Supreme Court Restores Single Judge Order, Holds Title "Prima Facie Suspect" In Raidurg Land Dispute

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard appeals arising from a Division Bench order of the Telangana High Court that had reversed a Single Judge and allowed a writ petition seeking protection from dispossession over 53 acres in Survey No.83/2, Raidurg Panmaktha, Serilingampalle Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appeals challenged the Division Bench's interference and raised questions of title, possession and the scope of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court held that the Division Bench erred in treating interim orders and registered conveyances as establishing unquestionable title and possession. It restored the Single Judge's order which had expressed serious doubts about the validity of the sale agreement of 19.03.1982 and the vendor's title. The bench emphasised that prima facie suspicions on title and absence of proved physical possession disentitled the writ petitioners from claiming protection under Article 226. The Court noted that "a person in possession cannot be dispossessed, except in accordance with law" but also observed that possession must be actually and physically established and could not rest on untested registered instruments when fraud and conflicting transactions were apparent. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The cloud on title and the doubts raised on possession by the learned Single Judge, as affirmed by us are merely prima facie observations to deny discretion to invoke the extra ordinary power under Article 226. So are the misgivings expressed on the claim of repossession by the original declarants through their GPA and the skepticism regarding their very right to obtain repossession of property already vested in the State, under a Statute, which Statute also does not provide for any review of the notification issued under the Act; the notification having merely affirmed the statutory vesting.” The Court therefore declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant interim protection to parties whose registered deeds and sale agreements were susceptible to credible allegations of fraud and conflicting entries.

Background The dispute arose from competing claims over portions of a larger tract originally totalling about 525.31 acres in Survey No.83. The immediate controversy concerned 53 acres said to have been sold under an agreement dated 19.03.1982 to M/s Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society, with subsequent registered sale deeds in favour of the present writ petitioners. The State contended that substantial portions of the land had vested in the State under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and that vesting and allotments to APIIC (now TSIIC) had attained finality in earlier proceedings before this Court.

The Single Judge confined consideration to the 53 acres, found the 1982 agreement and later validation to be suspect, noted cancellation of No Objection Certificates and prior dismissal of a suit for specific performance, and held that title and possession by the writ petitioners were not established. A Division Bench reversed, relying on interim orders and the registered conveyances. On appeal, the Supreme Court analysed the documentary anomalies between two versions of the 1982 agreement, discrepancies in consideration and demarcation, the history of vesting and allotments, and earlier precedents including this Court’s rulings on GPA/sale-agreement transactions and the effect of registration. The bench reiterated that registered instruments carried a rebuttable presumption and that possession for the purpose of protective writs must be proved with clear, actual and physical evidence. The Court restored the Single Judge’s judgment and disposed of the appeals, leaving parties to pursue rights in appropriate forums or statutory remedies. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 646; Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No.1866 of 2024 (connected SLPs Nos.3660 & 3661 of 2024; Diary No.19071 of 2024) Case Title: MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN & ORS. v. M/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Hiren P. Raval, Senior Counsel; Shri S. Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel; Shri P. Mohith Rao, Advocate-on-Record (for parties in Diary No.19071/2024)