Telangana High Court
Girish Jaju And Another vs P.V. Swathi And 5 Others on 28 September, 2022
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.519 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Bhaskar Reddy) The writ appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P.No.17413 of 2021 dated 29.03.2022, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein.
2. The appellants are the respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition.
3. The writ petition was filed questioning the orders dated 02.07.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.D1/4700/2021 setting aside the proceedings of the respondent No.5 herein, i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'RDO', for brevity) dated 30.08.2018 and confirming the order of the respondent No.6 herein, i.e., the Tahsildar, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'Tahsildar', for brevity) dated 16.01.2010, whereby the Tahsildar set 2 aside the mutation granted in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 herein (writ petitioners) vide proceedings dated 24.12.2004, 12.05.2005 and 23.03.2007.
4. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, as summed up in the writ petition, are as under:-
(i) The writ petitioners 1 and 2 (respondents 1 and 2 herein) being the daughter and mother respectively have purchased the lands admeasuring Acs.10.03 guntas, Acs.06.12 guntas, Acs.3.00 guntas and Acs.1.25 guntas in survey Nos.218, 224, 224 and 224/E situated at Kummera Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide registered sale deeds dated 11.04.2005, 11.04.2005, 22.02.2006 and 26.03.2011 respectively. The revenue authorities have issued pattadar pass books and title deeds and their names were entered in the revenue records as pattadars and possessors from 2005-06 onwards. The respondents 1 and 2 herein (writ petitioners) have developed the said property by constructing a compound wall and dwelling house after 3 obtaining building permission from Gram Panchayat, Kummera Village, dated 31.12.2012 and 14.03.2009.
They have also obtained electricity connection. The petitioners also claimed that they have taken up Eucalyptus plantation in the subject land and the appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) filed a private complaint against the writ petitioners and the same was registered as Crime No.298 of 2009 on the file of P.S., Chevella for the offences under Sections 420, 423, 463 and 465 IPC. After investigation, the police have filed a final report on 30.02.2010 holding that the matter is civil in nature. Thereafter, the appellants (respondent 5 and 6 in the writ petition) have also filed O.S. No.70 of 2016 for declaration of title on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad. Suppressing the factum of filing of O.S. No.70 of 2016, the appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) have also filed O.S. No.184 of 2019 seeking perpetual injunction and along with the said suit, I.A. No.810 of 2019 was also filed for grant of temporary injunction and obtained interim orders. Thereafter, the appellants have filed 4 I.A.No.1104 of 2019 in O.S. No.70 of 2016 seeking withdrawal of O.S. No.70 of 2016 and the same was allowed and thereby the suit in O.S. No.70 of 2016 was dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019. However, without paying the said costs, the appellants filed I.A. No.810 of 2019 in O.S.No.184 of 2019 and that the same was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, vide order dated 17.10.2019 on the ground of suppression of material fact of filing of O.S. No.70 of 2016 and the said order dated 17.10.2019 has become final.
(ii) It is the further case of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) that the appellants through their General Power of Attorney holder has submitted an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer for correction of revenue entries and the same was treated to be an Appeal under Section 5(B) of Telangana rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, 'the RoR Act, 1971') vide Case No.C/3867/2016 and the said Appeal was allowed on 30.08.2018. Questioning the said orders, the writ petitioners/respondents 1 and 2 herein 5 filed a Revision before the Joint Collector. In the meanwhile, the State Legislature has repealed the RoR Act, 1971 by replacing the same with Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RoR Act, 2020'). The Government exercising powers under Section 16 of the RoR Act, 2020 has issued Notification vide G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2021 constituting the Special Tribunal and thereby all pending cases, appeals and revision cases under the provisions of the RoR Act, 1971 stood transferred to the Special Tribunal. In view of the same, the Revision case pending before the Joint Collector has been transferred to the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District and the Special Tribunal dismissed the Revision by orders dated 02.07.2021 filed by the writ petitioners/respondents 1 and 2 herein and thereby allowed for correction of the entries in revenue records in favour of the appellants.
(iii) Aggrieved by the order of the order of the Special Tribunal, the writ petitioners/respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the writ petition and the learned Single Judge allowed the same by setting aside the order of the 6 Special Tribunal and remanding the matter to the Special Tribunal to take up the matter afresh, hear both the parties, consider the grounds of revision and pass a reasoned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel Mr. M.V.S.Suresh Kumar appearing for Mr. Ashok Kumar Agarwal for appellants; Mr. E.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2; and Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 3 to 6 and perused the material on record.
6. Mr. M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the writ petition has been filed suppressing the fact of operation of decree of perpetual injunction granted in O.S.No.76 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad as confirmed by the lower appellate Court and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of suppressio veri suggestio falsi. Learned 7 Senior Counsel further submits that the vendors of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) have no right, title and interest over the subject land and without having any valid title, they have executed sale deeds dated 10.11.2004 and 11.11.2005 in favour of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) which are void and not enforceable in law and as such, the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) are not having any locus to question the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, as confirmed by the Special Tribunal as a revisional authority. He further submits that the learned Single Judge erred in observing that the Special Tribunal specifically stated that the original pattadars, namely B.Narayana Reddy and others have executed sale deeds by hiding first sale in favour of the vendors of the appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) and the decree of perpetual injunction granted against the vendors of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) in O.S.No.76 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Tahsildar being the custodian of the 8 revenue records having taken into consideration of the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.76 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, has granted mutation in favour of the vendors of the appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) i.e., Smt G.Chaya G.Shah and others in File No.G/6262/2002 and G/6263/2002, dated 07.04.2007 and deleted the names of the original pattadar i.e., B.Narayana Reddy and others from revenue records, but the same was not implemented. Therefore, the Tahsildar vide letter dated 16.01.2010 had reported the matter to the RDO seeking permission to implement the mutation order dated 07.04.2007 in the revenue records and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such, prayed for allowing the Writ Appeal. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India1.
1 2007(8) SCC 449 9
7. Per contra, Mr. E.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) submits that initially the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) have purchased the property through valid registered sale deeds and recognising their possession and enjoyment of the subject lands the pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued and their names were also entered in the revenue records. He further submits that under Rule 26 Sub-rule (6) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the RoR Rules') pattadar pass books shall be issued only to those who are in actual possession of the land and as such, the authorities have rightly issued pattadar pass books and title deeds. The appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) relying upon the injunction order granted against the vendors of the petitioners in O.S.No.76 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, dated 20.04.2006 and without impleading the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) have obtained an order from the office of the Tahsildar for effecting mutation in favour of the appellants 10 (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition). He further submits that the suit instituted by the vendors of the appellants is a suit for injunction and the same is not having any bearing over the title of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) who purchased the property through registered sale deeds and are in enjoyment of the same. Further, it is also contended that appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) being aware that the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) are in actual possession and enjoyment of the property has instituted suit in O.S.No.70 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad, seeking declaration of title against the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) and thereafter, suppressing the factum of filing of O.S.No.70 of 2016, have also filed O.S.No.184 of 2019 seeking perpetual injunction and obtained ad interim injunction and when the said fact was brought to the notice of the Court below, the appellants filed I.A.No.1104 of 2019 seeking withdrawal of O.S.No.70 of 2016 and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five 11 thousand only) vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019. Thereafter they also instituted I.A.No.810 of 2019 in O.S.No.184 of 2019 for temporary injunction and the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2019 on the ground of suppression of material facts of filing of O.S.No.70 of 2016 and as such, the appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) played fraud for obtaining injunction orders and since they are not parties to the injunction obtained in O.S.No.76 of 2003 by the vendors of the appellants, the said order is not binding and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. It is the case of appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) that one B.Narayan Reddy and others were the original owners and pattadars and possessors of the land admeasuring Acs.10.35 guntas in survey No.218 and Acs.13.28 guntas in survey No.224 situated at Kummera Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said Narayan Reddy sold the land admeasuring Acs.10.35 guntas in survey No.218 and Acs.8.24 guntas in survey no.224 in favour of the 12 vendors of the appellants vide registered sale deed dated 29.07.2000 and the vendors of the appellants, in turn sold the land to the appellants herein (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) vide a registered sale deed dated 27.03.2006.
9. We have carefully perused the records. The suit O.S.No.76 of 2003 has been instituted by one Smt. G.Kamala and others (the alleged vendors of the appellants herein) against one B.Madhav Reddy and others for perpetual injunction for the lands in survey Nos.224/AA, 224/E and 224/EE to the extent of Acs.8.24 guntas and in survey Nos.218/A, 218/AA and 218/E to the extent of Acs.10.30 guntas situated at Kummera Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The claim of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) is that they have purchased the lands in survey Nos.218, 224 and 224/E through registered sale deeds. The injunction was granted against the lands in survey Nos.224/AA, 224/E, 224/EE, 218/A, 218/AA and 218/E by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at 13 Vikarabad, that too against the alleged vendors of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein). Admittedly, the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) are not parties to the said O.S. No.76 of 2003 and the suit schedule property and sub-division records of the survey numbers also varies from the claim of the subject property made in the writ petition. None of the parties to the writ petition substantiated their contentions by filing material evidence to state that the subject property in O.S.No.76 of 2003 and the subject property in the writ petition is one and same and in the absence of the sub- division records being placed before this Court, we are unable to agree with the contention of the appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) that the injunction granted against the vendors of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) is binding on the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein). Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein), the injunction simplicitor is not having any bearing when a matter of 14 this nature is decided for mutation of entries in revenue record.
10. It is settled principle of law that mutation of revenue entries does not confer any title and ownership and the entries made in the revenue records capable of the person enjoying the property to remit the revenue sist to the Government. The persons disputing the title are entitled to institute the suit for declaration and thereafter, basing on the declaratory decree, entitled for correction of entries in the revenue records. The appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) having instituted O.S.No.70 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad, seeking declaration of title against the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) instead of prosecuting the said suit for conclusive rights of the parties, have withdrawn the suit and thereafter, instituted O.S.No.184 of 2019 seeking perpetual injunction. The Revenue Divisional Officer has confirmed the order of the Tahsildar, who sought to implement the entries in favour 15 of the appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) nearly after twenty years of passing the mutation orders in their favour in Proceedings No.G/6262/2002 and G/6263/2002, dated 07.04.2007 issued in favour of the vendors of the appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition). The learned Single Judge, after perusing the revenue records, has given a finding that the order passed by the Special Tribunal is bereft of any reasons. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the Revenue Divisional Officer having fully aware of the fact that the matter has been stayed by this Court and having kept the matter in abeyance till further orders of this Court, immediately on the next date of dismissal of the writ petition No.15472 of 2007, dated 29.08.2018, without putting the petitioners on notice and without giving them an opportunity of hearing, has passed the orders in post-haste manner which is impugned in the writ petition and as such, it is liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge further observed that the petitioners have raised several grounds before the Special Tribunal, however, the same have not 16 been dealt with by the Special Tribunal. The learned Single Judge, after referring to various Judgments, has come to a conclusion that the orders impugned is bereft of reasons and is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, and allowed the writ petition.
11. A Full Bench of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District2, after referring to various earlier decisions, has held that it is required to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is as under:
11. From the above discussion, it is clear that the requirement of issuing notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment is independent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rules 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in 2 2007 (6) ALD 348 (FB) 17 writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment.
12. From reading of the above Judgment, it is clear that a duty is cast on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed change of entries in the revenue records.
13. Admittedly, names of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) are entered in the record of rights and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in their favour under Rule 26 Sub-rule (6) of the RoR Rules. As per Section 6 of the RoR Act, 1971, every entry in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contra is proved. The principles of natural justice require that the parties have to be put on notice at every stage of the proceedings and reasonable opportunity of hearing has to be provided, as substantive rights are involved.18
14. We are of the view that the procedure adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in not issuing any notice to the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) and not giving opportunity of hearing on re-opening the matter amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. As the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) are not parties to the suit instituted by the vendors of the appellants (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition), non-mentioning of the said fact in the writ affidavit does not amount to suppression of material fact which is not relevant for consideration for deciding the facts in dispute, and as such the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised the discretion in relegating the matter to the Special Tribunal to be decided afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders and the same does not warrant interference in this appeal.
15. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the 19 learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 28.09.2022 JSU