Telangana High Court
P.V. Swathi And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 29 March, 2022
Author: A.Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.17413 of 2021
ORDER:
Challenging the order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, in Case No.D1/4700/2021, setting aside the proceedings dated 30.08.2018 issued by respondent No.3 - Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District (in short 'RDO'), and confirming the order dated 16.01.2010 passed by respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (in short 'Tahsildar') whereby the Tahsildar has set aside the mutation granted in favour of the petitioners vide proceedings dated 24.12.2004, 12.05.2005 and 23.03.2007, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is the daughter of Petitioner No.2. Petitioners have purchased the lands admeasuring Acs.10.03 guntas, Acs.06.12 guntas, Acs.03.00 guntas and Ac.1.25 guntas in Survey Nos.218, 224, 224 and 224/E through registered sale deeds dated 11.04.2005, 11.04.2005, 22.02.2006 and 26.03.2011 respectively. Since the date of purchase, they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the subject lands and they are having pattadar pass book and title deed and their names were entered in the revenue records 2 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 both as pattadars and possessors from 2005-06 onwards. That they developed the subject property by constructing a compound wall and dwelling house after obtaining building permission from Gram Panchayat, Kummera Village, vide proceedings dated 31.12.2012 and 14.03.2009. That they have also obtained power connection vide service No.7101200171 and a watchman was guarding the property. Further, the petitioners have also taken up Eucalyptus plantation in the subject lands. While so, respondent Nos.5 and 6 here have filed a private complaint alleging cheating and forgery and the same was registered as crime No.298 of 2009 of PS Chevella for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 423, 463 and 465 of I.P.C. However, after due investigation, the police have filed a final report on 30.02.2010 holding that the matter is civil in nature. Thereafter, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have also filed O.S. No.70 of 2016 before the XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad, seeking declaration of title against the petitioners. Thereafter, suppressing the factum of filing of O.S. No.70 of 2016, respondents 5 and 6 have also filed O.S. No.184 of 2019 seeking perpetual injunction and along with the said suit, I.A. No.810 of 2019 was also filed for grant of temporary injunction and obtained interim orders. Thereafter, respondents 5 and 6 have filed I.A. No.1104 of 2019 in O.S. No.70 of 2016 seeking withdrawal of O.S. No.70 of 2016 3 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 and the same was allowed and thereby the suit in O.S. No.70 of 2016 was dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019, however, said costs were not yet paid by respondents 5 and 6. Thereafter, I.A. No.810 of 2019 filed in O.S. No.184 of 2019 was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, vide order dated 17.10.2019 on the ground of suppression of material fact of filing of O.S. No.70 of 2016 and the said order dated 17.10.2019 has become final as no appeal was filed by respondents 5 and 6. It is further stated that the letter dated 14.09.2016 addressed by the GPA holder of respondents 5 and 6 namely Prem Singh Rathore, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, for correction of revenue entries, was taken up as an appeal under Section 5(B) of The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (in short 'ROR Act, 1971') and numbered as case No.C/3867/2016. On 30.08.2018, the said appeal was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Against the same, the petitioners have filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, which was subsequently transferred to the Special Tribunal. Vide order dated 02.07.2021, the Special Tribunal has dismissed the revision. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 This Court, vide order dated 10.08.2021, has granted interim suspension of the order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal.
Along with vacate stay application, the GPA holder of respondents 5 and 6 had filed a counter affidavit mainly stating that one B. Narayan Reddy and 7 others were the absolute owners and possessors of Acs.10-35 guntas in survey No.218 and Acs.13-28 guntas in S.No.224 of Kummara Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. On 29.07.2000, the said persons have sold the land admeasuring Acs.10-35 guntas in survey No.218 and Acs.8-24 guntas in S.No.224 in favour of Smt. Chaya G. Shah and others by way of registered sale deeds dated 29.07.2000, who in turn, have sold the lands to respondents 5 and 6 under registered sale deeds dated 27.03.2006. It is further submitted as against the order passed in O.S. No.76 of 2003, respondents 5 and 6 have filed A.S. No.120 of 2006 and the same was allowed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 31.12.2007. The said judgment has become final. It is the specific case of the petitioners that B. Narayana Reddy and others having sold the property in favour of the predecessors-in- interest of respondents 5 and 6, have right to execute the sale deeds in favour of the vendor of the petitioners on 10.11.2004. It is further stated that the Tahsildar has issued mutation 5 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 proceedings dated 07.04.2007 in favour of vendors of respondents 5 and 6 and the same have become final as the petitioners have not challenged the same. Considering all the above facts, the Revenue Divisional Officer has set aside the mutation done in faovur of the petitioners and ordered for mutation in favour of respondents 5 and 6. Even the appeal filed by the writ petitioners before the Joint Collector was also dismissed. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4, and Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that respondent Nos.5 and 6 through their GPA holder Prem Singh Rathore, have filed a letter dated 14.09.2016, before the RDO seeking implementation of the letter of the Tahsildar vide Lr.No.G/38/10 dated 16.01.2010. The RDO has taken on file the said letter treating it as an appeal under the provisions of the ROR Act and put the petitioners on notice. Petitioners herein were arrayed as respondent Nos.3 and 7 before the RDO. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed their counters along with 6 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 relevant documents taking the objection as to the maintainability of the appeal itself and also bringing to the notice of the RDO that respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein through GPA have already preferred a suit for declaration of title and injunction being O.S. No.70/2016 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad. Thereafter, the petitioners filed W.P. No.15472 of 2017 before this Court wherein this Court initially granted interim order dated 27.04.2017 staying the proceedings before the RDO. Subsequently, on 29.08.2018 the said writ petition was dismissed on merits and even before the said order could be communicated, the RDO has passed order on 30.08.2018 i.e. on the very next date, that too without putting the petitioners herein on notice or intimating the date of hearing, allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders of mutation granted by the Tahsildar vide proceedings No.G/2384/2004 dated 24.01.2005, G/915/2005 dated 12.05.2005, G/916/2005 dated 12.05.2005, G/1185/2006 dated 23.03.2007 and G/20/2005 dated 05.12.2005. Challenging the dismissal order dated 29.08.2018 passed by this Court in W.P. No.15472 of 2017, the petitioners herein have filed an appeal being W.A. No.1280 of 2018 wherein a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.09.2018 in I.A. No.1 of 2018 7 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 had granted stay of all further proceedings in File No.C/3867/2016 pending before the RDO.
Learned counsel has further stated that it is the specific case of the petitioners that they have purchased the subject lands through registered documents bearing Nos.2212 and 2213 of 2005, 2335 of 2006 dated 22.02.2006 and 860 of 2011 dated 26.03.2011 and that they are in possession of the lands right from 2005 onwards and that after taking due permission from the competent authority, they have constructed a compound wall and a dwelling house in the said lands. That respondents 5 and 6 have been making repeated efforts to dispossess the petitioners and in furtherance of the same they have filed a private complaint which was investigated into by the Police and a final report was filed closing the matter holding that the matter is civil in nature. Learned counsel has further stated that even before filing the application/petition, dated 14.09.2016 before the RDO, the respondents 5 and 6 have filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the very same subject lands and the said suit was numbered as O.S. No.70/2016 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad. But, by suppressing the same, the petition dated 14.09.2016 was filed before the RDO seeking implementation of the letter of Tahsildar dated 16.01.2010. Learned counsel has 8 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 also stated that in O.S. No.70/2016, respondent Nos.5 and 6 were unsuccessful in getting any interim order and therefore they have filed another suit for bare injunction vide O.S. No.184/2019 by suppressing the earlier suit filed by him i.e. O.S. No.70/2016. In O.S. No.184/2019, respondents 5 and 6 were successful in getting interim orders initially, but after the petitioners herein filed their counter, the said interim order was vacated by order dated 17.10.2019. Learned counsel has further stated that after the Repeal of ROR Act 1971, the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (in short, 'ROR Act, 2020'), came into force and all the pending matters arising out of ROR Act, 1971, were transferred to the Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal has not taken into consideration several facts i.e. that the RDO does not have any power to convert a letter/petition into an appeal, more so, without there being any condonation application seeking condonation of delay or explaining the laches on the part of the respondents 5 and 6 in seeking to implement the letter of the Tahsildar dated 16.01.2010; the conduct of the RDO in passing orders on 30.08.2018 i.e. on the next date of dismissal of W.P. No.15472 of 2017 on 29.08.2018, that too without intimating the petitioners about the date of hearing or giving them an opportunity of hearing, is illegal, bad, contrary to the principles of natural 9 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 justice and is nothing but colourable exercise of power not vested with the RDO; that the statutory period fixed for filing an appeal by any aggrieved party as per the ROR Act, 1971, is 60 days, but the RDO without considering the same or without taking into account that the respondents 5 and 6 have already approached the Civil Court seeking declaration of their title, has passed the order which was impugned before the Special Tribunal. That even the Special Tribunal has disposed of the matter in a mechanical and pedantic manner without adverting to the various contentions raised by the petitioners in the grounds of revision. That the letter of the Tahsildar dated 16.01.2010 seeking permission from the RDO for setting aside the mutation orders in favour of the petitioners is behind the back of the petitioners and they were not put on notice or given an opportunity by the RDO before canceling the mutation orders and even though the RDO had granted permission, the Tahsildar is obligated to put the petitioners on notice before taking any action. That conversion of the petition, filed by respondents 5 and 6 through their GPA, into an appeal by the RDO after a lapse of more than 20 years itself is bad, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the ROR Act. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the Special Tribunal.
10 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present Writ Petition stating that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition as they are not the owners of the subject lands. Learned senior counsel has further stated that originally one B. Narayan Reddy and 7 others were the original pattadars and possessors of the land admeasuring Acs.10-35 guntas in survey No.218 and Acs.13-28 guntas in survey No.224 situated at Kummara Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. That said Narayan Reddy have sold the land admeasuring Acs.10-35 guntas in survey No.218 and Acs.8-24 guntas in survey No.224 in favour of Smt. Chaya G. Shah and 3 others through registered sale deed No.3535/2000 dated 29.07.2000. Likewise, they also sold Acs.10-30 guntas in survey No.218 in favour of Smt. Suseela Vyapari & 4 others through registered sale deed No.3536/2000 dated 29.07.2000 and their names were mutated in the revenue records. Thereafter, said Smt. Chaya Devi and 3 others have sold an extent of Acs.8-24 guntas in survey No.224 through registered sale deed No.4780/2006 dated 27.03.2006 in favour of Girish Jaju and Sanjay Kumar Tibrewal i.e. respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein. Further, the land admeasuring Acs.10-30 guntas in survey No.218 was also sold in favour of said Girish Jaju and 11 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 Sanjay Kumar Tibrewal i.e. respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein through registered sale deed No.4781/2006 dated 30.04.2006. It is stated that even though respondent Nos.5 and 6 have purchased the subject lands, their names were not mutated and taking advantage of the same, the original pattadar B. Narayan Reddy & 7 others have sold the lands again to the petitioners herein vide registered sale deed Nos.6591/2004 dated 10.11.2004. That aggrieved by the same, Smt. Susheela Vyapari, Smt. Chaya G. Shah and others have filed suit being O.S. No.76/2003 before the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, for perpetual injunction and the said suit was decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.2006. That challenging the said decree, one V. Shekar Reddy S/o.Subhan Reddy preferred an appeal before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, being A.S. No.120/2006, but the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.12.2007. That the Tahsildar, Chevella, duly taking into consideration the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2006 has ordered for entering the name of the plaintiffs i.e. Smt. Chaya G. Shah, Smt. Susheela Vyapari and 7 others vide File No.G/6263/2002 and G/6262/2002 dated 07.04.2007 and also to delete the names of B. Narayan Reddy & others from the revenue record. But, the same could not be implemented as the 12 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 mutation orders were already issued in favour of the petitioners and without canceling the mutation orders, the order dated 07.04.2007, could not be implemented. Therefore, the Tahsildar vide order dated 16.01.2010 has written to the RDO seeking permission to implement the mutation order dated 07.04.2007. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that once the original pattadars and possessors have executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Chaya G. Shah and Smt. Susheela Vyapari and others in the year 2000 itself, the right, title, interest of the original owners stood divested and therefore they could not had passed a better title to the petitioners herein, who have admittedly purchased the lands in the year 2005 i.e. subsequent to the purchase made by the predecessors-in-interest of respondents 5 and 6. That the order of the Tahsildar is perfectly inconsonance with the well settled principles of law and the said order was passed after hearing both the petitioners and unofficial respondents herein. Therefore, the Special Tribunal was of very same opinion that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners did not confer any title to them and has rightly dismissed the revision. Learned senior counsel has stated that the order of the Special Tribunal does not warrant any interference of this Court and therefore prayed this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.
13 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 Heard and perused the record.
Admittedly, in this case, based on the letter written by the GPA holder of respondent Nos.5 and 6, the RDO has taken up the said letter/petition as an appeal and after putting the parties on notice, he passed the impugned order, which was challenged in the revision before the Joint Collector, which case was subsequently transferred to the Special Tribunal. Admittedly, in this case, when the matter was pending before the RDO, the proceedings were stayed by virtue of the interim order dated 27.04.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. No.15472 of 2017. The said writ petition was dismissed on 29.08.2018 by this Court on merits. Immediately, on the very next date, the RDO has allowed the appeal filed by respondents 5 and 6. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed a revision before the Joint Collector raising several grounds and the said Revision was subsequently transferred to the Special Tribunal. But, as seen from the impugned order passed the Special Tribunal, the Special Tribunal while reiterating the facts has dismissed the revision on the ground that the petitioners herein did not deny the registered sale deeds executed in favour of respondents 5 and 6 or their predecessor-in-interest and on the further ground that the original pattadars do not have any right to sell the lands again taking advantage of the entries in the revenue records, and 14 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 has simply set aside the order of the appellate authority i.e. RDO and advised the parties to approach the competent Civil Court. In the impugned order, except stating that the appellate authority has already set aside the lower Court order/Tahsildar on 30.08.2018 in case No.C/3867/2017, no other reasons are given regarding various contentions or grounds raised by the revision petitioners. The Special Tribunal has not given any reasons as to whether the order of the RDO, dated 30.08.2018, which was passed on the very next day of the dismissal of the W.P. No.15472 of 2017 i.e., on 29.08.2018, more so, without putting the petitioners on notice, was legally justified or not.
A perusal of the order of the RDO shows that the RDO was fully aware of the stay of the proceedings pending before him by the High Court. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the RDO to show as to how the RDO has dealt with the matter and the same reads as under:
"On receipt of the above petition, the case was taken up for enquire and issued notices to all the concerned on 03.10.2016, while fixing a date of enquire into the matter on 15.10.2016. From 15.10.2016, the case was posted to several adjournments for one or the other reasons and finally come up on 22.07.2017, on which date the representative of the appellant called present and the respondent absent and the matter is reserved for orders
15 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 since the matter is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court.
On 13.09.2017, certain orders have been issued vide this office Procgs. No.C/3867/2017 dated : 13.09.2017 with the following order.
"In view of the Hon'ble High court interim order, the case is kept in abeyance till further orders"
On 29.08.2018, one Sri Challa Gunaranjan Advocate has filed a representation stating that, the Writ Petition vide No.15472 of 2017 filed by Smt. P.V. Swathi and P. Anuradha has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court and requested to issue appropriate orders.
To go into the genuiness of the above petition, Website of Hon'ble High Court has been verified and reveals that, the Writ Petition filed by Smt. P.V. Swathi and P. Anuradha was dismissed on 29.08.2018.
On receipt of the above, the case was taken up on file for passing the orders on the material available on record."
(Emphasis added) Admittedly, the High Court was seized of the matter and the stay was in subsistence and the RDO was also fully aware of the said orders and kept the matter in abeyance till further orders. But, based on the memo submitted by the counsel, the RDO has passed the impugned order without putting the petitioners on notice or giving them an opportunity of hearing. The RDO after receipt of the orders passed in W.P. No.15470 of 2017 ought to have put the petitioners on notice, given them an opportunity of hearing and then passed orders on merits duly 16 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioners herein. But, for reasons best known, he has passed the orders in hasty manner without putting the petitioners on notice or giving them an opportunity of hearing. The Special Tribunal also did not deal with this aspect at all and passed the order in a mechanical manner. In the grounds of revision filed by the petitioners, the petitioners have taken a specific plea that the RDO has passed the impugned order in a post-haste manner without putting them on notice or giving them an opportunity of hearing and therefore the order is liable to be set aside. Before the Special Tribunal, even though the petitioners have raised several other grounds, the same have not been dealt with by the Special Tribunal.
In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
".... while exercising the power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly the judgment of courts in appeal before the higher court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. ............ and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order .... .... A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are 1 (2010) 4 SCC 785
17 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant."
In A. Janardhan Reddy vs. Mansing2, a learned Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, at para 8, held as under:
"8. The revenue authorities are bound to go into the question of extent of holding and pass a judicial order before entering details in any prescribed form such as Form No.1. The revenue authorities must be aware that their orders are liable to challenge in the High Court and that unless they are the detailed orders passed in a judicious manner, setting out the facts of the case, the contentions of the parties, the points arising in the case and the findings thereupon, the orders will be liable to be set aside."
For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Special Tribunal has to 2 APLJ 1988 (1) (HC) 18 AAR, J W.P. No.17413 of 2021 be necessarily set aside and the matter remanded back to the Special Tribunal for passing orders afresh.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, the Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Special Tribunal to take up the matter afresh, hear both the parties and consider the grounds of revision raised by the petitioners herein and pass a reasoned order duly adverting to the grounds of revision.
The Special Tribunal shall pass orders on merits without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the present Writ Petition.
Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 29-03-2022 sur