The Andhra Pradesh High Court affirms that in cases involving private disputes over sale deeds—especially where contested questions of fact and allegations of non-payment are involved—judicial review under Article 226 is not maintainable, and parties must seek appropriate remedies under civil law. This decision upholds established precedents, reinforcing the bar on writ jurisdiction in contract or property disputes between private parties, with binding value for all subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/26098/2025 of Nandhivada Naga Narasimha Venu Gopal, Vs The State of A.P., CNR APHC010499802025 |
| Date of Registration | 20-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Andhra Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law (Article 226), Transfer of Property, Specific Relief, A.P. Assigned Lands Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable to annul a sale deed over disputed property merely on grounds of non-payment of full sale consideration or forbidden assignment status, when disputed questions of fact exist and there is an alternative efficacious remedy under the Specific Relief Act. The court emphasized that judicial review is not the forum for resolving private law disputes requiring evidence or adjudication of facts. If the transaction is barred by the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, parties must pursue remedies as per statute, not public law. The vendor’s remedy for non-payment is to sue for recovery or cancellation in civil court, not through writ. The petitioner’s lack of clean hands also disentitled them to discretionary relief. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners sold two houses on assigned land to respondent for ₹3 crores; only ₹21.38 lakhs received, balance unpaid; buyer allegedly attempting to sell to third parties; petitioners in possession; petitioners pleaded sale void under A.P. Assigned Lands Act and sought to put sale deed in abeyance; no assignment evidence produced; writ petition filed challenging the sale, citing statutory bar and non-payment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India and, based on ratio, possibly in similar property disputes |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for annulment of sale deeds purely on grounds of non-payment or statutory bar, where disputed questions of private law require adjudication.
- Emphasizes that vendor’s remedy for unpaid sale consideration is a suit for recovery or cancellation, not recourse to judicial review.
- Confirms that sale is complete and title passes upon execution and registration irrespective of unpaid consideration—consistent with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal.
- Stresses lack of “clean hands” bars discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction.
- Lawyers must advise clients seeking cancellation or enforcement of contractual, property or assignment disputes to approach civil courts, not file writ petitions.
- The mere existence of a statutory prohibition on transfer of assigned land does not, by itself, make writ the appropriate remedy—statutory remedies and procedures must be followed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court observed that as per Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal (2009) 4 SCC 193, non-payment of entire sale consideration does not invalidate a registered sale; title passes upon execution and registration, and the vendor’s remedy is suit for unpaid price.
- Citing Yanala Malleshwari (2006(6) ALT 523 FB), it reaffirmed that cancellation or challenge to sale/gift deeds is a matter of private law, with remedies under the Specific Relief Act; writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for such disputes.
- The presence of disputed facts (e.g., amount received, validity of assigned status) makes writ jurisdiction inappropriate, as judicial review is meant for public law issues and not for matters needing evidence.
- The prohibition under the A.P. Assigned (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 makes such infeasible transfers void, but even this ground must be pursued through the remedies established by the statute, not writ.
- Quoting State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683, the court asserted a petitioner’s conduct and approach must be equitable; petitioners here, having sold assigned land knowingly and after taking consideration, cannot claim relief on the ground of inalienability, evidencing lack of clean hands.
- Finally, the court reaffirmed the limitation of judicial review under Article 226, referencing Council of Civil Service Unions (1985) AC 374 that writs are only for illegality/irrationality/procedural impropriety in public law, not remedying private law disputes.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners:
- Asserted that only part of the sale consideration was paid, with the balance unpaid by the buyer.
- Sought to declare the sale deed as null and void or keep it in abeyance due to non-payment and prohibition under the A.P. Assigned Lands Act, since land was assigned and inalienable.
- Alleged buyer is attempting to sell to third parties while petitioners retain possession.
- Argued that the transaction was void ab initio as per Section 3(2) & (3) of the A.P. Assigned Lands Act.
Respondents (State and Authorities):
- Opposed the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that such disputes are private in nature and require civil proceedings.
- Asserted that judicial review is unavailable when the aggrieved party has an effective statutory remedy.
- Emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to address cancellation of sale deeds or enforcement of private contractual obligations.
Factual Background
The petitioners sold their houses (totaling 217 sq. yards and comprising eight rooms) at Nandigama to the 4th respondent for a sale consideration of ₹3 crores through a registered sale deed dated 24.12.2021. The land had originally been assigned to the petitioners’ grandfather, a revenue employee. Petitioners alleged that only ₹21,38,000 of the price was paid, with the buyer promising to pay the rest within three months, but failing to do so. Meanwhile, the buyer allegedly attempted to transfer the property to a third party. Petitioners remained in possession. Claiming the sale was for assigned, inalienable land, and citing non-payment, the petitioners sought to have the sale deed set aside or put in abeyance via a writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Provides that a sale is the transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid, promised or part-paid and part-promised; full payment is not a precondition to transfer of title.
- Section 55(4)(b), T.P. Act: Grants the vendor a charge for unpaid sale price after title passes.
- Section 31, Specific Relief Act, 1963: Remedy of suit for cancellation of instrument if void or voidable.
- Section 3(2) & (3), A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977: Bars transfer of assigned lands and renders such transfers null and void; such issues must be raised as per the procedure set in the Act.
- Article 226, Constitution of India: The scope of writ jurisdiction is limited and not meant for adjudication of disputed private law rights or facts.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There are no dissenting or concurring opinions in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or innovations are set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established Supreme Court and Full Bench High Court precedents regarding limits on writ jurisdiction in private property/contractual matters.