Telangana High Court
Tahsildar vs Sri Kishna Agarwal on 19 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.377 of 2022
ORDER:
Challenging the order dated 02.09.2021 passed in E.P.No.12 of 2015 in O.S.No.13 of 2005 by the learned V Additional District Jduge, Kothagudem, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Decree Holder entered into a sale agreement with the Judgment Debtor on 21.06.2004 for Ac.2-22 gts of dry land in Sy.No.405 (Old)/405/12 (New), Paloncha Revenue Village, but the JDR failed to execute the registered sale deed despite receiving the balance sale consideration. The DHR filed O.S.No.13 of 2005 before the Principal District Court, Khammam, for specific performance, and on 31.08.2010, the Court decreed in favor of the DHR, directing the JDR to execute the sale deed, failing which it could be executed through Court process. Since the Judgment Debtor did not comply, the Decree Holder initiated E.P.No.12 of 2015 for execution, and during the proceedings, the 2 SKS,J C.R.P.No.377 of 2022 Court directed the Tahsildar, Paloncha, to register the sale deed. However, the Tahsildar objected, claiming the land was Government-assigned and its transfer violated the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The DHR countered, stating the land was assigned to Narayanapeta Eswaramma under the political sufferers quota per G.O.Ms.No.1743 on 02.08.1959, which permitted unrestricted sale, and that the 1974 sale deed was legally valid, with subsequent purchasers receiving pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Citing the ruling of this Court in A.Venkatesan & Others v. Government of A.P. 1, the trial court held that the Tahsildar had no authority to reject the registration, as the Government had not reclaimed the land, and directed him to register the sale deed in favor of the DHR. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri P. Rama Krishna Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
1 2004 (2) ALD 422 3 SKS,J C.R.P.No.377 of 2022
4. Learned Government Pleader for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to established legal principles and documentary evidence, making it liable to be set aside. The impugned order was passed in an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC in E.P.No. 12 of 2015, wherein the trial Court erroneously decided the title of the E.P. schedule property based solely on a letter submitted by the petitioner on 08.07.2021. He further submitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate in the inquiry and present documentary evidence, which is only permissible under an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. The trial Court also erred in deciding the title of the E.P. schedule property in an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, which is not the proper procedure for determining ownership and that the trial Court failed to follow due process, deciding the title of the property without conducting a trial.
5. Learned Government Pleader for the petitioner contended that the trial Court did not consider the petitioner's argument that Sy.No.405 of Paloncha Revenue Village is classified as Government Poramboke land, with a total extent of Ac. 639.05 4 SKS,J C.R.P.No.377 of 2022 gts as per revenue records from 1954-55 to 1987-88. A supplementary Sethwar was issued in the year 1987, incorporating the names of assignees into the revenue records from 1988-89 onwards, rendering the registered sale deed No.68/1974, dated 04.04.1974, in favor of Ganesh Goud, invalid. The trial Court also failed to consider the documents of the petitioner proving that the subject land was assigned to Narayanapeta Eswaramma, with a supplementary Sethwar issued in the year 1987 by the Assistant Director of Revenue Survey Settlement (Ryotwary) and Land Records Department, Khammam. The said land was illegally transferred through registered sale deeds in violation of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, rendering such registration null and void. Therefore, the E.P. schedule land cannot be registered in favor of the DHR.
6. Learned Government Pleader further contended that while the trial Court acknowledged that the government assigned Ac.5.04 gts of land to Narayanapeta Eswaramma in the year 1987 under the political sufferers' quota, it failed to consider that the DHR claims title based on a sale deed dated 02.04.1974, 5 SKS,J C.R.P.No.377 of 2022 which predates the assignment. The trial Court also erred in holding that the Tahsildar, Paloncha, had no authority to reject the registration of the E.P. schedule land, despite admitting that it was assigned in the year 1987 and subsequently transferred through a sale deed in the year 1974. The learned counsel contends that the payment of Rs.5,81,950/- towards stamp duty, registration fee, and transfer duty, along with the filing of N.J. Stamps worth Rs.1,000/-, does not confer any legal right or title upon the respondents or their vendors. Directing the Tahsildar to register the E.P. schedule land in favor of the DHR based on such payments is unlawful. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the impugned order.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there are no infirmities in the order of the trial Court and the trial Court has rightly rejected the objection of the Tahsildar and passed the order, as such, he prayed the Court to dismiss the civil revision petition.
8. Upon carefully considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and thoroughly reviewing the material 6 SKS,J C.R.P.No.377 of 2022 available on record, it is noted that the primary issue in this case pertains to the listing of the disputed land under Section 22A of the Prohibition of Land Transfers Act. According to the revision petitioner, the land in question has been categorized under Section 22A, which prohibits its transfer. Despite this, the Tahsildar proceeded to register the property in favor of third parties, which raises concerns regarding the legality of such transactions.
9. It is an undisputed fact that the land in Sy.No.405 is government land and was assigned to Narayanapeta Eswaramma. The Tahsildar, however, argues that the land was assigned in 1987, and prior to that, a registered sale deed had already been executed by Narayanapeta Eswaramma. The trial Court did not examine this aspect, and therefore, no findings were recorded on the validity of the sale deed or its impact on the land assignment.
10. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the powers of the executing Court are limited to the execution of decrees and do not extend to determining questions of title. The executing Court 7 SKS,J C.R.P.No.377 of 2022 cannot decide issues related to the original ownership or acquisition of the property in an execution petition. Therefore, any argument regarding how and when Narayanapeta Eswaramma acquired the property is not relevant to the present proceedings, making such contentions legally untenable.
11. The crucial issue in this case revolves around whether the property in question is listed under Section 22A. If the property is included in the prohibited list, the appropriate legal recourse for the concerned parties is to approach the District Collector, who has the authority to review and issue necessary directions to the Tahsildar regarding the registration of such land. In the present case, however, there is no dispute regarding the assignment of the land to Eshwaramma as a political sufferer, to an extent of Ac.5.04 guntas. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.1743 dated 02.08.1959, stating that political sufferers are permitted to sell the land assigned to them without any conditions. There are clear instructions in the said G.O. for selling the property, and Eshwaramma already sold the property in the year 1974. The purchasers became pattadars and were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds by the Revenue 8 SKS,J C.R.P.No.377 of 2022 Department. Furthermore, there is no document filed by the Tahsildar to indicate that the said land was taken back by the Government. Therefore, the E.P. schedule property is not Government land. As a result, the Registering Authority is required to register the land. There is no illegality in the order of the trial court, there are no merits in the revision petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 19.03.2025 SAI