Telangana High Court
Mudusu Sugunaiah And 3 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 27 March, 2024
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.17929 AND 23949 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER :
Since the subject matter and the parties are the same in both the writ petitions, with the consent of both sides, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P. No.17929 of 2021 is filed challenging the order passed in Old Case No.B25802019, Old Revenue Court, Tahsildar, Kondamallepally (New Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/1173/2021) dated 08.07.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 2020 (for short 'ROR Act 2020') and CCLA Circular No.1/2021 dated 15.01.2021.
3. W.P. No.23949 of 2021 is filed challenging the consequential succession and mutation proceedings vide Khata No.60483 and Pass Book No.T28140050889 dated 05.08.2021 in favour of respondent No.5 and the sale deed document No.1047 of 2021 dated 06.08.2021 in favour of respondent No.6 by respondent Page 2 of 12 BVR,J WP Nos.17929 & 23949 of 2021 No.4 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-06 guntas in Survey No.79/AUM, Ac.0-04 guntas in Survey No.79/RU, Acs.3-01 guntas in Survey No.78AA and Acs.3-00 guntas in Survey No.78/AA; total admeasuring Acs.6-11 guntas; situated at Gummadavelli Village, Kondamallepally Mandal, Nalgonda District, without issuing any notice as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 6 of the ROR Act 2020 and also in violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
4. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the same. Additionally respondent No.6 is added in W.P. No.23949 of 2021 who is purchaser of the subject property from respondent No.5 under the sale deed bearing document No.1047 of 2021 dated 06.08.2021.
5.1. It is claimed that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Acs.11-05 guntas in Survey Nos.78, 79 and 80 situated at Gummadavelli Village, Kondamallepally Mandal, Nalgonda District. The subject land was Page 3 of 12 BVR,J WP Nos.17929 & 23949 of 2021 acquired by the ancestors viz., Mr. Mudusu Lachaiah S/o. Mr. Sayanna and Mr. Mudusu Beeraiah S/o. Mr. Venkaiah, of the petitioners by way of simple sale deed (sada binama) dated 19.04.1959 from one Mr. Mudusu Durgaiah who is grandfather of respondent No.5 - Mr. Mudusu Yadagiri. It is stated that valid sale consideration was paid on the date of execution of the simple sale deed. The name of the grandfather of the petitioners was entered in the occupant column of the pahanis since 1959-60 to 1970-71. Thereafter, from 1970-71 onwards, the names of the petitioners were entered as occupants and continued in possession column till 2010-11.
5.2. It is submitted that Mr. Mudusu Durgaiah and his legal heirs including respondent No.5 never made any claim or attempted to get their names recorded either in possession column or patta in respect of the subject land in view of the simple sale deed dated 19.04.1959. The name of Mr. Mudusu Durgaiah, who is grandfather of respondent No.5, was reflected in pattadar column, however, he did not have any manner of right, title and Page 4 of 12 BVR,J WP Nos.17929 & 23949 of 2021 interest over the subject land till now and he was not in possession of the subject land.
5.3. It is submitted that application in Form - X under Section 5-A of the ROR Act 1971 read with Rule 22 of Rules 1989 (Repealed) was submitted by the petitioners for regularisation of simple sale deed dated 19.04.1959 on 08.06.2016 and on 22.10.2020. Respondent No.4 kept the Form - X application pending for the reasons best known to him. Evidencing physical possession and enjoyment of the subject property, a Grama Sabha Resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat, Gummadavelli Village declaring that the petitioners are in unobjectionable peaceful physical possession of the subject property since the date of purchase under the simple sale deed dated 19.04.1959. There was also an understanding reduced into writing by respondent No.5 on 30.07.2017 with reference to payment of additional sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) to confirm the sale in 1959 by his grandfather. Respondent No.5, his mother and elder brother were signatories to the said understanding. By violating the said understanding Page 5 of 12 BVR,J WP Nos.17929 & 23949 of 2021 entered before the village elders, respondent No.5 objected to the claim made by the petitioners in Form - X (regularisation application under Section 5-A of the ROR Act 1971) before respondent No.4.
5.4. It is submitted that respondent No.4 though competent and empowered to pass orders on Form - X application filed under Section 5-A of the ROR Act 1971 for regularisation and validation of the sale, did not pronounce any orders until the ROR Act 1971 was repealed by the enactment of ROR Act 2020.
6. Heard Mr. P. Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. G. Dhananjai, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.P. No.17929 of 2021 and respondent Nos.5 and 6 in W.P. No.23949 of 2021, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and perused the material on record.
7.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that regularisation claim made by the petitioners in Case Page 6 of 12 BVR,J WP Nos.17929 & 23949 of 2021 No.B/2580/2019 was mechanically transferred to the Special Tribunal and assigned new Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/1173/2021. After promulgation of ROR Act 2020, the power conferred on respondent No.4 is divested and respondent No.2 was conferred with jurisdiction to entertain simple sale deed dated 19.04.1959 vide Circular No.1/2021 dated 15.01.2021 of the CCLA.
7.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that regularisation application submitted by the petitioners under Form - X was filed well before the ROR Act 2020 came into force and ROR Act 1971 was repealed. The Special Tribunal constituted under Section 16 of the ROR Act 2020 has limited jurisdiction to entertain only pending appeals under Section 5(5) and revisions under Section 9 of the ROR Act 1971, and that the Special Tribunal is not conferred with original jurisdiction.
7.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and nonest in the eye of law, and therefore, liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel requested this Court to remand the matter to Page 7 of 12 BVR,J WP Nos.17929 & 23949 of 2021 respondent No.2 for conducting proper enquiry in accordance with law on regularisation application submitted by the petitioners.
7.4. The learned senior counsel appearing for unofficial respondents submitted that there is no question of consideration of regularisation application of the petitioners under the provisions of the ROR Act 1971 which was repealed. It is submitted that respondent No.5 and his family members had been disputing the sale transaction under the alleged simple sale deed dated 19.04.1959. There is no valid transfer of title under the provisions of the Registration Act 1908. Thus, the question of the petitioners or their family members claiming interest over the subject property does not arise. The simple sale deed dated 19.04.1959 is fabricated and cannot be implemented under the provisions of the ROR Act 2020. Circular No.1/2021 dated 15.01.2021 cannot confer power on respondent No.2 under the ROR Act 1971. The original authority is the Tahsildar / Mandal Revenue Officer in terms of Section 5-A of the ROR Act 1971. Circular No.1/2021 dated 15.01.2021 is contrary to the provisions of the ROR Act 1971. Page 8 of 12
BVR,J WP Nos.17929 & 23949 of 2021 7.5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents submitted that assuming the authorities have committed mistake by transferring regularisation application to the Special Tribunal as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners. It is submitted that the ROR Act 1971 stood repealed by the Act ROR Act 2020 and the registered sale deed document No.1047/2021 dated 06.08.2021 was validly executed by respondent No.5 in favour of respondent No.6. The petitioners do not have locus standi to file these writ petitions as they have no semblance of right over the subject property. Further, the provision under Section 5-A of the ROR Act 1971 dealing with regularisation is no more available in the statute book.
8. In the course of hearing, Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel, fairly conceded that the Special Tribunal has wrongly assumed jurisdiction in Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/1173 /2021. However, the learned senior counsel submitted that in view of the ROR Act 1971 being repealed and the provision under Section 5-A of the ROR Act 1971 read with Rule 22 of the ROR Page 9 of 12 BVR,J WP Nos.17929 & 23949 of 2021 Rules 1989 not being there in the statute, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. At the most, the petitioners can agitate their rights before the civil Court.
9. The learned senior counsel has not referred to any legal provision or precedent in support of his contention that the Tahsildar is divested of his power to entertain regularisation application in Form - X under the ROR Act 1971 and the ROR Rules 1989 made thereunder, prior to 29.10.2020 when ROR Act 2020 came into force. To a query by this Court as to what is the remedy available to the petitioners due to the mistake committed by the authorities in transferring regularisation application of the petitioners to the Special Tribunal, the learned senior counsel submitted that the remedy available is only to approach the civil Court.
10. This Court is not convinced with the aforesaid submissions of the learned senior counsel. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the mistakes done by the authorities. In any case, the regularisation application in Form - X was, admittedly, Page 10 of 12 BVR,J WP Nos.17929 & 23949 of 2021 submitted by the petitioners prior to the ROR Act 2020 coming into force. Unfortunately, the said application was mistakenly transferred to the Special Tribunal and the impugned order came to be passed. This Court does not have any hesitation to hold that the impugned order suffers from lack of inherent jurisdiction, and therefore, liable to be set aside. The Special Tribunal is not vested with any power to exercise original jurisdiction for mutation under Section 5 or regularisation under Section 5-A of the ROR Act 1971. The Special Tribunal constituted under Section 16 of the ROR Act 2020 has limited jurisdiction to only entertain pending appeals under Section 5(5) of the Act and revisions under Section 9 of the ROR Act 1971.
11.1. For the aforesaid reasons, W.P. No.17929 of 2021 is allowed. The order in Old Case No.B25802019, Old Revenue Court, Tahsildar, Kondamallepally (New Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/ 1173/2021) dated 08.07.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda District, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar, Kondamallepally Mandal, Nalgonda District, who shall consider the regularisation application of the petitioner in Form - X Page 11 of 12 BVR,J WP Nos.17929 & 23949 of 2021 dated 08.06.2018 in respect of the subject lands admeasuring Ac.0-06 guntas in Survey No.79/AUM, Ac.0-04 guntas in Survey No.79/RU, Acs.3-01 guntas in Survey No.78AA and Acs.3-00 guntas in Survey No.78/AA; total admeasuring Acs.6-11 guntas; situated at Gummadavelli Village, Kondamallepally Mandal, Nalgonda District, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, respondent Nos.5 and 6 and other interested persons, and to pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made in this order.
11.2. Consequently, W.P. No.23949 of 2021 is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate steps to challenge the succession and mutation proceedings vide Khata No.60483 and Pass Book No.T28140050889 dated 05.08.2021 in favour of respondent No.5 and the sale deed document No.1047 of 2021 dated 06.08.2021 in favour of respondent No.6 by respondent No.4 in respect of the subject lands subject to result of regularisation application of the petitioners as mentioned above. No order as to costs.
Page 12 of 12
BVR,J WP Nos.17929 & 23949 of 2021 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions stand closed.
______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J March 27, 2024.
PV