Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 74

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


I.A. NO. OF 2017

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Vemani Ravindranath and Ors. Petitioners


Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Respondents

AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and
His Companion Justice of Supreme
Court of India

The Honor Petition of the Petitioners above named most


respectfullyShoweth:
1. The present Petition is filed seeking Special Leave to writ

petition against the common impugned Judgment and order

dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana for the

State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 343 of 2015. The

High Court by its Impugned judgment disposed all the writ

petitions of petitioner herein along with other connected


matters on the basis of ratio laid down by Full Bench of High

Court in WA No.343/2015 and batch dated 23.12.2015.

2 That petitioner reiterated the contents of SLP and for the

sake of brevity the same are not repeated herein.

3 That the impugned order passed by Hon’ble High Court

on 29.1.2016 and the same was informed to petitioner by the

Advocate in High Court but the petitioner herein could not raise

the funds to file the present SLP before this Hon’ble Court and

that they were not party before the High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

4 That due to above stated reasons some delay has

occasioned which is neither deliberate nor intentional but

occurred due to above stated bonafide reasons.

PRAYER

For the reasons stated above it is humbly prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

a. condone the delay of ____ days in filing the present SLP

against the common impugned Judgment and order dated

23.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana for the State of Andhra

Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 343 of 2015; and


ii) pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice.

AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR PETITIONERS, AS


IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:

SUMANTH NOOKALA
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS
Filed on : 02.05.2017
Place-New Delhi
SUMANTH NOOKALA
ADVOCATE
105, OLD LAYERS CHAMBER
SUPREME COURT
NEW DELHI
LETTER FOR URGENCY
Date: 02.05.2017
To
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi

Sub: SLP ( C ) No. of 2016, D. No. of 2016


Vemani Ravindranath and Ors.
Versus
State of A.P and Ors.

Sir,
It is submitted that in the above stated matter lands which
are involved are the ancestor properties of the vendors of the
petitioner herein, this Hon’ble Court categorically held in a catena of
judgments that a list sent by Tahsildar or the District
Collector/Revenue Authority showing certain properties belong to
the Government does not have any binding force in refusing to
register. The registering authority shall apply its mind to the
material placed by the private party as well as revenue officials and
arrive at own conclusion. Simply because included the particular
survey number in the list of Government land cannot take away the
rights of the owners of the property. The registering authority ought
to have register the lands basing on the material produced by the
parties concern. Without application of mind, the registering
authority cannot refuse to register without assigning any reason.
It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court, against the orders in
Writ Appeal No. 343/2015 dated 23.12.2015 granted interim
directions and directed to post along with the connected SLP ( c )
No. 15009/2016 on 26.09.2016.
Hence there is an urgency to register/list the above stated
matter.

Thanking you,
Yours faithfully

SUMANTH NOOKALA
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2017

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Vemani Ravindranath & Ors. Petitioners


Versus
State of AP and ors Respondents

AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED


COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and
His Companion Justice of Supreme
Court of India

The Honor Petition of the


Petitioners above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Petition is filed seeking Special Leave to writ

petition against the common impugned Judgment and

order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court

of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana

and for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.

343 of 2015. The High Court by its Impugned judgment


disposed all the writ petitions herein along with other

connected matters on the basis of ratio laid down by Full

Bench of High Court in WA No.343/2015 and batch dated

23.12.2015.

2 That petitioner reiterated the contents of SLP and for the

sake of brevity the same are not repeated herein.

3. It is submitted that against the orders of the Hon’ble High

Court at Hyderabad has passed a common Impugned

Judgment dated 23.12.2015 and the Petitioner Counsel

has filed the Common Impugned Certified copy of

Judgment in the main matter being SLP (C ) 15009 of

2016 and the Petitioners are not party before the Hon’ble

Court Hence, they could not get the Certified copy in Writ

Petition No. 343 of 2015.

PRAYER

For the reasons stated above it is humbly prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

a. exempt the petitioners from filing certified copy of the

Impugned common Judgment and order dated

23.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and


for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 343 of

2015; and

ii) pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

and proper in the interest of justice.

AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR PETITIONERS, AS


IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

FILED BY:

Sumanth Nookala
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
Filed on: 02.05.2017
Place-New Delhi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2017
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kasthuri and Ors. Petitioners
Versus
T.K. Jambu and Anr. Respondents

AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE SPECIAL LEAVE


PETITION
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and
His Companion Justice of Supreme
Court of India

The Honor Petition of the


Petitioners above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Petition is filed seeking Special Leave to writ

petition against the common impugned Judgment and

order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras in A.S. No. 533 of 2006.

2 That petitioner reiterated the contents of SLP and for the

sake of brevity the same are not repeated herein.

3. The Petitioners are not party before the High Court and

they are affected by the Impugned final Judgment and

order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras in A.s. No. 533 of 2006. Therefore


the Petitioners are challenging the said Impugned order

dated 9.12.2016 before this Hon’ble Court. Hence this is

an application seeking permission to file present Special

Leave Petition against the Judgment and order dated

09.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Madras in A.s. No. 533 of 2006

PRAYER

For the reasons stated above it is humbly prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

a. permit the petitioners to file Special Leave Petition against

the Impugned final Judgment and order dated

09.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Madras in A.s. No. 533 of 2006; and

ii) pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

and proper in the interest of justice.

AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR PETITIONERS, AS


IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

FILED BY:

MRS. N. SHOBA
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
Filed on: 05.05.2017
Place-New Delhi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2017

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Vemani Ravindranath & Ors. Petitioners


Versus
State of AP and ors Respondents

AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO BRING ON RECORD


THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT/ANNEXURE
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and
His Companion Justice of Supreme
Court of India
The Honor Petition of the
Petitioners above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Petition is filed seeking Special Leave to writ

petition against the common impugned Judgment and

order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court

of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana

and for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.

343 of 2015. The High Court by its Impugned judgment

disposed all the writ petitions herein along with other

connected matters on the basis of ratio laid down by Full


Bench of High Court in WA No.343/2015 and batch dated

23.12.2015.

2 That petitioner reiterated the contents of SLP and for the

sake of brevity the same are not repeated herein.

3. It is submitted that against the orders of the Hon’ble High

Court at Hyderabad has passed a common Impugned

Judgment dated 23.12.2015. After that the Hon’ble

Division Bench passed similar order in Writ Petition Nos.

22960/2015, 22933/2015 and 22937/2015 and batch

dated 29.01.2016. Therefore the order dated 29.01.2016

is required to bring on record for the better adjudication

of the issues involved in the present Special Leave

Petition. A true copy of the order dated 29.01.2016

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for

the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh in

Writ Petition No. 22960/2015, 22933/2015 and

22937/2015 is annexed and marked as Annexure P9

Pages ____ to ____

PRAYER

For the reasons stated above it is humbly prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to


a. exempt the petitioners from filing certified copy of the

Impugned common Judgment and order dated

23.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and

for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 343 of

2015; and

ii) pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

and proper in the interest of justice.

AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR PETITIONERS, AS


IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

FILED BY:

Sumanth Nookala
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
Filed on: 02.05.2017
Place-New Delhi
IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORDER XXI RULE 3 (1) (a)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
Special Leave Petition (Civil ) No of 2017
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising out of the
common impugned Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2015
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh
in Writ Appeal No. 343 of 2015)
(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
IN THE MATTER OF
IN THE MATTER OF:

Vemani Ravindranath & Ors. Petitioners


Versus
State of AP and ors Respondents
WITH
I.A. No. of 2017
AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
TO FILE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
AND
I.A. NO OF 2017
AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED
COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER
AND
I.A. NO. OF 2017
AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
AND
I.A. NO. OF 2017
AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENT/ANNEXURE
PAPER BOOK

(FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER :SUMANTH NOOKALA


INDEX

S. NO. PARTICULARS OF DOCUMENT PAGES

1 Official Report on Limitation

2 Listing performa

3 Synopsis and List of Dates and events

4 Certified copy of the common impugned


Judgment and order dated 23.12.2015
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
Telangana and for the State of Andhra
Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 343 of 2015

5 Special Leave Petition with Affidavit

6 Appendix –I
Section 22A of Registration Act, 1908

7 Annexure P-1
A true copy of WP No.36711/2014 dated
16.11.2014 filed by 1st petitioner before
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

8 Annexure P-2
A true copy of WP No.36701/2014 dated
16.11.2014 filed by 1st petitioner before
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

9 Annexure P-3
A true copy of WP No.36693/2014 dated
16.11.2014 filed by 1st petitioner before
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

10. Annexure P-4


A true copy of WP No.36584/2014 dated
16.11.2014 filed by 1st petitioner before
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
11 Annexure P-5
A true copy of WP No.35090/2014 dated
18.11.2014 filed by 1st petitioner before
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

12. Annexure P-6


A copy of Judgment dated 1.6.2015
passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana
and Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 36711
of 2014 and batch

13. Annexure P-7


A true copy of WP No.22933/2015 dated
22.7.2015 filed by 7th and 8th petitioner
before High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad

14. Annexure P-8


A true copy of WP No.22937/2015 dated
22.7.2015 filed by 7th and 8th petitioner
before High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad

15. Annexure P-9


A true copy of the interim order dated
12.05.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court
in SLP ( Civil ) No. 15009 of 2016

16. I.A. No. of 2017


An Application for permission to file
Special Leave Petition

17. I.A. No. of 2017


An Application for exemption from filing
Certified copy of Impugned order.

11. I.A. No. of 2017


An Application for condonation of delay
in filing Special Leave Petition
12. I.A. No. of 2017
An Application for permission to bring on
record Additional document/ Annexure

13. Annexure P10


A true copy of the common order dated
29.01.2016 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Writ
petition No. 22960/2015, 22933/2015
and 22935 of 2015 and batch
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPCIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Vemani Ravindranath & Ors. Petitioners


Versus
State of AP and ors Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is / are within limitation.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of ___

days in fling the same against order dated 23.12.2015and

petition for condonation of delay of ________ Days has

been filed.

3. There is delay of ___ Days in refilling the petition and

petition for condonation of ____ days delay in refilling has

been filed.

Dated:
New Delhi Advocate for the Petitioner
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The present SLP is being filed challenging the common

impugned final Judgment and order dated 23.12.2015 passed

by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the

State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ

Appeal No. 343 of 2015 & batch in interpreting provisions of

section 22A of Registration Act, 1908. The impugned judgment

has interpreted the provisions of section 22A in a manner to

defeat the rights of the citizen over immovable property by

authorizing preparation of lists purportedly under section 22A

(1) © of the said Act.

It is submitted that 1stpetitioner is absolute owner and

possessor of the land admeasuring 294sq yards in Sy

No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V) TirupatiMandal, Renigunta Sub

Division, Tirupati Revenue Division, Chittoor District, Andhra

Pradesh. The petitioner wants to dispose of the property to

third party but the respondents are not entertaining the sale

deeds i.e. why seeking a direction to the respondents to

entertain the sale deed presented by the petitioner, he filed WP

No.36711/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court of at Hyderabad

for States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.


It is submitted that 2nd petitioner is absolute owner and

possessor of the land admeasuring 294 sq yards in Sy

No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V) TirupatiMandal, Renigunta Sub

Division, Tirupati Revenue Division, Chittoor District, Andhra

Pradesh. The petitioner wants to dispose of the property to

third party but the respondents are not entertaining the sale

deeds i.e. why seeking a direction to the respondents to

entertain the sale deed presented by the petitioner, he filed WP

No.35090/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court of at Hyderabad

for States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

It is submitted that 3rd petitioner is absolute owner and

possessor of the land admeasuring 147 sq yards in Sy

No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V) TirupatiMandal, Renigunta Sub

Division, Tirupati Revenue Division, Chittoor District, Andhra

Pradesh. The petitioner wants to dispose of the property to

third party but the respondents are not entertaining the sale

deeds i.e. why seeking a direction to the respondents to

entertain the sale deed presented by the petitioner, he filed WP

No.36701/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court of at Hyderabad

for States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.


It is submitted that 4th petitioner is absolute owner and

possessor of the land admeasuring 147 sq yards in Sy

No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V) TirupatiMandal, Renigunta Sub

Division, Tirupati Revenue Division, Chittoor District, Andhra

Pradesh. The petitioner wants to dispose of the property to

third party but the respondents are not entertaining the sale

deeds i.e. why seeking a direction to the respondents to

entertain the sale deed presented by the petitioner, he filed WP

No.36693/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court of at Hyderabad

for States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

It is submitted that 5thpetitioner is absolute owner and

possessor of the land admeasuring 294 sq yards in Sy

No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V) TirupatiMandal, Renigunta Sub

Division, Tirupati Revenue Division, Chittoor District, Andhra

Pradesh. The petitioner wants to dispose of the property to

third party but the respondents are not entertaining the sale

deeds i.e. why seeking a direction to the respondents to

entertain the sale deed presented by the petitioner, he filed WP

No.36584/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court of at Hyderabad

for States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.


The said writ petition Nos.36711/2014, 35090/2014,

36701/2014, 36693/2014 and 36584/2014 were disposed of by

the Hon’ble High Court vide common order in a batch of writ

petitions on 01.06.2015 directing the respondents to receive

sale deed presented by the petitioners and registered the same

in favor of third parties but the request of the petitioners to

receive the sale deeds and register the same is pending, in the

meantime similar issue was referred to the full bench of the

Hon’ble High Court, the Hon’ble High Court in a common

judgment in WA No.343/2015 dated 23.12.2015 passed a

common order framing certain guidelines to be followed by the

respondents during the course of registration of any document.

While things stood thus,

The 6thpetitioner is absolute owner and possessor of land

measuring 6 ½ cents in Survey No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V),

TirupatiMandal, Renigunta Sub Division, Tirupati Revenue

Division, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner wants

to dispose of the property to third party but the respondents

are not entertaining the sale deeds that is why, seeking a

direction to the respondents to entertain the sale deed


presented by the petitioner filed said writ petition

No.22960/2015.

The 7thand 8thpetitioners are absolute owners and possessor of

land admeasuring 293 1/3 sq yards in Survey No.242/21,

Tiruchanuru (V), TirupatiMandal, Renigunta Sub Division,

Tirupati Revenue Division, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.

The petitioner wants to dispose of the property to third party

but the respondents are not entertaining the sale deeds that is

why seeking a direction to the respondents to entertain the sale

deed presented by the petitioner,filed writ petition

No.22933/2015.

The 9th petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of land

measuring 0-03 ½ cents in Survey No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V),

TirupatiMandal, Renigunta Sub Division, Tirupati Revenue

Division, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner wants

to dispose of the property to third party but the respondents

are not entertaining the sale deeds that is why seeking a

direction to the respondents to entertain the sale deed

presented by the petitioner, filed writ petition No.22937/2015.


It is submitted the First Respondent Government allotted the

land to the father of the Petitioner No.10 in Survey

No.285/10, extent 1 Acre 46 cents, Survey No.620/1a

extent 4 Acres 9 cents in 1970, since then the family

members of the 10th Petitioner are in possession and

enjoyment of the said property and accordingly he is the

absolute owner of the said property.

The petitioners 11 to 17 are purchased the property in

Survey No.285/5, extent 1 Acre 47 cents, Survey

No.166/3a 0.44 cents, Survey No.620/1a extent 4 Acres 90

cents, total 6 Acres 81 cents, Sy No.518/1B, extent 4.98

cents, Sy No.285/8 extent 1.47 cents, Survey No.518/1,

extent 4.50 cents total 6.17 cents., Survey No.283 1.12

cents, survey no.51811 extent 4.80 cents, survey no.96

extent 0.40 cents, Survey No.157 extent 0.93 cents,

Survey No.166/3 extent 0.44 cents total 7.04 acres.,

Survey No.285/9 extent 1.46 Acres, Survey No.285/7, 1.47

cents, Survey No.522/2 extent 0.06 cents, Survey No.541

extent 0.94 cents, Survey No.522/5 extent 0.56 cents total

1.56 acres., Survey No.604/1, extent 2.50 cents, Survey

No.605/2, extent 5 acres., Survey No.540/1 extent 2.24

cents, Survey No.361/2 extent 5 acres, Survey No.77/1,


extent 1.32 cents, Survey No.361/2 extent 5 acres., survey

no.604/1, 5 Acres, Survey No.539 extent 1.47 cents,

Survey No.540/1, extent 2.24 cents, ChinnaiahSy No.541

extent 0.94 cents, Sy No.519, extent 2.11 cents, Sy

No.522/2 extent 0.06 cents, Sy No.522/3 extent 0.66

cents, Sy No.522/4 extent 1.88 cents, Sy No.522/5 extent

0.56 cents, Sy No.522/6 extent 1.88 cents, Sy No.522/1,

extent 1.88 cents. Mandapampalli Village, Onpimitta

Revenue Division, YSR Cadappa District.

It is submitted that the Ld. Single Judge in W.P. 24587 of 2014

and batch directed to tagged on with the Writ Petition No.

36711 of 2014 and disposed of on 01.06.2015, directing the

Official Respondents to receive the sale deeds proposed by the

Petitioners 1 to 6 and register the same as per law.

It is submitted that similar writ petitions arises in the matters of

Section 22 A of Registration Act or referred to the Full Bench of

the Hon’ble High Court of Hyderabad by the Division Bench of

the Hon’ble High Court. In the referred matter the full bench

while disposing of the all the connected writ petitions alongwith

the Writ Appeal 343 of 2015 on 23.12.2015 certain guidelines

for frame to be followed by the Respondents.


It is submitted that Writ Petitions preferred by the Petitioners 7

to 9 were tagged on to the W.P. Nos. 22960 of 2015 and batch

and listed before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court

and followed the Judgment of the full bench in Writ Appeal No.

343 of 2015 dated 29.12.2015.

Accordingly, all the petitioners are aggrieved by the final

judgment and order in Writ Appeal No.343/2015 dated

23.12.2015, hence the present common SLP is preferred.

This Hon’ble Court granted interim order in SLP (Civil) No.

15009 of 2016 and batch on 12.5.2016 and granted interim

order for registering the subject lands, subject to the outcome

of the batch of SLPs to be adjudicated. Petitioner are aggrieved

by the orders of the Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad in Writ

Appeal No. 343 of 2015 dated 23.12.2015.

Hence the present SLP.

16.11.2014 The 1st petitioner filed WP No.36711/2014

before the High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and

Andhra Pradesh seeking direction to


respondents to entertain the sale deed

presented by petitioner herein. A true copy of

WP No.36711/2014 dated 16.11.2014 filed by

1st petitioner before High Court of Judicature

at Hyderabad is annexed hereto as

ANNEXURE P-1. [pg

3rd petitioner is absolute owner and possessor

of the land admeasuring 147 sq yards in Sy

No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V) TirupatiMandal,

Renigunta Sub Division, Tirupati Revenue

Division, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.

The petitioner wants to dispose of the

property to third party but the respondents

are not entertaining the sale deeds i.e. why

seeking a direction to the respondents to

entertain the sale deed presented by the

petitioner, he filed WP No.36701/2014 before

the Hon’ble High Court of at Hyderabad for

States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. A

true copy of WP No.36701/2014 dated

16.11.2014 filed by 1st petitioner before High


Court of Judicature at Hyderabad is annexed

hereto as ANNEXURE P-2. [pg

4th petitioner is absolute owner and possessor

of the land admeasuring 147 sq yards in Sy

No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V) TirupatiMandal,

Renigunta Sub Division, Tirupati Revenue

Division, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.

The petitioner wants to dispose of the

property to third party but the respondents

are not entertaining the sale deeds i.e. why

seeking a direction to the respondents to

entertain the sale deed presented by the

petitioner, he filed WP No.36693/2014 before

the Hon’ble High Court of at Hyderabad for

States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. A

true copy of WP No.36693/2014 dated

16.11.2014 filed by 1st petitioner before High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad is annexed

hereto as ANNEXURE P-3. [pg

- 5th petitioner is absolute owner and possessor

of the land admeasuring 294 sq yards in Sy


No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V) TirupatiMandal,

Renigunta Sub Division, Tirupati Revenue

Division, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.

The petitioner wants to dispose of the

property to third party but the respondents

are not entertaining the sale deeds i.e. why

seeking a direction to the respondents to

entertain the sale deed presented by the

petitioner, he filed WP No.36584/2014 before

the Hon’ble High Court of at Hyderabad for

States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. A

true copy of WP No.36584/2014 dated

16.11.2014 filed by 1st petitioner before High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad is annexed

hereto as ANNEXURE P-4. [pg

18.11.2014 The 2nd petitioner is absolute owner and

possessor of the land admeasuring 294 sq

yards in Sy No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V)

TirupatiMandal, Renigunta Sub Division,

Tirupati Revenue Division, Chittoor District,

Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner wants to


dispose of the property to third party but the

respondents are not entertaining the sale

deeds i.e. why seeking a direction to the

respondents to entertain the sale deed

presented by the petitioner, he filed WP

No.35090/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court

of at Hyderabad for States of Telangana and

Andhra Pradesh. A true copy of WP

No.35090/2014 dated 18.11.2014 filed by 1st

petitioner before High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE

P-5. [pg

01.06.2015 The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and

Andhra Pradesh passed a Common order and

final Judgment in Writ Petition No. 36711 of

2014 and batch dated 01.06.2015 directing

the Respondents to receive the documents for

registration presented by the Petitioners and

process the same for registration in

accordance with law. A copy of Judgment


dated 1.6.2015 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.

36711 of 2014 and batch is annexed and

marked as ANNEXURE P6. PAGES ___ TO

___

22.7.2015 The 7th and 8th petitioners are absolute

owners and possessor of land admeasuring

293 1/3 sq yards in Survey No.242/21,

Tiruchanuru (V), TirupatiMandal, Renigunta

Sub Division, Tirupati Revenue Division,

Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. The

petitioner wants to dispose of the property to

third party but the respondents are not

entertaining the sale deeds that is why

seeking a direction to the respondents to

entertain the sale deed presented by the

petitioner, filed writ petition No.22933/2015.

A true copy of WP No.22933/2015 dated

22.7.2015 filed by 7th and 8th petitioner before


High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad is

annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-7. [pg

- The 9th petitioner is absolute owner and

possessor of land measuring 0-03 ½ cents in

Survey No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V),

TirupatiMandal, Renigunta Sub Division,

Tirupati Revenue Division, Chittoor District,

Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner wants to

dispose of the property to third party but the

respondents are not entertaining the sale

deeds that is why seeking a direction to the

respondents to entertain the sale deed

presented by the petitioner, filed writ petition

No.22937/2015. A true copy of WP

No.22937/2015 dated 22.7.2015 filed by 7th

and 8th petitioner before High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad is annexed hereto as

ANNEXURE P-8. [pg


23.7.2015 6th petitioner is absolute owner and possessor

of land measuring 6 ½ cents in Survey

No.242/21, Tiruchanuru (V), TirupatiMandal,

Renigunta Sub Division, Tirupati Revenue

Division, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.

The petitioner wants to dispose of the

property to third party but the respondents

are not entertaining the sale deeds that is

why, seeking a direction to the respondents to

entertain the sale deed presented by the

petitioner filed said writ petition

No.22960/2015.

23.12.2015 Common impugned final Judgment and order

dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State

of Telangana and for the State of Andhra

Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 343 of 2015 in

interpreting provisions of section 22A of

Registration Act, 1908 The impugned

judgment has interpreted the provisions of


section 22A in a manner to defeat the rights

of the citizen over immovable property by

authorizing preparation of lists purportedly

under section 22A (1) © of the said Act.

29.1.2016 The Hon’ble Division of High Court passed a

common order in WP No.22960/2015,

22933/2015 and 22937/2015 along with other

connected writ petitions.

12.5.2016 This Hon’ble Court granted interim order in

SLP (Civil) 15009 of 2016 and batch on

12.5.2016 and granted interim order for

registering the subject lands, subject to the

outcome of the batch of SLPs to be

adjudicated. A true copy of the interim order

dated 12.05.2016 passed by this Hon’ble

Court in SLP ( Civil ) No. 15009 of 2016 is

annexed and marked as Annexure P9

Pages ____ to ____

Hence the present Special Leave Petition.


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(S.C.R. ORDER XXI RULE 3 (1) (a)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.of 2017
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
Between: POSITION OF PARTIES BEFORE
HIGH COURT IN THIS COURT

1. Vemani Ravindranath
S/o Vemani Shankara
Naidu R/o 19-9-3, Not a party Petitioner No.1
Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati
Town, ChandragiriTaluk,
Chittoor District
Andhra Pradesh

2. Thanikonda
Chiranjeevulu Naidu S/o
Thanikonda Doraswamy, Not a party Petitioner No.2
Naidu, R/o Thati
Thopukandrika Village,
Mittabandi Post, Puttur
Taluk, Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh

3. Bathala Munivelu S/o


Bathala Shankaraiah
Naidu, Employee, R/o
Door No. 19-7-104/B4,
First Floor Gopal Raju Not a party Petitioner No.3
Colony, R.C. Road,
Tirupati Urban Mandal,
Chittor District, Andhra
Pradesh

4. Bollini Devararajulu
Naidu S/o Bollini
Guravaiah Naidu, R/o Not a party Petitioner No.4
Door. No. 19-51-106, Old
Tiruchanur, Road,
Tirupati Urban Mandal,
Chittor District, Andhra
Pradesh

5. Muniratnam, S/o
Bellalinai Munuswamy
Naidu R/o Door No. 39, Not a party Petitioner No.5
Padmavathipuram,
Tiruchanur Road,
Chandragiri taluk,
Chittoor Dist, Andhra
Pradesh

6. Pendyala Munneyya
Naidu, S/o Pendyala
Subba Naidu, R/o Not a party Petitioner No. 6
Ganganagunta Village,
Panakam Post, Tirupati
Rural Mandal, Chittoor
District, Andhra Pradesh

7. Gangavaram
Sakunthala
W/o Gangavaram
Chinnaiah Not a party Petitioner no. 7
R/o D No.13-1-15,
Peddakaapu Veedhi,
Tirupati Urban Mandal,
Tirupati Town, Chittoor
District, Andhra Pradesh

8. Laxmikanthamma W/o
Ramakrishna Reddy R/o
Peddakaapu Veedhi,
Tirupati Urban Mandal, Not a party Petitioner No. 8
Tirupati Town, Chittor
District, Andhra Pradesh

9. Sanagaram Laxmi
Narasimha Sarma, S/o
Late. Sanagaram
Subbaramaiah, R/o No. Not a party Petitioner No. 9
1003, 2nd Cross, 9th Main,
Srinivasa Nagar,
Bangalore

10. Gaddem Venkat Not party Petitioner No.10


Subba Reddy S/o
Venkat Reddy,
MaraiahGarapalli,
Mandapampalli Village,
Onpimitta Revenue
Division, YSR Cadappa
District, Andhra Pradesh

11. Gaddem Janardhan


Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy
R/o MaraiahGarapalli, Not a party Petitioner No.13
Mandapampalli Village,
Onpimitta Revenue
Division, YSR Cadappa
District, Andhra Pradesh

12. Ambavaram
Sampoornamma W/o Not a party Petitioner No.14
Sesha Reddy
R/o Mantapampallai Post,
Vontimitta Mandalam,
YSR Cadappa District,
Andhra Pradesh

13. Ratnamma W/o


Ramachandra Reddy
R/o Mantapampallai Post, Not a party Petitioner No.15
Vontimitta Mandalam,
YSR Cadappa District,
Andhra Pradesh

14. Ambavaram Bhavani


W/o Santi Reddy
R/o Mantapampallai Post, Not a Party Petitioner No. 16
Vontimitta Mandalam,
YSR Cadappa District,
Andhra Pradesh

15. Abapatai
Pramellamma W/o
Chandreshekar Reddy Not a party Petitioner No. 17
R/o Mantapampallai Post,
Vontimitta Mandalam,
YSR Cadappa District,
Andhra Pradesh

16. Ambavarnam Shanti


Reddy S/o Chinnapa
Reddy R/o Not a party Petitioner No. 18
Mantapampallai Post,
Vontimitta Mandalam,
YSR Cadappa District,
Andhra Pradesh

Versus

1. The State of Andhra


Pradesh rep. by the
Principal Secretary for Respondent Respondent No. 1
Revenue (Registration), No.1
Secretariat buildings,
Hyderabad, Telangana

2. The District Collector,


Registration and Stamps Respondent Respondent No. 2
Department, Sri Balaji No. 2
Registration District
Chittoor District, Andhra
Pradesh

3. The Joint Collector cum


Settlement Officer,
Chittoor District (AP) Respondent Respondent No.3
No. 3

4. The Registrar Stamps


& Registrations, Balaji All contesting
Registration Office, Respondent Respondent
Tirupati, ChittoorDist (AP) No. 4

5 VinjamuriRajagopala Proforma
Chary S/o V.
Parthasarathacharyulu Respondent Respondent No.5
R/o 3rd Lane, Arundalpet, No. 5
Guntur Dist, Guntur (AP)

6. The Sub – Registrar,


Registration and Stamps
Department, Renigunta, Not a party Respondent No. 6
Chittor District, Andhra
Pradesh

7. The Commissioner of
Endowments Govt. of
A.P. Boggulakunta, Not a party Respondent No. 7
Hyderabad,

8. Sri Swamy Hathiramjee


Mutt, Tirupati, Chittoor Not a party Respondent No. 8
District, represented by
its Mahanth

9. District Collector, YSR


Kadapa District, Andhra Not a party Respondent No. 9
Pradesh

10. Sub – Registrar,


Siddavatam Madalam,
YSR Kadapa District, Not a party Respondent No. 10
Andhra Pradesh
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and
His Companion Justice of Supreme
Court of India

The Humble Petition of the Petitioners above named most

respectfully Showeth:

1. The present Petition is filed seeking Special Leave against

the common impugned final Judgment and order dated

23.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of

Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 343 of 2015 in interpreting

provisions of section 22A of Registration Act, 1908 The

impugned judgment has interpreted the provisions of section

22A in a manner to defeat the rights of the citizen over

immovable property by authorizing preparation of lists

purportedly under section 22A (1) © of the said Act. This

Hon’ble Court granted interim order against the final orders of

the full bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Hyderabad in Writ

Appeal No. 343 of 2015 dated 23.12.2015 in SLP (C ) 15009 of

2016. The petitioners herein are challenging the final orders of

the Hon’ble Court in Writ Appeal No. 343 of 2015 dated


23.12.2015. Hence, a batch of matters pending before this

Hon’ble Court.

2. QUESTION OF LAW:

The following questions of law arises for consideration of

the Hon’ble Court: -

2.1 Whether the ratio laid down in judgment of the full bench

in Writ Appeal No.343/2015 dated 23.12.2015 and

framing guidelines is permissible under Indian Judiciary?

2.2 Whether the guidelines framed by the Full Bench in WA

No.343/2015 dated 23.12.2015 is ultra vires to provisions

of Registration Act, 1908 and Rules framed there under?

2.3 Whether departmental guidelines can be treated at par

with subordinate legislation and have the effect of ousting

title over immovable property vested and recognized by

decrees of competent civil courts?

2.4 Whether the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 can be

read to negate vested rights in immovable property

without reference to any other provisions governing the

issue of title over immovable property?


2.5 Whether the full bench of the High Court was justified in

passing sweeping directions without reference to the

effect of such directions on specific facts of individual

cases, where vested rights of ownership over immovable

property recognized by decrees of competent civil courts

have attained finality?

2.6 Whether the declaration of law by full bench of High court

on the interpretation of section 22A of the Registration

Act, 1908 negates the settled principles of law covering

the issue of ownership over immovable property and the

manner to establish title?

2.7 Whether by authorizing issuance of Lists purportedly in

exercise of power u/s 22A (1) © without any basis in law

governing title over immovable property, substantiate

ownership rights recognized by way of decrees of

competent civil court are being defeated by the

respondents in complete violation of Article 14, 21 and

300A of constitution?

2.8 Whether the impugned judgment of full bench and

consequent conduct of sub registration refusing to even

entertain and register documents is legally sustainable?


2.9 Whether section 22 (1) © of Registration Act, 1908 can

be interpreted to be a source of power to Commissioner

of Endowment to defeat title of citizen over immovable

property recognized in law?

2.10 Whether section 22 A (1) © of Registration Act, 1908 has

application in the absence of any independent title in the

named in said provision?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3 (2):

The petitioners state that no other petition seeking leave

to writ petition has been filed by them against the Impugned

Judgment / Order.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULES:-

Annexure P-1 to P-10 annexed to this petition are true

copies of the pleadings / documents which formed part of the

record of the case in the court below against whose order leave

to writ petition is sought for in this case. They are essential for

the proper consideration of the case.

5. GROUNDS:-
a. Because the full court of Hon’ble High Court has erred in

interpreting the scope of section 22A of Registration Act,

1908 as amended in AP.

b. Because the impugned judgment has not considered the

tenets of civil law governing the subject of ownership

over immovable property recognized by law, while

declaring the power of statutory authorities to prepare

lists without reference to any semblance of ownership

over properties included in the lists being forwarded

under the provisions of section 22A.

c. Because the interpretation given by the impugned

judgment to purport and scope of section 22 (1) (c) of

Registration Act, 1908 is legally perverse.

d. Because that the ownership over immovable property is

established under law governing immovable property and

the relevant statutes covering the field. The scope and

purport of Registration Act, 1908 is only to ensure

registration of immovable property in consonance with

ownership to be determined under the general law

governing the subject of title over immovable property.

This power cannot be used to unsettle the ownership and


enjoyment of ownership rights by citizen by purported

powers assumed to be available under Registration Act,

1908 without reference to any principles known to law.

e. Because the impugned judgment suffers from errors of

law. The object of Registration Act, 1908 is completely

lost sight of by the impugned judgment while endorsing

preparation of arbitrary lists by statutory authorities

without reference to any provision of the statutes under

which such authorities were created.

f. Because the impugned judgment has erred in over

emphasizing the guidelines issued by Registration

Department and treating the same as issued by State

Government. The guidelines issued are only departmental

instructions having no favor of even a subordinate

legislation, hence are not binding on the citizen and

should not have been given prominence while deciding

the lis.

g. Because the judgment is violative of principles of natural

justice as it seeks to declare law in rem without giving the

petitioner any opportunity to present their case on facts

or in law, before their valuable rights flowing from their


ownership declared by competent civil court are adversely

effected.

h. Because the impugned judgment of full bench has

interpreted the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 giving

unbridled arbitrary power to the official respondents to

send lists in violation of principle of natural justice

violating the rights of petitioner to deal with their own

property. The said interpretation would make the

provisions violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of

Constitution.

i. Because the valuable property rights of petitioner herein

have been effectively negative by full bench of Hon’ble

High Court. The petitioner would now be required to go

back to registration authorities to get its property deleted

from the list properties purportedly prepared u/s 22 (1) ©

which has been prepared without any application of mind

and arbitrarily and validity of which is neither asserted

nor established.

j. Because the list of properties purportedly prepared u/s 22

(1) © is completely in violation of legal rights of petitioner

u/A 300-A of constitution of India. The same have been


prepared without adhering to any procedure known to

law only in accordance to whims of Registering

authorities.

k. Because the title over the property is not the subject of

Registration Act, 1908 and in absence of ownership

vested in favor of any trust preparation of list purportedly

u/s 22A (1) © is illegal. In fact Ld. Single Judge of High

Court in two separate writ petitions had occasion to

examine the legality of lists purportedly forwarded u/s 22

(1) © and declared the said lists were prepared without

any jurisdiction which it is submitted is correct position of

law.

l. Because the guidelines issued by the Registration

Department have been construed as if they were issued

by State Government by impugned judgment. In any

event the guidelines are ulra-vires the provisions of

Registration Act, 1908 as they seek to confer powers on

the statutory authorities to send lists of property without

any basis in law.

m. Because the case of petitioner is that the benefit of


declaration of rights over immovable property declared by
competent civil court and admitted by Principal Secretary
to State Government cannot be taken away by a
subordinate of State Government arbitrarily by sending a
list as per their whims and caprice without any rational.
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:-

6.1 It is submitted that the above stated lands are the

ancestor properties of the vendors of the petitioner herein, this

Hon’ble Court categorically held in a catena of

judgments that a list sent by Tahsildar or the District

Collector/Revenue Authority showing certain properties belong

to the Government does not have any binding force in refusing

to register. The registering authority shall apply its mind to the

material placed by the private party as well as revenue officials

and arrive at own conclusion. Simply because included the

particular survey number in the list of Government land cannot

take away the rights of the owners of the property. The

registering authority ought to have register the lands basing on

the material produced by the parties concern. Without

application of mind, the registering authority cannot refuse to

register without assigning any reason.

7. MAIN PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be graciously be pleased to :-


137

a) Grant to the petitioner Special Leave to the writ petition


against the common impugned Judgment and order dated
23.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of
Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 343 of 2015; and
b) pass any other and further orders as deemed fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
8. INTERIM RELIEF

The petitioners prays that this Hon’ble Court may:-


i) stay the operation of the common impugned Judgment
and order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for
the State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 343 of 2015;
and
ii) direct the respondents to register the sale deeds
presented by the petitioners herein; and
iii) Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice.
AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR PETITIONERS, AS
IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY
DRAWN BY FILED BY

GOLI RAMA KRISHNA SUMANTH NOOKALA


ADVOCATE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
DRAWN ON: 2.5.2017
FILED ON
PLACE: New Delhi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

Vemani Ravindranath and Ors. Petitioners


Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Respondents
CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only


to the pleadings before the Court/Tribunal whose order is
challenged and the other documents relied upon in those
proceedings. Only accept Annexure P9 as Additional document.
It is further certified that, the copies of the
documents/Annexures P –1 to P -8 and P-11 attached to the
Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of
law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the
Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court.
This certificate is given on the basis of instructions given by the
Petitioner/ person authorities by the Petitioner, whose affidavit
is filed in support of the special leave petition.
FILED BY

(SUMANTH NOOKALA)
Filed On : 02.05.2017 Advocate for the Petitioners
Exhibit P3

SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO. 292 OF 2014 DATED 7.12.2013


ON THE FILE OF THE REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND
REGISTRATIONS, BALAJI REGISTRATION OFFICE, TIRUPATI,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

Executed by 1) K. Subramanyam ReddyS/o Sankara Reddy R/o

D. No. 7-1, Vasavi Nagar, Mityele Reddy Palle (V )Tirupathi

Urban in favour of 2) P. Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o Jayarama Reddy

R/o K.S. Aggrakaram, ChitvalMandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District,

Andhra Pradesh

I, the Vendor 1st cited above, the lands stated in this sale

deed was sold by Mr. Kochi Krishna Rao GPA Holder of Mr.

Kochi RangaRao, Krishnaveni, Manorama, that they are the

absolute owners of the property stated is 1st Book volume No.

1345 at P. No. 149, 150 vide document No.

2202/1988,internally they have only limited estate over the

property, later the property was distributed among the

members of the family as stated in E-schedule.The Hon’ble

High Court of A.P. Hyderabad in W.P. 32259/13 on 22.11.2013

directed the Revenue officials to entertain sale deed executed

by the vendor.
Hence, I am willing to sell the property in Sy. 13 is available (v

)Tirupathi Rural Urban Chittoor District. Hence I am executing

this sale deed in favour of Mr. P. Srinivasalu Reddy S/o

Jayarama Reddy.

From today you have to pay the tax if any to the Revenue

Department.

Earlier, this Property was not sold to anybody, nor it is

mortgaged to anybody, there is no title Dispute over the

property if any dispute arises over the property can be perused

by either by me or by LRs on my behalf with my own expenses

today we are handing over the physical possession to you. This

property was not mortgaged to any banking authority if it was

found in future that the property was mortgaged to any bank

Govt. it can be redeemed by us only this sale deed was

executed by me with my concern without any fear or threat

from anybody.

Sd/-

//True Translated copy//


Exhibit P4

SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO. 293 OF 2014 DATED 7.12.2013


ON THE FILE OF THE REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND
REGISTRATIONS, BALAJI REGISTRATION OFFICE, TIRUPATI,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

Executed by 1) K. Subramanyam Reddy S/o Sankara Reddy R/o

D. No. 7-1, Vasavi Nagar, Mityele Reddy Palle (V )Tirupathi

Urban in favour of 2) P. Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o Jayarama Reddy

R/o K.S. Aggrakaram, ChitvalMandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District,

Andhra Pradesh

I, the Vendor 1st cited above, the lands stated in this sale

deed was sold by Mr. Kochi Krishna Rao GPA Holder of Mr.

Kochi RangaRao, Krishnaveni, Manorama, that they are the

absolute owners of the property stated is 1st Book volume No.

1345 at P. No. 149, 150 vide document No. 2202/1988,

internally they have only limited estate over the property, later

the property was distributed among the members of the family

as stated in E-schedule. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

Hyderabad in W.P. 32259/13 on 22.11.2013 directed the

Revenue officials to entertain sale deed executed by the

vendor.
Hence, I am willing to sell the property in Sy. 13 is available (v

)Tirupathi Rural Urban Chittoor District. Hence I am executing

this sale deed in favour of Mr. P. Srinivasalu Reddy S/o

Jayarama Reddy.

From today you have to pay the tax if any to the Revenue

Department.

Earlier, this Property was not sold to anybody, nor it is

mortgaged to anybody, there is no title Dispute over the

property if any dispute arises over the property can be perused

by either by me or by LRs on my behalf with my own expenses

today we are handing over the physical possession to you. This

property was not mortgaged to any banking authority if it was

found in future that the property was mortgaged to any bank

Govt. it can be redeemed by us only this sale deed was

executed by me with my concern without any fear or threat

from anybody.

Sd/-

//True Translated copy//


Annexure P5

SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO. 604 OF 2014 DATED 7.12.2013


ON THE FILE OF THE REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND
REGISTRATIONS, BALAJI REGISTRATION OFFICE, TIRUPATI,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

Executed by 1) K. Subramanyam Reddy S/o Sankara Reddy R/o

D. No. 7-1, Vasavi Nagar, Mityele Reddy Palle (V )Tirupathi

Urban in favour of 2) P. Sumantha, W/o Srinivasulu Reddy R/o

K.S. Aggrakaram, ChetveluMandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District,

Andhra Pradesh

I, the Vendor 1st cited above, the lands stated in this sale

deed was sold by Mr. Kochi Krishna Rao GPA Holder of Mr.

Kochi RangaRao, Krishnaveni, Manorama, that they are the

absolute owners of the property stated is 1st Book volume No.

1345 at P. No. 149, 150 vide document No. 2202/1988,

internally they have only limited estate over the property, later

the property was distributed among the members of the family

as stated in E-schedule. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

Hyderabad in W.P. 32259/13 on 22.11.2013 directed the

Revenue officials to entertain sale deed executed by the

vendor.
Hence, I am willing to sell the property to the extent of 1 acre

in Sy. 13 is available (v )Tirupathi Rural Urban Chittoor District.

Hence I am executing this sale deed in favour of Mr. P.

Sumantha W/o Srinivasulu Reddy.

From today you have to pay the tax if any to the Revenue

Department.

Earlier, this Property was not sold to anybody, nor it is

mortgaged to anybody, there is no title Dispute over the

property if any dispute arises over the property can be perused

by either by me or by LRs on my behalf with my own expenses

today we are handing over the physical possession to you. This

property was not mortgaged to any banking authority if it was

found in future that the property was mortgaged to any bank

Govt. it can be redeemed by us only this sale deed was

executed by me with my concern without any fear or threat

from anybody.

Sd/-

//True Translated copy//


Annexure P6

SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO. 294 OF 2014 DATED 7.12.2013


ON THE FILE OF THE REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND
REGISTRATIONS, BALAJI REGISTRATION OFFICE, TIRUPATI,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

Executed by 1) K. Subramanyam Reddy S/o Sankara Reddy R/o

D. No. 7-1, Vasavi Nagar, Mityele Reddy Palle (V )Tirupathi

Urban in favour of 2) S. Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy

R/o Flat No. 202, Sri Sai Apartments, New Indira Nagar,

Tirupathi Town, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh

I, the Vendor 1st cited above, the lands stated in this sale

deed was sold by Mr. Kochi Krishna Rao GPA Holder of Mr.

Kochi RangaRao, Krishnaveni, Manorama, that they are the

absolute owners of the property stated is 1st Book volume No.

1345 at P. No. 149, 150 vide document No. 2202/1988,

internally they have only limited estate over the property, later

the property was distributed among the members of the family

as stated in E-schedule. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

Hyderabad in W.P. 32259/13 on 22.11.2013 directed the

Revenue officials to entertain sale deed executed by the

vendor.
Hence, I am willing to sell the property to the extent of 1 acre

in Sy. 13 is available (v )Tirupathi Rural Urban Chittoor District.

Hence I am executing this sale deed in favour of S. Mallikarjuna

Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy.

From today you have to pay the tax if any to the Revenue

Department.

Earlier, this Property was not sold to anybody, nor it is

mortgaged to anybody, there is no title Dispute over the

property if any dispute arises over the property can be perused

by either by me or by LRs on my behalf with my own expenses

today we are handing over the physical possession to you. This

property was not mortgaged to any banking authority if it was

found in future that the property was mortgaged to any bank

Govt. it can be redeemed by us only this sale deed was

executed by me with my concern without any fear or threat

from anybody.

Sd/-

//True Translated copy//


Annexure P7

SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO. 290 OF 2014 DATED 7.12.2013


ON THE FILE OF THE REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND
REGISTRATIONS, BALAJI REGISTRATION OFFICE, TIRUPATI,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

Executed by 1) K. Subramanyam Reddy S/o Sankara Reddy R/o

D. No. 7-1, Vasavi Nagar, Mityele Reddy Palle (V )Tirupathi

Urban in favour of 2) K. Rama Subba Reddy S/o Rama Krishna

Reddy, aged about 46 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o D. No. 1-23,

Mailapalli Village, ChetveluMandal, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra

Pradesh

I, the Vendor 1st cited above, the lands stated in this sale

deed was sold by Mr. Kochi Krishna Rao GPA Holder of Mr.

Kochi RangaRao, Krishnaveni, Manorama, that they are the

absolute owners of the property stated is 1st Book volume No.

1345 at P. No. 149, 150 vide document No. 2202/1988,

internally they have only limited estate over the property, later

the property was distributed among the members of the family

as stated in E-schedule. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

Hyderabad in W.P. 32259/13 on 22.11.2013 directed the

Revenue officials to entertain sale deed executed by the

vendor.
Hence, I am willing to sell the property to the extent of 1 acre

in Sy. 13 is available (v )Tirupathi Rural Urban Chittoor District.

Hence I am executing this sale deed in favour of K. Rama

Subba Reddy s/o Rama Krishna Reddy.

From today you have to pay the tax if any to the Revenue

Department.

Earlier, this Property was not sold to anybody, nor it is

mortgaged to anybody, there is no title Dispute over the

property if any dispute arises over the property can be perused

by either by me or by LRs on my behalf with my own expenses

today we are handing over the physical possession to you. This

property was not mortgaged to any banking authority if it was

found in future that the property was mortgaged to any bank

Govt. it can be redeemed by us only this sale deed was

executed by me with my concern without any fear or threat

from anybody.

Sd/-

//True Translated copy//


Annexure P8

SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO. 705 OF 2014 DATED 7.12.2013


ON THE FILE OF THE REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND
REGISTRATIONS, BALAJI REGISTRATION OFFICE, TIRUPATI,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

Executed by 1) K. Subramanyam Reddy S/o Sankara Reddy R/o

D. No. 7-1, Vasavi Nagar, Mityele Reddy Palle (V )Tirupathi

Urban in favour of 2) S. Giridhar Reddy S/o Rama Chandra

Reddy, R/o D. No. 1-13, K.S. Agraharam Village,

ChetvelueMandal YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh

I, the Vendor 1st cited above, the lands stated in this sale

deed was sold by Mr. Kochi Krishna Rao GPA Holder of Mr.

Kochi RangaRao, Krishnaveni, Manorama, that they are the

absolute owners of the property stated is 1st Book volume No.

1345 at P. No. 149, 150 vide document No. 2202/1988,

internally they have only limited estate over the property, later

the property was distributed among the members of the family

as stated in E-schedule. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

Hyderabad in W.P. 32259/13 on 22.11.2013 directed the

Revenue officials to entertain sale deed executed by the

vendor.
Hence, I am willing to sell the property to the extent of 1 acre

in Sy. 13 is available (v )Tirupathi Rural Urban Chittoor District.

Hence I am executing this sale deed in favour of S. Giridhar

Reddy S/o Rama Chandra Reddy.

From today you have to pay the tax if any to the Revenue

Department.

Earlier, this Property was not sold to anybody, nor it is

mortgaged to anybody, there is no title Dispute over the

property if any dispute arises over the property can be perused

by either by me or by LRs on my behalf with my own expenses

today we are handing over the physical possession to you. This

property was not mortgaged to any banking authority if it was

found in future that the property was mortgaged to any bank

Govt. it can be redeemed by us only this sale deed was

executed by me with my concern without any fear or threat

from anybody.

Sd/-

//True Translated copy//


Annexure P10

SETTLEMENT DEED/ PARTITION DEED NO. 709 OF 2014


DATED 7.12.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE REGISTRAR, STAMPS
AND REGISTRATIONS, BALAJI REGISTRATION OFFICE,
TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

Executed by 1) K. Subramanyam Reddy S/o Sankara Reddy R/o

D. No. 7-1, Vasavi Nagar, Mityele Reddy Palle (V )Tirupathi

Urban in favour of 2) KobakuBalu S/o Subramanyam Reddy,

aged about 29 years, R/o D. No. 7-1, VasaviNagasr,

Mutyalpalle, Village, Tirupathi Town, Chittoor District, Andhra

Pradesh

I, the Vendor 1st cited above, the lands stated in this

settlement deed/ Partition Deed was sold by Mr. Kochi Krishna

Rao GPA Holder of Mr. Kochi RangaRao, Krishnaveni,

Manorama, that they are the absolute owners of the property

stated is 1st Book volume No. 1345 at P. No. 149, 150 vide

document No. 2202/1988, internally they have only limited

estate over the property, later the property was distributed

among the members of the family as stated in E-schedule. The

Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad in W.P. 32259/13 on

22.11.2013 directed the Revenue officials to entertain sale deed

executed by the vendor.


By virtue of the partition in the joint family, I am the successor

of the property situated in survey No. 13 Tirupati, Rural and

Urban MandalChittoor District to the extent of Ac. 8.5 cents I

sold 7 acres to the third party, I am executed in this Settlement

Deed to the extent of half acre, out of remaining 1 acre in your

favour as you are my son.

Hence, I am willing to gift the property to the extent of 1 acre

in Sy. 13 is available (v )Tirupathi Rural Urban Chittoor District.

Hence I am executing this gift deed in favour of KobakuBalu

S/o Subramanyam Reddy.

From today you have to pay the tax if any to the Revenue

Department.

Earlier, this Property was not sold to anybody, nor it is

mortgaged to anybody, there is no title Dispute over the

property if any dispute arises over the property can be perused

by either by me or by LRs on my behalf with my own expenses

today we are handing over the physical possession to you. This

property was not mortgaged to any banking authority if it was

found in future that the property was mortgaged to any bank

Govt. it can be redeemed by us only this sale deed was


executed by me with my concern without any fear or threat

from anybody.

Sd/-

//True Translated copy//


Annexure P11

SETTLEMENT DEED/ PARTITION DEED NO. 706 OF 2014


DATED 7.12.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE REGISTRAR, STAMPS
AND REGISTRATIONS, BALAJI REGISTRATION OFFICE,
TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

Executed by 1) K. Subramanyam Reddy S/o Sankara Reddy R/o

D. No. 7-1, Vasavi Nagar, Mityele Reddy Palle (V )Tirupathi

Urban in favour of 2) KobakuSatish Kumar S/o Subramanyam

Reddy, R/o D. No. 7-1, VasaviNagasr, Mutyalpalle, Village,

Tirupathi Town, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh

I, the Vendor 1st cited above, the lands stated in this

settlement deed/ Partition Deed was sold by Mr. Kochi Krishna

Rao GPA Holder of Mr. Kochi RangaRao, Krishnaveni,

Manorama, that they are the absolute owners of the property

stated is 1st Book volume No. 1345 at P. No. 149, 150 vide

document No. 2202/1988, internally they have only limited

estate over the property, later the property was distributed

among the members of the family as stated in E-schedule. The

Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad in W.P. 32259/13 on

22.11.2013 directed the Revenue officials to entertain sale deed

executed by the vendor.


By virtue of the partition in the joint family, I am the successor

of the property situated in survey No. 13 Tirupati, Rural and

Urban MandalChittoor District to the extent of Ac. 8.5 cents I

sold 7 acres to the third party, I am executed in this Settlement

Deed to the extent of half acre, out of remaining 1 acre in your

favour as you are my son.

Hence, I am willing to gift the property to the extent of 1 acre

in Sy. 13 is available (v )Tirupathi Rural Urban Chittoor District.

Hence I am executing this gift deed in favour of KobakuSatish

Kumar S/o Subramanyam Reddy,

From today you have to pay the tax if any to the Revenue

Department.

Earlier, this Property was not sold to anybody, nor it is

mortgaged to anybody, there is no title Dispute over the

property if any dispute arises over the property can be perused

by either by me or by LRs on my behalf with my own expenses

today we are handing over the physical possession to you. This

property was not mortgaged to any banking authority if it was

found in future that the property was mortgaged to any bank

Govt. it can be redeemed by us only this sale deed was


executed by me with my concern without any fear or threat

from anybody.

Sd/-

//True Translated copy//


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Vemani Ravindranath and Ors. Petitioners


Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Respondents

AFFIDAVIT
I, Vemani Ravindranath S/o Vemani Shankara Naidu R/o

19-9-3, Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati Town, ChandragiriTaluk,

Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh, do hereby solemnly affirm and

state as under:-

1. That I am Petitioner No. 1 in the above matter and I

know the facts and circumstances of the case and hence

competent to swear this present affidavit on behalf of other

petitioners.

2. That I have read and understood the contents of

accompanying synopsis and List of Dates pages B to ___,

Special Leave Petition Pages ____ to ____ paras 1 to 8 and

I.As. are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

belief, nothing material has been concealed thereform.


3. That the Annexures filed alongwith the Special Leave

Petition are true copies of their respective originals.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, the above named deponent state that the facts stated above

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief

and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this ____ day of May, 2017.

DEPONENT
IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2017
IN
Special Leave Petition (Civil ) No of 2017

IN THE MATTER OF
Vemani Ravindranath & Ors. Petitioners
Versus
State of AP and ors Respondents

WITH

I.A. No. of 2017


AN APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT OF RESPONDETS IN THE
ARRAY OF PARTIES AS RESPONDENT NO. 6 TO RESPONDENT
NO.10

PAPER BOOK

(FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER :SUMANTH NOOKALA


SUMANTH NOOKALA
ADVOCATE
105, OLD LAYERS CHAMBER
SUPREME COURT
NEW DELHI
AUTHORIZATION LETTER
Date: 06.05.2017
To
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi

Sub: SLP ( C ) No. of 2016, D. No. 14348 of 2016


Vemani Ravindranath and Ors.
Versus
State of A.P and Ors.

Sir,

In the above matter the registry has pointed out defect No. 17
ii(a) to file the order dated 5.8.2015. That the said order dated
5.8.2015 is the internal order / docket order of Hon’ble High Court.
There fore the same may not be available for ready reference.

It is submitted that the Respondents are not receiving the sale


deeds present by the Petitioner and they are not giving any written
order and refusing orally to register the sale deeds present by the
petitioners herein.

Therefore ignore the above said defects and number the same at
my risk.

Thanking you,
Yours faithfully

SUMANTH NOOKALA
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
SUVEBDU SUVASUS DASH
ADVOCATE
SUPREME COURT
NEW DELHI
AUTHORIZATION LETTER
Date: 05.05.2017
To
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi

Sub: SLP ( Crl ) No. of 2016, D. No. 13474 of 2016


Neelcanchal Pradhan Versus State of Chhattisgarh

Sir,

I Authorize Mr. , Advocate bearing (Enrolment No.


) to appear before the Registry and refile/defect cure
the above mentioned matter on my behalf.
Kindly allow him to do so.

Thanking you,
Yours faithfully

SUVEBDU SUVASUS DASH


ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER