logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 135 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Petition No. 8881 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Parties : Shaik Shabeena Versus State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: V. Yadu Krishna Sainath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration.
Date of Judgment : 25-03-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 31, 32, 33, 41 and 42 of the Act, 1899

2. Catch Words:
Not mentioned.

3. Summary:
The petitioner, claiming ownership of a plot of land purchased under an agreement of sale dated 21‑07‑2000, sought validation of the agreement from Respondent No. 3, which was refused. The petitioner relied on a prior judgment (W.P.No.17319 of 2025) for similar relief. The Court, after hearing counsel, directed the petitioner to produce the agreement of sale and a representation for impounding and collection of deficit stamp duty under the specified sections of the 1899 Act. Respondent No. 3 was instructed to examine the documents in accordance with the earlier order and take appropriate action. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. With their consent, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Plot No.43 (east Side Part) admeasuring 100 Sq.Yds equivalent to 83.07 Sq.Mtrs (out of total admeasuring 228.Sq Mtrs) in Sy.No.134/Part situated at Green Hills Colony, Bahadurpally, Quthbullapur, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, having purchased the same vide Agreement of Sale dated 21.07.2000 from its lawful owners, by paying valid sale consideration. The vendor of the petitioner in turn purchased the same through registered sale deed Document No.9723/1992, dated 23.11.1992. Due to paucity of funds and lack of legal knowledge, the petitioner could not obtain regular sale deed. Even since then, the petitioner is peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The main grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 on 01.03.2026, requesting to validate the Agreement of Sale dated 21.07.2000 the respondent No.3 refused to validate the said Agreement of Sale.

3. It is further submitted that the subject matter of the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17319 of 2025 dated 23.6.2025 and requests the Court to pass similar order in this writ petition. The same is not seriously disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. In view of the said submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit the Agreement of Sale dated 21.07.2000 along with the representation for impounding and collection of deficit stamp duty under Sections 31, 32, 33, 41 and 42 of the Act, 1899 and if such document is presented, the respondent No.3 is directed to examine the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1899 and as per the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.17319 of 2025 dated 23.6.2025 and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

5. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal