court also took serious notice of the State's submission regarding the invocation of Section 9-A of the Land Reforms Act against the 99.07 acres that had vested in the State. It further noted that the Land Ceiling Act generally permits retention of only 1000 sq. m. per declarant, although an exemption to hold 5 acres each was mentioned in Omprakash Verma.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the writ petitioners had not established a valid title and their claim of rightful possession was not proven. The Court stressed that mere reliance on interim orders cannot establish actual and physical possession. The Court concluded that there was a "cloud on title and doubts raised on possession".

The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge, clarifying that its observations were prima facie and intended to deny the invocation of extraordinary power under Article 226. The parties retain the right to litigate their causes in appropriate civil forums or under statutory remedies, and those proceedings will not be governed by the findings in this judgment.


ANDHRA PRADESH LAND REFORMS (CEILING ON AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS) ACT, 1973  

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976