Telangana High Court
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs State Of Telangana on 3 March, 2022
Author: A. Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A. Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.13209 of 2021
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Industries & Commerce appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 & 3 respectively, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 & 5 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. With their consent, the present Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
2. Questioning the action of respondent No.5 - Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Sangareddy, rep. by its Zonal Manager, (for short 'the Corporation'), in alienating the land in Survey No.269 of R.C. Puram in favour of respondent No.6 - M/s. Ganapathi Sachchidananda Avadhoota Datta Peetham Trust, Sangareddy, belonging to the petitioner company through a rectification deed dated 02.08.2016, the petitioner - Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited has filed the present Writ Petition.
2 AAR, J W.P.No.13209 of 2021
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner company has argued that the respondent Corporation did not have any semblance of right to change the Survey Number of the subject land from 267 to 269 as per the rectification deed dated 02.08.2016. That the original sale deed dated 31.01.2000 was in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.2.09 cents in Survey No.267 but the said Survey Number has been changed to 269 vide rectification deed dated 02.08.2016. The learned counsel has stated that the land in Survey Nos.267 and 269 belongs to the petitioner company and therefore, the rectification deeds dated 31.03.2000 and 02.08.2016 rectifying the Survey Number as well as the boundaries, are not only illegal, bad, arbitrary, but also against the law. That the respondent Corporation did not have any right, title or interest in respect of the subject land in survey No.269. Therefore, the rectification deed is liable to be set aside and sought for indulgence of this Court to allow the writ petition and cancel the rectification deed executed in favour of respondent No.6.
3 AAR, J W.P.No.13209 of 2021
4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 has stated that respondent No.6 was put in possession of the land over an extent of Acs.2.09 guntas way back in the year 2000 itself, when the sale deed dated 31.01.2000 was executed in favour of respondent No.6. Thereafter, on realizing that there is a mistake on the part of the Officers of respondent Corporation with regard to the Survey Number as well as the boundaries, the same has been rectified vide rectification deeds dated 31.03.2000 and 02.08.2016. The learned Standing Counsel has further stated that no new right has been created in favour of respondent No.6 but only the mistake in mentioning the survey number as well as the boundaries has been corrected. That respondent No.6 is in physical possession of the subject property right from the year 2000 and they have already constructed a temple in the said premises. The learned Standing Counsel has also stated that the petitioner company is 4 AAR, J W.P.No.13209 of 2021 well aware of the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.6 in the year 2000, the physical possession of respondent No.6 over the subject land and also the mistake that has occurred on the part of the Officers of the respondent Corporation, but, for reasons best known, has chosen to remain silent for all these years. That there is no cause of action for filing the present writ petition as the petitioner was aware of the execution of the sale deed in the year 2000 and also the factum of putting the respondent No.6 in physical possession of the land. The rectification deed only rectify the mistake made by the authorities concerned, but do not create any new right in favour of respondent No.6. That in case the petitioner company had any grievance, its remedy is to approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate relief, but, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 has also drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 04.02.2000 written by the petitioner company to the 5 AAR, J W.P.No.13209 of 2021 respondent Corporation. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as under:
'In this context it may be brought to your kind notice that though in the Schedule attached to the said Deed of Sale the plot was shown in Survey No.267-P, in actual your local authorities have physically handed over to the Vendors a piece of land admeasuring 2.09 Acrs in Survey Nos.269 and 244 which belong to BHEL'.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner company that the respondent Corporation did not have any authority to change the Survey Number as well as the boundaries in respect of the subject land after a period of 16 years is not tenable. The learned counsel has also stated that the present Writ Petition is filed after lapse of five (5) years and therefore, the same has to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
6. A perusal of the material documents shows that the subject land to an extent of Acs.2.09 guntas situated at Industrial Housing Complex at Ramachandrapuram, near BHEL, was alienated by respondent No.5 in favour of 6 AAR, J W.P.No.13209 of 2021 respondent No.6 vide registered sale deed dated 31.01.2000. Thereafter, vide rectification deeds dated 31.03.2000 and 02.08.2016, the Survey Number of the land from 267 to 269 as well as the boundaries has been changed.
7. Even though at the first brush, the contentions of the petitioner company appear to be correct, a perusal of the documents, more particularly, the letter dated 04.02.2000 written by the petitioner company to the respondent Corporation shows that the petitioner company was aware that the land, which was handed over to respondent No.6 was in Survey Nos.269 and 244. But, for the reasons best known to the petitioner company, the petitioner company did not take steps to challenge the action of the respondent Corporation in physically handing over the possession of the subject land to respondent No.6 vide sale deed dated 31.01.2000. After a gap of nearly 21 years thereof, the petitioner Company filed the present Writ Petition, that too, challenging the rectification 7 AAR, J W.P.No.13209 of 2021 deed dated 02.08.2016. The challenge to the rectification deed is also after lapse of five (5) years.
8. Once it is established that the petitioner was aware that respondent No.6 was put in physical possession of the subject land in Survey No.269, the question as to whether the sale deed contains Survey No.267 or 269 becomes redundant. The rectification deeds dated 31.03.2000 and 02.08.2016 only reiterate the physical possession of respondent No.6 in respect of the subject land in Survey No.269 but does not in any way create any additional right in favour of respondent No.6. As the petitioner company has not questioned the sale deed dated 31.01.2000, the question as to whether the respondent Corporation has any semblance of right in respect of the land in Survey No.267 or 269 is a matter which can only be gone into by the Civil Court but not by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, as seen from the documents filed by respondent No.6, a temple has already 8 AAR, J W.P.No.13209 of 2021 been constructed in the subject land and they are in physical possession of the same.
9. Further more, In Thota Ganga Laxmi vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if any sale deed is required to be cancelled, the only remedy is by way of a civil suit for cancellation, but no cancellation deed can be unilaterally executed or registered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to Rule 26(i)(k) of the Registration Rules, 1908, held that it is only when the earlier sale deed is cancelled by a competent court can a cancellation deed be registered that too after notice to the concerned parties; and unilateral cancellation of the sale deed, as well as registration thereof, were wholly void, non est and meaningless transactions.
10. Having regard to the above made discussion, this Writ Petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, if they are so advised, strictly in 1 (2010) 15 SCC 207 9 AAR, J W.P.No.13209 of 2021 accordance with law, without prejudice to the rights of the other parties.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________ A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J 3rd MARCH, 2022.
kvni/plv