Telangana High Court
Guda Madhukar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 31 December, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.32490 of 2023 and 9051 of 2024 COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri A. Venkatesh, learned senior counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel representing Sri D. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Perused the record.
2. W.P.No.32490 of 2023 is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in deleting the name of petitioners' father in respect of subject land admeasuring Ac.9-37 gts., in Sy.No.37; Ac.4-02 gts., in Sy.No.38 and Ac.1-33 gts., in Sy.No.152 of Tapaspally Village, Komuravelli Mandal, Siddipet District by illegally incorporating the name of respondent No.5 without issuing any notice to the petitioners, as illegal and for consequential direction to official respondents to restore 2 the names of petitioners' father in respect of the subject property.
3. W.P.No.9051 of 2024 is filed challenging the order dated 15.03.2024 of respondent No.4, by which, respondent No.4 rejected the request made by the petitioners to mutate their names in respect of aforesaid property.
4. The lis involved in both the writ petitions, parties, subject property is one and the same. Therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and decided by way of this common order.
5. It is relevant to note that this is third round of litigation between the parties.
FACTS:
6. The father of petitioners i.e. Late Guda Ranga Reddy and respondent No.5 are own brothers. Petitioners are sons of Guda Ranga Reddy. Both petitioners and respondent No.5 are contending that land admeasuring 3 Ac.17-26 gts., in Sy.Nos.37, 38, 40, 152 and 153 of Tapasapalli village, Cheriyal Mandal (presently Komuravelli Mandal), Warangal District (presently Siddipet District), are joint family properties. Third parties occupied the said properties and the said occupants names were entered in the cultivation column of the pahanies for the years 1991-92. Therefore, father of the petitioners and respondent No.5 filed a joint application on 02.10.1995 seeking deletion of the aforesaid encroachers names and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds to them. Vide order dated 01.10.2002, the District Collector Warangal directed the Tahsildar, Cheriyal Mandal to take action.
7. Respondent No.5-Tahsildar, Cheriyal Mandal conducted enquiry and submitted a report dated 12.12.2002 to the Revenue Divisional Officer to delete the names of illegal occupants from the occupier column in the pahanies and to issue rectification order in respect of the pahanies for the year 1991-92 onwards. The Revenue 4 Divisional Officer directed the Tahsildar to initiate proceedings under Section 5(3) of the ROR Act, 1971 and conduct enquiry into the matter and rectify the record in favour of rightful owners.
8. It was contended by respondent No.5 that in the enquiry conducted by Tahsildar, respondent No.5 and father of the petitioners made a joint statement setting out portions of land to which each of them are entitled and seeking further action on the basis of the said statements.
9. On 14.08.2004, the Tahsildar, Cheriyal Mandal requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Janagon to issue orders to remove the names of the illegal occupants and to issue pattadar pass book and title deeds according to Thaksimnama/Phaisalanama, dated 20.07.1989 produced by both the parties. On the basis of Thaksimnama/ Phaisalanama, dated 20.07.1989, Revenue Divisional Officer, Janagon has issued 5 proceedings dated 22.08.2007. The same are relevant and are extracted below:
"1.The names of illegal occupants i.e., Kankanala Kistaiah and (20 others be removed/deleted from cultivation column in pahanies from 1991-92 to till this year in Sy.Nos.37, 38, 40 & 152 of Tapaspalli (V).
2. The name of Sri Guda Raghava Reddy to be entered in pattadar column from 1979-80 to till this year in Sy.Nos.37, 38, 40 & 152 in ½ share.
3. To issue PPBS/TDS according to Thaksimnama/ Phisalanama which their shares given below.G. Ranga Reddy Share by Sy.Nos.40 (13.07), 35
(1.10), 126 (0.29), 26 (0.04) Total extent 15.10 acres.
G. Raghava Reddy share Sy.Nos.37 (9.37), 38 (4.02), 153 (1.06), 152 (1.33). Total extent 16.38 acres".
10. The father of the petitioners filed Revision before the Joint Collector, Warangal District challenging the said proceedings under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971, contending that the said proceedings were passed by RDO without putting him on notice and without affording 6 him an opportunity. Therefore, the said order is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further contended that his signature on the Thaksimnama/ Phaisalanama, dated 20.07.1989 relied upon by the RDO, Janagon was forged. It was fabricated document apart from being un-registered. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Janagon was not competent to decide the said title disputes basing on such document. Respondent No.5 opposed the said application contending that the said Thaksimnama/Phaisalanama, dated 20.07.1989 was in fact acted upon and father of the petitioners had admitted the ownership of respondent No.5 over the lands in other proceedings apart from proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Father of the petitioners filed a suit vide O.S.No.72 of 2008 seeking perpetual injunction. The said suit was dismissed on 14.07.2010.
7
11. Vide order dated 23.06.2012, the Joint Collector, Warangal, held that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Genuineness of Thaksimnama/ Phaisalanama, dated 20.07.1989 being seriously disputed before the Joint Collector. It being a dispute of civil nature, Revenue authorities are not proper Forum to decide it. A suit vide O.S.No.2008 was pending adjudication. As per orders dated 29.05.1979 of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Warangal, there was allotment of land to petitioners' father and respondent No.5. If respondent No.5 is aggrieved, he has to challenge the said proceedings. Therefore, on the basis of order dated 23.06.2012 of Joint Collector, Warangal, respondent No.5 filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.24775 of 2012. Vide order dated 06.02.2017, this Court allowed the said writ petition in part, holding as follows:
1) It is not in dispute that the subject property originally belongs to the father of petitioners and respondent No.5.8
2) They would both have half share in the said properties.
3) An unregistered partition deed/Thaksimnama/ Phaisalanama, dated 20.07.1989 was relied upon by the RDO and division of the properties mentioned therein was taken as the basis for rectification of records under Section 5 of the Act.
4) Father of the petitioners disputed his signature on the said document before the Joint Collector and contended that it is a forged and fabricated document.
5) Father of the petitioners also raised contention that the RDO did not issue any notice to him before passing order dated 22.08.2007.
12. The fact that the RDO had not given any notice to the father of the petitioners before passing order dated 22.08.2007 is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.5. The RDO directed the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry and collect material. Therefore, the Tahsildar has issued notice to the father of the petitioners, but, after collecting material and before 9 passing final order dated 22.08.2007, the RDO ought to have heard father of the petitioners. The same was not done. Therefore, the order dated 22.08.2007 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Had the RDO given an opportunity to the father of the petitioners, he might have clarified with regard to the Thaksimnama/ Phaisalanama, dated 20.07.1989 and stated whether it was his signature on the said document or not. When this point was specifically raised by father of the petitioners before the Joint Collector, since Joint Collector is not competent to decide the question of forgery, the Joint Collector rightly took the view that it was for the civil court to go into the issue and since a civil suit was pending at that particular point of time, the order passed by the RDO cannot be sustained. While doing so, the Joint Collector also expressed a view that the order passed on 29.05.1979 by the Land Reforms Tribunal, to which both father of the petitioners and respondent No.5 were parties, operated as res judicata. 10 While the Joint Collector was setting aside the order of the RDO on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and also on the ground that civil court is the appropriate Forum, the Joint Collector ought not to have expressed any view on the binding nature or otherwise of the order dated 29.05.1979 of the Land Reforms Tribunal to which both father of the petitioners and respondent No.5 are parties.
13. With the said observations, to the said extent of the order of the Joint Collector was set aside. With regard to the other findings, this Court held that there was no infirmity. Thus, this Court allowed the writ petition partly setting aside the order of the Joint Collector to the extent of finding that the order passed on 29.05.1979 by the Land Reforms Tribunal operated as res judicata.
14. With the aforesaid observations, this Court directed both parties to approach the competent civil court to 11 adjudicate their inter se claims of title and possession and seeking appropriate relief.
15. This court also further held that since considerable time has elapsed, since proceedings under the Land Ceiling Act attained finality and more than 4½ years has elapsed since the filing of the writ petition and it is not clear as to who is in possession of the subject properties at that point of time. It was further held that this Court is not inclined to say anything about the possession of either party and as and when any party approaches the appropriate civil court, the Civil Court will decide the said issue along with the other issues raised by the parties.
16. Thus, vide order dated 06.02.2017 in W.P.No.24775 of 2012, this Court confirmed the order of Joint Collector dated 23.06.2012 except to the finding on res judicata.
17. Thereafter, the names of the petitioners were mutated vide order dated 28.02.2018. Challenging the said order, respondent No.5 filed a writ petition vide 12 W.P.No.30819 of 2018. Vide order dated 09.06.2023, this Court allowed the said writ petition. This Court held that respondent No.5 is entitled for notice before any amendments to the revenue record in respect of the subject property. Respondent No.5 was not put on notice. Petitioners suppressed the order dated 06.02.2017 in W.P.No.24775 of 2012 and approached the Tahsildar, Komuravelli, who issued proceedings dated 28.02.2018 behind the back of respondent No.5. Therefore, the order passed by the RDO, dated 07.08.2018 confirming order of the said Tahsildar, dated 28.02.2018 were liable to be set aside. They were set aside. Consequently, the entries that were existing in the ROR prior to issuance of proceedings dated 07.08.2018 shall stand restored.
18. This Court further observed that in the normal course, the matter would be remanded back to the Tahsildar for considering the request of the petitioners afresh by duly putting respondent No.5 on notice and duly affording him an opportunity. But considering the 13 order dated 06.02.2017 in W.P.No.24775 of 2012 through which this Court relegated both parties to approach the competent civil court, this Court declined to remit the matter back to the Tahsildar. However, this Court observed that it is open for the aggrieved parties to approach the competent civil court in terms of the order dated 06.02.2017 in W.P.No.24775 of 2012.
19. With the said observations, this Court directed the official respondents i.e. RDO, Siddipet and Tahsildar, Komuravelli Mandal, to take steps to reverse the entries in the revenue records, if any, changed pursuant to proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 28.02.2018, within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. A contempt case vide C.C.No.2501 of 2023 was filed by the petitioners alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 09.06.2023 in W.P.No.30819 of 2018. Vide order dated 17.11.2023, this Court closed the said contempt holding that there is no violation, 14 much less deliberate violation of the order dated 09.06.2023 in W.P.No.30819 of 2018.
20. Petitioners instead of approaching the civil court by way of filing a suit, preferred an appeal vide W.A.No.1125 of 2023. The said writ appeal came up for hearing on 21.12.2023. Considering consensus arrived at between the parties, vide order dated 21.12.2023, a Division Bench modified the order 09.06.2023 in W.P.No.30819 of 2018, granting liberty to the petitioners to file an application before the Tahsildar, Komuravelli Mandal, Siddipet District seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the property. The Tahsildar was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent NO.5 and any other interested persons and shall deal with the same in accordance with law by a speaking order.
21. According to the petitioners, in compliance with the said orders, they have submitted an application dated 15 20.01.2024 before respondent No.4-Tahsildar seeking to restore the name of their father in revenue records in respect of the subject property. Respondent No.5 has also submitted objections dated 06.02.2024. Vide order dated 15.03.2024, respondent No.4 rejected the request made by the petitioners. Challenging the said order, petitioners filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.9051 of 2024.
22. In W.P.No.32490 of 2023, petitioners contended that official respondents deleted the name of their father in respect of the subject property from the revenue record without following the due procedure laid down under law. Whereas, respondent No.5 contended that the said deletion is in compliance with the order dated 09.06.2023 in W.P.No.30819 of 2018. There is no error in it. There is no need of putting the petitioners on notice.
23. Vide order dated 09.06.2023 in W.P.No.30819 of 2018, this Court directed the official respondents to take steps to reverse the revenue entries if any changed 16 pursuant to proceedings of Tahsildar dated 28.02.2018 within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.
24. As discussed supra, challenging the said order, petitioners preferred an appeal vide W.A.No.1125 of 2023. A Division Bench vide order dated 21.12.2023 modified the order dated 09.06.2023 in W.P.No.30819 of 2018, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach respondent No.3-Tahsildar by way of submitting an application. Vide the said order, Division Bench did not set aside the order 09.06.2023 in W.P.No.30819 of 2018. Vide the said order, this Court directed the official respondents to take steps to reverse the entries in revenue records. The official respondents reversed the entries in compliance with the said order. Therefore, the petitioners cannot contend that they were not put on notice and opportunity was not afforded to them. The said action of official respondents is in compliance with the said order 09.06.2023 in W.P.No.30819 of 2018 and 17 this Court also granted six (6) weeks time to the official respondents to reverse the said entries. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that while deleting the name of their father, respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not put them on notice and opportunity was not afforded is untenable.
25. Perusal of record would reveal that in compliance with the order dated 06.02.2017 in W.P.No.24775 of 2012, petitioners and 3 others filed a suit vide O.S.No.23 of 2022 against respondents seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession of plaint 'B' schedule property and declaration of Gift Deeds and Rectification Deeds as null and void and to rectify the Rectification Deed. It is a comprehensive suit and the said suit is pending. Vide order dated 15.03.2024, respondent No.4 considered the aforesaid orders, more particularly, orders dated 06.02.2017 and 09.06.2023 in W.P.Nos.24775 of 2012 and 30819 of 2018 respectively and rejected the request made by the petitioners for mutation of their name in respect of the subject property. Respondent No.4 also 18 noted down the LRAT proceedings and that there are serious disputes of title, more particularly, Thaksimnama/Phaisalanama, dated 20.07.1989, which respondent No.4 cannot consider and parties have to approach the Civil Court. Respondent No.4 in the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 did not consider pendency of the aforesaid suit vide O.S.No.23 of 2022 filed by the petitioners and 3 others. It appears that the said fact was not brought to the notice of respondent No.4 by the parties. The said suit is a comprehensive suit. Therefore, petitioners have to wait for the outcome of the said suit.
26. As discussed supra, father of the petitioners disputed his signature on Thaksimnama/ Phaisalanama, dated 20.07.1989, only civil court will consider and decide the said fact. On consideration of the said aspects, vide impugned order dated 15.03.2024, respondent No.4 rejected the request made by the petitioners vide their application dated 20.01.2024 seeking mutation of their 19 names. The said order is reasoned and well founded. Petitioners failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order. Therefore, W.P.No.9051 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
27. As discussed supra, in compliance with the order dated 09.06.2023 in W.P.No.30819 of 2018, respondent Nos.2 to 4 restored the names in revenue records in respect of the subject property. Therefore, petitioners cannot expect notice and opportunity from respondent Nos.2 to 4. Therefore, they are not entitled for any relief, much less, the relief sought in W.P.No.32490 of 2023 and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
28. Petitioners having filed the aforesaid suit vide O.S.No.23 of 2022 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession of plaint 'B' schedule property, declaration of Gift Deeds, Rectification Deeds as null and void and to rectify the Rectification Deed, should have waited for the 20 outcome of the same. Instead of doing so, they have preferred the aforesaid writ appeal vide W.A.No.1125 of 2023 and submitted application dated 20.01.2024. The said application was rejected.
29. In the light of the same, both petitioners and respondent No.5 are at liberty to raise all the grounds and contentions which they have raised in the present writ petitions in O.S.No.23 of 2022, learned trial Court shall consider the same and decide the suit basing on its own merits without being influenced by any of the findings or observations made in this order.
30. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 31st December, 2024 gvl 21 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.32490 of 2023 and 9051 OF 2024 December , 2024 gvl