Telangana High Court
T. Maruthi Rao Died Lrs vs The State Of Telangana on 11 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.26694 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"...to issue Writ of Certiorari, call the records pertaining to the order, dated 1.06.2024 made in File No.F2/4541/2023 passed by respondent No.2, Special Tribunal, Nalgonda District by allowing Revision filed under Section 9 of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 read with Rule 21 of the Rules framed there under as the same is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and without considering the counter filed in the Revision as well as other material available on record in any manner, and therefore the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice, without taking recourse of the basic procedure contemplated in law for adjudication of civil disputes apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to quash the same and consequently, dismiss the Revision of respondent No.7 herein bearing Revision Case No. F2/7475/2017 on the file of respondent No.4 herein and made over to respondent No.2, Special Tribunal, Nalgonda District and renumbered as File No.F2/4541/2023 or else Writ Petitioner will be put to great hardship and suffer irreparable loss...
2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.
3. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.2 and the petitioner No.1 during his lifetime has purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas in Sy.No.756 of Miryalaguda Village and Mandal, under Sadabainama and thereafter, got validated the same under Section 5 (A) of the Telangana Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 2 (for short "the ROR Act, 1971") and the Rules made thereunder. It is further stated that the respondent No.6 following due process of law, issued 13-B certificate in file No.I/57/1994 regularising the said lands. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.7 herein has filed revision case under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 questioning the regularization of sadabainama vide File No.I/57/1994. It is further stated that pending adjudication of the said revision case, the ROR Act, 1971 was repealed and replaced with Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (for short "ROR Act, 2020") and exercising the powers under the ROR Act, 2020 vide G.O.Ms.No.4 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 12.01.2021, the Special Tribunal was constituted and all pending cases arising out of ROR Act, 1971 were transferred to the Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal after going through the records vide impugned order dated 01.06.2024 in File No.F2/4541/2023 allowed the revision case by setting aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar and relegated the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Hence the Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents relying upon the counter affidavit has submitted that without issuing 3 any notice as required under law, the respondent No.6- Tahsildar validated the Sadabainama and seriously disputed the entries made in faovur of the petitioner and genuineness of the Sadabainama/ordinary sale deed stating that the said sale deed is created to usurp the valuable property belonging to the unofficial respondents. It is further contended that before regularizing the Sadabainama in terms of Section 5(A) of ROR Act, 1971 r/w Rule 22 of ROR Rules, 1989, the respondent No.6 has not issued any notice and as such the procedure adopted for regularization is contrary to the ROR Act. It is submitted that there is no illegality or legal infirmities in the impugned order passed by the Special Tribunal and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 has purchased an extent of Ac.1-26 gts in Sy.No.756 of Miryalaguda Village under Sadabainama and the same was validated by the respondent No.6 as per Section 5(A) of the ROR Act, 1971 and issued 13B certificate in File No.I/57/1994 regularising the said land. It is also case of the petitioners that the revisional authority is not having any power to set aside the regularization proceedings issued by the Tahsildar. Whereas, it is the case of the unofficial respondents that no notice as required under the 4 ROR Rules, was issued before regularizing the alleged ordinary sale deed and in the absence of issuing such notice which is mandatory under the provisions of the ROR Act, the alleged proceedings issued by the respondent No.6 without following the procedure has to be declared as null and void.
6. As per Section 5(A)(2) of ROR Act, 1971, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) shall, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the office of the MRO an amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 as fixed by the registering officer on a reference made to him by the MRO on the basis of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as may be prescribed. Thereafter, the MRO is conferred with power under Rule 22(1) for regularization in Form IX calling for applications from the persons whose names are recorded as occupiers in the pahanies or in the Record of Rights. After considering the objections, the MRO shall dispose of the application for regularizing the lands. The Rule further stated that the MRO after deposit of the amount by the alienee/ transferee through a challan in the Treasury, shall issue a 5 certificate in Form 13B as required under sub-section (4) of Section 5A of the ROR Act, declaring the alienation/transfer as valid from the date of issuance of the certificate.
7. The examination of the records would reveal that the respondent No.6-Tahsildar has not followed the procedure prescribed under the ROR Rules while validating the alleged Sadabainama relied upon by the petitioners. Further, in catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court has categorically held that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or any revenue authority, such parties has to agitate their rights by filing appropriate suit for declaration. It is settled law that in a dispute over the title in respect of land or property, when a party asserts his/her title relying on the entries in the revenue records and when the same is seriously disputed by the other party alleging that the same was entered basing on fraudulent records, such entries in revenue records does not create or extinguish title over the lands nor such entries have presumptive value on the tile of the land. In the present case, the controversy revolving the issue is with regard to validation of Sadabainama/ordinary sale deed in File No.I/57/1994. The Special Tribunal after verification of the records has categorically observed that the said file relied upon 6 by the petitioner is not traceable to decide the validity or otherwise of the Sadabainama/ordinary sale deed and its genuineness and the petitioner also not placed any document in support of his case that the Tahsildar has followed the procedure as required under Section 5(A) of ROR Act, r/w Rule 22 of the ROR Rules. In the absence of following the said procedure and non-availability of the records, the Special Tribunal has rightly relegated the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or legal infirmities to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Special Tribunal.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner No.2 to agitate her grievance before the Civil Court, in accordance with law. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Date: 11.03.2025 EDS