Telangana High Court
M/S. Metropolis Properties Private ... vs The State Of Telangana on 20 June, 2022
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.24445 OF 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned proceedings bearing Compt.No.E1/29628/2021, dated 02.09.2021, issued by respondent No.6-District Collector, Mahbubnagar District directing the respondent No.8-Tahsildar, Mahbubnagar Urban Mandal to cancel the pattadar pass book bearing No.T01160060588 of Khata No.2760 pertaining to the petitioner's land in Sy.No.102/3/EE to an extent of 4411.41 sq.yards out of Acs.2.14 guntas in Survey No.102/3/EE situated at Mahbubnagar Village, Mahbubnagar Urban Mandal, Mahbubnagar District and Proceedings No.C/2140/2021, dated 24.08.2021, issued by the respondent No.8 directing the Sub-Registrar-I and II not to entertain registration of flats and to take steps to include the subject property of the petitioner- company under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, violative of constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 19, 21, 38, 39 and 300-A of the Indian Constitution.
2. It is claimed by the petitioner-company that it is the absolute owner and possessor of subject land having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing No.4494/2020, 2 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 dated 11.03.2020. The respondent No.17, who is one of the vendor of the petitioner-company, has obtained land use change for an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas from agricultural to non-agricultural issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahbubnagar under A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion) for Non-Agricultural Purpose Act, 2006 vide Proceedings No.Q/6274/2019, dated 06.09.2019. The said certificate was issued by the RDO after calling for report of the Tahsildar, Mahbubnagar District Urban vide Lr.No.C/NALA/3389/2019, dated 29.08.2019. In the said report, the Tahsildar has informed the Revenue Divisional Officer that the land of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.102/3/EE pertains to respondents 17 to 20 and it is not a Government land, ceiling surplus, boodhaan/waqf land and that there are no religious structures over the land. It was further reported by the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer that there are no kuntas/shikams found near the land and there are no legal disputes whatsoever on the land of respondents 17 to 20, who are vendors of the petitioner-company. A sum of Rs.2,17,800/- was collected by the Revenue Divisional Officer towards conversion charges and a sum of Rs.1,08,900/- towards 50% development charges. In total an amount of Rs.3,26,700/- was received from respondent 3 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 No.17 by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Challan No.014281. That pattedar pass book with patta No. 2114 was issued to late P. Krishna Reddy, the husband of Respondent No.17 and father of Respondent Nos. 18 to 20. The Tahsildar issued family member certificate dated 08.11.2017 to the legal heirs of late Pasula Krishna Reddy. Thereafter proceedings bearing No.C/5490/2017, dated NIL-10-2017, were issued by the Tahsildar, Mahbubnagar District on the application of respondent No.17 in respect of the land in Sy.No.102/3/EE to an extent of Acs.2.14 guntas granting succession in the name of respondent No.17. The name of respondent No.17 was recorded as pattedar and possessor in the pahanies and in 1-B certificate of 2019. The Director, Town Planning for the State of Telangana had sanctioned the building permission for construction of stilt plus five floors residential building on the subject land by collecting a sum of Rs.51,25,930/- towards permission fee. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner undertook construction of residential apartments. The petitioner-company offered sale of flats to the proposed purchasers who had purchased the flats availing loan facilities from State Bank of India, Union Bank and other banks. Petitioner-company has received part sale consideration from flat owners. Petitioner- 4
BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 company constructed 90 flats in the subject land. Originally, the name of petitioner-company was M/s. Navita Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, the name was changed as Metropolis Construction Private Limited. Petitioner-company was also registered before the Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority vide certificate dated 06.07.2020.
3. It is further claimed by the petitioner that the subject property is private property and petitioner-company had been in continuous uninterrupted possession of the same. The respondent No.6 issued impugned proceedings vide No.E1/29628/2021 dated 02.09.2021 to the respondent No.8/ Tahsildar to cancel pattadar pass book of the respondent Nos.17 to 20. It is alleged that respondent No.15 made a false complaint to various authorities by misrepresenting facts and misleading the District Collector and Tahsildar to cancel pattadar pass book of respondents 17 to 20. The Tahsildar through proceedings No.C/2140/2021, dated 24.08.2021, submitted report to the District Collector recommending inclusion of subject land in the prohibited list. Subsequently, the Tahsildar directed Sub-Registrars-I and II, Mahbubnagar not to entertain registration and transactions in respect of the subject land. It is contended that the proceedings which are 5 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 initiated at the instance of respondent No.15 are not only illegal but also mala fide, fraudulent and without jurisdiction. The respondent Nos.15 and 16 cannot take aid of the official respondents and achieve their illegal, unlawful and mala fide goals.
4. In the counter filed by respondent No.8-Tahsildar, it was stated that Pasula Krishna Reddy is the owner of the land in Sy.No.102 to an extent of Acs.2.14 guntas situated at Mahabubnagar Village. In the year 1961, land acquisition proceedings were initiated for construction of Civil Hospital, Mahabubnagar, pursuant to which an extent of Acs.15.00 gts of land in total was acquired including the land of Pasula Krishna Reddy to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas. The remaining land was sold by Pasula Krishna Reddy to various persons by dividing into plots ranging from 95 to 200 sq. yards under 26 sale deeds. Subsequently, the said area came under the jurisdiction of municipal limits and the said land was declared as "abadi". The wife of Pasula Krishna Reddy was issued pattadar pass book No. T01160060588 by the Tahsildar fraudulently. On the basis in respect of Ac.2.14 gts including the subject land of such pattadar pass book, respondent No. 17 obtained NALA conversion vide proceedings dated 07.09.2018 issued by the 6 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 Revenue Divisional Officer even after alienating the subject land by way of plots to several individuals taking advantage of said land not being deleted from the holding of original pattadar in revenue records. The respondent No.17 sold an extent of Ac.01.00 gts of land out of Acs.2.14 gts in favour of the petitioner. When it was brought to the notice of the District Collector by way of representation along with the relevant records that land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas out of Ac.2.14 guntas in Sy.No. 102/3/EE is not available and the same was sold by converting into plots by the husband of respondent No.17, action was initiated by calling for records with regard to issuance of pattadar pass book and also by keeping the land in prohibitory list so as to stop illegal transactions in respect of the said land. It was noticed that respondent No.17 earlier i.e., prior to the year 2017, tried to acquire pattadar pass book and title deed but the then Tahsildar after verifying the details of survey numbers of land and extents, refused to entertain the same. Subsequently, in the year 2017, the Tahsildar was misguided by the respondent No.7 and she obtained pattadar pass book and title deeds. The action of the District Collector, Mahbubnagar, directing to cancel the pattadar pass books issued in favour of respondent No.17 was to avoid multiplicity of 7 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 proceedings and fraudulent transactions. In para No.4 of the counter affidavit of respondent No.8, it was stated that even if this Court finds the action of the respondents authorities not to be in accordance (with law) and within their domain, this Court may restrain itself from granting relief to the writ petitioner since it would be resulting in permitting illegal acts to continue. The petitioner has constructed flats complex on the land which does not exist in the name of respondent No.17. The petitioner has to work out his remedies for claiming damages against respondent No.17. The petitioner has purchased the land without exercising due diligence. The petitioner has not acquired valid right or title from his vendor. As his vendor respondent No.17 did not have valid title, in respect of the property in question, the petitioner has to avail alternate remedies by approaching relevant tribunal for cancellation of pattadar pass book issued by the District Collector and for keeping the subject land in prohibitory list.
5. The counter of respondent Nos. 15 and 16 is on the same lines as that of counter of respondent No.8. It is stated therein that respondent No.15 lodged a complaint dated 09.08.2021 for taking necessary action against the persons in respect of the subject land for rectification of entries and the claim made by 8 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 the petitioner and respondent Nos. 17 to 20. On such complaint detailed enquiry was conducted vide proceedings dated 24.08.2021 by respondent No.8 and thereafter respondent No.6 passed order dated 02.09.2021 directing respondent No.8 to cancel patta pass book issued in the name of respondent No.17. It is further stated by the respondent Nos. 15 and 16 that the petitioner and its vendors i.e. respondent Nos.17 to 20 do not have any right or title to the subject land and Pasula Krishna Reddy, during his lifetime, has sold his entire land in Sy.Nos. 102/1 E(old) and 102/3/EE (new) and there remained no land for him to hold patta, thus question of succession of the land admeasuring Acs.2.14 gts in Sy.No. 102/3/EE by respondent No.17 does not arise at all.
6. In the counter filed by respondent Nos. 17 to 20, it was stated that ancestors of respondent Nos. 17 to 20 have jointly owned land an extent of Acs.21.13 gts in Sy.No.102/3 of Mahabubnagar Village. Apart from the said land the ancestors of respondent Nos. 17 to 20 have an extent of Ac.09.00 gts in Sy.No. 102/2 under Sub-Section 6 of Section 38 of the Tenancy Act, 1950. After the demise of P. Lakshma Reddy and his two brothers, their sons P. Kurma Reddy, P. Kista Reddy and P. Sai Reddy have partitioned the joint family properties in the year 9 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 1966 including the land in Sy.No.102/3. In the said partition P. Kista Reddy, S/o. P. Sanjeeva Reddy got an extent of Acs.7.00 gts of land in Sy.No.102/3. In the declaration filed by Pasula Kista Reddy under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act 1973, he has shown his 1/3rd share in land Ac.21.13 gts (The revenue authorities mutated the name of Pasula Kista Reddy in record of rights). The three sons of P. Kista Reddy i.e. P. Keshava Reddy, P. Yadgir Reddy and P. Krishna Reddy partitioned the joint family lands wherein P. Krishna Reddy, husband of respondent No.17, was allotted Ac.2.14 gts in Sy.No.102/3/EE. Krishna Reddy was issued pattadar pass book and his name was recorded and mutated in revenue records. After demise of P. Krishna Reddy on 14.09.2017, respondents 17 to 20 succeeded to the properties of P. Krishna Reddy. The revenue authorities entered the name of respondent No.17 in record of rights and issued pattedar pass books in her name. The land acquired in the year 1961 for construction of Civil Hospital is nothing to do with the subject land. The Civil Hospital was constructed in the acquired land and the same is situated away from the subject land. The husband of respondent No.17 P. Krishna Reddy got Acs.2.14 guntas in Survey No.102/3/EE along with other lands 10 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 in the joint family partition. Sri Pasula Krishna Reddy, during his lifetime, sold part of land in Sy.No. 102/3/EE to different persons as house plots and retained an extent of Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No. 102/3/EE. The boundaries of the land acquired in the year 1961 for Civil Hospital and the boundaries of the subject land are different. Respondent Nos. 6 and 8, without issuing notice to respondent Nos. 17 to 20, have issued impugned proceedings. Either the Government or respondent Nos. 15 and 16 have no manner of right, title or interest in the subject land.
7. In the reply filed by the petitioner to the counter of respondent No.8, it was stated that an extent of Ac.01.10 guntas of land in Sy.No.102/1/EE was acquired from Pasula Laxmaiah and not from Pasula Krishna Reddy. The said land is a totally different one and the same is evident from the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer in Form No.I and schedule obtained under the RTI Act from the office of respondent No.7. The impugned proceedings No.C/2140/2021, dated 24.08.2021, and proceedings of the 6th respondent Compt. No.E1/29628/2021 directing the respondent No.8 to cancel the pattadar pass books, not to entertain any registration of documents executed by the petitioner in respect of the subject land, on the complaint of respondent Nos. 15 and 11 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 16 are without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law. The petitioner has filed Google Map of the subject land and the Government Hospital as additional material papers, which clearly shows that the Government Hospital is 400 meters away from the subject land of the petitioner and there are 4 internal roads between the petitioner's private land and Government Hospital and at no point of time, there existed any Government land in Sy.No. 102/3 or Sy.No.102/1/EE.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.C. Hanumantha Rao and learned Special Government Pleader Mr.Harender Pershad, Mr. N. Vijender Reddy the counsel for Respondent Nos. 15 and 16 and counsel for Respondent Nos. 17 to 20 Mr.N. Gangarami Reddy, and perused the record.
9. Letter dated 02.09.2021 has been issued by respondent No.6-District Collector to the respondent No.8-Tahsildar pursuant to the report of the Tahsildar dated 24.08.2021. Under the said letter, the respondent No.6 directed the respondent No.8 to cancel pattadar pass book issued to the respondent No.17.
10. The point involved in this writ petition is whether the respondent No.8-Tahsildar had any authority under law to 12 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 conduct enquiry on a complaint lodged by respondent No.15 and consequently whether the respondent No.6 had authority to direct the respondent No.8 to cancel pattadar pass book of respondent No.17. On the complaint of respondent No.15, the respondent No.8 conducted enquiry and it appears that he has examined relevant revenue records and Award No. 1/64 in File No.D/4609/1961 whereunder the Government said to have acquired Ac.1.10 gts from Pasula Laxmaiah, S/o. Buchaiah out of Ac.21.13 gts in S.No.102/1/E of Mahaboobnagar Town for construction of Civil Hospital. In the said report dated 24.08.2021, the respondent No.8 also noticed several sales made by Pasula Laxmaiah and made the following observations:
" Further, on perusal of pahanies it is noticed that the pattadar Sri Pasula Laxmaiah, S/o. Buchaiah sold out an extent of Ac.0.04 gts to Sri Pilli Kondaiah, S/o. Pedda Manyam. On verification old ROR 1979-80, an extent of Ac.21.09 gts in sy.No. 102/e situated at Mahabubnagar Town was recorded in the names of Sri Pasula Sai Reddy S/o. Laxmaiah (Ac.14.06 gts) and Sri P. Dhanunjaya Reddy, S/o. Kurma Reddy (Ac.7.03 gts) who are legal heirs of Sri Pasula Laxmaiah and in the possession column No. 10 and 11, Sri Pasula Kista Reddy (Ac.7.03 gts) (2) Sri Pasula Sai Reddy (Ac.7.03 gts) and (3) Sri Pasula Dhanunjaya Reddy (Ac.7.03 gts) are in possession. As per the above observation, it is noticed that only Ac.0.04 gts which was sold out by Sri Pasula Laxmaiah was deducted on his account out of total extent i.e. 13 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 Ac.21.13 gts in Sy.No. 102/3 without deleting the acquired land to an extent of Ac.1.10 ts.
Further, it is submitted that on verification of new ROR 1989-90, it is noticed that as usual an extent of Ac.21.09 gts in Sy.No. 102/3 recorded on the names of legal heirs of Sri Pasula Laxmaiah viz., (1) Sri Pasula Mohan Reddy, S/o. Sai Reddy (Ac.3.21 gts) (2) Sri Pasual Mukunda Reddy, S/o. Sai Reddy (Ac.3.22 gts), (3) Sri Pasula Keshava Reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy (Ac.2.14 gts) (4) Sri Pasula Krishna Reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy (Ac.2.14 gts), (5) Sri Pasula Yadagiri Reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy (Ac.2.15 gts) and (6) Sri Pasula Dhanunjaya Reddy, S/o. Kurma Reddy (Ac.7.03 gts) and they got PPBs/TDs and later they sold their total extent which fallen their shares to various persons in Sq. Yards basis.
Further, I submit that at present the land in Sy.No.102/3/EE an extent of Ac.2.14 gts situated at Mahabubnagar Village of Mahabubnagar Urban Mandal held in the name of Smt.Pasula Susheelamma, W/o. Krishna Reddy was already sold out in Sq. yard basis by her husband Sri Pasula Krishna Reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy as it was noticed on verification of Encumbrance Certificates issued by the Sub-Registrar, Mahabubnagar. Further, the transactions were made in Sq. Yards basis, due to this the said sold out land was not updated in revenue records taking advantage of the after demise of original pattadar Sri Pasula Krishna Reddy, s/o. Kista Reddy, Smt. Pasula Susheelamma was got succession the said land vide this Office Progs. No. C/5490/2017, Dt -10-2017 and obtained the Dharani Passbook bearing No. TO1160060588 with Khata No.2760 and to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts out of which Ac.2.14 gts in Sy.No.1 02/3/EE was converted into non-agriculture 14 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 use vide Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar Progs. No.Q/6274/2019, Dt 07.09.2019.
After conversion of the land in Sy.No. 102/3/EE to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts to an extent of (4411.41) sq. Yards was sold out by Smt.Pasula Susheelamma W/o. P. Krishna Reddy and her (3) legal heirs to M/s. METROPOLIS Properties Private Limited, Bangalore rep. by its Managing Director Sri Jayapal Reddy Pullangani, S/o. P. Venkat Reddy vide Regd. Document No. 4494/ 2020, Dt 11-03-2020.
As per above discussions, it is observed that the acquired land an extent Ac.1.10 gts was not deleted in Sy.No. 102/1/E as well as in Sy.No. 102/3 on the account of Sri Pasula Laxmaiah, S/o. Buchaiah and also an account of his legal heirs. Further, the pattadar smt. Pasula Susheelamma, W/o. P. Krishna Reddy with mala fide intention and putting the Government officials in dark has obtained the Dharani Passbook bearing No. TO1160060588 with Khata No. 2760 in Sy.No.102/3/EE within he limits of Mahabubnagar village of Mahabubnagar Urban Mandal. Smt. Pasula Sushellamma, W/o. P. Krishna Reddy has sold out an extnet of (4411.41) sq. yards to M/s. METROPOLIS Properties Private Limited, Bangalore rep. by its Managing Director Sri Jayapal Reddy Pullangani s/o. P. Venkat Reddy vide Regd. Document No. 4494/2020, Dt 11-03-2020 by showing the land as it was acquired for the purpose of construction of Civil Hospital.
11. The learned Special Government Pleader could not point out to this Court as to under which provision of law, the enquiry under impugned proceedings dated 24.08.2021 was conducted. It is not urged by the learned Special Government 15 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 Pleader that enquiry under the proceedings dated 24.08.2021 were conducted under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 or Act, 2020 or any other law. Assuming that on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No.15, the respondent No.8 noticed that Government has a claim over the subject property, on the premise that the said land forms part of Ac.1.10 gts in Sy.No. 102/1/E, acquired under Award proceedings, this Court is of the view that the enquiry under the impugned proceedings is unsustainable as there is serious title dispute. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.17 was issued mutation/ succession and pattadar pass book under the ROR Act. Land conversion proceedings dated 07.09.2018 and the building permission obtained by the petitioner give presumption that the respondent No.17 had title and possession over the subject property. Further the land to an extent of Ac.1.10 gts in Sy.No. 102/1/E of Mahbubnagar Town is said to have been acquired in the year 1961. So, for the past more than 59-60 years, there was no claim of the Government over the subject land.
12. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it was stated that land of Ac.1.10 gts acquired in S.No. 102/1/E from Pasula Laxmaiah is totally different from the subject land. The 16 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 petitioner also filed Google map of the subject land and asserted that the Government hospital is 400 meters away from the subject land and there are 4 internal roads between the petitioner's land and Government Hospital and at no point of time, there existed any Government land in Sy.Nos. 102/E or 102/1/EE. The contention of learned Special Government Pleader that the impugned proceedings have been issued to cancel pattadar pass book and stop registration of transactions to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and fraudulent transactions is without any legal basis. The issuance of pattadar pass book is regulated under the Telangana (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 Act (now repealed by enactment of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020). Whether it is a private claim (of respondent Nos.15 and 16) or Government claim that patta proceedings are wrongly issued in favour of Respondent No.17, then remedy available was under
the provisions of Act 2020. The impugned proceedings are neither traceable to the Act 1971 or Act 2020. In the proceedings dated 24.08.2021, it is mentioned that an extent of Ac.1.10 gts of land out of Acs.21.13 gts in Sy.No.102/1/E of Mahabubnagar town was acquired from pasula Laxmaiah under award No.1/64 in File No. D/.4609/1961 for construction of 17 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 Civil Hospital. The case of the respondents' authorities is that the said extent of Ac.1.10 gts was not deleted from the holding of Pasula Laxmaiah. Be that as it may, the total extent of land acquired under the award proceedings No. D/4609/61 is Acs.15.00 gts, the details at which are as under :
Sl. Survey Kind Extent Name of the owner
No Number
1. 102/2/A Dry 0-10 Sri Ramchandra Reddy
2. 78 Dry 1-05 Sri Wakf Rahmania
3. 102/2/E Dry 7-25 Sri Ramloo
4. 102/1/E Dry 1-10 Sri Pasula Laxmaiah
5. 102/3 Dry 4-30 Sri Kapur Narsaiah
Total 15-00
------
13. As indicated above, total extent of land acquired for civil hospital is Ac.15.00 gts out of which land of Pasula Laxmaiah is only Ac.1.10 gts, the boundaries of which as per Form No.1 of the award No. 1/64 (issued under RTI Act to the petitioner) are as under boundaries : North : Hyderabad Road, East :
Sy.No.102/3, West : Sy.No.78 and South : Sy.No.78.
14. It is not the case of Government that the Civil Hospital is not constructed in the acquired land and that the Government land is being encroached. The dispute as can be noticed is only with regard to revenue entries. Since the Government never 18 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 claimed that its land is encroached, the dispute, if any, is between the private parties. Obviously so, the respondent No.15 lodged a complaint that acquired land of Ac.1.10 gts in Sy.No. 102/1/E is not deleted in revenue records and requested to stop further transactions in respect of the subject land by the petitioner alleging that Respondent No.17 did not have title to Acs.2.14 gts in Sy.No. 102 for which patta pass books were issued to her. It is not claimed by respondent Nos. 15 and 16 that they had any interest in the subject land. In their counter they did not state as to how they had locus to lodge complaint against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 17 to 20. When respondent Nos. 15 and 16 did not claim any interest in the land. It is relevant to note that the land of Pasula Laxmaiah acquired by the Government admeasuring Ac.1.10 gts is in Sy.No. 102/1/E whereas the subject land purchased by the petitioner and for which patta was issued to respondent No.17 is in Sy.No.102/3/EE. The boundaries of subject property admeasuring 4411.41 Sq. Yards purchased by the petitioner as per sale deed dated 11.03.2020 are :
North : Nalanda School and Private Properties South : Road (New Town to Nalanda Auto Stand) East : Road (North East Corner) and Private properties West : Municipal Drain and other Private Properties.19
BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 There is no Government land (civil hospital) abutting on any side of petitioner's land. Further the respondent Nos. 17 to 20 claimed in their counter affidavit that their ancestors had an extent of Ac.9.00 gts in Sy.No. 102 (2) apart from Ac.21.23 gts in Sy.No. 102/3. Thus it is uncertain as to how the District Collector and Tahsildar abruptly concluded that patta pass books were fraudulently obtained by respondent No.17.
15. The building construction is almost completed by the petitioner and the land is no more an agricultural land. The entries which had been existing since several decades are sought to be corrected with an inordinate delay and without following prescribed procedure under law. It is settled proposition of law that even if limitation is not prescribed under any statute, the action has to be initiated within a reasonable period of time. In (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 965) Chairman, Joint Action Committee of Employees, Teachers and Workers Andhra Pradesh Vs. D. Narsing Rao. It was held as under :
"31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the 20 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explantion for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity ; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority"
16. Moreover the petitioner stands on a better footing as the action under the impugned proceedings is not prescribed under any statute. As pointed out above, there is an assertion by the petitioner in their reply affidavit that land acquired for Civil Hospital and the subject land are 400 meters away. The petitioner filed location sketch and Google map in support of its claim. The learned Special Government Pleader did not rebut such contentions of the petitioner's counsel. So, when the Government does not have any dispute regarding its acquired land, the initiation of impugned proceedings for cancellation of pattadar pass books and consequential inclusion in prohibitory list under Section 22 (1) (A) of the Registration 21 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 Act is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Indian Constitution and non est in the eye of law.
17. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, consequently the respondent No.10-Sub-Registrars I and II are directed to entertain 90 flats of petitioner in an area of 4411.41 Sq. yards in Sy.No. 102/3/EE of Mahbubnagar village, Mahabubnagar Urban Mandal, Mahbubnagar District.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J Date: 20.06.2022 Skj.
22
BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 23 BVR, J WP No. 24445 of 2021 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24445 OF 2021 Date: 20.06.2022 Skj.