Menu

CASE COMMENT Mahnoor Fatima Imran vs M/S Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt Ltd case

Case Comment, Publications

Mahnoor Fatima Imran vs M/S Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt Ltd case

Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No.1866 of 2024

Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Judgment: 07.05.2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 646

Parties Involved:

Appellants:

  • Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Others – Representing affected landowners who challenged the validity of retrospective registration attempts.

Respondents:

  • M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd & Others – Corporate entities involved in the disputed property transactions.
  • State of Telangana – Defended state’s right to land under land reform statutes

LAWS INVOLVED:

  1. Andhra Pradesh land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973
  • The entire land that was the matter of dispute was vested in the State as “surplus land” under this Act.
  1. Transfer of Property Act, 1882
  • Section 54- Definition of Sale
  • Section 53-A- Doctrine of Part Performance
  1. Registration Act, 1908
  • Section 17- Compulsory registration of certain documents
  1. Property Law
  • General Principles for protection of the Property
  1. Constitution Law
  • Article 226- Writ remedy to High Court
  • Article 300A- Right to Property

FACTS OF THE CASE:

  1. In the year 1982, Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. entered into an unregistered agreement for the sale of a 53-acre land forming part of a Survey No. 83/2 of Raidurg Panmaktha village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana out of a total of 99.07 acres with a GPA holder of the original landowners. A total of 526.07 acres of land originally belonged to 11 individuals. The 99.07 acres of the land was declared as surplus and vested in the State under the Andhra Pradesh Land reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.
  1. On the basis of the previous agreement several sale deeds were executed in the favour of different individuals and entities including the Respondent. 
  1. A single judge bench of the Telangana High Court held that the possession by the Respondent was not proven due to the lack of valid title and found indications of fraud as the agreement of 1982 was used to file a suit of specific performance which was later dismissed. 
  1. The agreement was revalidated by the Assistant registrar in 2006, but the District Registrar deemed the validation to be fraudulent in 2015.
  1. A No-Objection Certificate was also issued regarding the Urban Land Celling which was cancelled and no challenge was made pertaining to the cancellation.
  1. However, the Division Bench of the High Court ruled in favour of the Respondent and held that they had the possession and could not be disposed without due procedure of law. Therefore, the State was also restrained from interfering with their possession. This order was further challenged by the Appellants by way of a Special Leave Petition in the Apex Court. 

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT:

  1. Whether the Respondent had the valid possession and Lawful possession and valid title over the land?
  1. Whether the State’s action in reclaiming the land was violative of Respondent’s constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Indian Constitution?
  1. Whether possession that is based on unregistered agreement is protected under the law?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

Appellants:

  1. The Appellants claimed that the sale agreement could not be used as a proof of title as the vendor himself lacked the title because the land was originally vested in the state according to the Andhra Pradesh Land reforms (Celling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.
  1. They claimed that the suit that was filed by Bhavana Society in 1991 for specific performance was dismissed for default in 2001 and the restoration application was also denied in 2004.
  1. They claimed the 1982 agreement was unregistered and executed by a suspicious GPA holder without any ownership. 
  1. They alleged the Respondent was using fraudulent sale deeds and there were criminal proceedings pending against them.
  1. The Appellant asserted their present possession and ownership based on the alleged re-delivery to the GPA

Respondents:

  1. The Respondents claimed to be in a lawful possession of the land through valid sale deeds.
  1. They also alleged that they were forcibly disposed by the authorities without following due process of law, thus, violating Article 300A.
  1. They cited precedents like Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao and State of UP v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh to argue that even if the title is disputed possession per se must be protected under Article 226.
  1. They also cited interim orders and fencing as proof of possession.

RATIONALE FOR THE JUDGMENT:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment based on the following rationale: 

  1. It held that the 1982 agreement was void, unregistered, and not capable of conferring any legal title and so the sale deeds based on it were non est in nature.
  1. The Respondent’s alleged title was based on the 1982 agreement which was executed after the land was vested in the State. Neither the original nor the revalidated agreement which was unregistered could have conferred any title. Once land vests in the State under the ceiling laws, transactions by previous owners or their assignees would be considered as invalid unless they are sanctioned by statutory provisions.
  1. There was no clear cut or credible evidence of real, actual physical possession by the Respondent and the interim order that was relied upon did not establish possession.
  1. Though registration is a public notice, it is still refutable and the court clarified that only proper registered conveyances confer title. Therefore, transactions merely on agreements, GPA, or will do not amount to transfer of title.
  1. The court declined to use any discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where the Respondent clearly failed to establish title of possession. It held that even long-standing possession must have a lawful or legitimate backing to seek protection under Article 226.
  1. The Respondent’s reliance on revenue entries, fencing, and interim orders was insufficient to prove lawful possession.

DEFECTS OF LAW:

  1. Agreements post vesting under ceiling laws, especially without registration and with discrepancies do not confer any legal title.
  1. Interim orders are not always and necessarily regarded as proof of possession.
  1.  Multiple conflicting agreements can indicate fraud and weaken the case for those claiming it.
  1. The case highlighted a false chain of title created by the misuse of unregistered agreements and GPA.
  1. It also highlighted the State’s negligence in allowing multiple transactions over the years, which mislead the buyer, despite of the land being vested in the State by ceiling.
  1. It underscored the drawbacks of improper reliance on possession alone without establishing the proper legal origin of the title.
  1. It exhibited the judicial overreach by the High Court in ordering restoration of possession without examining the earlier precedent of the Apex Court.
  1. The Respondent’s claim was solely rooted in the void documents, thus, violation the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act.

INFERENCE/CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the principle of statutory vesting under land reforms and that State-acquired land through land ceiling proceedings cannot encroached or claimed through dubious means. This also includes the acts like fencing and long-standing occupation which cannot override State Ownership under the land ceiling laws. It also highlighted the high standard of proof required for title and possession in land dispute. This judgment is a clear illustration of judicial reluctancy to permit fraudulent claims to prevail over statutory processes and that possession without lawful title is not protected under Article 226 of the Constitution. It strictly forbade the use of writ to protect possession that was derived from fraudulent or invalid documents. The decision clarified that civil rights must be proven with valid and proper documents and had a set a precedent for the court to avoid granting equitable relief when legal foundation is absent. Therefore, the judgment serves as a warning against property dealings without due diligence and contributes to curbing land grabbing, encroachment, and misuse of invalid documents in urban areas.

REFERENCES:

  1. Indian Kanoon (Supreme Court Judgment)
    Mahnoor Fatima Imran v. State of Telangana, SLP (C) No. 1866 of 2024 (India Sup. Ct. Jan. 25, 2024),
    available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186378251/.
  1. Supreme Court Establishes Strict 4-Month Registration Deadline for Property Sale Deeds,
    The Edu Law (Jan. 26, 2024), https://www.theedulaw.in/content/judgements/139/Supreme-Court-Establishes-Strict-4-Month-Registration-Deadline-for-Property-Sale-Deeds.
  1. Registered Property? You May Still Not Be the Owner, Says Supreme Court in Mahnoor Fatima Imran Case,
    Desi Kanoon (Jan. 28, 2024), https://desikaanoon.in/registered-property-you-may-still-not-be-the-owner-says-supreme-court-in-mahnoor-fatima-imran-case
  1. SC Ruling and Essential Documents for Property Registration in India,
    Hitesh C. Soni Blog (Feb. 1, 2024), https://hiteshcsoni.in/blogs/f/sc-ruling-and-essential-documents-for-property-registration-india.
  1. Unregistration of Original Sale Agreement,
    Drishti Judiciary (Feb. 3, 2024), https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/un-registration-of-original-sale-agreement.

BY- VANSHIKA ARORA

B.M.S COLLEGE OF LAW, BENGALURU