Telangana High Court
Ravipati Suneetha vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 20 October, 2020
Author: A.Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
W.P.No.9712 OF 2020
ORDER:
Heard Ms.K.Hemalatha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Sri Karanam Ramesh, the learned counsel for respondent No.5. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
The present writ petition is filed challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under Section 5 (b) of The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, (in short 'ROR Act'), canceling the mutation proceedings already issued in favour of the petitioner herein.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the unofficial respondent i.e. respondent No.5 has filed the appeal after a lapse of more than 10 years and the RDO without appreciating the facts of the case in proper perspective has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.5. Learned counsel has also stated that it is the case of the petitioner that originally one Md.Jahangir was the owner of the land in survey No.687 admeasuring Ac.1-20 guntas situated at Manchal Village and that the petitioner has purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No.4796/2009, dated 16.09.2009. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) vide File No.B/4589/2009 2 AAR, J WP No.9712 of 2020 dated 21.10.2009 has passed mutation orders in favour of the petitioner and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued. When the vendors of the respondent No.5 tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, she was constrained to file a suit before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and the same was numbered as O.S.No.56 of 2012. The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, vide judgment and decree, dated 24.09.2019, has decreed the suit filed by the petitioner. The RDO without appreciating the material facts of the case has passed the impugned order which runs contrary to the judgment of the civil Court and the impugned order literally amounts to re-writing the judgment passed by the competent civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the RDO, based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, has passed the impugned order without serving a copy of the report on the petitioner or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to counter the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the impugned order was passed by the RDO on the verge of his retirement under the influence of respondent No.5 and has prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the RDO.
Respondent No.5 has filed counter denying the material averments made in the writ petition, but has also stated that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of 3 AAR, J WP No.9712 of 2020 suppression of facts, for filing a false affidavit, alternative and efficacious remedy of Revision and lastly, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for filing a false affidavit before this Court.
Learned counsel for R.5 has stated that the ex parte judgment and decree, dated 24.09.2019, obtained by the petitioner was set aside by the Hon'ble Additional Junior Civil Judge, on a petition being filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code by the vendors of R.5, and the petitioner was aware of passing of the order setting aside the judgment and decree, as on the date of filing the writ petition, yet she has filed a false statement stating that the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2019 has become final. Learned counsel for R.5 has further stated that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy by way of filing a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act before the Joint Collector, but for the reasons best known to her, she has filed the present writ petition by suppressing the material facts and also filed a false affidavit before this Court. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is liable to be punished for perjury and has prayed this Court not only to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner with exemplary costs but also to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner for filing a false affidavit.
A reply has been filed by the petitioner denying all the averments made in the counter affidavit.
4
AAR, J WP No.9712 of 2020 A perusal of the order of the RDO passed in the appeal case No.A2/1438/2019 dated 11.06.2020 reveals that originally Md.Jahangir was the owner of the land in survey No.687 admeasuring Ac.1-20 guntas and he has sold the same through a registered sale deed to one Yelamoni Narsamma. Thereafter, the name of the purchaser Yelamoni Narsamma was recorded in the pahani for the year 2004- 2005 and in the subsequent year i.e. 2005-2006, the name of Md.Jahangir was recorded in the pahani. Taking advantage of the fact that his name was reflected in the pahani for the year 2005-2006, Md.Jahangir had sold the very same property to the petitioner herein in the year 2008 and as a matter of fact as on the date of sale of the property in favour of the petitioner, Md.Jahangir did not have any title to the property and as such the sale has to be treated as a sham document without there being any physical land on ground. Further, the file in which the order of the MRO has been passed is missing from the office of the Tahsildar and as such the very veracity of the orders passed by the Tahsildar is in doubt. Even though elaborate arguments have been made on the facts, this Court is not inclined to go into the same. As per Section 9 of the ROR Act, any person aggrieved by the orders passed by the RDO had a remedy by way of filing a revision before the Joint Collector/Additional Collector. 5
AAR, J WP No.9712 of 2020 In view of the same, the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing a revision before the Joint Collector. This Court under Article 226 cannot go into the disputed questions of title and therefore not inclined to go in to the merits of the case. This Court as well as the Apex Court have time and again held that where there is an alternate and efficacious remedy available under the Statute, the same has to be availed and the parties cannot be permitted to approach the Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For the afore-stated reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority by way of filing a revision against the impugned order passed by the RDO, if she is so advised.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 20-10-2020 sur