Telangana High Court
Smt.Vancha Aruna vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 15 April, 2024
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.20420 of 2021
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal, Rajanna Sircilla District, in passing order dated 29.06.2021 in Tribunal Case No.LDM2000014377, File No.D/1035/2019, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings No.B/3154/2005, issued by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.35 guntas in Sy.No.108 and Ac.3.35 guntas in Sy.No.109, total admeasuring Ac.7.30 guntas, situated at Sircilla Village and Mandal, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is the sister of respondent No.5. It is claimed that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.3.35 guntas in Sy.No.108 and Ac.3.35 guntas in Sy.No.109, total admeasuring Ac.7.30 guntas, Sircilla Village and Mandal, Rajanna- Sircilla District, by virtue of registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 08.02.1995 vide document No.579/1995, executed by her husband, Vancha Devender Reddy. The husband of the petitioner purchased the subject property from previous owner, Mandadi Rangamma W/o. Linga Reddy and Mandadi Bugga Reddy S/o. Raghava Reddy, under registered sale deed bearing document No.712/1989 dated 05.04.1989. The name of the husband of the petitioner was 2 mutated in the revenue records and he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed vide Patta No.188.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a native of Nizamabad Village, Konaraopet Mandal. Presently, she is residing at Jagtiyal and Karimnagar, as her husband is in Medical profession. Petitioner requested her father Mandadi Veera Reddy to look after the subject lands and handed over all original documents of the land. The father of the petitioner demised in the year 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner requested her brother i.e. respondent No.5 to look after the affairs of the subject lands. In the year 2019, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No.5 has obtained mutation proceedings bearing No.B/3154/2005 dated 11.12.2007 in Form 13(B) & 13(C) by fabricating the simple sale deed dated 14.07.1995 in favour of their father, Mandadi Veera Reddy and got the subject land mutated in his favour without notice to the petitioner and without following due procedure laid down under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short 'the ROR Act 1971).
4. It is submitted that the petitioner obtained documents under the Right to Information Act and on verification, came to know that the respondent No.5 has fabricated the simple sale deed dated 14.07.1995 by forging the signature of the petitioner and her 3 husband. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.3 in File No.D/1035/2019 under Section 5(5) of the Act read with Rule 21(i) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Rules, 1989 (for short 'ROR Rules, 1989). During the pendency of the appeal, the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act') came into force thereby repealing the Act of 1971. Thus, the appeal in File No.D/1035/2019 pending before the respondent No.3 was transferred to the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal under Section 16(1) of the Act.
5. It is submitted that the initially the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal passed order dated 15.02.2021 dismissing the appeal without recording any reasons and without appreciating the documents filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, as per orders of this Court in WP(PIL).No.20 of 2021 dated 18.03.2021, the petitioner made an application before the respondent No.2 for rehearing the matter. The matter was reheard and impugned order dated 29.06.2021 was passed dismissing the appeal.
6. The respondent No.5, in his counter affidavit, submitted that unregistered sale deed dated 14.07.1995 executed in his favour was validated under Section 5A of the Act of 1971 in proceedings No.B/3154/2005 dated 11.12.2007. Consequently, Section 13(B) & 4 13(C) certificates were issued to the respondent No.5 and thereafter, he was duly recorded as pattadar and possessor under Section 5B of the Act of 1971. The appeal challenging regularization orders under Section 5 of the Act of 1971 has to be preferred within sixty (60) days. The present appeal is filed after lapse of more than twelve (12) years. The petitioner sold the subject land under unregistered sale deed dated 14.07.1995 to the respondent No.5. The petitioner, on due receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-, delivered possession of the subject land. The petitioner handed over the sale deed bearing document No.712/1989 dated 05.04.1989 and gift settlement deed bearing document No.579/1995 dated 08.02.1995 and the original pattadar pass book No.399222 with Patta No.188 to the respondent No.5
7. It is stated that the name of the respondent No.5 was recorded as pattadar and possessor in the pahanies in respect of the subject land since 2007 and the same is evident from 1B Register. He was issued pattadar passbook vide Patta No.173. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 transferred and conveyed an extent of Ac.0.35 guntas out of Ac.3.35 guntas in Sy.No.108 and an extent of Ac.0.35 guntas out of Ac.3.35 guntas in sy.No.108 of Ragudu Village, in favour of the petitioner under a Gift Settlement Deed dated 16.04.2012 bearing document No.2557/2012. The petitioner accepted the gift which contains her photograph and 5 thumb impression as required under Section 32A of the Registration Act. In the gift settlement deed dated 16.04.2012, it was clearly mentioned that the respondent No.5 is the owner of the land in Sy.Nos.108 and 109 of Ragudu Village by virtue of ROR certificate No.B/3154/2005 dated 11.12.2007. Thus, the petitioner has knowledge of the regularization made in favour of the respondent No.5 under Section 5A of the Act of 1971.
8. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.6.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.108 and 109, Ragudu Village. The petitioner is the owner of land in Sy.No.1145/, which is on the western side of Ac.6.00 guntas of the land of the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 approached the petitioner to sell the land to have access of 20 feet to R&B Road of Sircilla to Vemulavada. In order to transfer such an extent of Ac.0.05 guntas of land, the petitioner sought for transfer of Ac.1.30 guntas in Sy.Nos.108 and 109 of the respondent No.5. However, the respondent No.5 conceded to such demand and transferred an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas by way of registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 16.04.2012 bearing document No.2557 of 2012. On the same day, the petitioner transferred an extent of Ac.0.05 guntas by way of registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.2556 of 2012 dated 16.04.2012. The petitioner got her name mutated in 6 respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.30 guntas covered by Gift Settlement Deed dated 16.04.2012.
9. Mr. C. Damodar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the regularization vide proceedings No.B/3154/2005 is illegal and contrary to the procedure contemplated under Rule 22 of the ROR Rules, 1989, as the petitioner was not issued mandatory notice, being the interested person. There is no dispute that the petitioner was the owner of the subject property. The alleged unregistered sale deed is a forged and invalid document and the question of validation of such document does not arise. In any case, opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner. The Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.2557 of 2012 dated 16.04.2012 is a separate transaction having no bearing on the impugned regularization proceedings.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, submitted that pursuant to Section 5A regularization proceedings and Sections 13(B) & 13(C) certificates, the respondent No.5 was recorded as pattadar in the year 2006. After lapse of more than twelve (12) years, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, which is not maintainable. The appeal ought to have been filed under Section 5(B) of the Act. 7 Even assuming that the provision of law was incorrectly mentioned still the appeal is filed with an inordinate delay. The statutory period to file an appeal is sixty (60) days. Thus, on this sole ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
12. It is not denied by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the appeal was filed after twelve (12) years from the date of regularization proceedings in File No.B/3154/2005 dated 11.12.2007. The respondent No.5 transferred Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.No.108 and Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.No.109, total admeasuring Ac.1.30 guntas of Ragudu Village, to the petitioner under Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.2557 of 2012 dated 16.04.2012. This transaction, according to the learned counsel for the respondent No.5, is in lieu of transfer of Ac.0.05 guntas of land (650 sq. yards) in Sy.No.1145/C by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.5 in Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.2556 of 2012 dated 16.04.2012. In the gift settlement deed bearing document No.2557 of 2012, there is mention of proceeding No.B/3154/2005 dated 11.12.2007, which is impugned in this writ petition.
8
13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that merely because there is reference to the proceedings No.B/3154/2005 dated 11.12.2007 in the document bearing No.2557 of 2012 dated 16.04.2012, it may not lead to a presumption that the petitioner has knowledge of the said proceedings. Learned senior counsel submitted that an act to be done in a particular manner has to be done in such manner only. As the mandatory provision under Rule 22 of the ROR Rules is not followed, the impugned proceedings have to be set at naught. There is no delay as such in filing the appeal inasmuch as the petitioner filed appeal within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of her knowledge. However, learned senior counsel reiterated that the document bearing No.2557 of 2012 was executed for some purpose unconnected to the lis and the same cannot be taken as a circumstance to contend that the petitioner had admitted and acknowledged the proceedings No.B/3154/2005 dated 11.12.2007.
14. The parties were present in the Court during the hearing of the matter. This Court enquired with the petitioner about her photograph annexed to the document bearing No.2557 of 2012 and she fairly admitted that it is her photograph. There is no denial by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 about non-service of notice on the petitioner in the proceedings No.B/3154/2005 dated 11.12.2007, However, taking into consideration the delay of twelve 9 (12) years in filing appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, which came to be transferred to the Special Tribunal in Case No.LDM2000014377, File No.D/1035/2019 and admission of proceedings No.B/3154/ 2005 dated 11.12.2007 in document bearing No.2557 of 2012 dated 16.04.2012, in the opinion of the Court, this is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for reviewing the impugned order.
15. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is always at liberty to invoke appropriate remedy before the competent civil Court and agitate her claim that the regularization proceedings dated 11.12.2007 in File No.B/3154/2005 are issued without following the procedure contemplated under the ROR Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder. If any such suit is filed, the same shall be decided by the trial Court, on merits, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J April 15, 2024 DSK