Telangana High Court
Alvala Jayalakshmi, vs The State Of Telangana, on 28 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.37331 of 2016 and 34687 of 2018
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.37331 of 2016 is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, to declare the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in ROR Revision Petition No.42/2015, dated 29.09.2016 in conforming the order of the 4th respondent in ROR Case No.15/2014, dated 13.02.2015 against the order of the 5th Respondent for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in favour of the petitioner and consequently to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in ROR Revision Petition No.42/2015, dated 29.09.2016 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India......"
W.P.No.34687 of 2018 is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly are in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, to declare the impugned order passed by the 6th respondent in Proceedings No. B/787/73/2017 in entering the 8th Respondent's name into revenue records for the and to extent of Ac.4.06 gts in Sy.No.114/A as per orders passed by the 3rd respondent in ROR PR No.23/2017 though W.P.No.37331 of 2016 is pending for adjudication by violating the Orders of this Hon'ble Court by order dated 03.11.2016 in W.P.No.37331 of 2016 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently set aside the impugned order passed by the 6th respondent in Proceedings No.B/787/73/2017 and further direct the 1st Respondent to take disciplinary action against the 4th and 7th Respondent for their illegal act as of their official duty..."
2. Heard Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the official respondents as well as Sri K.Jagadishwar, learned JSR, J W.P.Nos.37331_2016 & 34687 of 2018 2 counsel, representing Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Smt.Avula Neelamma w/o.late Bhadraiah was the original pattadar of the land to an extent of Ac.8.03 cents in Sy.No.114 situated at M.P. Village of Cheral Mandal, Bhadradri District, erstwhile Khammam District, and she acquired the said property through settlement patta, vide orders in Settlement Case No.1499 dated 26.06.1974, and her name was mutated in the revenue records. He further submits that late Bhadraiah had got two wives namely, Seshamma and Neelamma, and they are not having issues. Sheshamma is the first wife and Neelamma is the second wife, who is none other than the sister of Sheshamma, and Bhadraiah died in the year 1975.
3.1. He further submits that the petitioner looked-after the said Neelamma in her old age and out of love and affection, the said Neelamma executed a registered Will deed vide document No.16 of 1988, dated 13.04.1988, bequeathing the above said property in her favour and the said Neelamma died on 17.08.1996. Pursuant to the Will deed, the petitioner succeeded the said property and she got pattadar pass book and title deed on 05.10.2013.
3.2. He further submits that the unofficial respondent i.e, Nomula Rajyalaxmi submitted an application, dated 13.12.2014, to the Revenue JSR, J W.P.Nos.37331_2016 & 34687 of 2018 3 Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam, alleging that the property to an extent of Ac.4.06 cents, out of Ac.8.03 cents, belongs to her and her name was mutated in revenue records and pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in her favour and requested to cancel the pattadar pass book and titled deed issued in favour of the petitioner. Basing on the said application, the RDO passed order on 13.02.2015 setting aside the pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner and further held that ROR pass book and title deed were issued in favour of unofficial respondent to an extent of Ac.4.06 ½ cents shall be incorporated in the ROR 1B register.
3.3. He further submits that aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Joint Collector, Khammam. The revisional authority, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner and without verifying the documents, dismissed the revision petition on the alleged ground that the issue raised in the revision petition is purely civil in nature and both parties are directed to approach the agency civil court for redressal of their grievance, by its order dated 29.09.2016. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.37331 of 2016, wherein this Court while ordering notice to the respondents directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the entries made in the revenue records and possession of the subject property, for a period for six weeks, however, the parties are at liberty to approach the civil Court to establish their title, by its order dated JSR, J W.P.Nos.37331_2016 & 34687 of 2018 4 03.11.2016. When the said order is in force, the Tahasildar, Charla, entered the names of the unofficial respondent in the revenue records and issued proceedings No.B/787/73/2017 dated 17.07.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.34687 of 2018. 3.4. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the RDO, Bhadrachalam, is not having authority to treat the application submitted by the unofficial respondent as an appeal and pass the impugned order dated 13.02.2015. The Joint Collector-revisional authority, without considering the contentions of the petitioner and without verifying the records dismissed the revision petition, passed the impugned order on 29.09.2016 without assigning any reasons and the same is not valid under law.
3.5. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:
1. Peddi Sailaja and another v. State rep. by Principal Secretary to Govt. of A.P., Revenue Department and others 1
2. Sannepalli Nageswar Rao and another v. Dist.
Collector, Khammam and others 2
3. Nagarjuna Grammena Bank and others v. Medi Narayana and others 3.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent submits that the petitioner is claiming rights basing on the Will Deed dated 1 2014 (3) ALT 181 2 2002 (4) ALT 465 (D.B.) 3 (2013) 11 SCC 362 JSR, J W.P.Nos.37331_2016 & 34687 of 2018 5 13.04.1988 said to have been executed by Avula Neelamma. Unless and until the petitioner approaches the competent civil Court and establishes her rights and prove the said Will, she is not entitled to claim any rights over the subject property. He further submits that the unofficial respondent acquired the land to an extent of Ac.4.06 cents through Avula Seshamma and also through partition decree passed by the competent civil Court in O.S.No.65 of 1988. Pursuant to the same, the revenue authorities mutated the name of the unofficial respondent in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour in the year 1996. When the said pattadar pass book and title deed are in existence, the petitioner obtained pattadar pass book and title deed behind the back of unofficial respondent. Immediately after came to know about the same, the unofficial respondent had rightly approached the RDO and filed application to conduct enquiry and to take necessary action for correction of revenue entries. The RDO after issuing notice to both the parties and after following the due procedure as contemplated under law passed order on 13.02.2015 and the said order was confirmed by the revisional authority on 29.09.2016. Subsequently, the Tahasildar issued proceedings on 17.07.2018 correcting the revenue entries in respect of the property to an extent of Ac.4.06 cents in favour of the unofficial respondent. 4.1. Learned counsel further contended that this Court granted status quo order for a period of six weeks only on 03.11.2016 in W.P.No.37331 JSR, J W.P.Nos.37331_2016 & 34687 of 2018 6 of 2016 and the same was not extended subsequently. The Tahasildar had rightly issued proceedings dated 17.07.2018 and the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are not maintainable under law.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the petitioner and the unofficial respondent have raised several disputed questions of facts in respect of the subject property. The Joint Collector rightly dismissed the revision directing both the parties to approach the competent agency civil Court for redressal of their grievance.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submits that the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.65 of 1988 was not executed in favour of the unofficial respondent and she has not paid registration fee and also the said Court is not having jurisdiction to pass judgment and decree as the subject property is situated in agency area by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Nagarjuna Grammena Bank and others (supra 3)
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is claiming rights over the property to an extent of Ac.8.03 cents in Sy.No.114 situated at M.P. Village of Charla Mandal, Bhadradri District, basing on the Will Deed dated 13.04.1988 said to have been executed by Avula Nellamma, whereas the unofficial respondent is claiming rights over the property to an extent of Ac.4.06 JSR, J W.P.Nos.37331_2016 & 34687 of 2018 7 cents, out of Ac.8.03 cents, through Avula Sheshamma as well as partition decree in O.S.No.65 of 1988. It further reveals from the record that pursuant to the said decree, the revenue authorities have entered the name of unofficial respondent in revenue records in respect of Ac.4.06 cents and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour on 25.01.1996. When the said pattadar pass book and title deed are in existence in the name of the unofficial respondent, basing on the Will dated 13.04.1988, the petitioner got the pattadar pass book and title deed to an extent of Ac.8.03 gts. on 05.10.2013. At that stage, the unofficial respondent submitted application before the RDO, Bhadrachalam, for rectification of entries and cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner. Basing on the said application, the RDO initiated the proceedings vide ROR Case No.15 of 2014 and after hearing both parties passed order dated 13.02.2015 holding that the entries made in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject land shall stand cancelled and the ROR pass books and title deed issued to the unofficial respondent to an extent of Ac.4.06 ½ cents in Sy.No.114 shall be incorporated in the ROR 1B Register. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed Revision Petition No.42 of 2015 under Section 9 of ROR Act before Joint Collector. The record further reveals that the petitioner has raised several grounds in the memorandum of grounds of revision. The revisional authority, without considering the same, dismissed the revision petition on JSR, J W.P.Nos.37331_2016 & 34687 of 2018 8 29.09.2016 and passed cryptic order and directed the parties to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of their grievance. The order of the Joint Collector, reads as follows:
"Having regards the facts, arguments filed by the counsels of Petitioners and Respondents & considering the material available on record, the Petitioners and Respondents No.1 claiming the subject lands.
The RDO's order partially upheld to the extent of cancelling the petitioners Passbooks/Title Deeds. But the part of the orders to incorporate the names of the respondents stands superseded/cancelled. This Court firmly believes that this issue is purely civil matter and both the petitioner and respondents are directed to approach the agency civil court for redressal of their grievance.
After ascertaining their title, the petitioners may approach the revenue authorities for incorporation of the names in the revenue records.
With the above directions the revision petition is disposed off."
8. It is very much relevant to place on record that the Joint Collector while exercising the quasi-judicial powers ought to have considered the contentions of respective parties and material evidence on record and pass orders by giving reasons. In the case on hand, the Joint Collector without considering the contentions of respective parties andwithout giving reasons, passed the cryptic order and the same is gross violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to law.
9. It is also relevant to place on record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s.Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. JSR, J W.P.Nos.37331_2016 & 34687 of 2018 9 Masood Ahmed 4, specifically held that quasi judicial authority or administrative authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers.
10. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of justice delivery system, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for their conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing.
11. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Prasad Jain 6 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.
12. In Kasarla Yadagiri (died) Per Lrs. And others v. State of Telangana and others 7, this Court held that revisional authority while exercising the quasi judicial powers ought to have considered the contentions of respective parties and material on record and pass orders by giving reasons, and passing cryptic order without assigning reasons and the same is gross violation of principles of natural justice.
13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the RDO is not having jurisdiction to treat the application filed by the 4 2010 (9) SCC 496 5 2010 4 SCC 785 6 (2008) 15 SCC 711 7 2024 (3) ALD 749 (TS) JSR, J W.P.Nos.37331_2016 & 34687 of 2018 10 unofficial respondent as an appeal and passed order dated 13.02.2015 is not tenable under law on the sole ground that when the pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in favour of unofficial respondent are in existence, without cancelling the same, the Tahasildar issued pattadar pass book and title deed to the petitioner on 25.01.1996, especially without following due procedure under the provisions of Telangana State/Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for brevity, 'Act, 1971').
14. It is very much relevant to place on record that the revenue authorities are not having any authority to decide the complicated disputed questions of facts, while adjudicating the proceedings under RoR Act. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the rights over the property basing on the Will deed dated 13.04.1988 executed by Avula Nellamma or whether the unofficial respondent acquired the property through Avula Seshamma and through decree in O.S.No.65 of 1988 and the same is valid or not, those aspects have to be adjudicated and decided by a competent civil Court only.
15. It is already stated supra that the Joint Collector without considering the contentions of the petitioner and without giving reasons dismissed the revision petition and passed non-speaking order and the same is contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court and the same is liable to be set aside and required reconsideration by the revisional authority.
JSR, J W.P.Nos.37331_2016 & 34687 of 2018 11
16. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the State of Telangana, while repealing the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, legislated new enactment, namely, the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (Act No.9 of 2020), and the same came into force with effect from 29.10.2020. By virtue of repealing the Act, 1971, respondent No.2 is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate the revision under Section 9 of ROR (old) Act. However, as per the provisions of the new enactment Act 9 of 2020, Special Tribunal Rules were constituted under G.O.Ms.No.4 Revenue (Assignment-I) Dept., dated 12.01.2021, in every District for adjudication of pending cases. Hence, the ROR Revision Petition No.42 of 2015 has to be adjudicated by the Special Tribunal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
17. The record reveals that the interim order granted by this Court directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the revenue entries and possession for a period of six weeks has not extended subsequently. Thereafter, the Tahasildar issued proceedings dated 17.07.2018 mutating the name of the unofficial respondent in the revenue records for an extent of Ac.4.06 gts and questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.34687 of 2018. Hence, this Court is of the view that the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the revenue entries, till disposal of the revision petition.
JSR, J W.P.Nos.37331_2016 & 34687 of 2018 12
18. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 passed by respondent No.3-Joint Collector is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to Special Tribunal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, with a direction to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, in ROR Revision Petition No.42 of 2015 after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner as well as unofficial respondent, including personal hearing, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the parties are directed to maintain Status Quo obtaining as on today in respect of the entries made in the revenue records. It is needless to observe that both parties are entitled to raise all the grounds which are available in law.
19. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 28.06.2024 mar