Telangana High Court
Kankati Sudershanam vs State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2021
Author: A.Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 3797 OF 2017
ORDER:
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is as follows:-
"...declaring the Proceedings No. B/904/2016, dated 04.07.2016 of the 2nd respondent herein and consequential certificate No. B/904/2016, dated Nil-07-2016 issued in Form 13-B and also Certificate No. B/904/2016, dated Nil-07-2016 issued in Form 13-C of A.P. rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act issued by the 2nd respondent herein and also consequential Notice No. B/788/2016, dated 20.08.2016 and Notice No. B/788/2016, dated 16.09.2016 and also Destraint Order, dated 23.01.2017 issued under A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 11 of 1864 issued by the 2nd respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act and the Rules made thereunder and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein not to give effect to the same and further direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein not to direct the Union Bank of India, Chinnakodur Branch, Siddipet District, 5th respondent herein, to withheld the compensation amount of Rs.8,48,914/- paid to the petitioner for his land admeasuring Ac.0.38 guntas in Sy. No. 453 of Peddakodur Village, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District..."
The case of the petitioner is that his father, Kankati Chandraiah was the owner and possessor of Ac.5.13 guntas of land in Sy. No. 453 of Peddakodur Village, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District. He died in the year 1980 leaving behind him his two sons, viz., Kankati Anjaneyulu and Kankati Sudershanam, the petitioner herein. Upon the death of their father, from out of the said land, an extent of Ac.2.27 guntas of land was mutated in the name of the petitioner's brother, Anjaneyulu and an extent of Ac.2.26 guntas of land was mutated in the name of the petitioner and accordingly, Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds were issued in their favour. Later, the petitioner sold an extent of Ac.1.28 guntas of land in favour of one Thadkapally Yellavva and the balance area that is left with is an extent of Ac. 0.38 guntas of land. Subsequently, for the purpose of Ranganayakula Sagar Project, the Government had acquired the remaining extent of 2 Ac.0.38 guntas of land of the petitioner and was paid with compensation of Rs.8,48,914/-. In this regard, the petitioner has also executed a sale deed on 14.04.2016 in favour of the Government of Telangana. The amount was deposited by way of cheque with Union Bank of India, Chinnakodur Branch, Siddipet, respondent No. 5 herein.
While so, the respondent No. 1 vide notice No. B/788/2016, dated 20.08.2016 directed the petitioner to pay back the compensation amount of Rs.8,48,914/- alleging that out of the extent of Ac.0.38 guntas of land, one Thadkapally Venkata Narsaiah purchased Ac.0.33 guntas of land under unregistered sale deed; that after the death of said Venkata Narsaiah, his wife, Thadkapally Yashoda (respondent No. 6 herein) by order No. B/904/2016, dated 06.07.2016 got the patta changed for Ac.0.38 guntas of land in her name. Similar notice was also issued on 16.09.2016 requiring the petitioner to pay the compensation amount within three days followed by the Destraint Order, dated 23.01.2017 issued by the Tahsildar, Chinnakodur Mandal, respondent No. 2 herein authorizing the Village Revenue Officer, Peddakodur Village to destrain the petitioner's properties for arrears of revenue due by the petitioners towards the compensation amount of Rs.8,48,914/-.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the unregistered gift deed, dated 10.04.1980 relied on by the respondent No. 6, allegedly executed by the father of the petitioner in respect of Ac.0.33 guntas of land is not a genuine document and during the lifetime of his father, he never executed the said gift deed. Since the respondent No. 6 is no way connected with the 3 petitioner, the question of his father executing the alleged unregistered gift deed in favour of respondent No. 6 does not arise. Even otherwise, the alleged gift deed has not seen the light of the day till May, 2016. The notice, dated 09.05.2016 issued by the respondent No. 2 under Rule 22 (3) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act') requiring the father of the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 17.05.2016 for validating the alleged gift deed in favour of respondent No.6 is ex facie bad under law for the reason that the father of the petitioner died long back in the year 1980. That the Legal Representatives of his father were not given any notice nor they were made parties to the proceedings. That the proceedings are against a dead person and orders passed are void and non est in the eye of law. In pursuance of the enquiry on 17.05.2016, the certificates under Section 13-B and 13-C of the Act were issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 behind the back of the petitioner even though the name of the petitioner is all along reflecting in the pahanies as the owner and possessor of the subject land. Therefore, the certificates issued under Section 13-B and 13-C of the Act in favour of the respondent No. 6 are liable to be set aside as the same were issued in violation of principles of natural justice.
The learned Government Pleader for Revenue has contended that the procedure contemplated under the Act has been followed by the authorities and the validation done under Section 5-A of the Act.
Mr. L. Prabhakar Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondent No. 6 has submitted that in spite of his best efforts, 4 he could not contact his client and that he has no instructions in the matter.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available on record.
Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died in the year 1980 and upon his death, the land held by him was stated to have been partitioned between the petitioner and his brother and their names were also mutated in the revenue records. To support his claim, the petitioner filed the copies of pahanies for the years 2000-2001, 2009-2010 wherein the name of the petitioner is recorded as owner and possessor of the subject land. Further, recognizing the ownership rights of the petitioner over the subject land, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have acquired the subject land by paying the compensation amount of Rs.8,48,914/- after execution of sale deed by the petitioner in favour of the Government. Admittedly, the subject land was acquired by the official respondents for the purpose of Ranganayakula Sagar Project in the year 2016 and the petitioner, along with his son, has also executed a sale deed in favour of the Government on 14.04.2016. If any private land is proposed to be acquired by the Government, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 have to be invoked and only after issuing various notifications and conducting enquiry, an Award would be passed. In the present case, the claim of the respondent No. 6 is on the basis of an unregistered gift deed allegedly to have been executed by the father of the petitioner on 10.04.1980 in respect of the subject land. However, for the 5 reasons best known to the respondent No. 6, the said unregistered gift deed did not see the light of the day till May, 2016 i.e., till the notice was issued by the respondent No. 2, dated 09.05.2016 in the name of the father of the petitioner, who died in the year 1980 itself. Had there been any claim by the respondent No. 6 in respect of the subject land on the basis of the alleged unregistered gift deed, she could have agitated her rights before the Land Acquisition Officer, but she has not done so.
It is well settled law that any proceedings/notice issued against a dead person is not only void but the same is a nullity and non est in the eye of law.
Admittedly, in the present case, the issuance of Certificates in favour of respondent No. 6, under Sections 13-B and 13-C of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 by the respondent No. 2 was in July, 2016. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1980. Therefore, the very proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 2 are against a dead person, any proceedings against a dead person cannot be sustained. Since the impugned proceedings are initiated on the name of a dead person, they are void and non est in the eye of law and on this ground alone, the impugned proceedings is liable to be set aside. Moreover, as seen from the record, the name of the petitioner is being reflected in the pahanies, both in the pattedar and possession columns, even as on the date of the application made by the respondent No.6. Such being the case, the authorities are obligated under the law to verify the record and see if the persons who are interested in the subject lands are made parties and served notices before passing any order which will adversely affect the rights of the parties, whose names 6 are reflected in the revenue records. It is mandatory that the persons, whose names are reflected in the revenue records as on the date of application or at the time of adjudication, be made as party respondents in the proceedings pending before the authority as they are necessary and interested parties to the lis.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings of the respondent No. 2, dated 4.7.2016 and the consequential Certificates issued in Form 13-B and 13-C of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and all further consequential notices, dated 20.08.2017, 16.09.2016 and the Destraint Order, dated 23.01.2017 issued under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 11 of 1864. However, it is left open to the respondent No. 6 to approach the competent civil court for recovery of the compensation amount paid to the petitioner, if she is so advised, seeking redressal of her grievance. If any suit is filed, the petitioner is at liberty to take all objections opposing the reliefs sought for in the suit.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
__________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 07-04-2021 Tsr