Telangana High Court
D.Sudhakar Reddy vs The Joint Collector on 1 September, 2020
Author: A.Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
W.P.No.14761 OF 2008
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the Orders of Joint Collector passed in file No.F3/5382/2007-F3/36/ROR/2007, dated 26.06.2008, whereby the learned Joint Collector has set aside the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, (in short, 'R.D.O.'), in file No.A3/2385/05, dated 31.05.2007.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners who claim to be the legal heirs of one Sri Ranga Reddy, the original owner and pattedar of the land in Sy.No.15, admeasuring Acs.18.01 gts., situated at Osman Nagar Village, Ramachandrapur Mandal, Medak District. The said Sri Ranga Reddy was survived by a son - Hanmanth Reddy, and after the death of Hanmanth Reddy, the property devolved on the writ petitioners as well as respondents No.5 to 9. On verification of the revenue records, Sy.No.15 was sub-divided into Sy.No.15/E for an extent of Acs.5.20 gts., and the name of the respondent No.4 herein was incorporated in pattadar as well as possessor columns. The further case of the petitioners is that no notice was issued to the petitioners nor any enquiry was conducted by the M.R.O., before incorporating the name of the respondent No.4 herein i.e. G.Laxma Reddy in the revenue records and the same is 2 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008 without any legal basis, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbook Act, 1971 (in short, 'ROR Act'), and therefore, the same is non est in the eye of law.
3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before the R.D.O., and the said appeal was numbered as A3/2385/2005. After issuance of the notice to the respondent No.4, the 4th respondent filed his counter stating that original landlord Sri Ranga Reddy had one daughter by name Ratnamma and one son by name Hanmanth Reddy. During the life time of Hanmanth Reddy, the respondents No.5 to 9 herein have agreed to give a share to the daughter of Ranga Reddy in the ancestral property and pursuant to the same, they have deposed before the revenue authorities on 20.04.1986. Based on the said statement made by respondents No.5 to 9, the mutation was effected in the name of Veera Reddy, the father of the respondent No.4, who is none other than the husband of Ratnamma. The M.R.I., who inspected the spot, had found that the respondent No.4 was in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject land and the respondent No.4, in turn, has sold the land in favour of one Ravi Kumar through registered sale deed, dated 21.09.2005. It is further contended that the appeal was filed by the petitioners after lapse of almost 15 years and the same is barred by limitation. As a matter of fact, the appeal ought 3 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008 to have been filed within a period of sixty days. It is further contended that the petitioners and their fathers, who are arrayed as respondents No.5 to 9, are all well aware of all these proceedings before the revenue authorities and at no point of time, they have raised any dispute regarding the corrections made in the year 1986 itself. The respondent No.4 is in physical possession and enjoyment of the property, and his name continued in the revenue records right from the year 1990-91 and pattedar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in the name of the respondent No.4.
4. The R.D.O., after perusing the record, has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners herein and set aside the order of the M.R.O. granting mutation in favour of the respondent No.4 herein and directed the M.R.O. to delete the entries made in favour of the respondent No.4 from the year 1990-91 onwards. Aggrieved by the said orders of the R.D.O., in file No.A3/2385/05, dated 31.05.2007, the respondent No.4 herein preferred a revision before the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbook Act, 1971 (in short, 'ROR Act'). The learned Joint Collector, after perusing the material on record and hearing the parties, has allowed the revision and held as under:
"All the above record goes to show that the revision petitioner Sri G.Laxma Reddy, S/o.Veera Reddy is in possession of the subject matter land. When the name of the revision petitioner is 4 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008 continuously reflecting in revenue records over the subject matter land from the year 1990-91 the respondents herein have preferred an appeal before the RDO in the year 2005 and thus kept quiet for a period of nearly (15) years. The RDO without looking into this record in depth has ordered for deletion of the name of the revision petitioner herein merely because of non production of any registered conveyance either in his favour or in the favour of his mother. Moreover, the RDO has raised a doubt about the relationship between the parties which point has not been urged by either parties. The RDO ought to have taken extra precaution while ordering for deletion of the name of a pattedar from revenue records which is reflecting since last (15) years or would have directed the parties to seek redressal from a competent civil Court. Thus in my view the orders of RDO Sangareddy are not justifiable.
In view of the above, I hereby order to set aside the orders passed by RDO Sangareddy in file No.A3/2385/05, dated 31.05.2007, and direct the parties to seek redressal of their grievance in a competent Civil Court. I further order to restore the entries in revenue records in favour of the revision petitioner herein. The revision petition is allowed accordingly."
Aggrieved by the above order of the Joint Collector allowing the revision, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present writ petition.
5 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008
5. It is the contention of Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the Joint Collector has erred in allowing the revision, more particularly, in view of the admitted fact that the very mutation in favour of the respondent No.4 was an illegal one and there was no legal basis for making any entry in favour respondent No.4 in the revenue records, more particularly, in the absence of any conveyance deed or a deed of partition between the parties. Learned Counsel further contends that the question of limitation would arise only when the parties are aware of the order or are put on notice by the concerned authorities before passing any order, and therefore, the limitation will run only from the date of knowledge. The petitioners have filed the appeal before the R.D.O. as soon as they came to know about the wrong entries made in the revenue records, without any legal basis or any order being passed by the MRO, and the same is within the period of limitation. That the Joint Collector acted contrary to the provisions of the ROR Act and the Registration Act without taking into consideration of the fact that only a registered conveyance deed would convey the property worth more than Rs.100/- and the Joint Collector ought not to have allowed the revision filed by the respondent No.4 in the absence of any document to substantiate his claim that the property has devolved on the mother of the respondent No.4 either by way 6 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008 of any family partition or a registered sale deed. The learned Counsel further contended that the entries made are per se illegal, non est, without jurisdiction and the same can be challenged at any point of time. That mere possession of the respondent No.4 will not confer any title or right to the property, and as such, the Joint Collector ought not to have relied on the report of the MRI, and ought not to have relegated the parties to the Civil Court.
6. Per contra, Sri J. Prabhakar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.4 to 9, has vehemently argued that the appeal filed before the R.D.O. was itself barred by limitation, and as per Section 8 of the ROR Act, any party who is aggrieved by the entries made in the revenue record shall approach the Civil Court and the question of entertaining the appeal after a lapse of more than 15 years does not arise. He has further contended that the respondents No.5 to 9 have themselves deposed before the concerned MRO for mutating the name of the father of the respondent No.4 as there was a family settlement between the parties for giving a share to the mother of the respondent No.4 herein and pursuant to the same, land admeasuring Acs.5.20 gts. in Sy.No.15 was given. The Joint Collector, after appreciating the facts in a proper perspective, has allowed the revision filed by the respondent No.4 and the same does not 7 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008 call for any interference by this Court in the present writ petition.
7. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri N.Saida Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 9.
8. In order to properly appreciate the facts of the case, it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions of the ROR Act.
9. As per the provisions of the ROR Act, Section 4 mandates that any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar) within ninety days from the date of such acquisition. On receipt of such intimation under Section 4, the Mandal Revenue Officer is bound to amend the ROR by issuing notice to all persons whose names are entered in the record in writing and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested 8 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008 therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. Thereafter, after passing of such order under Section 5 (3), the same shall be communicated to all the persons concerned under Section 5 (4) of the ROR Act. Against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, making or refusing to make such amendment, a statutory remedy of appeal is provided to the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of the order under Section 5 (5) of the ROR Act.
10. Section 5-A deals with regularization of alienation or transfer of lands effected otherwise than by registered document by the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer after putting the concerned person on notice. The time period for such regulation is being extended from time to time by the government. Against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act lies to the Collector. Section 8 (2) provides a relief to the person aggrieved for filing a civil suit before the competent civil Court to declare that against any entries made in the revenue record which he is in possession of and if the said suit is decreed, the findings of the civil Court are binding on the revenue authorities and they are bound to amend the ROR accordingly. The Rules made under Section 11 (1) of the ROR 9 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008 Act prescribes an elaborate procedure wherein the revenue officials are mandatorily bound to issue the notice before passing any orders in the prescribed form.
11. A bare perusal of the orders of both the Joint Collector as well as the R.D.O., and the pleadings of the petitioners as well as the respondent No.4, make it abundantly clear that the parties are closely related to each other. It is the specific stand of the respondent No.4 that in the family settlement between the mother of the respondent No.4 and respondent Nos. 5 to 9, it was agreed to allot the land admeasuring Acs.5.20 gts in Sy.No.15 and to that effect, they have executed an agreement of sale, dated 20.04.1986 in favour of the father of respondent No.4. The said agreement of sale was executed by respondents No.5 to 9 herein, and they have deposed before the concerned MRO that they have sold the subject land to the father of the respondent No.4. Admittedly, whenever there is a change in ownership from one party to the other, the person acquiring the right has to intimate to the concerned recording authority (MRO/Tahasildr) that he has acquired title to a particular piece of property through any of the legal modes of acquiring the same under Form VI- A. On such intimation, the recording authority, after duly conducting enquiry and giving notice to the concerned parties, shall pass necessary orders for making the changes in the revenue records. In the absence of any mutation 10 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008 proceedings by the competent authority, even if the changes are made in the revenue record, they will not have any legal sanctity and will have to declared non est in the eye of law. Unless and until the entries are supported by mutation proceedings, mere change of name in the revenue records will not affect the ownership, title or right of the original pattedar and the entries should be deemed to be as non est in the eye of law, void ab initio and one without jurisdiction.
12. In number of cases, it is seen that the revenue officials, without putting the concerned parties on notice, are simply affixing the notice on the Notice Board of the Gram Panchayat of the said village or the Revenue Mandal Office. It is mandatory to issue a personal notice to all the affected persons, otherwise, the entire exercise of mutation undertaken will be vitiated and will have to be declared illegal and necessarily set aside. The persons filing any application/appeal/revision have to give the full address, particulars of the persons likely to be affected, if any, orders are passed i.e., not only the persons against whom they seek relief but also the persons whose names are recorded in the pattedar column and possession column as on the date of filing the application/appeal/revision.
13. A perusal of the orders of the RDO and the Joint Collector does not throw any light as to whether any mutation proceedings were issued in favour of the respondent No.4 11 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008 herein by the concerned M.R.O. before mutation was effected. The Joint Collector has relied mainly on the agreement of sale executed by respondents No.5 to 9 in favour of the respondent No.4, which is admittedly an un-registered one, it is well settled principle of law that an agreement of sale will not confer any title, ownership to the vendee. Moreover, as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, any document which conveys title to the property worth more than Rs.100/- should be compulsorily registered. As seen from the record, the said agreement of sale is an un-registered agreement of sale, the respondents No.5 to 9 did not even bother to get the same regularized under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. Both the R.D.O. and the Joint Collector, without going into these basic facts, have dealt with the case on a different footing which is not germane to the issue.
14. In Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer1, a Full Bench of this High Court has made it mandatory that the concerned persons who are likely to be effected by the orders of the Recording Authority, Appellate Authority, or the Revisional Authority, shall have to be necessarily put on notice before passing any order. Relevant observations of the Full Bench are extracted hereunder:
"10. .... If an application is made for amendment of the existing entries in the Record of Rights, the person whose name already exists in such record is entitled to 1 AIR 2008 AP 15 12 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008 contest the proposed amendment. He can do so only if a notice regarding the proposed amendment is given to him by the recording authority. An order passed against a person whose name already exist in the Record of Rights without giving him notice of the proposed amendment and effective opportunity of hearing is liable to be declared nullity on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, which, as mentioned above, represent the most important facet of the rules of natural justice. It needs no emphasis that the rules of natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The rule of hearing is also applicable in purely administrative proceedings and actions where any public authority passes an order affecting the rights of any individual. The applicability of the rules of natural justice to purely administrative actions has been recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and has been reiterated in various judgments including those of A.K.Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136, Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
11. From the above discussion, it is clear that the requirement of issuing notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment is independent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rule 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment.
13 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008
15. Considering all these circumstances and to meet the ends of Justice, it is necessary to set aside the orders of both the R.D.O., dated 31.05.2007, and the Joint Collector, dated 26.06.2008, and remand the matter back to the R.D.O. to deal with the below mentioned points, afresh:
1) Whether any mutation proceedings are passed by the concerned M.R.O. before making any changes in the entries in the revenue record?
2) Whether the mandatory procedure as contemplated under the ROR Act was followed by the MRO (Tahsildar) or not?
16. The R.D.O. will pass necessary orders, on merits, after giving notice to all the concerned parties, taking into consideration the evidence and documents adduced by the respective parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. This order does not in any way can be construed as giving any finding on the merits or demerits of the case and the R.D.O. should deal with the case on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in this writ petition. The observations and findings given in this order are for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition only.
14 AAR,J WP No.14761 of 2008
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the orders of the Joint Collector as well as the R.D.O., and the matter is remanded back to the R.D.O. for passing orders afresh.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 1st September, 2020.
smr/sur