Telangana High Court
The Telangana Bhoodan Yagna Board vs M. Chaitanya Reddy on 27 June, 2023
Author: P.Naveen Rao
Bench: P.Naveen Rao, Nagesh Bheemapaka
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
APPEAL SUIT NO.238 OF 2019
Date: 27.06.2023
Between:
The Telangana Bhoodan Yagna Board,
Rep.by its Chairman-cum-Authority,
Office at 2nd Floor, CCLA Building,
Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad,
Telangana State.
.... Appellant/
Defendant no.1
And
M.Chaitanya Reddy s/o.Prabhakar Reddy,
Age 34 years, occu: Business, 80-B2,
Ward No.142, Dr.Ranga Reddy Road,
Miyapur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and others.
.... Respondents/
Plaintiffs
The State of Telanganana, rep.by its
Collector, Ranga Reddy district,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad and others.
.... Respondents/
Defendants 2 to 7
The Court made the following:
PNR,J & NBK,J
AS No.238 of 2019
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
APPEAL SUIT NO.238 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao) For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the suit.
2. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.846 of 2016 by the XIV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad on 06.07.2019. The suit was filed for declaration of the suit schedule lands as private patta lands and plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 are absolute owners of schedules A to D lands and plaintiff No.4 is absolute owner of schedule E land and consequently to direct the defendants to correct the entries in the classification column of pahanies relating to plaint schedule lands from 'Bhoodan patta' to 'patta' and to remove plaint schedule lands from prohibited list and consequently to grant perpetual injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs with respect to the plaint schedule lands. 3.1. The plaint averments disclose that one Syed Mohammed Hussain Abede, was the original owner of the suit properties, was the pattadar and possessor of the land admeasuring to an extent of Acs.62.37 guntas PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 3 situated in Sy.Nos.1, 4, 5 and 16 of Kothwalguda Village. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit lands were alienated in favour Sagarmal Gupta and Mahendra Nigam under a registered Sale deed Doct.No.714/1960 dated 15.09.1960 for ₹ 28,000/-. The certified copy of 1B Register/title deed marked as Exs.A9 and A10 shows that Sagarmal Gupta is the pattadar of Acs.7.17 Gts in Survey No.4/A, Acs.6.21 guntas in survey no.5/A and Acs.8.35 guntas in Survey no.16/A, in total Acs.22.33 guntas of Kothwalguda village, Shamshabad Mandal and his Patta/khata number is 45. The certified copy of 1B Register/title deed marked as Ex.A.11 shows that Mahendra Perishad Nigam is the pattadar of Acs.7.16 guntas in Survey No.4/A, Acs.6.21 guntas in survey no.5/A and Acs.8.36 guntas in Survey no.16/A, in total Acs.22.33 guntas of Kothwalguda village, Shamshabad Mandal and his Patta/ khata Number is 46. The said lands were divided between Sagarmal Gupta and Mahendra Pershad.
3.2. It is further averred that the said documents are available in file No.6941/91 of R.D.O., (marked as Ex.A37 and Ex.A38) Chevalla which reflect the said land as private patta land of Sagarmal Gupta and Mahendra Pershad Nigam. The certified copy of the Faisal Patti for the years 1960-1961 (marked as Ex.A39 ) reflect the above sale transaction and mutations have been duly sanctioned by the Tahsildar in the names of Sagarmal Gupta and Mahendra Pershad, and it was clearly recorded PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 4 that the vendors under the sale deed were the pattadars and possessors of the land sold classified as patta lands.
3.3. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that after the purchase of the land, Mahendra Nigam and Sagarmal Gupta carried out mining operations since 1964 on the said land in the name and style of M/s.Golconda Minerals, a joint venture enterprise with M/s Andhra Pradesh Mining Corp. Ltd, and the same was recognized by the RDO vide order copy dated 12.07.1990 in case No.G/6941/81. 3.4. The plaintiffs further submitted that in one of the previous proceedings with respect to the suit lands,the RDO, Chevalla vide proceeding No.LRW/143/75 dated 15.05.1975 had wrongly granted 38(E) patta in the name of one Jacob. The same was challenged before the Joint Collector, who had remanded the matter to the RDO. On remand and after enquiry the RDO cancelled the 38(E) certificate, for the reason being that Mahendra Nigam and Sagarmal Gupta were the bonafide land (patta) owners.
3.5. Sagarmal Gupta expired leaving behind his widow, Revati Bai and his four sons. Revati bai died intestate in the year 2005, and the above four sons had recieved 1/4th each as their share. The four sons together sold Acs.10.00 to one Mohan Agarwal and 8 others in 2006, and they PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 5 were left with a balance extent of Acs.4.33 guntas in Sy.no.4 in joint possession and enjoyment.
3.6. Plaintiff 1 to 3 together purchased Ac 4.04 guntas out of the remaining Acs.4.25 guntas from the four sons of Sagarmal Gupta, under a registered sale deed Doct.No.9632/2012 dated 16.08.2012 (marked as Ex.A25). The mutation of the same has been obtained vide Mutation ROR order No.D.1232/2012 dated 19.11.2012 and secured the passbooks and title deeds. Form 1-B clearly indicates that the said lands were classified as patta lands, and the plaintiffs were issued their respective Patta numbers, Passbook and title book numbers. (marked as Exs. A- 32, A-28, A-29, A-39).
3.7. Plaintiffs further contend that, in the course of his life, Mahendra Nigam was converted to Islam, and had changed his name to 'Khaleel Ahmed'. Upon the death of Khaleel Ahmed, he was survived by his wife Noorjahan Begum and their children who sold an extent of Acs.4.22 guntas of their share in favour of the Plaintiff No.4, under a sale deed Doct.No.1843/2012 dt:16.06.2012 (marked as Ex.A1), and the pattadar, pass book and title deed of the same have been issued by the revenue authorities in favour of the Plaintiff 4 (marked as Ex.A6). 3.8. It is the case of the plaintiffs that when the plaintiffs obtained pahanies for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15, they were shocked to see PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 6 that the word 'bhoodan" was added to the existing "patta' in the land classification column of the pahanies, which gave the effect of the suit lands falling under "Bhoodan Lands". Upon further enquiry it was found that word bhoodan was inserted in the said pahanies from the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Before marking such entries no notice intimating the plaintiffs of the same were given. Further when the plaintiffs applied for market value certificate at the office of the Sub-registrar, Shamshabad, they came to know that the said lands were put under the Prohibition List under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and were restrained from alienating the said lands. 3.9. Surprised by this development, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and plaintiff 4 separately addressed letters dt: 03.04.2014 and 21.04.2014 respectively to the Chairman, A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board (for short referred to as Board) (defendant No.7) requesting for clarification for the above classification of their patta lands as bhoodan lands. The defendant No.7 in a reply addressed to both the set of plaintiffs communicated that the Razinamas, Donation Deeds or publications (documents required for classification of bhoodan lands )were not available in the office with respect to the suit lands. The letters have been marked under Exs.A34, A36 and Ex. A17 respectively.
PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 7 3.10. The plaintiffs further contended that though the Revenue records continuously shown the suit lands as private patta lands up to the year 2012, it was in that year, out of the blue, status of the patta lands were changed to bhoodan lands, illegally.
4.1. The defendants contended that the original owner Syed Mohammed Hussain had donated land to an extent of Acs.45.01 guntas to Board on 16.03.1955 (marked as Ex. B-2). Defendant 1 has filed Yagna Razinama (Relinquishment Deed) dated 27.05.1955 donating the said lands to the Board (marked as Ex.B3). Further The District Collector has issued circulars (documents marked as Exs.B4 and B5) to the revenue authorities to make entries in the revenue records as bhoodan lands.
4.2. It is contended that in the present facts and circumstances, the provisions of 'Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhave Bhoo Yagna Hyderabad Land Revenue Special Rules,1951 will apply and not the A.P Bhoodan & Gramdan Act, 1965, as the said donation of lands occurred in the year 1955.
5. After examining all the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:
PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 8
1. Whether the plaintiff No. 1 to 3 are entitled to decree for declaration of title in respect of plaint A,B, C and D schedule properties, as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff No. 4 is entitled to decree for declaration of title in respect of plaint E schedule property, as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for correction of the entries in the classification column of the Pahanies by removing the word "bhoodan" in patta column against the Plaint schedule lands and to remove the said lands from prohibited list under Section 22-A or any sub-section thereof of the Registration act, 1908
4. Whether the plaintiff are entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction against defendants in respect of suit properties?
5. To what relief?
6. On behalf of plaintiff, PW.1 to PW.4 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A.51. On behalf of defendants DW.1 and DW.2 were examined and marked Exs.B1 to B16.
7. The trial court after hearing both the sides, examining the pleadings and evidence placed on record decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, and held that the said suit lands were indeed private patta lands bona fidely purchased by the plaintiffs and the said suit lands are not Bhoodan Lands. It is held that that the nature of the said suit lands are patta lands belonging to private individuals, and that it was only from the year 2012 onwards the word "bhoodan" was added to PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 9 the existing patta in the possessors column of the Pahanies. The court held that Ex B2 and B3 (Razinama and donation deeds) were supposed to be in the custody of Defendant 6 (Tahasildar) but was instead found in the possession of Defendant 1, and no explanation for the same was given. The defendant 1 has further not given any explanation as to why the said suit lands were not mutated in favour of the Board, from the years 1955.
8. The trial court further held that the relevant rules under Sri Acharya Vinoba Bhave Sarvodya Bhoo-Yagna, Hyderabad land Revenue Special Rules, 1951 were not followed. As per Rule 3, the donor has to submit his willingness to donate the land in the form of a Razinama (Form I). As per rule 4 Tahsildar shall obtain report from Girdwar in Form II. As per Rule 6, the Tahsildar before accepting the donation shall enquire of any pending dues, taxes on the land. As per Rules 7 and 8 the Tahsildar has to pass an order to that effect, and copy of such an order shall be communicated in the village where the land is situated and make suitable entry regarding relinquishment, in the village records. As per Rule 17, the tahsildar shall maintain a register with respect to the lands relinquished under these rules, and as per Rule 13, there shall be publication in respect of donation of lands in the Official Gazette.
9. The court noted the above mandated procedure for the donation of bhoodan land was not followed, and the court held that there is PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 10 abundant record to show that the original owners have alienated the said patta lands to private individuals, and thereby the suit lands are private patta lands.
10. We have heard learned Advocate General for appellant Telangana Bhoodan Yagna Board and learned senior counsel Sri G Pedda Babu for respondents 1 to 4.
Submissions of learned Advocate General for the appellant:
11.1. Learned Advocate General would contend that original landlord has donated the land to Board for distribution to landless poor persons.
He has executed Razinama on 27.5.1955 donating and relinquishing his rights over Acs.45.01 land in Survey Nos.1, 4 and 5 of Kothawalguda village which is marked as Ex.B3. He has also executed donation deed on 16.3.1955 (Ex.B2). He would submit that Exs.B2 and B3 evidence donation/relinquishment of the land and once land is donated/ relinquished by the landlord, the landlord has no right to deal with the said land, whereas plaintiffs were relying on alleged sale deed executed by the said landlord. As execution of the sale deed was after donation/relinquished of the land, sale deeds are not valid in law and no reliance can be placed on those sale deeds to claim ownership and possession.
PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 11 11.2. Learned Advocate General has taken us through the provisions of Shri Acharya Vinoba Bhave Sarvodaya Bhoo Yagna Hyderabad Special Land Revenue Rules, 1951, notification of which was published on 27.7.1951. He would submit that Rule 3 envisages relinquishment of the land by executing a Razinama in Form I appended to the Rules and Exs.B2 and B3 are in accord with Rule 3. According to Rule 8 once Razinama is executed and accepted by Tahsildar and orders are passed to that effect by the Tahisldar, such land would vest in the Government and accordingly the schedule lands are vested in the Government. 11.3. According to learned Advocate General, memo dated 21.5.1960 (Ex.B7) is the list of Board properties issued by Tahsildar and in the said list, suit schedule land is also included as land belonging to Board. He would submit that even though these Rules were repealed by A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965, Section 35 of the Act, 1965 envisages that the Razinama executed under 1951 Rules are deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under the Act as if Act was in force on the date of such execution. He would therefore submit that Ex.B2 and B3 are donation and Razinama of the land are saved by Act, 1965 thus the land belongs to the Board. 11.4. He would submit that Board of Revenue of Government of Hyderabad, Hyderabad Deccan issued circular on 17.7.1952 and 28.8.1954 directing the revenue officials to record the donated and PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 12 relinquished lands in the village records as Bhoodan lands and Government of A.P. vide circular memo No. 41950/ASN.1(1)94-4 directed all the District Collectors to issue suitable instructions to revenue subordinate officials and Village Administrative Officers (For short VAOs) to record Bhoodan lands in the relevant revenue account no.3. Learned Advocate General would submit that the plaintiffs were trying to take advantage of not undertaking the corrections in the revenue records reflecting the land as belonging to Board.
11.5. As several such instances were noticed, Government of A.P., issued circular on 17.6.1972 directing the Collectors to issue suitable instructions to all the revenue subordinate officials and VAOs to record Bhoodan lands in the relevant column of Adangal/Pahani as Bhoodan land. Having regard to this circular, Bhoodan Yagna Board has been consistently following up with the revenue officials to undertake corrections in the revenue records reflecting the suit schedule land as belonging to Board but for some reason, the Tahsildar has not undertaken the exercise. The plaintiffs cannot take advantage of illegalities committed by revenue officials in not reflecting the status of the land as belonging to Board. After long persuasion by the Board, finally in the year 2012 the revenue records reflected the status of the land as belonging to Board. He would therefore submit that as land belongs to Board on account of relinquishment given by the original PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 13 pattadar, the subsequent sale transactions are nonest in the eye of law and no reliance can be placed on that to claim title on the suit schedule properties.
11.6. The learned Advocate General further contended that the court below failed to take into consideration Ex.B7 which is the acceptance letter bearing No.E/1027/1960 dated 21.05.1960, which was issued by the Tahasildar, Hyderabad West accepting the donation and razinama in favour of the Board.
Submissions of learned senior counsel Sri Pedda Babu for plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4:
12. Learned Senior counsel Sri Pedda Babu would submit that there was no execution of relinquishment deed or donation by the original pattadar. The pattadar sold the land as early as on 15.9.1960. If it was the intention of the pattadar to donate the land, he would not have taken recourse to selling the same land to the predecessors in interest of the respondents. If what is contended by the learned Advocate General is true, it is strange to note that until 2008, no one made a claim on status of the land as Bhoodan land and for the first time only in the year 2008 a letter was written and only in the year 2012 word "bhoodan" was added in the possession column. However, it is appropriate to note that names of plaintiffs continued. He would submit that pursuant to sale transactions undertaken by the original pattader, the revenue records PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 14 reflected the names of the purchasers and continued to reflect all along for all these years.
12.1. He would submit that 1951 Rules only envisage Razinama (relinquishment) and did not contemplate donation of the land, whereas, Ex.B2 speaks of donating the land which was not a format prescribed in the 1951 Rules. After more than a month or so, from the date of alleged gift deed, Razinama was written. If it was the intention of the original landlord to donate his land to the Board, he would have executed the gift deed as well as Razinama on the same day. He would further submit that Rule 3 of the 1951 Rules specifically requires that such Razinama should be attested by a Central Committee Member or a Member of the Central Committee nominated by Acharya Vinoba Bhave or any member of the local Committee formed by the Central Committee under intimation to the Collector of the District. Whereas, Ex.B3 does not contain attestation by the Member of the Central Committee/Local Committee as the case may be. Therefore, the alleged Razinama dated 27.5.1955 is not valid document to support the relinquishment of the land by the original landlord.
12.2. He further submits that total extent of land covered by Ex.B7 comes to Acs.975.25 whereas covering letter dated 21.5.1960, it was written that total extent of land donated to Board in various villages comes to Acs.928.33 by adding Acs.45.00 of the suit schedule land, the PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 15 total extent comes to Acs.975.00, this clearly supports that there was interpolation and suit schedule land was added as an afterthought. He would further submit that Ex.B4 is a letter written by Collector on 30.8.2006 addressed to all the Mandal Revenue Officers of the District. Letter refers to list of lands furnished by Board, but strangely the said list is not included in the document filed by the appellant before the trial Court. Since appellant has not chosen to mark the said list appended to Ex.B4 letter, adverse inference can be drawn to say that list was never sent by Board to the District Collector and even if it was sent, that list does not contain the suit schedule land.
12.3. He would further submit that Ex.B9 was letter written by the District Collector to the Tahsildar on 17.10.2008, wherein, by referring to a letter written by Board on 25.10.2008, the District Collector directed Tahsildar to inquire into the matter and submit a detailed report to take further action. This letter refers to suit schedule land with a request by the Board to refer the land as Bhoodan Khariz Khatha. According to learned senior counsel, it appears that no report was submitted by the Tahsildar in pursuant to the said letter. Therefore, it is intriguing as to how suddenly the word 'bhoodan' was added in the pahani concerning the suit schedule land.
12.4. He would submit that if original landlord donated the land and if the Government has taken possession of the land, it is strange to note PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 16 that the said land is not allotted to the landless poor persons for such a long time and no effort was made to show the status of the land as Bhoodan land or Government land. On the contrary, the Tahsildar accorded permission to sell the land under Sections 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 vide proceedings dated 22.8.1960 for execution of sale deeds. Tahsildar would not have granted such permission if it was donated to the Board. Further, same Tahsildar has issued Phaisal Patti Ex.A39 in the year 1969 with respect to the above said sale transaction.
12.5. He would submit that if it is a Board land, having donated by the landlord in the year 1955, why no steps were taken to show the said land in the revenue records from 1955 to 2012, which goes to show that it was never the Board's land and interpolations in the year 2012 were deliberately made only to harass and cause hardships to the plaintiffs. 12.6. He would also submit that all along the names of successive purchasers have been reflected in the revenue records, pattader pass books and title deeds were issued in their favour. All this clearly points out that there was never a donation given by the pattadar and it is a private patta land and sale transactions have validly taken place over a long period of time. He would further submit that Rule 17 of 1951 Rules require maintenance of a Register by Tahsildar in Form IV appended to the Rules concerning list of lands relinquished under the Rules. No PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 17 register is filed on behalf of the appellants to show that the suit schedule lands are also included in the said Register. Rule 7 prescribes the VAO of the village concerned to publish the order in the village Chavdi, make suitable entries regarding relinquishment in the village records. Learned senior counsel submits that in the cross examination of DW-2 he has admitted that he does not know whether office of the Tahsildar, Shamshabad maintained any record containing particulars of lands donated and accepted by Board.
12.7. He would further submit that DW-1 in cross examination deposed that Board has maintained records containing records of lands donated to Board but no such Register is filed in the Court but said that Register exists and is maintained by the Board. Though, he deposed that he would file such Register, no such Register was filed. Learned senior counsel submitted that non filing of the records would clearly suggest that those records do not contain entry on suit schedule land as donated and accepted by the revenue authorities.
12.8. He would further submit that the contention of other defendants that Tahsildar Hyderabad West accepted Razinama vide letter dated 21.5.1960 is not valid. According to learned senior counsel, 1951 Rules were not in operation from 9.8.1957 with respect to Bhoodan lands, therefore, the question of accepting Razinama executed in the year 1955, in 1960 does not arise. DW-1 in cross examination clearly admits that PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 18 there was no Rule or law operating in the field of donation of lands to Board between 9.8.1957 to 19.5.1965.
13. Refuting the contention of the learned Advocate General on including the suit schedule property in the list of properties belonging to Board as prepared by the Tahsildar i.e., Ex B7, he would submit that it is not a valid document and is created to frustrate the plaint filed by the plaintiffs. He would point out that in the said proceedings, lands are arranged in the respective villages with lands of a particular village shown at a particular place. Lands relinquished by pattadars in favour of the Board belonging to Kothwalguda village were shown at serial nos.135 to 138. If what is contended by the learned Advocate General is true, this particular land also ought to have been shown immediately below serial no.138 whereas, it is added at the bottom of the list and shown at serial no.149. He would submit that this subsequent interpolation was made only to frustrate the litigation and no credence can be given to such document.
Reply by learned Advocate General:
14. In reply learned Advocate General would contend that Razinama Ex.B3 was validly executed by the owner of the land and all transactions that have been taken place under 1951 Rules are saved by Section 35 of the Act. Therefore, the Razinama of the suit schedule lands by the PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 19 original pattadar is valid and land vested in the Board. He would submit that letter of Tahsildar dated 21.5.1960 (Ex.B7) is a valid document and that document clearly shows acceptance of gift given by the landlord of the suit schedule land. He would submit that Razinama is sufficient to establish donation of the land. No other document is required and Razinama is valid even if there is no proof of acceptance though the Tahsildar accepted Razinama in the year 1960. He would submit that Register as required by Rule 17 of the 1951 Rules was not given to the Board and all along the Board has been pursuing with the Revenue authorities to reflect the land as Bhoodan land. For this purpose, he has drawn the attention to the averments made in the written statement filed in the suit.
15. By referring to Ex.B17 letter of Board dated 21.4.2014 it was asserted that whatever stated therein was that Board does not have Razinama or Danapatram as said record was not made available to the Board. However, fact remains that the record is available with the Revenue authorities and filed before the trial Court. Ex.B-2 and B-3 are Danapatram and Razinama, therefore, merely because Board has indicated that they do not have record, does not mean that there was never a donation of the subject lands.
16. At this stage, learned senior counsel for respondents 1 to 4 contended that Circular dated 25.8.1951 issued by the Government of PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 20 Hyderabad emphasises that the Rules notified on 27.7.1951 are valid and operative only for one year. Therefore, it was emphasised that the entire work including the distribution of lands to the land less poor persons should be completed as expeditiously as possible. The circular also emphasises that all records desired by the Central Committee should be made available to them particularly the relinquishment Register to be maintained by the Tahsildar under Rule 17. Assuming that there was valid relinquishment, even though said circular was violated, no possession was taken and land was not allotted to landless poor persons. As the very objective of the scheme was to distribute the lands donated by the landlords to landless poor persons, question of board retaining the lands for such long time, does not arise.
17. When Board is not in physical possession, granting possession by changing the revenue records is not valid. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Thummala Krishna Rao and others1.
18. The following issues arise for consideration:
1. Whether there was a valid relinquishment of land to an extent of Acs.45.01 guntas in Survey Nos.1, 4 and 5 of Kothwalguda village by pattadar in favour of Bhoodan Yagna Board?
1
AIR 1982 SC 1081 PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 21
2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is sustainable under law?
3. To what relief?
ISSUE NO.1:
19. There is no dispute that one Syed Mohammad Hussain Abide was the owner of land to an extent of Acs.62.32 in Survey Nos.1, 4, 5 and 16 of Kothwalguda village, Shamshabad mandal in Ranga Reddy district.
The said owner executed registered sale deed bearing Document No. 714/1960 on 15.9.1960 selling the above extent of land to Sagarmal Gupta and Mahendra Pershad Nigam. Plaintiffs trace their title to scheduleds A to E lands to above sale transaction. On the contrary, the appellant claims that the original owner donated on 16.3.1955 (Ex.B2) and executed Razinama-relinquishment deed (Ex.B3) on 27.5.1955 transferring Acs.45.01 of land in survey Nos. 1,4 and 5 from out of land to an extent of Acs.62.32 spread over in Survey Nos.1, 4, 5 and 16, Kothwalguda village to Bhoodan Movement for distribution of land to landless poor persons and once Razinama is executed the owner has no manner of right to deal with the said land as he seized to be owner anymore and land vests in the Board. It is irreversible.
20. Therefore, the issue revolves around the validity of Razinama stated to have been executed by original owner of the land. If a valid Razinama was executed and land vested in the Board in the year 1955, PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 22 then the sale transaction dated 15.9.1960 would become ex facie illegal and void and no rights would flow out of it. As the original owner lost his title to the property, he has no manner of right to execute sale deed on the same land.
21. It is vehemently contended by learned Advocate General that by virtue of Razinama executed by original pattadar, the land vested in Board. Thus the original pattadar has no manner of right to deal with said land after executing Razinama and therefore, subsequent sale transactions are ex-facie illegal and no rights accrue to subsequent purchasers.
22. While appellant heavily relied on Ex.B-2 and B-3 documents to contend that a valid relinquishment was made by the original owner and Acs.45.01 guntas of land in survey nos.1, 4 and 5 of Kothwalguda village that includes the suit schedule land vested in the Board, the plaintiffs relied on entries in revenue records continuously till the year 2012 and various orders of revenue authorities to contend that it is a private patta land.
23. To appreciate the respective submissions and to understand the issues involved, it is necessary to analyse the relevant provisions of 1951 Rules. 1951 Rules were notified by the then Government of Hyderabad to give effect to the appeal made by Acharya Vinoba Bhave for donation PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 23 of land from the landlords for distribution to landless poor persons. Rule 3 opens up with notwithstanding clause and is made applicable notwithstanding any provision in Hyderabad Land Revenue Relinquishment Rules, 1951 empowering registered holder of land or other person having rights therein desiring to relinquish all their rights in the land in response to the appeal of Acharya Vinoba Bhave and with a view of same being granted in Lavani to other persons to ensure equitable distribution of lands, peace and contentment in the State. A person may so relinquish by submitting at any time to the Tahsildar a Razinama in the Form I appended to the Rules.
24. It is also pertinent to note that on 25.8.1951 the Government of Hyderabad issued circular referring to steps to be taken consequent to 1951 Rules. The circular requires the Tahsildars to work in close cooperation with the Central committee or its local committees, as the case may be and all records desired by them should be made available, particularly the relinquishment Registers to be maintained under Rule
17. In paragraph 5 of the circular, it is stated that as soon as relinquishment applications are received, the Tahsildar should depute M.C. Inspector of the Taluq to inspect the lands and fill up all the prescribed details in the application wherever necessary and verify them. It also lists out procedure to be followed for allotment of land. Most importantly it is relevant to note that the Tahsildars were informed that PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 24 the Rules would be in operation only for one year and therefore it was imperative that the entire work including the distribution of land to the landless poor persons ought to be completed as expeditiously as possible. As rightly contended by learned senior counsel, if the original pattadar executed Razinama and said Razinama was accepted in due compliance of mandate of Rules 1951, the Government should have taken possession of the land and Government should have allotted the land to the landless persons within one year from 21.5.1955, but strangely no allotment exercise was undertaken all these years. Moreover, the revenue records have never reflected the land as Bhoodan land and no endeavour was made by the revenue authorities for allotment of the land to the landless persons. This fortifies the stand of the plaintiff -respondents that suit schedule land was never relinquished by the original pattadar.
25. In accordance with 1951 Rules to have an effective relinquishment and vesting of land in Bhoodan Yagna Board, the following aspects have to be complied with:
1. The registered land holders or any other person having rights therein should execute Razinama in form I appended to the Rules.
2. It should be attested by any Member of the Central Committee nominated by Acharya Vinoba Bhave or any PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 25 member of the local committees formed by the Central committee under intimation to the Collector of the District.
3. As per Rule 4, Tahsildar was required to obtain report on the application from the Girdarvar. If the land relinquished is in a portion of registered number of sub division, the Tahsildar was required to arrange to get signature of relinquisher on the sketch and the sub-division statement. The portion relinquished should be compact and accessible.
4. Before passing an order accepting the Razinama, Tahsildar was required to ascertain whether any amounts are due to the Government either as arrears of land revenue or otherwise and if any amount is due, he should collect the same before he accepts the Razinama.
5. Acceptance of Razinama is conditioned on enquiry to be conducted as envisaged in Rules 4 to 6.
6. Razinama is valid only if it is accepted by the Tahsildar.
7. Copy of the order accepting Razinama should be communicated to the village officers of the village in which land relinquished or any portion of which is situated and village officers were required to publish the order in the village Chavdi and make suitable entries regarding the relinquishment in the village records. (Rule 7) PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 26
8. As per Rule 17, Tahsildar is mandated to maintain a register in respect of lands relinquished under the Rules and the Register must contain the details of land relinquished.
26. The Rules notified on 27.7.1951 were intended to be operative for only one year but extended from time to time and till 9.8.1957. After 9.8.1957 till the Act was made on 19.5.1965 there were no Rules in operation dealing with relinquishment of land by pattadar in favour of Bhoodan movement.
27. Thus, to have an effective Razinama vesting the land in the Government/Board, entire gamut of 1951 Rules was required to be observed and the Rules required strict compliance of all aspects mentioned above.
28. Having regard to the statutory scheme, coming to the facts of this case, according to appellant on 16.3.1955 the original pattadar donated Acs.45.01 in Survey Nos.1,4, 5 of the Kothwalguda village and on 27.5.1955 he has executed Razinama which are marked as Exs.B2 and B3. 1951 Rules have not envisaged donation of land but only envisaged relinquishment in the form of Razinama. Therefore giving of donation on 16.3.1955 has no legal validity. Now this requires consideration of alleged relinquishment dated 27.5.1955. For a valid relinquishment the Razinama has to pass through various stages envisaged by the 1951 Rules noted earlier. There is nothing on record to show that various PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 27 stages indicated by the Rules, as noticed above, were observed by the Tahsildar before stage reached to Rule 7, of acceptance of Razinama. Further more, Ex.B3 does not contain attestation of the member of Central Committee or member of local committee as the case may be. Even according to respondent/appellant, the Razinama was accepted by Tahsildar only on 21.05.1960. Though, the appellant mentions of acceptance of Razinama on 21.05.1960, he is silent on compliance of other statutory norms leading to such acceptance. At any rate, as 1951 Rules were not in force after 09.08.1957 question of Tahsildar accepting Razinama on 21.05.1960 did not arise.
29. With reference to the document marked as Ex.B7, two aspects are noticed. Firstly, it does not disclose acceptance of Razinama, but only talks about the list of lands donated by the pattaders appended to letter and informs the Bhoodan Samithi that he has accepted and that has been mutated in their office records in favour of Bhoodan Yagna Samithi. Assuming that this amounts to acceptance, even according to appellant that acceptance was on 21.5.1960, by which date, the 1951 Rules were not in operation, therefore question of taking recourse to repealed rules to validate the Razinama does not arise. Thus, by the time Rules were repealed, provisions of rules were not complied and Razinama was not accepted. Therefore, there was no valid Razinama.
PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 28
30. Further, this letter Ex.B7 informs Bhoodan Yagna Samithi that there was mutation exercise undertaken in the office records of the Tahsildar in favour of Bhoodan Yagna Samithi. The list contains 149 entries pertaining to various villages. It may be true that entries were carried out in the revenue records concerning other properties shown in the list but admittedly no such entry was carried on with reference to the suit schedule land and suit schedule land continues to reflect the name of the original pattadar and subsequently as and when transactions have taken place, the names of subsequent purchasers are reflected. For the first time, in the year 2012, word 'Bhoodan' was also shown in addition to the plaintiffs names.
31. At this stage, it is also appropriate to notice various decisions made by the revenue authorities.
32. At the time of registration of sale deed in the year 1960 by order dated 22.8.1960 the Tahsildar accorded permission to undertake sale transaction under Sections 47 and 48 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 later called as A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. It is deemed that the Tahsildar has verified the revenue records to know the status of land and on being satisfied that it is a private patta land of the original pattadar, he has granted permission for undertaking the sale transaction.
PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 29
33. There was a tenancy claim on the suit schedule land. Initially, the RDO passed orders granting certificate under Section 38E of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950. Aggrieved thereby, appeal was preferred before the Joint Collector. Having found that no notice was issued to the appellant, the Joint Collector set aside the order of the RDO and remanded the matter. On remand, after affording due opportunity and on extensive consideration of various documents, the RDO by order dated 12.7.1990 (Ex.A14) cancelled Section 38E certificate earlier issued in respect of Survey Nos. 1 and 5 of Kothwalguda village. From the reading of this order, it is apparent that the RDO has gone through the entire revenue record to asses the status of the land and has come to a categorical finding on ownership claim and rejecting claim of tenancy. The RDO records that consequent to purchase made on 15.9.1960 the names of Sagarmal Gupta and Mahender Pershad Nigam in the Faisal Patti for the year 1960-61 and as pattadars and in possession in the Pahanis of the year 1964-65 onwards. He declares that the predecessor in interest are the land owners.
34. Before bifurcation of State and formation of State of Telangana, application was made to the then A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board to find out whether there is any entry showing the land in survey no.5 to an extent of Ac.4.22 belonging to Board. In response to the said application, by letter dated 21.4.2014 (Ex.A17) A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board informed that PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 30 on verification of the revenue records from 1954 to till date the concerned subject land was not shown as Bhoodan land.
35. In Ex.A14 document the RDO recognizes A.P.Mining Department carrying on mining operations on the subject lands. It is the assertion of plaintiffs that Mr.Sagarmal Gupta and Mahender Persad Nigam were carrying on mining operations in collaboration with A.P. Mining Department. This assertion is not rebutted by the appellant.
36. The revenue records (Ex.A38) for various years continuously reflect the status of the land as private patta land and nowhere it is written as land belonging to Board till 2012.
37. Ex.A39 is CC of Phaisal Patti of the year 1960. In this document there are two separate entries. First entry pertains to land in survey nos.1, 4, 5 and 16 of Kothwalguda village. Against these survey numbers name of original pattadar is shown. It also shows granting of mutation in favour of Sagarmal Gupta and Mahendra Pershad Nigam on land against survey nos.1, 4, 5 and 16. Serial no.2 deals with land in survey nos.95, 94, 101 and 100. Against this entry, it is clearly written as Government land sanctioned to Bhoodan Yagna Samiti. If the Razinama was executed by the original pattadar and accepted by the Tahsildar in accordance with mandate of 1951 Rules and as stated by the Tahsildar in his letter dated 21.5.1960 if entries were carried out in the revenue PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 31 records, this document would have reflected similar entry as made in Serial No.2 of Ex.A39. Ex.A40 is extract of 1-B Register. It reflects the name of Sagarmal Gupta to the extent of land purchased by him and Ex.A41 reflect name of Mahendra Pershad Nigam. Ex.A42 is order dated 18.8.2012 accepting request for transfer of land to an extent of Acs.4.22 in survey no.5 of Kothwalguda village in the name of Sri V.Sudheer Reddy as per sale transaction by replacing name of earlier pattadar Sri Srikanth.
38. Thus, from the reading of various exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiffs, it is crystal clear that till 2012 the Revenue Records continuously reflect the suit schedule land as private patta land and various transactions made over a period of time changing the ownership rights of the land from person to person. Nowhere from the date of alleged Razinama dated 27.5.1955 till 2012 the entries are made in the revenue records showing status of the land as vested in the Board. The Board is never in possession of the land. Exs.B12 and B13 also do not support the stand of appellant. In the Pahani for the year 2012-13 against column 6 land status nature Patta/Inam/Government, it was written as 'Bhoodan patta'. However, in column 12: Account Holder/ Pattadar name, private persons names are shown against survey nos.1, 4 and 5. Against column 13-Posessor's name also private persons names are shown. Same is the case in Pahanis of the year 2014-15 (Ex.B15) PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 32 and 2015-16 (Ex.B16). Thus, Exhibits B14 to B16 also do not come to the aid of appellant.
39. Heavy reliance is placed on Ex.B4 letter of Collector dated 30.8.2006 enclosing letter of Convener Bhoodan Yagna Samithi containing list of Bhoodan lands and Ex.B7 letter of Tahsildar dated 21.5.1960. By Ex.B7 letter, Tahsildar informs the Bhoodan Yagna Samithi that total Acs.928.33 land was donated by various donors in favour of Bhoodan Yagna Samithi and same was accepted and have been mutated in the Tahdilsar's office records in favour of Bhoodan Yagna Samithi. The enclosed list contains names of village, name of the donor, survey numbers and extent of land. The list was arranged village-wise starting from Kanchanbagh, Shaikpet, Khanapur and so on. The lists of donors with extent of land in a village are codified at one place. Strangely, the lands donated in Kothwalguda village are shown at serial nos.135 to 138 and at serial no.149. The land in survey nos.1, 4 and 5 to an extent of Acs.45.00 belonging to Syed Mohammad Hussain was shown at serial no.149.
40. It is vehemently urged by learned senior counsel for respondents- plaintiffs that the original letter did not contain the entry regarding land in survey nos.1, 4 and 5 and later there was interpolation and above extent of land was shown as last entry subsequently.
PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 33
41. On going through Ex.B7 document written in Urdu, the contents of the covering letter of the Tahsildar and total extent of land covered by 149 entries it is apparent that what is contended by the learned senior counsel is true. As noticed above, except entry no.149 the lands donated in a particular village are listed at one place and lands donated in Kothwalguda village were shown at serial nos. 135 to 138. If the land to an extent of Acs.45.01 in survey nos.1, 4 and 5 was also donated, it ought to have been shown immediately after serial no.138. No justification is shown as to why separate entry is made concerning suit schedule land. From the bare perusal of the original Urdu version of the document, it is clear that subsequently this particular entry was added.
42. It is also appropriate to note that as per Tahsildar letter, the total extent of land covered by enclosed list is Acs.928.00. This statement of Tahsildar in his letter tallies with first 148 entries put together. If land in survey nos.1, 4 and 5 is added, the total extent of land comes to Acs.975.25. Further, as noticed above, no entries were made in the revenue records concerning lands in survey nos.1, 4 and 5 reflecting the name of Bhoodan Yagna Samithi. Whereas, in the covering letter, the Tahsildar informs Bhoodan Yagna Samithi that the name of the Samithi is already shown in the Tahsildar office records.
PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 34
43. All these things would clearly point out that the original letter of Tahsildar dated 21.5.1960 did not contain the land in survey nos.1, 4 and 5 of Kothwalguda village.
44. Coming back to Ex.B4, heavy reliance was placed on this letter dated 30.8.2006. This letter addressed to all the MROs of the district, refers to letter written by the Board dated 16.11.2005 furnishing list of survey numbers of various villages which were donated by the pattadars to the Board and requested for change of revenue records in the lands claimed by Board. He therefore directs all the concerned MROs to follow the Government instructions scrupulously and report compliance. For the reasons best known, the appellant did not file in the Court the list enclosed to the said letter as part of Ex.B.4. Further, letter of board is earlier to Ex.B7 letter of Tahsildar dated 21.5.1960. From the reading of Ex.B7, it appears Tahsildar for the first time notified to the Board list of lands donated by pattadars to Board. Therefore, what is enclosed to letter Ex.B4 could not have contained list of lands shown in letter of Tahsildar dated 21.5.1960. Therefore no weightage can be given to Ex.B4 document.
45. The documents furnished to Sri R.Pratap Reddy pursuant to Right to Information Act application are marked as Ex.A51. They are note files of files bearing Nos.D/969/2012 and D/1292/2012. Both concern petitions filed in Form-VI(A) of A.P.Record of Rights in Pattadar Pass PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 35 Book Act, 1971. In the notes, it was clearly recorded that the lands in Survey Nos.4 and 5 of Kothwalguda village are patta lands and not Inam/Bhoodan/Endowment lands. The report of VRO also disclose possession of land by applicants.
46. Even though new entries were made in the year 2012-13 (Ex.B14) Pahanis against column 6, nature of land, there also against column 12- pattader column- private persons are shown as pattedars. In column 13- on possession also, private persons names are shown. Same thing is reflected in pahanis of the year 2014-15 (Ex.B15) and year 2015-16 (Ex.B16). These entries were not preceded by notice and opportunity to plaintiffs.
47. In the cross-examination, DW.1 admits that there were no rules in operation from 9.8.1957 to 19.5.1965. He also admits that 1951 Rules did not envisage donation of land. He was also fair in submitting that he does not know the names of persons who have signed the Razinama. He admits that total extent of land covered by Ex.B7 is only Acs.928.33 guntas. He states that Ex.B7 is the acceptance letter. To a specific question that no document was filed to support statement in chief that all required formalities under the Rules 1951 were absolutely complied, he replied that whatever stated was based on available record of Bhoodan Board. He admits of not filing pahanis for the year after 1958 but assigns no reason.
PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 36
48. He has further deposed as under:
"It is true that as per rules Board has maintained the records containing details of lands donated to Bhoodan Yagna Board. I have not filed that register in the Court; but the said register exists and is maintained by the Board. I will file if available. The donated lands in Kothwalguda village were written at Serial NO. 135 to 138 in the list of lands annexed with Ex.B-7 and also at serial No. 149. It is the last entry in the list. It is true that all lands in the list are recorded village wise at one place continuously except Kothwalguda village lands. The suit survey number lands were recorded at serial no.149 of the list which is the last one. I cannot say that the last entry in Ex.B7 written in Urdu was written in different ink. It is not true that gap in between the last entry and the previous one is very short in comparison to the other entry gaps in the list. It is not true to suggest that last entry i.e., 149 in the Ex.B7 list was included now to grab the lands of the plaintiffs. It is not true to suggest that the alleged acceptance of suit lands as donated to the bhoodan Board by the Tahsildar in 1960 is invented and fabricated. It is the obligation of and responsibility of the Tahsildar to mutate the name of the board as pattedars having issued the alleged acceptance i.e., Ex.B7.
Except Ex.B10 issued in the year 2008 there is no specific letter in respect of the suit lands available in the records of the Bhoodan Board requesting to mutate in favour of Bhoodan Board since 1960-61. I can't say that the plaintiffs are bonafide purchasers of land for value. I can't say under what Authority written to the Registrar to include the list of lands as prohibited lands for registration under Ex.B8."
49. DW-2 in his cross examination admits that in his office records lands in question are entered as private patta lands till the year 2012. He admits that pattadar name was not changed. He denies knowledge of office of Tahsildar, Shamshabad has the original file or record receiving alleged donation or Razinama letters.
PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 37
50. Having gone through the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it is clear that the suit schedule land was not relinquished by the original pattadar to the Board. It remained with him till he sold by Registered sale deed dated 15.9.1960 and later changed hands from time to time and consistently revenue records disclosed the status of land as private patta land.
51. The issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE No.2:
52. Having regard to the findings against issue no.1, we see no error in the decision arrived at by the trial Court. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is affirmed.
ISSUE No.3:
53. In the result the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
___________________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J ___________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date: 27.06.2023 Tvk/kkm PNR,J & NBK,J AS No.238 of 2019 38 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA APPEAL SUIT NO.238 OF 2019 Date: 27.06.2023 Tvk/kkm