Telangana High Court
Mohammed Farooq Ali Khan And 5 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 22 Others on 20 January, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.37146 of 2022
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions, of the official respondents, more particularly, respondent No.4 in registering and granting succession, mutation of revenue records (including Dharani Portal) and issuing pattadar passbook (vide No.T0516004157) in the name of respondent No.10 vide transaction No.2100908340 dated 04.10.2021 and in subsequently registering documents (Sale Deeds) in favour of respondent Nos.20, 21 and 22 vide document Nos.2258/2021, 2259/2021, 2260/2021, 2261/2021, 2263/2021, 2264/2021, 2265/2021, 2266/2021, 2267/2021, 2268/2021, 2269/2021, 2402/2021, 2403/2021, 513/2022 and 778/2022 and declaring the action of issuing passbooks vide Nos.T05160041057, T05160041058 and T05160041061; and in making entries in Dharani Portal, with respect to land belonging to the petitioners admeasuring Ac.103-35 guntas, situated at Sy.Nos.181/1 (Ac.13-08 Gts), 181/2 (Ac.16-05 Gts), 181/3 (Ac.40-38 Gts), 181/4 (Ac.15-35 Gts.), 181/6 (Ac.10-29 Gts.), 182 (Ac.10-29 Gts.) and 181/3 (Ac.9-21 Gts.), Nagaram Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana; Despite(1) Orders of Revenue Divisional Officer (Official Respondent No.3) vide proceedings A2/2708/2017 dated 19-06-2019, (2) Orders of Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy vide Proceedings D5/2352/2021 dated:
08-02-2021, (3) Orders in W.P.No.10912 of 2021 dated: 27.04.2021, and the non compliance of Unofficial Respondent No.10 of the said order (4) Orders in W.P. No. 8145 of 2006 dated 21-04-2006 (also order in W.P.M.P.No.10411 of 2006 dated: 05-06-2006), (5) Orders in I.A.333 in 2019 in O.S.315 of 2019 dated: 25-02-2020 (also order in I.A.No.36 of 2021 in I.A.No.333 of 2019 dated: 21-01-2021), (6) The said survey numbers being reflected in prohibited list of properties (Under Section 22A of Registration Act) of Official Respondent No.5 (Stamps and Registration Department) vide Lr.No.D/867/2012 dated: 06/06/2012, (7) Representations dated 15-02-2019 and 02-02-2021 without holding 2 prior enquiry/assessment and (8) Without giving notice or affording an opportunity to the Petitioners herein And to declare the inaction of the Official Respondents with respect to representations of the petitioners dated 14-03-2022, 31-03-2022 and 01-09-2022 as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Rights and Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, the Registration Act, the Indian Stamp Act and in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India;
and consequently to set aside and cancel, the registration and granting of succession, mutation of revenue records (including Dharani Portal) and issuing pattadar passbook (vide No.T0516004157) in the name of Unofficial Respondent No.10 vide transaction No.2100908340 dated 04.10.2021 and registration of documents by Official Respondents more particularly Official Respondent No.4 vide document Nos.2258/2021, 2259/2021, 2260/2021, 2261/2021, 2263/2021, 2264/2021, 2265/2021, 2266/2021, 2267/2021, 2268/2021, 2269/2021, 2402/2021, 2403/2021, 513/2022 and 778/2022 and issuance of passbooks vide Nos. T05160041057, T05160041058 and T05160041061; and the entries made in the dharani portal with respect to the said transactions; and to also consequently act upon the representations of the Petitioners dated 14-03-2022, 31-03-2022 and 01-09-2022 and also to pass such other order or orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners No.5 and 6 are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac. 103.35 guntas, situated in Sy.Nos.181/1 (Ac.13.08 guntas), 181/2 (Ac.16.05 guntas), 181/3 (Ac.40.38 guntas), 181/4 (Ac.15.35 guntas), 181/6 (Ac.10.29 guntas), 182 (Ac.10.29 guntas) and 181/3 (Ac.9.21 guntas), Nagaram Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana, by virtue of Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorneys vide document bearing No.6345/2005 dated 24.10.2005 and vide validation document 3 bearing No.7099/E/2005 dated 16.11.2005. The said property was purchased by the petitioners No.5 and 6 from one Late Mohammed Akber Ali Khan (father of petitioners No.2 to 4) and Mohammed Farooq Ali Khan (petitioner No.1). The said vendors of the petitioners No.5 and 6 became owners of the property by virtue of oral gift (Hiba) from their father Late Mohammed Nawab Haji Khan.
3. It is stated that the names of the vendors of the petitioners No.5 and 6 are recorded in the revenue records as enjoyers in the Pahanies for the years 1973 to 1983 and until 2021, the name of their father, Late Mohammed Nawab Haji Ali Khan was reflected as the owner in the pahanies and other revenue records. The father of the said vendors filed declaration under Agriculture Land Ceiling Act of 1973, vide C.C.Nos.2049, 2048 and 4209/1/75 before the Land Reform Tribunal. In the said declarations, Mohammed Nawab Haji Khan, i.e. original pattadar of Sy.Nos.181/1 to 181/6 and 182 of Nagaram Village, declared that he has gifted the said property to the vendors of the petitioners in the year 1964-65 to an extent of Ac.57.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.181/1, 181/2, 181/5 and a portion in Sy.No.181/3 to his son Mohammed Akber Ali Khan and also gifted Ac.46.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.181/3 part, 181/4 181/6 and 182 to his second son Mohammed Farooq Ali Khan and put them into possession. The said transfer of ownership was reflected in the column No.13 of the pahanies for the year 1973 to 1995. The Land 4 Reform Tribunal had also confirmed the said gift vide issue No.III in proceedings dated 28.02.1977 and declared Mohammed Akber Ali Khan and Mohammed Farooq Ali Khan as owners of property and non-surplus holders.
4. It is submitted that the respondent No.8 (A.P. Bhoodan Board) made a claim that the Late Nawab Haji Ali Khan gifted them an extent of 50 acres of the subject land. WP.No.8145 of 2006 was filed by the petitioners against the respondent No.8 wherein stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned Memo Lr.No.B/1181/06 dated 17.04.2006 vide order dated 21.04.2006. The said stay is still subsisting and the writ petition is pending.
5. It is submitted that, while so, the respondent No.10, who is the daughter of Late Nawab Haji Khan and sister of vendors of the petitioners, falsely claimed that her father had orally gifted her Ac.51.22 guntas out of the total extent of his holding in the year 2004. Subsequently, the respondent No.10 and her son (respondent No.11) executed a fraudulent partition deed bearing document No.3635/2014 dated 04.02.2014 at the office of the respondent No.6 by dividing the land among themselves and obtained pattadar passbooks from the respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal) for an extent of Ac.10.29 guntas for Sy.No.182.
5
6. It is submitted that being aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing pattadar passbooks to the respondents No.10 and 11, the petitioners filed an appeal before the respondent No.3 i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, vide proceedings A2/2708/2017 and order dated 19.06.2019 was passed directing the respondent No.4 to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued to the respondent No.10.
7. It is submitted that the respondents No.10 and 11, in collusion with the respondents No.12, 13, 14 and 19 executed Sale Deed bearing document No.24224/2018 in the office of the respondent No.7 on 21.12.2018. The said document was executed and registered despite subsistence of stay order passed by the RDO with respect to pattadar passbooks illegally issued to the respondent No.10. As against the illegal registration of partition deed and subsequent sale deed, the petitioners herein filled O.S.No.315 of 2019 before the XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, wherein injunction order was passed in favour of the petitioners restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property vide order dated 25.02.2020 in I.A.No.333 of 2019 and the petitioners were also granted police protection vide order dated 21.01.2021 in I.A.No.36 of 2021.
6
8. It is submitted that the respondent No.10 has fraudulently and through coercion made the petitioner No.1 to execute a ratification deed, allegedly, ratifying the partition deed of 2017. The said ratification deed was cancelled by the petitioner No.1 vide cancellation deed bearing document No.11965/2017. As the AGPA holder of the petitioner No.1 was acting against him, interim applications vide IA.Nos.76, 286 and 287 of 2022 were filed in O.S.No.315 of 2019 for change of counsel, change of agent and withdrawal of suit and the applications were dismissed on 19.10.2022.
9. While things stood thus, an appeal was filed by the respondent No.10 before the Special Tribunal (revenue) of Ranga Reddy District vide proceedings D5/2352/2021 challenging the order of the respondent No.3 i.e. RDO Kandukur dated 19.06.2019 and the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 08.02.2021 directing the parties to pursue O.S.No.315 of 2019. Thereafter, the order of the Special Tribunal was challenged by the respondent No.10 in WP.No.10912 of 2021 and this Court by order dated 27.04.2021 directed the Special Tribunal to consider the matter and pass fresh orders with a direction to the respondent No.10 to appear before the Special Tribunal within 10 days from the date of receipt of said order and furnish necessary details. However, the respondent No.10 did not comply with the conditional order of this 7 Court dated 27.04.2021, thereby, crystallizing the order of the RDO dated 19.06.2019.
10. It is submitted that the land in Sy.No.181 was notified in the prohibited list of properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 to an extent of Ac.95.00 guntas vide Lr.No.D/867/2012 dated 06.06.2012 issued by the office of the respondent No.4. As per the said notification, an extent of Ac.50.00 guntas was notified as being in prohibited list with respect to Bhoodan land and the remaining Ac.45.00 guntas as Gairan Sarkari. The petitioners are taking steps to challenge the said notification. In any case, the petitioners filed WP.No.8145 of 2006 against the Bhoodan land wherein stay was granted.
11. It is submitted that the petitioners No.5 and 6 learnt that the respondent No.4 vide proceedings in transaction No.2100908340 dated 04.10.2021 registered and granted succession with respect to land in Sy.No.181/3/1 (Ac.0.11 guntas), 181/4 (Ac.15.35 guntas), 181/5 (Ac.16.10 guntas) and 181/6 (Ac.10.17 guntas), totally admeasuring Ac.42.33 guntas, in favour of the respondent No.10 reflecting her as the successor of Late Nawab Haji Khan, in contravention of the orders of the RDO dated 19.06.2019; order of the Special Tribunal dated 08.02.2021; orders in W.P.No.10912 of 2021 dated 27.04.2021; orders in WP.No.8145 of 8 2006 dated 21.04.2006; orders in I.A. 333 in 2019 in O.S.315 of 2019 dated 25.02.2020 and order in I.A.No.36 of 2021 in I.A.No.333 of 2019 dated 21.01.2021 and even when the lands have been notified as prohibited properties under Section 22-A of Registration Act. The aforesaid transactions and succession proceedings are illegal, fraudulent and the consequential sale deeds bearing documents Nos. 2258/2021, 2259/2021, 2260/2021, 2261/2021, 2263/2021, 2264/2021, 2265/2021, 2266/2021, 2267/2021, 2268/2021, 2269/2021, 2402/2021, 2403/2021, 513/2022 and 778/2022 executed by the respondent No.10 in favour of the respondents No.20, 21 and 22 and pattadar passbooks are illegal, void and unenforceable.
12. The petitioners herein filed representations dated 14.03.2022, 31.03.2022 and 01.09.2022 requesting the respondent authorities to cancel the aforesaid said documents, which are executed in contravention of the orders passed by the respondent authorities and this Court.
13. The respondents No.10 and 11 have filed detailed counter, inter alia, stating that multiple reliefs cannot be asked for in the writ petition. The claim of ownership of the petitioners on the strength of the Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 07.11.2055 is denied. The respondent No.10 became the 9 owner of the subject property by virtue of oral Hiba made on 15.04.2004 and thus, succession granted in favour of respondent No.10 is valid as it is issued by following due procedure of law. Thereafter, pattadar passbooks bearing No.T0516004157 was issued and subsequently, sale deeds bearing document Nos.2258/2021, 2259/2021, 2260/2021, 2261/2021. 2263/2021, 2264/2021, 2265/2021, 2266/2021, 2267/2021, 2268/2021, 2269/2021, 2402/2021, 2403/2021, 513/2021 and 778/2022 were executed in favour of the respondents No.20, 21 and 22.
14. It is submitted that there is no violation of order of the respondent No.3 dated 19.06.2019, the Special Tribunal dated 08.02.201 and order passed in O.S.No.315 of 2019. The oral Hiba made in favour of the respondent No.10 was ratified by the petitioner No.1 vide ratification deed bearing document No.523/2017 dated 27.01.2017. The respondent No.11 is the son of the respondent No.10 and both of them partitioned the property of the respondent No.10 vide partition deed bearing document No.3635/2014 dad 04.02.2014 and in turn, they executed sale deeds in favour the respondents No.13, 14, 18 and 19 vide document bearing No.24224/2018 dated 21.12.2018 and they became absolute owners and possessors of the property covered by the aforesaid sale deeds. Subsequently, mutation was issued in their name.
10
15. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 has unilaterally executed cancellation of rectification deed vide document bearing No.11965/2017 dated 15.12.2017, which is not valid. The suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.315 of 2019 is pending and the petitioners have to agitate the claim in the said suit.
16. It is submitted that Mohammed Nawab Haji Khan filed declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal in the year 1977 stating that he has gifted the land admeasuring Ac.103.00 guntas in favour of his sons viz. petitioner No.1 and Mohamed Akbar Ali Khan and both of them have not acted upon the declaration and did not show any interest for acquiring the said land. Thereafter, out of Ac.103.22 guntas, the share of the petitioner No.1 i.e. Ac.51.22 guntas was gifted by Mohammed Nawab Haji Khan with the consent of the petitioner No.1 under oral Hiba dated 15.04.2004 in favour of the respondent No.10.
17. It is submitted that the GPA of the petitioner No.5 was cancelled by petitioner No.1 on 11.12.2021, as such, the petitioner No.5 is not entitled to represent petitioner No.1 as GPA. Petitioner No.5 executed another registered GPA in favour of one Devender Reddy, S/o. Narayan Reddy, R/o. Hyderabad, vide document bearing No.72/4/2022 dated 25.01.2022. The said GPA Holder filed interlocutory applications viz. IA.Nos.76 of 2022, 286 of 2022 and 11 287 of 2022 in O.S.No.315 of 2019 for change of Advocate and to represent the petitioner No.1 as GPA. The said applications were dismissed against which CRP.Nos.2448, 2562 and 2553 of 2022 were filed before this Court and are pending.
18. In the counter filed by the respondents No.13 and 18 to 22, it is submitted that they are bonafide purchasers of various extents of land. The respondents No.10, 11 and 12 executed sale deed dated 21.12.2018 in favour of the respondents No.13, 14, 18 and 19 to an extent of Ac.10.29 guntas in Sy.No.182, Nagaram Revenue Village. On their application, mutation was granted and they were recorded as pattadar in the revenue records. Later, they were issued pattdar passbooks. The respondent No.20 purchased submit that respondent No.20 purchased the land in Sy.No.181/4 to an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas (registered sale deed bearing document No.2262/2021); an extent of Ac.3.3000 in Sy.No.181/4 (registered sale deed bearing document No.2260/2021); an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/5 (registered sale deed bearing document No.2266/2021); an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/6 (registered sale deed bearing document No.2261/2021); an extent of Ac.1.2000 guntas in Sy.No.181/6 (registered sale deed bearing document No.2258/2021) and an extent of Ac.0.1800 guntas in Sy.No.181/4, an extent ofAc.2.200 guntas in Sy.No.181/6 and an extent of Ac.2.3000 guntas in 12 Sy.No.181/5 (registered sale deed bearing document No.2264/2021) and an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/5 (registered sale deed document No. 2259/2021) executed by the respondent No.10.
19. It is stated that similarly the respondent No. 21 purchased an extent of Ac. 3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/4 (registered sale deed bearing document No.2265 of 2021); an extent of Ac. 3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/5 (registered sale deed bearing document No.2263 of 2021); an extent of Ac.1.1400 guntas in Sy.No.181/5 and an extent of Ac.2.1600 guntas in Sy.No.181/6 (registered sale deed bearing document No.2267 of 2021); an extent of Ac.2.0900 guntas in Sy.No.181/6 and an extent of Ac.0.0300 guntas in Sy.No.181/5 and an extent of Ac.1.1000 guntas in Sy.No.181/4 (registered sale deed bearing document No.2269 of 2021) and an extent of Ac.2.3700 in Sy.No.181/4 and an extent of Ac.0.3300 guntas in Sy.No.181/5 (registered sale deed bearing document No.2268 of 2021) executed by the respondent No.10.
20. It is stated that the respondent No. 22 purchased the land from respondent No. 20 in an extent of Ac.0.1800 guntas in Sy.No.181/5/1/1/2, an extent of Ac.1.2000 guntas in Sy.No.181/6/2, an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/6/1/2, an extent of Ac.0.2200 guntas in Sy.No.181/6/1/1/2 and an extent 13 of Ac.3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/5/2 (registered sale deed bearing document No.2403 of 2021 dated 20.10.2021) registered at the office of Tahsildar and Joint sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram. I further submit that, the respondent No.22 purchased the land from respondent No. 20 in Sy. No. 181/4/1/1/2 to an extent of Ac.0.1800, Sy. No. 181/4/1/2 to an extent of Ac.2.1000, Sy. No. 181/4/2 to an extent of Ac. 3.3000, Sy.No. 181/5/1/1/1/2 to an extent of Ac.3.3000 and Sy.No.181/5/1/1/2/1 to an extent of Ac.2.1200 through a registered Sale Deed Document No. 778 of 2022, dated 08-02-2022 registered at the office of Tahsildar and Joint sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram. All the above said lands are situated at Nagaram Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
21. It is stated that the respondent No.22 purchased the land from respondent No.21 in an extent of Ac.1.3500 guntas in Sy.No.181/4/1/1/1/1/2; an extent of Ac.0.2500 guntas in Sy.No.181/5/1/1/1/1/2/1; an extent of Ac.1.1000 guntas in Sy.No.181/4/1/1/1/1/1 and an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/4/1/1/1/2 (registered sale deed bearing document No.513 of 2022) and an extent of Ac.3.3000 guntas in Sy.No.181/5/1/2; an extent of Ac.2.0900 guntas in Sy.No.181/6/1/1/1/1; an extent of Ac.0.2900 guntas in Sy.No.181/5/1/1/1/1/2; an extent of Ac.0.3300 guntas in 14 Sy.No.181/5/1/1/1/1/1/2; an extent of Ac.2.1600 guntas in Sy.No.181/6/1/1/1/2 and an extent of Ac. 0.0300 guntas in Sy.No.181/5/1/1/1/1/1/1 (registered sale deed bearing document No.2402 of 2021).
22. It is submitted that many of the respondents are not parties to the suit filed by the petitioners and not bound by orders passed in the suit. From the date of purchase under the above registered sale deeds, the respondents No.13 and 18 to 22 had been in possession of their respective lands.
23. The respondent No.8 filed counter contending that Mohammed Nawab Haji Ali Khan, S/o. Zabbardast Khan, donated an extent of Ac.50.00 guntas in Sy.No.47 (old) (181 (new) to Bhoodan Yagna Samithi and also relinquished in Rajina in Form-I before the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Taluka, on 15.03.1956. The gift has been accepted and mutated in the name of the Bhoodan Yagna Samithi by the then Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Taluka, vide Lr.No.A1/1093/65 dated 26.11.1965. The said land has been incorporated in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
24. It is submitted that the declaration filed by Mohammed Nawab Haji Khan is not binding on the respondent No.8, as they re not party to the land ceiling proceedings. The land vested in the 15 Government as per Rule 8 of the Land Revenue Special Rules, 1951. It has been recorded as Bhoodan Kharij Khatha in all the relevant revenue records and the lands are subject matter of WP.No.8145 of 2006 filed by Mohammed Akbar Ali Khan, which is pending.
25. Mr. Asad Hussain, learned counsel appearing for Mr. B. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned successions granted in favour of the respondents No.10 and 11 and thereafter, the sale deeds executed in favour of other unofficial respondents are illegal, void and not binding on the petitioners. The respondent No.10 has further violated the order passed by the RDO dated 19.06.2009, which was confirmed by the Special Tribunal to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas. Thus, the claim of the respondent No.10 is hit by the principle of res judicata. The respondent No.10 has clandestinely applied for succession without notice to the petitioners and thus, the succession proceedings are liable to be cancelled.
26. Per contra, Mr. Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel, appearing for Mr. T. Venkat Raju Goud, learned counsel for the respondents No.10 to 12, submitted that the impugned successions proceedings were issued under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020, which does not provide for 16 adjudication of rival claims between the parties. Several sale deeds have been executed in favour of third parties and suit in O.S.No.315 of 2019 is filed for declaration and injunction. The petitioners cannot pursue parallel remedy. Having instituted a suit in the year 2019, the petitioners approached this Court in the year 2022. If there is any violation of injunction order, the remedy available to the petitioners is to file an appropriate application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
27. Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents No.13 and 18 to 22, submitted that the respondents No.13 and 18 to 22 are bonafide purchasers of the land. They are not parties to the suit and they were not aware of any proceedings. Thus, the proceedings are not binding. The petitioners, having instituted the suit in O.S.No.315 of 2019, which is a comprehensive title suit, cannot be permitted to invoke parallel remedy of writ jurisdiction.
28. Learned standing counsel for the Telangana Bhoodan Yagna Board submitted that the respondent No.8 has a claim over the subject property, which is pending adjudication in WP.No.8145 of 2006. So far as title dispute is concerned, the same is seized by the civil Court in O.S.No.315 of 2019. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition.
17
29. Heard Mr. Asad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents No.10 and 11, Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents No.13 and 18 to 22 and Mr. G. Kiran Kumar, learned standing counsel respondent No.8 - Telangana Bhoodan Yagna Board and perused the material on record.
30. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED v. S.P. VELAYUTHAM 1; VEENA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR v.
THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR/ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR 2; SRI PATLOLLA RAMESHWAR REDDY v. STATE OF TELANGANA 3 [WP.Nos.18957 of 2020 and 17372 of 2021 dated 25.01.2023] SRI SABBATHAL ALGAPPA TRUST v. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, CHENNAI 4; SYED ABDUL MAJEED v. JOINT COLLECTOR - II 5; B. MALLA REDDY v.
STAET OF TELANGANA6; THOTA GANGA LAXMI v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 7 and PERLA PARTHA SARATHI REDDY v. SUB-REGISTRAR 8 1 (2022) 8 SCC 210 2 (2022) 7 SCC 1 3
WP.Nos.18957 of 2020 and 17372 of 2021 dated 25.01.2023 4 MANU/TN/7620/2022 5 2006 (5) ALD 348 6 2015 (5) ALD 595 7 (2010) 15 SCC 207 8 2013 (2) ALT 237 18
31. In ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED's case (1 supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine whether the registering authority performed its statutory duty in the manner prescribed by law in registering a document and that jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ousted. In VEENA SINGH's case (2 supra), it was held that the dispute related to the order passed by the District Registrar under Section 74 of the Registration Act by giving a finding that the sale deed has been duly signed by the appellant therein and liable to be registered. The said order was not interfered with by the learned Single Judge. Learned Division Bench allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the learned single Judge and the order of the District Registrar. SRI PATLOLLA RAMESHWAR REDDY's case (3 supra) related to succession proceedings and a decision was given based on the facts of the case and no principle of law was laid down.
32. In SRI SABBATHAL ALGAPPA TRUST's case (4 supra), it was observed that the registering authority having issued refusal check slip, not only entertained registration of document in respect of property covered by such refusal check slip. SYED ABDUL MAJEED's case (5 supra) and B. MALLA REDDY's (6 supra) deal with proceedings under Sections 38-E, 32 and 40 of the Tenancy 19 Act. In THOTA GANGA LAXMI's case (7 supra), it was held that there is no need for the appellants to approach civil Court when cancellation deed was wholly void and non-est in the eye of law. In PERLA PARTHA SARATHI REDDY's case (8 supra), it was observed that the petitioner suppressed the fact that he has earlier filed writ petition for issuance of pattadar passbooks and the relief sought in the instant writ petition for registration of document was declined and the writ petition was dismissed, as the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands.
33. All the aforesaid judgments are of no help to the petitioner, as none of the cases deal with parallel remedy where the party, who has filed a writ petition, has earlier filed a civil suit, which is specific to the instant case.
34. Petitioners No.1 to 5 instituted a suit in O.S.No.315 of 2019 on the filed of the XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District Courts at L.B. Nagar, seeking declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendants No.1 to 10, who are unofficial respondents No. 10 to 19 herein in respect of the subject property. On reading of the plaint averments, it is seen that claim of the petitioners in the suit and in this writ petition is based on the same set of facts and title history. The petitioners were granted injunction in IA.No.333 of 2019 in O.S.No.315 of 2019 by order dated 20 25.02.2020 restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. In IA.No.36 of 2021, order dated 21.01.2021 was passed in favour of the petitioners granting police protection to implement injunction order.
35. Having instituted the suit in O.S.No.315 of 2019, the petitioners have approached this Court in 2022. The additional facts pleaded by the petitioners in this writ petition are that after succession was granted in favour of the defendants in the suit, several sale deeds have been executed in favour of third parties (respondents No.18 to 23 herein). From the documents filed by the petitioners, it appears that there is no order passed by the trial restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. The only injunction order passed is to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs- petitioners herein. The respondents No.13 and 18 to 222 submitted that they are not parties to the suit.
36. In the instant case, the petitioners have already instituted a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. Having availed effective alternate remedy before the civil Court, the petitioners choose to approach this Court. In fact, the petitioners ought to have sought for an injunction order restraining the defendants from alienating the suit properties. Even if third party rights are created 21 during the pendency of the suit, such sale deeds are hit by the doctrine of lis pendense. The succession proceedings, subsequent pattadar passbooks and thereafter, execution of sale deeds which are issued/executed pendendi lite do not per se confer any title in favour of the defendants/subsequent purchasers and will be subject to the result of the suit. Even otherwise, the relief, which is sought in this writ petition, can always be sought in the suit. The petitioners can also seek for amendment of plaint, if additional properties are sold. In the facts and circumstances of the case, invoking writ jurisdiction by the petitioners is unwarranted.
37. In the light of the above discussion, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to implead third parties/subsequent purchasers of the subject property in the suit and also seek for injunction order restraining alienation of suit properties pending disposal of the suit. It is made clear that several other factual and legal issues raised by the learned counsel on either side have not been discussed in this order as the writ petition is dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioners have already availed suit remedy.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J January 20, 2025/DSK