INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India in its judgement of Mahnoor Fatima Imran v. Visweswara Infrastructure (P) Ltd.1, while dealing with the relief of dispossession against the State reitereated well-established principles regarding claim of ownership and possession on the basis of agreements to sell, General Power of Attorney and subsequent validation by conveyances. The Court passed a common judgment and order in a group of petitions challenging Telangana High Court's findings on ownership and title over a disputed property.
FACTS
The instant case revolved around dispossession of the writ petitioners from the land comprising an area of about 53 acres situated in Survey No.83/2 of Raidurg Panmaktha, Village Serilingampalle Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ("subject land"), which was a part of larger parcel of land being 525 acres 31 guntas, which originally belonged to 11 individuals who executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of a partnership firm viz. Sri Venkateswara Enterprises represented by its Managing Partners A. Ramaswamy and A. Satyanarayana in 1974.
Thereafter, the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 was enacted, the individuals filed their declarations and an area of about 99.07 acres was found to be surplus and the State Government took possession of the same in 1975. Later, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force when an area of about 424.13 acres out of the said 525.31 acres was allotted to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., which later became Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited.
The remainder area of 99.07 acres inclusive of the subject land of about 53 acres was claimed to have reverted to the original owners through the constituted attorneys along with possession . Such position was countenanced by the respondents in the SLP who claim to be in possession of the subject land on the strength of the registered title deeds in which the vendor is one M/s Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ("Bhavana Society") who obtained possession of the land under an agreement of sale of 1982 executed by the original owners. Pertinently, the said agreement of sale was validated in 2006 but later held to be fraudulent by the District Registrar, Karimnagar in 2015. However, no Deed of Sale was executed and registered in favour of Bhavana Society.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents had ownership and/or title and in possession over the subject land claiming under the registered sale deeds which were executed in their favour by Bhavana Society?
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
The SLP petitioners claimed that the sale deeds executed in favour of the SLP respondents (writ petitioners) were invalid as no title was conferred on the Vendor of the title deeds i.e. Bhavana Society and further that the possession of the subject land was reverted to the petitioners upon devolution from the original owners.
On the contrary, the SLP respondents contended that the sale deeds executed in their favour was valid as the agreement of sale of 1982 was validated in 2006 and they were in possession of the subject land which the TSIIC was proposing to dispossess them.
On behalf of the State, it was contended that the entirety of 99.07 acres of land stood vested with the State, and it had not reverted to the original owners as they had claimed that the said lands are agricultural lands.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court took notice of the fact that the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court relied on two interim orders issued in the past to arrive at the conclusion that the SLP respondents were in possession without considering that the Single Judge had examined the asserted title and possession of the SLP respondents and raised a suspicion as to the validity of such claim.
However, such contentions were brushed aside by the Division Bench as it held that the Single Judge was not required to examine the title of the SLP respondents as the relief sought was for protection against illegal dispossession based merely on the possession of the subject land.
The Supreme Court repelled the incorrect reliance on the dictum by the respondents as laid down in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr.2, inter alia, clarifying that even though registration of a document gives notice to the world of execution of such document, but this does not amount to conferment of "unimpeachable validity on all such registered documents" and such presumption of unimpeachability is rebuttable in appropriate proceedings.
In the instant case, the Supreme Court further underscored that in view of Suraj Lamp (supra), the respondents could not claim ownership of the subject lands based on the Agreement of Sale of 1982 as Bhavna Society itself did not have a valid title in absence of valid mode or instrument of transfer of immovable property.
The Supreme Court further examined the issue of alleged validation of the 1982 Agreement of Sale in 2006 and observed several discrepancies between the versions exhibited in various proceedings.
The Court reiterated the timelines prescribed by the Registration Act, 1908 have to be read in letter and spirit as Section 23 thereof stipulates that the document executed must be presented for registration within four months from such date of execution. However, in cases of multiple parties, as per Section 24 of 1908 Act, the document executed by each party has to be presented within four months for registration or re-registration of each execution. The Court also discussed the importance of the proviso that the Registrar is empowered to condone such delay if such document is presented within a further period of four months but upon payment of fine.
Thus, the Court underscored in view of the above timelines even the validation exercise carried out in 2006 could not have conferred any title on Bhavana Society as admittedly no registered deed was executed and merely because the subsequent document i.e. sale deed between Bhavana Society and the respondents was registered, it could not have conferred and/or perfected the title of either Bhavana Society or the respondents.
The Court reversed the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that the respondents have not been able to establish a valid title over the subject land which being under suspicion would disentitle them from claiming rightful possession thereof which was also not proved by the respondents.
The Court reiterated well-established principles laid down in Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta3 where the Supreme Court held that actual and physical possession must be proved.
Comment
The Supreme Court reiterated well-established principles that mere registration of a document though it gives notice to the world of execution, it does not give the document an unimpeachable character which is amenable to challenge in appropriate proceedings.
The Court also reiterated well-established principles in section 17 and section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 that an agreement for sale does not confer any title and rights upon a purchaser unless the sale deed has been executed and registered and the mere fact that such Vendee has executed a subsequent deed as a Vendor also does not confer any right upon the vendee of such subsequent deed in absence of the compulsory requirement of registration of the previous document.
Footnotes
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1062
2 (2012) 1 SCC 656
3 (2020) 19 SCC 119
The content of this document does not necessarily reflect the views / position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up, please contact Khaitan & Co at editors@khaitanco.com.
