LexMAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN & ORS. versus M/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2515 : 2025 INSC 646 Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6600 of 2025) 07 May 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration 1. Whether an unregistered sale agreement can confer valid title or ownership of immovable property. 2. Whether a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 can direct dispossession of a party without proof of actual and physical possession. Headnotes† Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 & Section 49 – Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance: Held: By referring to Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr (2012) 1 SCC 656, it was held that the transactions of the nature of “GPA sales” or “SA/GPA/will transfers” do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or treated as a valid mode of transfer of immovable property – The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property – They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act – Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records – The registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed is not to confer an unimpeachable validity on all such registered documents. [Para 17] Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 & Section 49 – Compulsory registration of certain types of documents: Held: The Registration Act, 1908 was enacted with the intention of providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to * Author 2516 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports transactions relating to immovable property and protection from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer – This is achieved by requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and providing for consequences of non-registration – Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future ‘any right, title or interest’ whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs.100 and upward to or in immovable property – Section 49 of the said Act provides that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable property comprised therein or received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property, unless it has been registered – Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed. [Para 15] Constitution of India – Article 226 – Order of dispossession cannot be granted unless actual and physical possession is proved: Held: The Division Bench has found possession on the appellants and the writ petitioners by virtue of two interim orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of the High Court – Actual and physical possession must be proved, which principle would apply even in a writ petition under Article 226, more strictly since there is no evidence led and the consideration is only based on documents produced on affidavit – When dispossession by the State is alleged on the strength of possession, mere reliance on interim orders passed in writ petitions earlier filed cannot establish such actual and physical possession. [Paras 26, 27] Land Reforms Act – No provision for a review of notifications affirming statutory vesting – Observation on title and possession prima facie – To deny discretion to invoke extra ordinary power under Article 226 – Subject to legitimate legal scrutiny: Held: The vesting and allotment of 424.13 acres to the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (APIIC), now Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TSIIC), had attained finality, leaving no room for dispute over title or possession on that land – There cannot be reversion of 99.07 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2517 Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. & Ors. acres (including the 53 acres in dispute) to the original declarants since the Land Reforms Act does not provide for a review of notifications affirming statutory vesting. The cloud of title and doubts raised on po
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.