Telangana High Court
Vikaruddin Ali Kahn Alias Rasheed ... vs The Ghmc Rep By Its Dy.Commissioner, ... on 31 July, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.11275, 16662 & 6118 of 2005, 25029
of 2009 and 26767 of 2010
ORDER:
These writ petitions are filed for the following relief:
W.P.No.11275 of 2005 "issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, the 3rd Respondent herein in Case No.D5/6631/2003, D5/6632/2003 and D5/6633/2003 dated 30.4.2005 as void abinitio, illegal and unconstitutional for violation of various provisions of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and declare the same as null and void and further declare that the order passed by the Court of Special Dy., Collector in Letter No.A2/997/1998 dt.21.7.2003 alone is valid and binding on the parties and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents not to interfere with the possession of the Petitioner and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".W.P.No.16662 of 2005
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling the records from office of the Joint Collector R. R. District pertaining to the orders dt. 30.4.2005 in Case No.D5/6631/2003 and case No.D5/6633/2003 and set aside the same by declaring the orders as illegal and void and further confirm the orders dt. 21.7.2003 in case No.A2/9977/1998 passed by the Revenue divisional officer R.R. District East Division is valid and binding on the parties and issue a consequential direction to the respondents Nos.4 and 5 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders".W.P.No.25029 of 2009
"issue a writ order or direction more particularly one 2 in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent removing the petitioner from service by passing a resolutions dt 25.11.2009 and 30.3.2007 without conducting any enquiry issuing the show cause notice and consulting District Level Committee is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the item No.7 Chapter-V of the Special byelaws issued by Registrar of Cooperative Societies Rule 72 of A.P.Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits".
W.P.No.6118 of 2005:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent n trying to construct park in the land bearing Sy.No.9/1/H of an extent of Ac.5.00 each of the petitioner, enclosed with fence situated at Saroornagar Village and Mandal, without following the procedure contemplated under Section 326 of the Municipal Corporation Act, read with Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property Rules, 1967, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India..."
W.P.No.26767 of 2010:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus against the Respondent No.1 to 4 declaring that the action of the Respondent No.1 in unauthorisedly interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property admeasuring 10 acres of land forming part of Survey No.9/1/H, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District, thereby allowing Respondent No.5 to put a Board on the property without issuing any notice and without following any procedure is totally illegal, unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 not to dispossess the petitioners from the property to an extent of 10 acres of land forming part of Survey No.9/1/H, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District, thereby directing Respondent No.1, 6 and 7 to remove the Board put up by Respondent No.5 ..."
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The claim of the petitioners association - Amritnagar Colony -3
II Plot Owners Welfare Association is that one late Smt.Ratnabai had purchased the land covered by Survey No.9/1 admeasuring Acs.23.17 guntas from Department of Nizams Private estate through GPA holder vide Registered sale deed document bearing No.922/64 dated 24.03.1964, after obtaining permission under Section 47 and 48 of Tenancy Act and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and her name has been recorded in the concerned Pahanies for the year 1964-65 to 1993-94 and later on the above said survey number is renumbered as Survey No.9/1/H. The said Ratnabhai executed various sale deeds in favour of 84 plot owners like members of the petitioners association in W.P.No.11275 of 2005 and petitioners in other two W.P.Nos.16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2005(hereinafter called 'petitioners' for brevity) after obtaining permission from the competent authority, including layout sanction issued by the Saroornagar Grampanchayat vide bearing No.3045 of 1966. The petitioners further stated that unofficial respondents in W.P.No.11275 of 2005, W.Ps.16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2005 and petitioners in W.P.Nos.6118 of 2005 and 26767 of 2010 (hereinafter called 'unofficial respondents' for brevity) in collusion with the Mandal Revenue Officer got the name of the Ratnabhai removed from the Revenue records without any notice. They further stated that unofficial respondents have filed O.S.No.328 of 1994 on the file of Principle District Munsif, Hyderabad, East and North, Ranga 4 Reddy District against Ratnabhai and Vijayraj and obtained the ex-parte injunction on 13.06.1994 in I.A.No.1000 of 1994 and later on same was vacated on 02.01.1995 in I.A.No.2328 of 1994. Aggrieved by the same, unofficial respondents have filed appeal in C.M.A.No.5 of 1995 before the II Additional Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the same was dismissed on 09.08.1996. Aggrieved by the same, they have filed C.R.P.No.924 of 1997 before erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the same was also dismissed on 01.04.1997.
2.1 Questioning the deletion of Revenue entries, the petitioners have filed three independent appeals i.e., A2/997/98, A2/2820/98 and A2/1682/2002 on the file of Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division including the memo issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar in File No.Record/C/29/98, dated 21.03.1998 exercising the powers conferred under A.P/Telangana Rights in land and pattadar passbooks Act, 1971 ('ROR Act' for brevity). The appellate authority after considering the contentions of the appellants therein and after due verification of the records, allowed the appeals on 21.07.2003 and held that names of unofficial respondents are to be deleted from the possession column of Pahanies 1995-96 and 96-97 in respect of Survey No.9/1/H and original entries of 1994-95 are to be incorporated thereunder and further held that Section 5-A 5 proceedings passed by Mandal Revenue officer, Saroornagar in favour of unofficial respondents in Proceedings No.B/840/95, dated 24.09.1996 and Form 13-B and 13-C certificates dated 18.01.2002 issued in their favour are illegal and also cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Aggrieved by the above said order, unofficial respondents filed Revisions vide Case Nos.D5/6631/2003, D5/6632/2003 and D5/6633/2003, respectively under Section 9 of the ROR Act before respondent No.3-Joint collector. Revisional authority allowed the revision petitions and set aside the orders passed by respondent No.2 dated 21.07.2003, by its order dated 30.04.2005. Questioning the same, the petitioners have filed the W.P.Nos.11275 and 16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2009.
3. The unofficial respondents filed counter affidavit stating that Survey No.9 consisting Acs.501.01 guntas and by virtue of the order passed by Collector in the year 1962 to an extent of Acs.245.14 guntas fell to the share of the Government and the remaining balance of land fell to the share of HEH the Nizam and further stated that land which fell to the share of Government was retained in Survey No.9/1 and allotted to various departments and the land fell to the share of HEH the Nizam was allotted Survey Nos.9/1/A to 9/1/L. The petitioners are claiming the land through Ratnabhai. She had purchased the land to an extent of Acs.23.17 guntas through registered sale deed dated 24.03.1964 in Survey No.9/1 6 and the land purchased by Ratnabhai is surrounded by the Survey No.11 on three sides and the unofficial respondents are not claiming property in Survey No.9/1 and their property is covered in Survey No.9/1/H consisting of Acs.37.12 guntas which stands in the name of HEH, the Nizam. In the said survey Number a part of plot No.4 was allotted to Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan and they have entered into agreement of sale with unofficial respondents and the then Mandal Revenue Officer after following the due procedure as contemplated under the Act, regularized the said document exercising the powers conferred under Section 5(A) of the ROR Act and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. They further stated that the petitioners are claiming rights over the Survey No.9/1 whereas unofficial respondents are claiming rights in respect of Survey No.9/1/H, the survey number and boundaries claimed by writ petitioners are different from those held and the Joint Collector after following the due procedure as contemplated under law and after considering the contentions of the respective parties rightly passed the impugned order. The petitioners have raised several disputed questions of facts and they ought to have approached competent Civil Court by establishing their rights.
4. Heard Sri Gandra Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned Senior counsel, representing Sri 7 Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for unofficial respondents, in W.P.No.11275 of 2005 and Sri V.V.Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6118 of 2005 and 26767 of 2010 and Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2005 and Sri K.R.K.Gargeya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri M.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 in W.P.No.6118 of 2005 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of revenue authorities.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11275 of 2005 contended that members of the petitioner's association have purchased plots to an extent of Acs.6.14 guntas out of Acs.23.17 guntas from original owner namely Ratnabhai through registered sale deeds in the year 1996 by paying valuable sale consideration and their vendor namely Ratnabhai had purchased to an extent of Acs.23.17 guntas in Survey No.9/1 later renumbered as 9/1/H situated at Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District through registered sale deed dated 24.03.1964 from HEH the Nizam through GPA holder for the estate, Nawab Deen Yar Jung after obtaining necessary permissions as per the provisions of Tenancy Act and her name was mutated in the Pahanies for the years 1964- 1965 to 1993-1994. Ratnabhai sold the land to various persons 8 after obtaining necessary permissions from the Saroornagar Grampanchayat through layout sanction File bearing No.3045 of 1996. Members of petitioners association have purchased the house plots from Ratnabhai in the year 1996 and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. The unofficial respondents are not having any right in respect of the subject property. He further contended that unofficial respondents in collusion with revenue officials got their names mutated in the revenue records by deleting the name of Ratnabhai. He further contended that Mandal Revenue officer had not issued any notice to the petitioners or their vendor namely Ratnabhai while incorporating the names of unofficial respondents. The unofficial respondents are claiming rights over the property basing on the alleged agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973, basing on the same they are not entitled to claim any rights.
5.1 He further contended that the then Tahsildar, is not having power or jurisdiction to regularize the unregistered agreement of sale by exercising the powers conferred under the Section 5-A of the Act and the then Mandal Revenue Officer without following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of ROR Act and Rule 22 of A.P/Telangana Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules('Rules' for brevity) regularized the said document and respondent No.1 had not followed the mandatory procedure 9 prescribed under the provisions of the Act and Rules while deleting the name of Smt. Ratnabhai in the Revenue records. The appellate authority/Revenue Divisional Officer-respondent No.2 after considering the contentions of respective parties and after due verification of the records allowed the appeals by giving cogent reasons by its order dated 21.07.2003. He further contended that the revisional authority without considering the contentions of the petitioners allowed the revision petitions without assigning any reasons much less valid reasons.
5.2 Learned Senior counsel further contended that subject land was already converted from agricultural land to non agricultural land through sanction layout in the year 1966 and the same was divided into house plots, hence the provisions of ROR Act is not applicable and the subject land does not come within the purview of land as defined under Sub-section 4 of Section 2 of the Act. Hence, respondent No.1 is not having authority or jurisdiction to regularize the unregistered agreement of sale exercising the powers conferred under the 'ROR Act'.
5.3 He further contended that the unofficial respondents have filed suit in O.S.No.328 of 1994 in respect of subject property for grant of perpetual injunction along with the said suit they filed application for grant of temporary injunction and the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the unofficial 10 respondents have filed appeal in C.M.A.No.5 of 1995 before the Chairman LRAT cum II Additional Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the same was dismissed on 09.08.1996. Aggrieved by the same, they have filed C.R.P.No.924 of 1997 before erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was also dismissed on 01.04.1997 and the said orders have become final. Hence the unofficial respondents are not entitled to claim any rights over the property and they have to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their right, title and interest over the subject property. Revisional authority without giving any reasons set aside the well considered order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer and the same is gross violation of principle of natural justice and contrary to law. 5.4. Learned counsel further contended that document dated 21.03.1973 which was relied upon by unofficial respondents does not contain survey numbers and boundaries and no particulars to whom the property sold. The competent Civil Court had already given the specific finding that unofficial respondents are not in possession of the subject property and the judgment passed by competent Civil Court is binding upon the revenue officials. 5.5 In support of his contention learned Senior counsel relied upon the following judgments:
1. Konkana Ravinder Goud and others 11 Vs.Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society, Hyderabad and others 1.
2. Vanga Narsa Reddy and another Vs. Joint Collector District Adilabad, Adilabad District and others 2.
3. N.S.Srinivas and others Vs. Madduri Mallareddy and others 3.
4. K. Seeethrama Reddy and another Vs. Hassan Ali Khan and others 4.
5. State of U.P. and two others Vs. Raj Bhadur Pastor(Special Appeal No.21 of 2022).
6. Sri T.S Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2005 submits that the petitioners have filed writ petitions questioning the common order passed by respondent No.3 dated 30.04.2005 and the same is maintainable under law. Ratnabhai had purchased Acs.23.17 guntas in Survey No.9/1 from HEH the Nizam, under Registered sale deed dated 24.03.1964 after obtaining necessary permissions from the revenue authorities under Section 47 and 48 of Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural Act from Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur. The said land was surrounded by Survey No.11. Survey No.9/1 was 1 2003 (5) ALD 654 2 2012 (5) ALD 576 3 2005 (1) ALT 169 4 2003 (1) ALT 276 12 sub-divided into Survey No.9/1/H. In the Revenue records, the name of Ratnabhai was shown in possession column in Survey No.9/1/H for the years 1964-1965 and there was also compromise between Ratnabhai and HEH the Nizam in case No.U2/6/87/62 in the Board of Revenue on 06.09.1962 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. When some persons are trying to interfere with the possession of Ratnabhai, she filed suit O.S.No.395 of 1994 seeking perpetual injunction against unofficial respondents and others and the said suit was decreed.
Aggrieved by the same, unofficial respondents have filed appeal and the same was dismissed. He further contended that alleged predecessor in title of unofficial respondents have filed suit in O.S.No.328 of 1994 on the file of Principle District Munsif, Hyderabad East and North Ranga Reddy District, seeking injunction against the petitioners and obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.1000 of 1994. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.2338 of 1994 seeking vacation of the said interim injunction and the said court after going through the records and after hearing the contentions of the respective parties vacated the injunction order specifically holding that the Ratnabhai was owner and possessor of the land in Survey No.9/1/H. Questioning the said order, unofficial respondents filed CMA No.5 of 1995 on the file Chairman LART cum II Additional Judge at Ranga Reddy District and the said appeal was dismissed on 09.08.1996. Questioning the 13 said order, unofficial respondents filed CRP No.924 of 1997 before erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the same was also dismissed on 01.04.1997. He also contended that unofficial respondents filed suit O.S.No.262 of 1997 against various plot owners for injunction over the scheduled property in Survey No.9/1/H and filed I.A.No.1493 of 1997 seeking temporary injunction and the said petition was dismissed on 18.03.1998. 6.1 He further contended that the unofficial respondents are claiming property to an extent of Acs.10.00 in Survey No.9/1/H, basing on the unregistered agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973 from Mohd.Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan who have filed suit against the petitioners and the same was dismissed. Hence, unofficial respondents are not entitled to claim any rights over the subject property. He also contended that Mandal Revenue Officer has illegally entered the names of the unofficial respondents in the Pahanies for the year 1994-95, 95-96 in respect of Survey No.9/1/H and the said illegal entries were made without issuing any notice to Ratnabhai. Questioning the said illegal entries the petitioners have filed appeals before respondent No.2. The appellate authority framed seven issues and allowed the appeals after considering the contentions of respective parties and after going through the entire records by giving cogent reasons. He further contended that the subject land seized to be agricultural land, respondent No.1 have 14 entered names of the unofficial respondents in the revenue records even without issuing notice as required under Rule 22 of Rules. Respondent No.3 without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners allowed the revision petition and passed the impugned order and the same is contrary to the evidence on record and to the provisions of the Act and the same is liable to be set aside. 6.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in O.S.No.328 of 1994 on the file of learned Principle District Munisif Hyderabad East and North Ranga Reddy in I.A.No.1000 of 1994 exparte interim injunction was granted in favour of the unofficial respondents and when the petitioners filed I.A.No.2338 of 1994 seeking vacation of the said interim injunction and the said court vacated the injunction order specifically holding that the Ratnabhai was owner and possessor of the land in Survey No.9/1/H and the unofficial respondents are not entitled to claim injunction and the unofficial respondents have not established their possession over the property and the said finding was confirmed in CMA No.5 of 1995 and also in CRP No.924 of 1997. By virtue of the same, unofficial respondents are not entitled to claim any right, interest and title over the property.
6.3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:
15
1. Canara Bank and others Vs. Debasis Das and others 5.
2. Ameer-un-Nissa Begum and others Vs.Mahboob Begum and others 6.
7. Sri K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for contesting respondents submits that W.P.No.11275 of 2005 filed by the petitioners association invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India by way of Writ of Mandamus is not maintainable under law. Respondent No.3 while exercising the quasi-judicial powers under the ROR Act passed the impugned order and the petitioners ought to have filed Writ of Certiorari but not Writ of Mandamus and the same is liable to be dismissed. He also contended that the petitioners have raised several disputed questions of facts. Hence, the petitioners ought to have approached competent Civil Court as per the provisions of Section 8(2) of the ROR Act.
7.1 He further contended that revisional authority-Joint Collector while exercising the powers conferred under Section 9 of ROR Act, after considering the contentions of the respective parties and documentary evidence on record, rightly passed the impugned order, dated 30.04.2005 by setting aside the order passed by 5 (2003) 4 SCC 557 6 AIR 1955 SC 352(Vol 42, CN 63) 16 appellate authority-respondent No.2 dated 21.07.2003. He also contended that respondent No.2-RDO without properly considering the documentary evidence on record allowed the appeals filed by the petitioners by setting aside the revenue entries made in favour of the unofficial respondents and also proceedings issued by Mandal Revenue officer dated 24.09.1996 and cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. He also contended that respondent No.2 in his orders dated 21.07.2003, on the one hand held that revenue authorities cannot determine the title, on the other hand allowed the appeal and the same is contrary to law. He further contended that petitioners' vendor namely Ratnabhai applied for grampanchayat permission claiming Survey No.9/1 in 1966. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to claim that they are having rights over the property covered by Survey No.9/1/H. 7.2 Learned senior counsel further contended that survey No.9 consisting of Acs.501.01 guntas and pursuant to the orders passed by the then Collector in the year 1962 an extent of Acs.245.14 fell to the share of the Government and balance land fell to the share of HEH the Nizam. The land fell to the share of the Government was retained as Survey No.9/1 and allotted to various departments and land fell to the share of the HEH the Nizam was allotted survey No. 9/1/A to 9/1/L. Petitioners are claiming rights through Ratnabhai. She had purchased the land to an extent of Acs.23.17 guntas 17 through registered sale deed dated 24.03.1964 in Survey No.9/1 only. The unofficial respondents have no claim over survey No.9/1 and they are claiming rights in 9/1/H consisting of Acs.37.12 guntas which stands in the name of HEH the Nizam which is a part of plot No.4 and the same was allotted to Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan. The unofficial respondents have entered into agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973 to an extent of Acs.5.00 each from Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan and made application for regularization and the same was validated under Section 5(A) of the ROR Act through order dated 24.09.1996 on payment of registration fee. Accordingly, the unofficial respondents have paid stamp duty and the said order has become final and Mandal Revenue Officer issued 13-B and 13-C certificates and also pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour in the year 2002 itself. He further submits that the unofficial respondents' filed Revision Case Nos.D5/6631/2003, D5/6632/2003 and D5/6633/2003 before the Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District and the same were allowed, by its order dated 30.04.2005. He further submits that the GHMC without issuing notice, without following due process as contemplated under the provisions of Section 326 of Municipal Corporation Act and without acquiring the unofficial respondents' land trying to construct park by dispossessing them from the subject property, which is contrary to law and offend Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the petitioners 18 are not entitled to claim any rights over the property covered by the Survey No.9/1/H and they have to approach the competent civil Court and establish their right, interest, title over the subject property under Section 8(2) of the ROR Act.
7.3 He further contended that the parties filed simple suit for perpetual injunction and basing on the reasons assigned in the said order, the petitioners are not entitled to deny the rights of the unofficial respondents and the nature of proceedings adjudicated by the revenue authorities under the provisions of ROR Act are different. He further contended that ground raised by the petitioners that the provisions of the ROR Act is not applicable and the Mandal Revenue officer is not having power or authority to regularize the sale deed exercising the powers conferred under Section 5(A) of the ROR Act on the ground that the subject property is not an agricultural land as defined under Sub-Section (4) of Section 2 of the Act is not true and correct on the ground that the subject land was neither used nor converted from agricultural to non-agricultural. Unless and until the same was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural through process of law, the land remains as agricultural land, hence respondent No.3 rightly passed the impugned order dated 30.04.2005 and the then Mandal Revenue officer had also rightly regularized the proceedings dated 24.09.1996 exercising the powers conferred under Section 5(A) of 19 the Act and issued Form 13(B) and Form No.13(C) on 18.01.2002 after duly receiving an amount of Rs.8,25,000/- towards registration fee and the petitioners have not questioned the said order and the said orders have become final and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the unofficial respondents. He also contended that the Unique Builders through V.P Srinivas purchased Acs.12.00 in the same survey No.9/1/H through the same Firman. However, the petitioners have suppressed the said fact. Learned Senior counsel further contended that there is no illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 and the writ petition Nos. 11275 of 2005, 16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2009 are liable to be dismissed.
7.4 In support of his contentions learned Senior counsel relied upon the following judgments:
1. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. & Ors Vs. Union of India 7.
2. R. Sathyanarayanan Vs. The State Bank of India (W.P.No.11333 of 2017).
3. T.S.Basappa Vs.T.Nagappa & Another 8.
4. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and others Vs. Telangana State Industrial 7 (1974) 2 SCC 630 8 (1955) 1 SCR 250 20 Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. And Others 9.
5. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. The State of Telangana and Ors 10.
6. Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Another Vs. Ragini Narayan & Another 11.
8. Sri V.V.Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6118 of 2005 and 26767 of 2010 submits that he is adopting the very same submissions made by Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned Senior counsel for unofficial respondents in W.P.Nos.11275 of 2005 and other two writ petitions.
9. Sri M.Durga Prasad, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of G.H.M.C. in W.P. No. 6118 of 2005 contended that the petitioners in the said writ petition have not filed any iota of evidence that by virtue of the agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973, the subject property was delivered to them and they were in possession. The subject property is not belonging to the writ petitioners and as per the document/General Power of Attorney dated 16.05.1997, the scheduled property mentioned in the writ petition and GPA is not one and same and they are not tallying with each other. He further contended that even before the alleged 9 2023 SCC OnLine TS 2980 10 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1209 11 AIR 2016 SC 4545 21 regularization proceedings issued under RoR Act in favour of the petitioners in File No.441/MP2/HUDA/90 dated 05.12.1990, the layout was approved in the name of Ratnabai W/o.Amritlal in Sy.No.9/1/H part and Sy.No.11 part of Saroornagar. Pursuant to the approved layout, the subject property to an extent of 3,561 sq. yards was earmarked for park. Hence, the Petitioners in W.P.No.6118 of 2005 are not entitled to claim the subject property and they are not entitled any relief, much less the relief sought in the writ petition basing on the alleged revenue entries.
10. Sri K.R.K Gargeya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Sarojini Nagar Welfare Association in W.P.No.6118 of 2005, submits that respondent No.2 - Association was registered in the year 1995. He further submits that from 1994, the subject land to an extent of 3,561 sq. yards was earmarked for park and it was kept open and the same was got from the vendor of the members of respondent No.2 Association and the same was approved by HUDA vide its layout No.4441/1990 sanctioning the lay out permission of 83 plots of the colony. He further submits that respondent No.2 Association constructed one septic tank for drainage for 83 houses in the north-east side in the open land and also erected one transformer for supply of the electricity to the entire colony and the colony is also constructed one room for office and installed one borewell for supply of water to entire colony by way of 22 pumping through pipeline from sump to the houses and the same was erected at the southern side of the open land and respondent No.2 association is using the office room and conducting the meetings regularly.
11. He further contended that the open land i.e., subject land belonging to the vendor of the members of respondent No.2 Association namely Smt.Ratnabai and her grandson is residing in the colony on the northern side of the park. She was a land lady to an extent of Ac.9.32 gts. in Sy.No.11 and Ac.23.00 gts in Sy.No.9/1/H. Respondent No.2 Association is in Sy.No.11 in Ac.9.32 gts. including park. Since 1995, respondent No.2 Association celebrating national festivals and conducting traditional festivals in park till today.
12. He further contended that in the year 1998, Mr.Vikaruddin Ali Khan died. During his life time, he filed suit in O.S.No.323 of 1998 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the vendor of respondent No.2 association, but he has not established the possession of the land in Sy.No.9/1/H and the said suit was dismissed on 23.02.2006. He further submits that Hon'ble Division Bench in Public Interest Litigation W.P.No.15188 of 2006 dated 01.05.2007 issued directions with regard to the encroachment of public places in municipal areas and also directed the government authorities and municipal authorities to safeguard the 23 open spaces and take necessary steps by fencing and constructing compound wall to avoid the encroachments. Since 1995, respondent No.2 Association is in possession of the subject property, the writ petitioners in W.P.No.6118 of 2005 are not entitled the relief much the relief sought in the writ petition.
13. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record following points arises for consideration:
1. Whether the Mandal Revenue officer/respondent No.1 is having power or authority to regularize the document/agreement of sale i.e, dated 21.03.1973 executed by the Mohd.Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the same is valid under law?
2. Whether the respondent No.1 before issuing regularization proceedings followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of ROR Act and rules made thereunder?
3. Whether the revenue authorities or this Court is having power or authority to decide the disputed questions of fact between inter se parties in respect of subject property especially when the petitioners are claiming rights through Ratnabhai who in turn claiming the rights through document dated 24.03.1964 executed by HEH the Nizam, whereas respondent Nos.4 ad 5 claiming rights through document dated 21.03.1973 executed by Mohd Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan and they are claiming the rights through Firman dated 30.05.1961.
4. Whether the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is sustainable under law?
5. Whether the petitioners are entitled any relief sought in 24 the writ petition, if so what relief?
Point Nos.1 to 5:
14. As per the records, it reveals that the petitioners are claiming rights over the subject property through Smt.Ratnabhai who had purchased to an extent of Acs.23.17 guntas in Survey No.9/1 Saroornagar village, Ranga Reddy District from HEH the Nizam through Registered sale deed dated 24.03.1964. Her vendor executed the said sale deed pursuant to the permission granted by the revenue authorities under Section 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural lands Act, 1954. It also reveals that the subject land to an extent of Acs.23.17 guntas surrounded by survey No.11 and Survey No.9/1 subdivided into Survey No.9/1/H and the same stands in the name of HEH Nizam. Ratnabhai sold the land to various persons after obtaining permission from the Saroornagar Grampanchayat through lay out sanction file bearing No.3045 of 1996. Members of the petitioners association in W.P.Nos.11275 of 2005 have purchased the house plots from Ratnabhai in 1996 and since then they have been in the possession and enjoyment of the subject property. The unofficial respondents are claiming right and title over the property covered in Survey No.9/1/H consisting of Acs.37.12 guntas which stands in the name of HEH Nizam. In the said survey Number a part of plot No.4 was allotted to Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan of a large extent through Firman dated 25 30.05.1961 and they have entered into agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973 with unofficial respondents and the same was regularized by the Mandal Revenue Officer exercising the powers conferred under Section 5(A) of the ROR Act vide proceedings No.B/840/95 dated 24.09.1996 and issued validation certificate in Form 13-B and 13-C on 18.01.2002 after collecting registration charges and since then they have been in possession.
15. It further reveals from the record that unofficial respondents have filed suit in O.S.No.328 of 1994 on the file of Principle District Munsif Hyderabad, East and North Ranga Reddy District seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the schedule property, along with the said suit they have filed application in I.A.No.1000 of 1994 wherein the said Court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction, thereafter Ratnabhai and petitioners in W.P.No.16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2005 have filed application I.A.No.2338 of 1994 seeking vacation of the ex-parte injunction and said court after considering the contentions of the parties and after due verification of the documentary evidence on record vacated the interim injunction order by its order dated 02.01.1995. Aggrieved by the same, unofficial respondents have preferred appeal CMA No.5 of 1995 before the II Additional Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and the lower appellate Court dismissed the said appeal by its order dated 09.08.1996. Questioning the same, unofficial 26 respondents have filed CRP No.924 of 1997 before erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 01.04.1997. Thereafter, the unofficial respondents filed another suit in O.S.No.262 of 1997 against various plot owners for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of scheduled property in Survey No.9/1/H and also filed application I.A.No.493 of 1997 seeking temporary injunction and the said application was dismissed on 18.03.1998.
16. The records further discloses that neither of the parties have filed a comprehensive suit seeking declaration of title and the nature of relief sought in suits filed by either of the parties are only simply suits for perpetual injunction.
17. It also reveals from the record that questioning the entries made in the revenue records in favour of unofficial respondents, Smt. Ratnabai and petitioner's association in W.P.No.11275 of 2005 have filed appeals vide Appeal Nos.A2/997/98, A2/2820/989, A2/1682/2002 under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, aggrieved by the Memo issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar in File No.Record/C/29/98, dated 21.03.1998 and for rectifying revenue entries in the record of rights before respondent No.2 and the appellate authority after taking into consideration of the contentions raised by the respective parties framed seven(7) issues which reads as follows:
27
1. Whether the subject land is coming under the definition/meaning of agricultural land as defined in the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971.
2. Whether the Provisions of the section 5 (A) of the R.O.R. is applicable to the lands under appeal.
3. Whether the appellants/appellant society and its vendors has perfected their title to the subject lands.
4. Whether the respondents have valid documents over the subject land and purchased the land from its Pattadar.
5. Whether giving of Pattadar Pass Books / Title Deeds to the respondents justifiable or not.
6. Whether the original entries prior to 1995-96 can be restored or not.
7. Whether the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed Dated: 24-03- 64 executed by HEH Nizam in favour of Smt. Ratanbai and physical possession of the appellant are tallied or not.
18. Respondent No.2 after hearing both the parties and also after due verification of the documentary evidence on record allowed the appeals by setting aside the regularization proceedings under Section 5(A) of the Act issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer in favour of unofficial respondents dated 24.09.1996 and consequential 13-B and 13-C certificate dated 18.01.2002 and also cancelled pattadar passbooks, title deeds issued in their favour by giving cogent reasons by its order dated 21.07.2003 holding that the then Mandal Revenue officer, Saroonagar without verifying the records and also provisions of ROR Act regularized the unregistered 28 document through order dated 24.09.1996 and also issued 13-B and 13-C certificates on 18.01.2002 and the same are contrary to the provisions of the ROR Act and Rules and also further held that temporary injunction order granted in favour of unofficial respondents in I.A.No.1000 of 1994 in O.S.No.328 of 1994 is vacated and the said order has become final in CRP No.924 of 1997 and the unofficial respondents ought to have established their title and possession before competent Civil Court. Aggrieved by the above said order, the unofficial respondents filed revision petitions vide Case Nos. D5/6631/2003, D5/6632/2003 and D5/6633/2003 before respondent No.3 under Section 9 of the ROR Act. The revisional authority allowed the Revision petitions by setting aside the order of respondent No.2 on 30.04.2005 holding that the unofficial respondents are claiming right and title through registered holder of the land i.e., HEH Nizam and the said HEH Nizam allotted the same to unofficial respondents' vendor through Firman dated 30.05.1961 and the unofficial respondents claiming rights through document dated 21.03.1973 and the same was regularized by respondent No.1 under Section 5(A) of the Act.
19. It is very much relevant to place on record that revenue authorities while exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of ROR Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder are having right only to the extent of mutation of revenue records and 29 corrections of revenue entries. As per the provisions of Section 5(A) of the Act, the Mandal Revenue officer/Tahsildar is having power to regularize certain alienations or other transfer of land.
20. It is very much relevant to extract the Section 5(A) of the Act.
Regularization of certain alienations or other transfers of lands:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, where the name of any person is recorded as an occupant in the Record of Rights by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alienee or the transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid.
(2) On receipt of such application, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to the deposit in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer 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 to accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 as fixed by the registering officer on a reference made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the basis of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall not require the alienee or the transferee to deposit the amount under this sub-section unless he is satisfied that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976 the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the 30 Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall be deemed to validate any alienation where such alienation is in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
(4) The Mandal Revenue Officer on deposit of an amount specifiedin sub-section (2), shall issue a certificate to the alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate and such certificate shall, not with evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under him.
(5) The recording authority, shall on the production of the certificate issued under sub-section (2) make any entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property.
(6) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall have the power to correct clerical errors, if any, in the Pass Book.
21. As per the above said provision, the Mandal Revenue Officer is not having power to regularize the unregistered agreement of sale.
22. The Division Bench of combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Konkana Ravinder Goud and others vs Bhavanarishi Co-operative Housing Building Society, Hyderabad and others held that the agreement of sale does not convey any right, title or interest over the property and also cannot be 31 considered as a valid transfer/alienation of the property within the provisions of Section 5-A of the ROR Act.
23. In Vanga Narsa Reddy v. Joint Collector District Adilabad, this Court held that Revenue Authorities exercising the powers conferred under the ROR Act, are not having any authority or jurisdiction to decide title of the property, which should be resolved by competent Civil Courts. It has been held by the Courts in a catena of decisions that the revenue authorities are not substitutes for the competent Civil Courts and they cannot decide the complicated questions of title in the summary enquiry provided under the ROR Act. Further held that, revisional jurisdiction should only be invoked to prevent grave miscarriages of justice, not as a routine matter.
24. In Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Principles of natural justice requires adherence to the audi alteram partem rule, ensuring that no one is condemned without being heard.
25. In Ameer-un-Nissa Begum and others( 6 supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Constitution of India came into force on 26.01.1950 and after the integration of Hyderabad with the Indian Union, the Nizam lost his absolute sovereign powers which he could exercise previously. It was therefore, no longer possible for him to 32 issue a 'Firman' in terms of report of Sir George Spence. To obviate this difficulty, recourse was had to legislation and in April 1950, an Act was passed, known as Wali-Ud-Dowlah Act(Succession Act), which purported to end the disputes regarding rights of succession to the 'matrooka' or personal estate of the Nawab Wali-ud-Dowlah.
26. In the case on hand, the unofficial respondents filed application invoking the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act before respondent No.1 for regularization of the Agreement of sale dated 21.03.1979 and the same was regularized and issued validation certificate through proceedings No.B/840/95 and also issued 13B and 13C certificates on 18.01.2002 and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. Admittedly, the Mandal Revenue Officer is not having jurisdiction to regularize the unregistered agreement of sale especially without giving notice and opportunity to the effected parties and without following mandatory procedure prescribed under ROR Act and Rules made thereunder. Respondent No.3-revisional authority without properly considering the provisions of the Act allowed the revision petitions and passed the impugned order.
27. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners are claiming the rights over the property through Smt.Ratnabhai who inturn claiming the rights through HEH Nizam under Registered sale deed dated 24.03.1964. Whereas unofficial respondents are 33 claiming rights over the property through Document dated 21.03.1973 from Mohd.Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan who inturn claiming rights through Firman dated 30.05.1961 which was executed by HEH Nizam. It is already stated supra that the revenue authorities while adjudicating the proceedings under the provisions of 'ROR Act' are not having any authority or jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed questions of facts and title between the parties and similarly this Court while adjudicating the proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is also not having jurisdiction to adjudicate or decide the complicated disputed questions of facts and title in a writ petition.
28. In K. Jaipal Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District 12 the Division Bench of this Court held that revenue authorities are not having power or jurisdiction to decide the complicated questions of title and possession.
29. In Shri Sohan Lal Vs. Union of India and Another 13 and Thansighn Nathmal Vs.Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri 14 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the question of title cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition.
30. It is already stated supra that respondent No.1-Mandal Revenue officer, Ranga Reddy District while exercising the powers 12 2023 6 ALT 622 13 AIR 1957 SC 529 14 AIR 1964 SC 1419 34 under Section 5(A) of the Act regularized the unregistered agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973, pursuant to the said regularization proceedings, issued 13-B and 13C certificates and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deed in favour of the unofficial respondents especially without issuing notice and opportunity to the affected parties as required under the provisions of ROR Act and Rules made thereunder and respondent No.2 has rightly allowed the appeals by setting aside the order of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 without properly considering the provisions of the ROR Act and Rules passed the impugned order and the same is contrary to the principle laid down in Konkana Ravinder Vs. Bhavanarushi Cooperative society (1 supra) and the same is liable to be set aside.
31. In so far as the contention of learned senior counsel for unofficial respondents by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court i.e, Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. & Ors, R. Sathyanarayanan, T.S. Basappa, and Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, that writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.11275 of 2005 is not maintainable under law on the ground that petitioners have sought Writ of Mandamus instead of seeking Writ of Certiorari is not tenable under law on the ground that questioning the common order passed by the Revisional authority dated 30.04.2005, three writ petitions were filed and in 35 W.P.Nos.16662 of 2005 the petitioners sought relief by way of writ of certiorari and all the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and this Court is passing common order. The settled proposition of law is that to render substantial justice to the parties, the procedural and technical defects will not come in the way. The nature of objections raised by the learned Senior counsel for unofficial respondents is purely procedural and technical in nature and the same are curable defects.
32. Learned senior counsel for unofficial respondents relying upon the judgment of Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd.(10 supra) contended that unless and until the agricultural land is converted into non-agricultural land through due process of law, the petitioners are not entitled to contend that the provisions of the ROR Act are not applicable to the subject land.
33. In Principle Secretary, Government of Karnataka And Anr (11 Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the sale deed document registered on a subsequent date, operate from the date of execution not from the date of registration under Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908.
34. The judgments in Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd.(10 supra) and Principle Secretary, Government of Karnataka And Anr (11 Supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the unofficial 36 respondents are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that the Mandal Revenue Officer regularized the unregistered agreement of sale exercising the powers conferred under Section 5(A) of the Act.
35. For the foregoing reasons, as well as the principle laid down in the catena of judgments, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 dated 30.04.2005 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside. Accordingly, point Nos.1 to 5 are answered. However, this order will not preclude the parties to take appropriate steps to ascertain their claim over the subject property by approaching the competent Civil Court, if so they are aggrieved.
36. With the above said observations, W.P.Nos.11275 and 16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2009 are disposed of accordingly.
37. By virtue of the orders passed in W.P.Nos.11275, 16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2009, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6118 of 2005 and 26767 of 2010 are not entitled the relief sought in the writ petitions. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 31st July, 2024 PSW