Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/S Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. held that if the original sale agreement was not registered, it cannot confer valid title solely because a subsequent transaction based on that unregistered deed was later registered. 

What was the Background of Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/S Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2025) Case? 

Original Land Ownership and Initial Transactions: 

• Original Owners: 11 individuals including Mohd. Ruknuddin Ahmed owned 526.07 acres in Survey No.83, Village Raidurg (Panmaktha), Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh. 
• General Power of Attorney: On 07th July 1974, owners executed a registered GPA in favor of Sri Venkateswara Enterprises partnership firm. 
• Subject Property: 53 acres out of the total 525.31 acres was the disputed land in this case. 

Statutory Proceedings Under Land Reform Acts: 

• Land Reforms Act Application: When the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 came into force on 01St January 1975, owners filed 11 declarations. 
• State Possession: About 99.07 acres was found surplus in the hands of 4 declarants and possession was taken by the State on 11th April 1975. 
• Land Ceiling Act Declarations: Owners through their GPA filed declarations under Section 6(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 
• Final Statements: Issued on 16th September 1980 and 30th January 1980 declaring surplus area for each declarant. 
• Government Notification: GOMS No.5013 dated 19th December1980 vesting the surplus land in State. 
• HUDA Allotment: State allotted 470.33 acres to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority under Section 23. 

Sale Agreement and Subsequent Litigation: 

• Sale Agreement: On 19th March 1982, GPA holder executed an agreement of sale with M/s Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd for land extent (dispute over whether 125.35 acres or 99.17 acres). 
• Consideration: Rs. 50,000/- paid by cheque as part of payment, balance to be paid within six months of obtaining permission under the Land Ceiling Act. 
• Registration Act Violation: Agreement was not registered despite being compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. 
• Section 23 Time Limit: Agreement should have been presented for registration within four months from execution date (19th March 1982) as per Section 23 of Registration Act.  
• Section 49 Consequences: Unregistered agreement could not affect immovable property as per Section 49 of the Registration Act. 
• Specific Performance Suit: Bhavana Society filed O.S.No.248 of 1991 for specific performance. 
• Suit Dismissal: Suit dismissed for default on 06th April 2001; restoration application also dismissed on 23rd February 2004. 
• Agreement Validation: Sale agreement was validated by Assistant Registrar, Ranga Reddy District on 11th September 2006. 
• Fraudulent Validation: District Registrar, Karimnagar held the validation to be fraudulent by order dated 12th August 2015. 

High Court: 

• Writ Petition Filed: W.P No.30855 of 2016 filed by writ petitioners (respondents herein) seeking restraint against TSIICL from entering 53 acres land. 
• Single Judge Decision: Dismissed writ petition finding no valid title with petitioners and fraudulent validation of sale agreement. 
• Division Bench Appeal: Division Bench allowed appeal, distinguished 53 acres from total 525.31 acres, relying on interim orders in earlier writ petitions. 
• Interim Orders Relied Upon:  
  • W.P. No.29547 of 2011 - restraining Lok Ayukta from proceeding further. 
  • W.P. No.4466 of 2012 - stay of demolition of structures raised by writ petitioners. 

Supreme Court: 

• Appeals Filed: Legal heirs of original owners (appellants) filed appeals against Division Bench judgment. 
• Supreme Court Hearing: Heard by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran. 
• Final Decision: Supreme Court restored Single Judge's decision, dismissed Division Bench judgment.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On Title and Possession: 

• No Valid Title Established: Writ petitioners failed to establish valid title to the disputed 53 acres. 
• Suspect Title: Court found title to be prima facie suspect, disentitling writ petitioners from claiming rightful possession. 
• Possession Not Proved: Neither actual nor physical possession was proved by writ petitioners. 
• Interim Orders Insufficient: Mere reliance on interim orders in earlier writ petitions cannot establish actual physical possession. 

On Sale Agreement and Registration Act Violations: 

• Compulsory Registration Ignored: 1982 sale agreement should have been compulsorily registered under Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 as it purported to create title/interest in immovable property. 
• Section 49 Application: Court noted that unregistered agreement cannot affect immovable property as per Section 49 of Registration Act. 
• Time Limitation Breach: Agreement executed on 19th March 1982 but never presented for registration within four months as required by Section 23 of the Registration Act. 
• Invalid Validation: 2006 validation could not cure fundamental defect of non-registration after expiry of all statutory time limits. 
• Registration Act Purpose: Court emphasized that Registration Act was enacted to provide orderliness, discipline, public notice and protection from fraud in property transactions. 

On State's Rights and Statutory Vesting: 

• Statutory Vesting Valid: 99.07 acres were validly vested in the State under Land Reforms Act. 
• State's Eminent Domain: State has absolute right over lands and power of eminent domain. 
• APIIC Allotment Final: 424.13 acres allotment to APIIC (now TSIICL) has attained finality. 
• Section 9-A Invocation: State can invoke Section 9-A of the Land Reforms Act for reopening cases. 

On Conduct of Parties: 

• Guile and Fraud: Court noted that guile employed in making conflicting claims before authorities. 
• Multiple Transactions: Successive transactions were designed to defeat statutory vesting. 
• CBI Investigation: Sale deeds led to CBI investigation where they were found fraudulent. 
• Criminal Proceedings: Proceedings initiated under criminal law against writ petitioners and their directors.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Referred to? 

• The Registration Act, 1908: 

Relevant Sections of the Registration Act Referred to in the Case: