APHC010074972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL NO: 118/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders, dated 03-02-2025 made in WP No 2003 of 2025 Between: 1. KALLURU SESHI REDDY,, S/O CHINA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O H NO 6/73-3, TRIVENGALAPURAM VILLAGE,, RAJA SAHEBPETA PANCHAYAT, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS CIRCLE, ANANTHAPURAM ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BADVEL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, PORUMAMILLA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PORUMAMILLA TOWN POLICE STATION 8. KANCHAMREDDY SUBBA REDDY, @PURNANDA SWAMY @PARI PURNANDA SWAMY @ PULLAYAPALLI SUBBI REDDY S/O KANCHAMREEDY RAMI REDDY AGE 69 YEARS OCC SWAMY, R/O 10-80 /1 ,POST OFFICE ROAD, SAI BABA COLONY, PANDILLAPALLI,POST AND MANDAL,PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH. RESPONDENT NO.8 WAS IMPLEADED AS 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.118 of 2025 PER C.O.DT.08.09.2025 VIDE I.A.NO.3 OF 2025 IN W.A.118 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the filing of original order copy of the Writ Petition in WP No 2003 of 2025 on the file of this Hon’ble Court IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings for formation of National High No 167- B through our lands an extent of Ac 1-66 cents in Survey No 1186 situated at Cherlopalli Revenue Village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District, pending disposal of the above writ appeal IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to order permitting the Proposed Petitioner to Implead as Petitioner No 2 in WA No 118 of 2025, also enabling him to make appropriate applications in the said proceedings and to contest the case and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. CH VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P V S NAVEEN KUMAR 2. GP FOR HOME 3. 4. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.118 of 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This Writ Appeal arises out of the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.2003 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming compensation for the land acquired was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1, 4 to 6, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.7 and Sri N.Ramesh, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.S.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.8. None appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The State has acquired land in an extent of Ac.0.46 cents out of Ac.1.66 cents situated in Cherlopalli Revenue Village of Kadapa district, covered by Survey No.1186, for the purpose of formation of National Highway No.167-B. The State has also taken possession of the said land. The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the said land acquired by the Government for the public purpose, filed the writ petition stating that the compensation payable for the land that was acquired was not paid to him. Therefore, he has filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in acquiring the land without paying the compensation as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequentially sought direction to respondent Nos.1 to 6 therein to pay compensation to the petitioner for the said land acquired for public purpose. 4. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order on the ground that the written instructions that are filed on behalf of the State clearly indicate that the name of the writ petitioner does not exist in the revenue record and that the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. The learned Single Judge also held that the petitioner has not acquired any title in respect of the subject property, as he is holding only an 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.118 of 2025 unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 13.11.2006, which does not confirm any right or title on the subject land in his favour. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant. 6. Upon considering the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, we absolutely do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner did not acquire any valid title in respect of the land that was acquired by the State. According to the petitioner, he is only an agreement holder in respect of the said land. It is well-settled law that mere agreement of sale or even for that matter even a decree for specific performance does not create any valid title, right or interest in respect of an immovable property in favour of the agreement holder or a decree holder of specific performance. A valid title would pass to a person only upon registration of a sale deed in respect of an immovable property. 7. The learned Single Judge has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited, Through Director vs. State of Haryana and Another1, wherein a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance and not by any other mode. 8. The learned Single Judge has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court on the same proposition of law rendered in the case of Sanjay Sharma vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Others2, wherein it is held that Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defines a “sale” as the transfer of ownership in exchange for a price that is either paid, promised, or part-paid and part-promised and where a sale deed requires registration, ownership does not pass until the deed is registered and even if possession is 1 (2012) 1 SCC 656 2 Arising out of SLP©.No.330 of 2017 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.118 of 2025 transferred and consideration is paid without such registration that no title will be passed in respect of the said person. 9. Therefore, the learned Single Judge while considering the said proposition of law regarding the confirmation of title in respect of an immovable property over a person has rightly held that as the petitioner is only a holder of Agreement of Sale and that too which is unregistered, he does not have any right or title in respect of the land in question and that he is not entitled to any compensation. 10. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 20-01-2026 BMS