Telangana High Court
Smt. K. Shailaja And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 1 April, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.672 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.V. Raman, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. D. Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, Ms. Tekuru Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, Mr. J. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Pillix Law Firm appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.
2. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS:
i) The land admeasuring Acs.5.18 guntas in Survey No.617 of Turkapally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, was being cultivated by one Mr. Bandi Ananthaiah from 1950 onwards as per Khasra Pahani.
ii) Upon the death of Mr. Bandi Ananthaih, his two sons, Mr. Bandi Yellaiah and Bandi Bikshapati applied for succession of Tenancy Rights in the year 1975 and accordingly, they were granted ownership certificate under Section - 38E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) 2 KL,J W.P. No.672 of 2023 Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'Act, 1950') to an extent of Acs.3.24 guntas.
iii) Thereafter, the petitioners herein purchased the said extent in Survey No.617 from the said Mr. Bandi Yellaiah and Mr. Bandi Bikshapathi represented by their GPA Holder, Mr. P. Ram Gopal Rao in the ratio of Acs.4.00 to petitioner No.1 and Acs.1.18 gutnas to petitioner No.2 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6723 of 2001, dated 03.09.2001. Since the date of purchase, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
iv) It is not known to the petitioners that some unknown persons registered the said extent of Acs.5.18 guntas of land in favour of one Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1411 of 1993 fraudulently and also subsequent rectification deed bearing document No.4681 of 2002. Then, the petitioners filed a suit vide O.S. No.1367 of 2003 seeking cancellation of the said sale deed bearing document No.1411 of 1993 and ratification deed bearing document No.4681 of 2002 in favour of Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin and for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar granted interim injunction and the same is in subsistence.3
KL,J W.P. No.672 of 2023
v) Even Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin filed a suit vide O.S. No.1285 of 2003 seeking perpetual injunction, while Mr. Bandi Yellaiah and Mr. Bandi Satyanarayan filed a suit vide O.S. No.8423 of 2003. All the said suits are pending and transferred to the Medchal Court.
vi) While so, without any notice to the successors of the protected tenants in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.5.18 guntas, respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, illegally incorporated the name of Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin in revenue records by deleting the name of protected tenant, Mr. Bandi Ananthaiah and his successors and the same is in violation of Section - 19 of the Act, 1950. Challenging the same, Mr. Bandi Yellaiah and Mr. Bandi Bikshapathi filed an appeal No.F2/7498/1995 before the Joint Collector, and the same was allowed vide order dated 12.12.2002 ordered to delete the names of original pattadar, Smt. Azizunnisa Begum, her legal heirs and subsequent purchaser, Smt. Rubina Faizuddin from revenue records for the pahanies from the year 1976-77 till date by incorporating the names of appellants therein. As regards remaining extent of Acs.1.34 guntas in Survey No.617 of Turkapally Village, it was held that Mr. Bandi Ananthaiah was the protected tenant for the entire extent of Acs.5.18 guntas in the said survey number and accordingly directed to issue grant of Section - 38E Ownership Certificate to the said 4 KL,J W.P. No.672 of 2023 extent of Acs.1.34 guntas also to the appellants therein. The said order dated 12.12.2002 has attained finality.
vii) Despite the said order, dated 12.12.2002, respondent No.4 did not comply with the said order. Therefore, petitioner No.1 filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.47437 of 2018 before this Court, and vide order dated 21.01.2019, this Court directed to dispose of the representation dated 28.06.2018 submitted by the petitioners within four (04) weeks from the date of the said order. Even then, respondent No.4 did not comply with the said order.
viii) While so, in Crime No.23/ACB-CR-II/2008, the ACB Officials seized various properties of petitioner No.1 herein including Acs.4.00 in Survey No.617 of Turkapally Village and, thereafter, upon an application moved by the ACB Officials vide Crl.M.P. No.189 of 2012 in Crl.M.P. No.468 of 2010 in the said crime, learned Principal Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, ordered for attachment of the properties including the aforesaid property.
ix) As stated above, despite the Joint Collector declaring the sale deed bearing document No.1411 of 1993 vide order dated 12.12.2002, Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin sold an extent of Acs.1.10 guntas in Survey no.617 along with other extents making a total extent of Acs.17.12 5 KL,J W.P. No.672 of 2023 guntas to one Mr. Y. Vara Prasad Reddy under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1820 of 2018, dated 03.02.2018. The said Vara Prasad in turn sold an extent of Acs.1.10 guntas to respondent No.5. In view of the order dated 12.12.2002 of the Joint Collector, respondent No.5 has no right, title or interest in respect of the said extent of Acs.1.10 guntas. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.5 made an application for grant of layout permission in respect of the lands including the aforesaid land and accordingly, respondent No.2 vide proceedings 05.01.2021 granted layout permission to respondent No.5. Therefore, the petitioners gave a complaint dated 07.04.2021 and the same was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 25.09.2021. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.28459 of 2021 and the same is pending.
x) Despite of the above, respondent No.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 25.07.2020 issued proceedings and the consequential Notification No.160, dated 06.08.2020 for conversion of the subject land from conservation zone to residential zone. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
6
KL,J W.P. No.672 of 2023
3. CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT No.2 - HMDA:
i) HMDA received proposal for change of land use from agricultural use/conservation use zone to residential use zone in Survey Nos.594P, 595P, 596, 597, 613, 614, 615, 616 & 617P of Turkapally Village to an extent of 214483.399 square meters applied by one Mr. Tirupathi Reddy and others through Online dated 02.05.2018. The same was examined by its office and the land Section was verified the ownership documents submitted by the layout applicant and cleared the prima facie of title. Subsequently, the site was inspected by concerned Scrutiny Officer and observed that it was vacant land and the approach is by 60 meters wide BT Road on eastern side. The said proposal for change of land use was examined and the same was approved by M.C., HMDA. The factual report was forwarded to the Government through its office letter, dated 10.08.2018.
ii) Consequently, the Government vide Memo, dated 16.03.2020 directed its Authority to publish a Notice, and accordingly the same was published on 09.05.2020 in English Newspaper 'Hans India' and Telugu Newspaper 'Namaste Telangana' in respect of the subject land calling for the objections and suggestions. No objection or suggestions were received either from General Public or from the petitioners. The same 7 KL,J W.P. No.672 of 2023 was informed to the Government vide letter dated 30.05.2020. Pursuant thereof, the Government issued instruction through letter dated 01.06.2020 to collect the charges as per G.O.Ms.No.223 MA, dated 30.08.2016.
iii) Accordingly, the applicant remitted the requisite fee and, therefore, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 25.07.2020 and the same was published in the Gazette Notification No.160, dated 06.08.2020. The said notification was also published on 07.10.2020 in the aforesaid English and Telugu Newspapers. Thus, having kept silent for about more than two (02) years, the petitioners filed the present writ petition and, therefore, they are not entitled to seek any relief on the ground of laches on their part.
4. CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT No.5:
i) The sale deed bearing document No.6723 of 2001, dated 03.09.2001 under which the petitioners said to have purchased the subject land is under challenge in O.S. No.842 of 2003 filed by Mr. Bandi Satyanarayana and Mr. Bandi Bikshapathi against their GPA Holder, Mr. P. Ram Gopal Rao, who allegedly executed the said sale deed in favour of the petitioners. This fact was suppressed by the petitioners.8
KL,J W.P. No.672 of 2023
ii) The interim order granted in O.S.No.1367 of 2003 filed by the petitioners seeking cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.1411 of 1993 got expired long back in the year 2004 itself.
iii) The order of Joint Collector dated 12.12.2002 is of no consequence as Mr Bandi Yellaiah and Mr. Bandi Bikshapathi executed a Ratification Deed in favour of Smt. Ribuna Faizuddin. He denied the allegation that the sale deed bearing No.1411 of 1993 executed in favour of Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin was held to be invalid.
iv) The purchase of extent of Ac.1.10 guntas by it from Mr. Y. Vara Prasad Reddy is legal and valid.
v) The layout was rightly sanctioned by respondent No.2 in its favour including the extent of Acs.1.10 guntas in Survey No.617.
vi) The petitioners have no knowledge of G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 25.07.2020 and the consequential Notification No.160, dated 06.08.2020 issued in its favour in respect of total extent of Acs.53.00 guntas including the subject land of Acs.1.10 guntas in Survey No.617. They never challenged the said G.O. and the consequential notification.
vii) The petitioners filed a suit vide O.S. No.614 of 2021 against it and its Vendor, Mr. Y. Vara Prasad Reddy in respect of Acs.1.10 guntas 9 KL,J W.P. No.672 of 2023 in Survey No.617 of Turkapally Village. They have also filed Interlocutory Applications vide I.A. Nos.1690 of 2021 and 1691 of 2021 seeking ad interim injunctions and the same were dismissed by a common order dated 15.07.2022. The said fact was suppressed by the petitioners in the present writ petition.
viii) The present writ petition is purely a speculative in nature and, therefore, it sought to dismiss the same.
5. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) In view of aforesaid rival submissions, the specific contention of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the property to an extent of Acs.5.18 guntas in Survey No.617 of Turkapally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6723 of 2001, dated 03.09.2001. Since the date of their purchase, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. While so, some unknown persons registered the said extent of land in favour of one Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1411 of 1993 fraudulently and the consequential rectification deed bearing document No.4681 of 2002. Therefore, the petitioners have filed a suit vide O.S. No.1367 of 2003 seeking cancellation of the said sale 10 KL,J W.P. No.672 of 2023 deed and the rectification deed. The said suit is pending. Likewise, the said Rubina Faizuddin also filed a suit vide O.S. No.1285 of 2003 for perpetual injunction. The said suit is also pending.
ii) Whereas, it is contended by HMDA that on receipt of application submitted by one Mr. Tirupathi Reddy and others, having examined the prima facie title and after following due procedure laid down under the HMDA Act and the Rules made thereunder and on receipt of requisite fee, it has issued Notification converting the subject land from conservation zone to residential zone and thereafter from residential zone to commercial zone. There is no error in not.
iii) It is contended by respondent No.5 that the sale deed bearing document No.6723 of 2001, dated 03.09.2001 under which the petitioners claim to have purchased the subject property is under challenge in O.S. No.842 of 2003.
iv) Perusal of record would further disclose that Mrs. Shailaja and another also filed a suit vide O.S. No.614 of 2021 against M/s. Chandra Groups and Mr. Varaprasad Reddy. O.S. No.162 of 2022 is filed seeking cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.3387 of 2018, dated 11.05.2018 executed by the said Mr. V. Varaprasad Reddy in 11 KL,J W.P. No.672 of 2023 favour of M/s. Chandra Groups. The said suits are also pending for adjudication.
v) As discussed above, the present writ petition is filed challenging G.O.Ms. No.114, dated 25.07.2020 and consequential Notification dated 06.08.2020. Though the said G.O. and the Notification are of the year 2020, the petitioners filed the present writ petition only in the year 2023. Thus, there is abnormal delay in filing the present writ petition.
vi) As discussed above, the aforesaid suits i.e., O.S. No.614 of 2021 and 162 of 2022 are pending. There are serious disputed questions of fact with regard to title of the property.
vii) This writ petition came up before this Court on 07.02.2023 on which date, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite injunction order granted in favour of the petitioners, pending consideration of their representation seeking correction of entries in revenue records, the respondents are trying to interfere with their possession over the subject property. Considering the said submissions, this Court, vide order dated 07.02.2023, granted status quo obtaining as on that day shall be maintained by the parties in all respects. In fact, as on that date, there was no status quo. The trial Court vacated the said 12 KL,J W.P. No.672 of 2023 status quo order. Therefore, the petitioners obtained the said interim order dated 07.02.2023 by way of misrepresentation.
viii) In view of the above, it is clear that there are civil disputes pending before various Civil Courts in respect of the subject property. Thus, there are serious/complicated questions of fact which this Court cannot consider in a writ petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner cannot seek adjudication of serious disputed/complicated questions of fact in the present writ petition. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ehsan 1. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain present writ petition on the aforesaid grounds.
6. CONCLUSION:
The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 1st April, 2025 Mgr 1 . 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887