Summary
Writ petitioners sought to restrain the State industrial corporation from dispossessing them of 53 acres claimed under registered sale deeds from a society whose own claim rested on an unregistered 1982 agreement of sale, 'validated' in 2006. Restoring the Single Judge's dismissal, the Court held that an agreement of sale or GPA transaction conveys no title (Suraj Lamp), that the validated agreement differed materially from the one earlier sued upon and smacked of fraud, and that a writ against dispossession requires proof of actual physical possession, which interim orders in earlier writ petitions cannot supply. All findings are prima facie; the parties may pursue civil or statutory remedies.
Issues
- Whether registered sale deeds executed by a vendor holding only an unregistered (later 'validated') agreement of sale confer a title on which the purchasers can resist dispossession under Article 226.
- Whether Suraj Lamp lays down that registered instruments of conveyance are deemed valid unless set aside by a civil court.
- Whether possession, for a writ seeking protection from dispossession, can be established from interim orders passed in earlier writ petitions.
- Whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction may examine title when the relief sought is only protection from dispossession otherwise than in accordance with law.
Provisions considered
- Sections 17 and 49, Registration Act, 1908Documents creating or transferring rights in immovable property worth Rs.100 or more must be registered and an unregistered document does not affect the property. Registration gives notice to the world that a document was executed but does not confer unimpeachable validity on it; the presumption from a registered conveyance is rebuttable. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Sections 23, 24 and proviso to Section 34, Registration Act, 1908A document must be presented for registration within four months of execution (or of each execution where executants sign at different times), and the Registrar may condone presentation within a further four months on payment of a fine. The 1982 agreement could not be registered at this distance of time, and 'validation' of an unregistered agreement could not produce title. (¶¶ 18, 22)
- Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882Following Suraj Lamp, agreements of sale, GPA and will transactions are not conveyances and are recognised only to the limited extent of Section 53-A; they cannot be the basis of title or of mutation. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaActual physical possession must be proved before relief against dispossession is granted, and more strictly in writ proceedings decided on affidavits without evidence; a cloud on title and doubt about possession are prima facie grounds to decline the discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
- Section 9-A, Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973The State's submission that it proposes to invoke Section 9-A (reopening) against the 99.07 acres vested in it was taken serious note of; the fate of the 53 acres is subject to that proposed action. (¶¶ 14, 24)
Held
- Suraj Lamp does not hold that registered conveyances are deemed valid until set aside by a civil court. Its binding conclusion is that immovable property can be transferred only by a registered deed of conveyance and that SA/GPA/will transactions convey no title except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The observation that registration gives notice to the world does not confer unimpeachable validity on every registered document; the presumption from a registered deed is rebuttable. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- Where the writ petitioners' vendor itself claimed only under an unregistered 1982 agreement of sale, and had sued for specific performance of it (a suit dismissed for default, with restoration refused), the vendor knew it had no title; registered sale deeds from such a vendor could not confer title on the purchasers. (¶¶ 17, 18, 22)
- The agreement 'validated' in 2006 differed materially from the agreement on which the specific performance suit was filed (extent of land, recital of consideration and cheque number) although both bore the same date, parties and boundaries; demarcation of a specific extent in 1982, when that land had vested in the State and the alleged reversion came only in 1990, was unexplained. The validation smacked of fraud, and neither agreement could result in valid title merely because the later instrument was registered. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Interim orders in earlier writ petitions (one restraining the Lok Ayukta, the other staying demolition) do not establish possession. Where dispossession by the State is alleged on the strength of possession, actual physical possession must be proved (Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande), and this applies more strictly in a writ petition under Article 226 where no evidence is led and the matter rests on affidavits. (¶¶ 23, 26, 27)
- Although the writ sought only protection from dispossession, the Single Judge did not decide title but rightly raised valid suspicion about the vendor's title and found possession unproved; a cloud on title and doubts about possession are prima facie grounds to deny the discretion to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (¶¶ 6, 22, 25, 28)
- The vesting and allotment of the land allotted to APIIC (now with TSIIC) has attained finality after Omprakash Verma. As to the 99.07 acres said to have reverted to the original declarants under the Land Reforms Act, the Court said nothing about possession, which must be agitated in appropriate proceedings and is subject to the State's proposed action under the Act; no third-party interest should be created meanwhile, and the parties may pursue civil or statutory remedies unaffected by these prima facie findings. (¶¶ 10, 24, 25, 28)
Result
Judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition restored; appeals disposed of with the observations and reservations recorded (findings prima facie only; parties free to pursue remedies in the civil forum or under the statute); pending applications disposed of.