Telangana High Court
Lambadi Peerya vs The State Of Telangana on 12 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.7685 of 2022
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly respondent No.4, in issuance of pattadar pass book bearing No.T08050200712 with katha No.60199 in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of land in Survey No.284/9A admeasuring Acs.8.00 guntas situated at Mohammed nagar, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the respondents to inquire and cancel said the pattadar pass book issued in favour of respondent No.5.
2. Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 herein claim that they are the absolute owners and possessors of different extents of land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Survey No.284/9/1, Ac.2.00 guntas in Survey No.284/LU3, Ac.1.00 guntas in Survey No.284/RU/9, Ac.1.00 guntas in Survey No.284/U5, Ac.2.00 guntas in Survey No.284/LU4/1 and Ac.1.00 in Survey No.284/10/2/2/ respectively situated at Mohammed Nagar, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District, having purchased the same under un-registered sale deeds, which in turn were subsequently validated by respondent No.4 under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2 1971 (for short "the ROR Act, 1971"). It is also stated that pursuant to validation, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books were also issued in their favour and they are receiving the subsidies under Rythu Bandhu scheme from the State Government in respect of the subject lands.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the same, without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without taking any steps either for cancellation of the pattadar pass books or the regularisation proceedings issued in favour of the petitioners, respondent No.4 straight away issued pattadar pass books in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of the subject lands and taking advantage of the same, respondent No.5 is now trying to create third party interest over the subject lands.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the procedure adopted by respondent No.4 in issuing pattadar pass book in favour of respondent No.5 is not only contrary to Sections 5(3) or 5(5) of the ROR Act, 1971 but also the guidelines issued by a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Chinnam Pandurangam vs Mandal Revenue Officer 1.
1 AIR 2008 AP 15 3
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, on the other hand, relying upon the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, submits that respondent No.5 is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject lands; she never sold the subject lands to anyone much less the petitioners; even though the petitioners allege that they have purportedly purchased the subject lands through sada bainama, the same were not produced during the enquiry nor the same are enclosed to the writ petition; the alleged 13-B certificates have been obtained by the petitioners in collusion and by playing fraud without the existence of sada bainama; acting upon the representation submitted by respondent No.5, the District Collector, Medak District i.e., respondent No.2 herein conducted enquiry and submitted a report stating that there are no files available regarding 13-B proceedings and there is no evidence regarding payment of stamp duty as contemplated under the ROR Act, 1971 and as such no pattadar pass books can be issued in favour of the petitioners; and having participated in the said enquiry, the petitioners are not having any right to question the enquiry report and issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of respondent No.5.
6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.
4
7. While the case of the petitioners is that they purchased the subject lands through un-registered sale deeds (sada bainama) and the same were subsequently validated and consequential pattadar pass books were also issued in their favour, the case of respondent No.5 is that the petitioners by playing fraud and without having any valid documents in their favour, obtained pattadar pass books in respect of the subject lands.
8. Admittedly, respondent No.5 did not file any appeal either under Section 5(5) of ROR Act or revision under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971, questioning the validation proceedings issued in favour of the petitioners. The question as to whether respondent No.4 is empowered to issue pattadar pass books in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of the subject lands, in the absence of questioning the validation proceedings issued in favour of the petitioners and cancelling the earlier pattadar pass books issued in their favour by following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971 and that too without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without following the guidelines issued by the Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Chinnam Pandurangam (1 supra), requires to be decided by the competent authority duly examining the relevant records and 5 reports being submitted by the concerned authorities and considering the elaborate evidence.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the pattadar pass book bearing No.T08050200712 with katha No.60199 issued in favour of respondent No.5. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 herein, who in turn shall conduct enquiry afresh and pass appropriate reasoned orders, duly examining the relevant records and reports being submitted by the concerned authorities and taking into consideration the evidence being adduced by the parties, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 12.02.2025 JSU