Telangana High Court
E.J. David vs Veera Reddy on 15 December, 2020
Author: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Civil Revision Petition No.978 of 2020
Between:
E. J. David, S/o. Late E.J. John,
Aged about : 60 years,
Occ : Business, R/o.H.No.1-2-49/Gi,
Christian Colony, Mahboobnagar,
Mahboobnagar District,
Telangana State
...Petitioner/Appellant
And
The Additional Collector,
Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy District,
Telangana State and others
...Respondents
Contempt Case No.1681 of 2019
in
WPMP.No.49482 of 2017 in Writ Petition No.39913 of 2017
Between:
E. J. David, S/o. Late E.J. John,
Aged about : 60 years,
Occ : Business, R/o.H.No.1-2-49/Gi,
Christian Colony, Mahboobnagar,
Mahboobnagar District,
Telangana State.
...Petitioner
And
K. Saraswathi,
Tahsildar / Mandal Revenue Officer,
Kandi Mandal (Previously Sangareddy Mandal),
Sangareddy District,
Telangana State, and others
...Respondents
::2:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
Contempt Case No.712 of 2020
In
WPMP.No.49482 of 2017 in Writ Petition No.39913 of 2017
Between:
E. J. David, S/o. Late E.J. John,
Aged about : 60 years,
Occ : Business, R/o.H.No.1-2-49/Gi,
Christian Colony, Mahboobnagar,
Mahboobnagar District,
Telangana State.
...Petitioner
And
Veera Reddy,
Additional Collector, Sangareddy Division,
Sangareddy District,
Telangana State, and others
...Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 15.12.2020
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether His Lordships wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
::3:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Civil Revision Petition No.978 of 2020
%15.12.2020
# E.J. David
...Petitioner
And
$ The Additional Collector,
Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy District,
Telangana State and others
...Respondents
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K.S. Murthy
^Counsel for the respondent
in Civil Revision Petition No.978
of 2020 : Government Pleader for Arbitration
^Counsel for the respondents
in Contempt Case Nos.1681 of 2019
and 712 of 2020 : Learned Advocate-General
? Cases referred
1. (1973) 1 SCC 446
2. (1973) 1 SCC 761
3. (2001) 8 SCC 97
4. (2006) 3 SCC 312
5. (1995) 3 SCC 426
6. 2001 (6) ALT 397 (DB)
7. (2017) 16 SCC 418
8. MANU/SC/0562/2020
9. 2013(2) ALD 177 = Manu/AP/0927/2012 (DB)
10. AIR 1982 SC 1081
11. (1997) 3 SCC 443
12. (2011) 3 SCC 363
::4:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Interlocotury Application Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2020
In
Civil Revision Petition No.978 of 2020;
And
Civil Revision Petition No.978 of 2020
And
Contempt Case No.1681 of 2019
And
Contempt Case No.712 of 2020
COMMON ORDER :
Since the issue raised in the Civil Revision Petition and the two Contempt Cases 1681 of 2019 and 712 of 2020 relates to the same land claimed by the same person who filed these cases, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.
C.R.P.No.978 of 2020
2. C.R.P.No.978 of 2020 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dt.26.06.2020 in Case No.F3/2685/2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Sangareddy Division at Sangareddy (1st respondent) under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') confirming the order dt.04.11.2019 in File No.A3/2823/2019 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy District (2nd respondent) under Section 5(5) of the said Act dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order ::5:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch passed by the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District in File No.A/4192/2019 dt.22.03.2019.
The claim of the petitioner
3. The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.5.01 gt. in Sy.Nos.990 and 1052 situated at Kandi - Chimnapur Village (Dharmasagar) of Sangareddy Mandal and District under registered sale deed No.19847/2013 dt.08.11.2013 from one Ancha Srinivasa Rao.
4. The said Ancha Srinivasa Rao had purchased Ac.18.03 gts. at Kandi - Chimanpur Village (Dharma Sagar), Sangareddy Mandal of erstwhile Medak District under two registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.14064/2007 and 14065/2007 dt.05.07.2007 from G.Suman Babu and R.Satish Yadav. Pattadar passbook and title deed had been issued to Ancha Srinivasa Rao by the Revenue Authorities for the said land vide proceedings of the Tahsildar, Sangareddy in B/10/300/07-1 dt.13.09.2007.
5. These lands were part of an extent of Ac.63.05 gts. originally owned by Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his family members whose name is reflected in the Pahani of 1967-68.
6. Panduranga Rao Deshmukh approached the Joint Collector on 06.08.2007 to direct the concerned Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Sangareddy to conduct survey of the Dharma Sagar ::6:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch land which is situated in Kandi - Chimnapur Village and assign new survey number for it.
7. When Joint Collector did not take action, Panduranga Rao Deshmukh filed W.P.No.25662 of 2007 in the High Court which disposed of the said Writ Petition on 03.12.2007 permitting the petitioner to make fresh representation before the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Sangareddy; and if such representation is made, the latter was directed to measure the land and submit a report to the Joint Collector without undue delay.
8. Panduranga Rao Deshmukh filed C.C.No.90 of 2008 in the High Court alleging inaction by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records and it was disposed of on 30.04.2010 directing the respondents to demarcate the land sold by the petitioner of extent Ac.35.03 gts.in favour of Ancha Srinivasa Rao, Prasanna Lakshmi and Krishnaveni and assign appropriate survey numbers in respect of the land retained by the petitioner therein and sold by him out of the extent of Ac.63.09 gts. at Kandi - Chimnapur Village;
9. Thereafter, another C.C.No.484 of 2011 was filed by the said Panduranga Rao Deshmukh alleging non-compliance of the order passed on 30.04.2010 in C.C.No.90 of 2008 which was disposed of on 09.09.2011 directing the respondent in the Contempt Case to furnish to the petitioner as well as to purchasers from him new survey numbers after assigning them to each part and parcel of "Billa ::7:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch Dakhala" land to the extent of Ac.35.03 gts. along with sketch within two (2) weeks from the date of filing of such application.
10. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Sangareddy mandal issued proceedings dt.16.02.2013 assigning new survey numbers for the extent of Ac.35.03 gts. situated at Kandi - Chimnapur Village and recorded in Revenue Records and pattadar passbooks/title deeds.
11. These are undisputed facts.
Petitioner's Application for mutation
12. The petitioner had applied in the prescribed format in Form 6A under the Act for mutation of the Ac.5.01 gt. of land purchased by him on 02.03.2015.
13. No action was taken by the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District on the said application. W.P.No.5473 of 2017
14. Petitioner filed W.P.No.5473 of 2017 in this Court to declare such inaction as illegal and to direct the Revenue Authorities to issue title deed and pattadar passbook in his favour.
15. On 11.02.2019, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District to take appropriate action on the petitioner's application within four (4) weeks.
::8:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
The order dt.22.03.2019 of the Primary Authority/Tahsildar
16. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District issued Endorsement No.A/4192/2019 dt.22.03.2019 rejecting the petitioner's application for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbook opining that:
(i) the land purchased by the petitioner is unsurveyed land, described as "Billa dakhala" land in Revenue records and there are no basic records such as Village Map, Tippan, Wasool Baqui, Sethwar etc. and these lands were not accounted for in the Khasra pahani of 1954-55;
(ii) that name of one Panduranga Rao Deshmukh was written in the pahani for the year 1967-68 without mentioning as to how he acquired rights over these lands; that the said person claimed that the land was a jagir and later as Inam land given by the Nizam of Hyderabad through a Muntakhab No.3354/1304 Fasli (1894), that he was Inamdar, but did not produce any Muntakhab; that he had no relationship with the land; that he stated in Proceedings under the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 that he does not have any interest and rights over these lands and asked for deletion of these lands from computation under him and his two brothers' family holdings; that he claimed title to Ac.63.05 gts. and also possession thereof and got his name recorded as pattedar in pahanies by managing the lower level officials; he then sold ::9:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch Ac.18.03 gts. to the petitioner's vendor Ancha Srinivasa Rao and also other extent to some third parties; that a clarification was given by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and a supplementary sethwar was issued vide Orders No.A1/1293/2010 assigning new survey numbers, but nowhere it is mentioned as private land;
(iii) that Government vide Memo No.2331/JA(1)/2010 dt.09.09.2010 had issued directions to the Collector, Medak District to issue instructions to the Registrar concerned not to register the subject lands and to protect them from encroachment; but the Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy suppressed this instruction and allowed registration; that the subject land has to be treated as Government land in all aspects; that no one is in physical possession over the land and it is fallow; and
(iv) that the land was declared under the Ceiling Act, 1973 and rights over these lands cannot be granted to anybody.
The order dt.04.11.2019 of the First Appellate Authority/Revenue Divisional Officer
17. Petitioner questioned the same by filing Appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy.
18. The said Appeal was also rejected stating as under:
(i) Petitioner was never in possession of the subject land and his name was deleted in all the Revenue records;
::10:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
(ii) It is not his ancestral property and no rights vest in him
for claiming it;
(iii) At present the land has fallen vacant and nobody is in possession over the land;
(iv) Sri Panduranga Rao Deshmukh claiming Ac.63.05 gts. of land appears to have manipulated the lower level officials and got his name included in the Pahani of 1967-68 without mentioning as to how he is related to the said lands;
(v) The Revenue records and orders of Land Reforms Tribunal and his own statement revealed that he was never in possession over the lands; but he started selling the lands without mentioning the survey numbers; and that he had no right to sell the land as he did not have valid title;
(vi) the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad vide letter No.N1/7696/08 dt.27.11.2010 issued directions to treat "Billa Dakhala" lands as Government lands and it is established beyond doubt that they are Government lands and possession of the said lands by the occupants does not confer any right to them over the said lands unless proper assignment is made to them under relevant provision of law;
::11:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
(vii) that the subject matter land is existing abutting to the National High Way No.9 near Kandi village of Kandi Mandal and at about an extent of 600 acres of land has been allotted for I.I.T. Hyderabad at Kandi and the construction of buildings of the Institution is in progress.
Consequent of sanction of the I.I.T. the subject matter lands have gained considerable significance and the value of the lands has also gone up to an un-expected level owing to which many people are trying to grab away the valuable Government lands in one way or the other. As such there is every need to enquire thoroughly into the nature of the land and take appropriate action for protecting the Government land in the interest of the Government;
(viii) Illegal transactions done by Sri Panduranga Rao Deshmukh, his brothers and successors have been cancelled by the Tahsildar, Kandi.
He accepted the correctness of the order dt.22.03.2019 passed by the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District and refused to interfere with it.
The order dt.26.06.2020 of the Revisional Authority/Additional Collector
19. Challenging the order dt.04.11.2019 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy in Case NO.F1/332/2019, petitioner ::12:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch filed Revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 before the Additional Collector, Sangareddy District. It was numbered as Case No.F3/2685/2019 and was dismissed on 26.06.2020.
20. The Additional Collector also held:
(i) that Kandi - Chimnapur Village is an unsurveyed village and the total extent of unsurveyed land is Ac.242.36 gts. which is referred to as "Billa Dakhala" land in Revenue records for which there is no Sethwar, Wasool Baqui, Tippan, Village Map etc. and it would not also be mentioned in the Kashra Pahani;
this land was illegally occupied by several local villagers without any rights whatsoever; since they are unsurveyed lands, their possession/occupation cannot be recorded anywhere;
(ii) Panduranga Rao Deshmukh got his name written in the Pahanies for the years 1967-68 for the first time without mentioning how he is related to these lands; he claimed that it was an Inam grant given by the Nizam through a Muntakhab No.3354/1304 Fasli, but the said Muntakhab had not seen the light of the day till today;
(iii) In Pahanies, this land is shown as Dasthagardhan lands;
(iv) Panduranga Rao Deshmukh stated in land ceiling proceedings that he had nothing to do with these lands and they should not have been computed to his holding;
::13:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
(v) The land is described as Shikam land (tank bed) and cannot be
treated as land for computing the holding of a declarant under the Land Ceiling law;
(vi) He has sold 35 acres to Ancha Srinivasa Rao and two others out of Ac.63.05 gts. without having any title and the petitioner is claiming that he had purchased Ac.5.01 gt. From Ancha Srinivasa Rao;
(vii) The Tahsildar had issued orders in File No.C/12312/2005-2 dt.13.12.2005 mutating the names of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his 2 brothers for Ac.63.00 verifying all facts but did not mention survey number; that he mentioned Billa Dakhala in the column dealing with survey number; it is not known how he granted mutation without verifying their title;
(viii) Subsequently another Tahsildar mutated Ac.35.03 gts. in favour of purchasers from Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his son Deepak Deshmukh vide proceedings No.B/10300/2007-1 dt.13.09.2007 and he also did not mention survey number and mentioned only Billa Dakhala; and continued the fraud which occurred initially in 2005.
(ix) Pursuant to the clarification given by Commissioner, Survey Settlement, Survey Department, all the lands of Chimnapur Village H/o Kandi were surveyed and a supplementary Sethwar has been issued vide orders No.A1/1293/2010 dt.21.05.2011 ::14:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch creating (197) survey numbers showing all the survey numbers as "Government Biladakila" Survey numbers including the subject matter lands of the petitioner herein. The basis for these survey numbers is the enjoyment of the land by the occupants/farmers. In the Supplementary Sethwar the names of Pandurangarao and his brothers did not figure as they were not in possession of any portion of the said un-surveyed land including the subject matter lands herein.
He then found fault with the order dt.13.12.2005 in File No.C/12312/2005-2 passed by the then MRO, Sangareddy and the subsequent order dt.13.09.2007 in File No.B/10300/2007-1 of the Tahsildar, Sangareddy and ultimately concluded that the legal title of petitioner's vendor is defective, that petitioner's vendor had no legal title over the said land, that vendor of the petitioner had pleaded in various Revenue Tribunal and the High Court that he had no interest or title over the subject land and got it deleted from his holdings; so he is setting aside order dt.13.12.2005 in File No.C/12312/2005-2 passed by the then MRO, Sangareddy and the subsequent order dt.13.09.2007 in File No.B/10300/2007-1 of the Tahsildar, Sangareddy; and directing the Tahsildar, Kandi to delete the names of third parties from the Revenue Records for the extent of Ac.63.05 gts. and record the same as Government lands and also to evict encroachers, if any, in the said lands and take it into Government custody with immediate effect.
::15:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
The present Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
21. Challenging the order dt.26.06.2020 in Case No.F3/2685/2019 of the Revisional Authority/Additional Collector, Sangareddy, the present Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court is conferred power of superintendence over quasi judicial authoritites such as respondents 1-3
22. The Tahsildar , Kandi Mandal (Respondent no.3) is the primary authority under Section 4 of the Act to whom persons acquiring title to land have to approach the Mandal Revenue Officer ( now re- designated as Tahsildar) to initiate the process of mutation; the Revenue Divisional officer , Sanga Reddy Division (respondent no.2) is the appellate authority under Section 5(5) of the Act to be approached if the primary authority has refused to do mutation sought by an applicant under Sec.4; and the Additional Collector, Sanga Reddy ( 1st respondent) is the Revisional authority designated under Sec.9 of the Act to revise the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer under sec.5(5) of the Act.
23. Way back in 1972, a 3 Judge bench of the Supreme Court held in Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit1, that quasi judicial authorities, like the respondents 1-3, are subject to the supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. It declared:
"14. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is vested with the power of superintendence over the courts and 1 (1973) 1 SCC 446 ::16:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch tribunals in the State. Acting as a quasi-judicial authority under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, the appellant was subject to the superintendence of the High Court. Accordingly the decisions of the High Court were binding on him. He could not get away from them by adducing factually wrong and illegitimate reasons." (emphasis supplied) Scope of power of the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India
24. With regard to the scope of power of the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court had held in 1973 in K.K. Chari v. R.M. Seshadri2 that a quasi judicial authority cannot wrongly decide a jurisdictional fact and confer jurisdiction on itself, and in such a situation the High court can exercise it's power and interfere with it's order. It held:
"A quasi-judicial tribunal acting within jurisdiction may decide rightly or may decide wrongly. If it decides wrongly there are provisions in the Act itself for appeal, revision and ultimately even revision by the High Court under the provisions of Section 115 CPC or even under Article 227 of the Constitution. Of course, by a wrong decision on a jurisdictional fact, a quasi-judicial tribunal with a limited jurisdiction cannot confer jurisdiction on itself."(emphasis supplied)
25. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd3. the Supreme Court summarized the manner of exercise of power by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India in the following passage:
"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of 2 (1973) 1 SCC 761 3 (2001) 8 SCC 97 ::17:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals.
Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to."(emphasis supplied) So the Art.227 confers a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner.
26. In Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh4, it was emphasized that "errors of jurisdiction" can be corrected under Art.27 of the Constitution of India by a High Court. The Supreme Court held:
"13. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be restrictive in the sense that it is to be invoked only to correct errors of jurisdiction. But when a court asks itself a wrong question or approaches the question in an improper manner, even if it comes to a finding of fact, the said finding of 4 (2006) 3 SCC 312 ::18:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch fact cannot be said to be one rendered with jurisdiction and it will still be amenable to correction at the hands of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution."(emphasis supplied) Consideration of the instant case
27. In the instant case, the respondents 1-3 , in exercise of powers conferred under the Act have declared that petitioner's vendor has no title to the subject land and ought to be evicted therefrom along with other third parties.
28. Normally, such concurrent findings of fact by a hierarchy of quasi-judicial authorities under an Act, as in the instant case, are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of limited supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High court over them by Art.227 of the Constitution of India.
29. But, according to counsel for the petitioner, there are serious jurisdictional errors in the orders passed by respondents 1-3; that no jurisdiction conferred on the respondents 1 to 3 under the Act to decide questions of title to land whose mutation is sought; that they have also no jurisdiction to direct eviction of persons in occupation of the land; and they have also acted in blatant violation of interim order dt. 01.11.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.49482 of 2017 in W.P.No.39913 of 2017 in favour of the petitioner and another directing the respondents in the Revision apart from the State of Telangana not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by himself and his co- petitioner of the above land pending further orders. (CC No.1681 of ::19:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch 2019 and 712 of 2020 were filed by petitioner for willful disobedience of this order by the respondents 1-3).
30. These are serious allegations about usurpation of jurisdiction by the respondents 1 to 3 which they do not possess under the Act, and also of acting in willful disobedience of an interim order dt. 01.11.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.49482 of 2017 in W.P.No.39913 of 2017 passed by this High Court, which certainly require examination by this Court in this Revision filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.
31. As can be seen from the facts set out above, in the orders dt.26.06.2020 in Case No.F3/2685/2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Sangareddy Division at Sangareddy (1st respondent), the orders dt.04.11.2019 in Case No.F1/332/2019 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy (2nd respondent) and order dt.23.03.2019 of the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal (3rd respondent), they decided that the subject property i.e Ac.5.01 gts. in Sy.Nos.990 and 1052 situated at Kandi - Chimnapur Village of Sangareddy Mandal and District is Government property, that petitioner's vendor had not title to it and he could not have sold it to the petitioner under registered sale deed No.19847/2013 dt.08.11.2013; and the Additional Collector even directed the Tahsildar, Kandi (3rd respondent) to evict petitioner and other encroachers and take them into Government custody with immediate effect.
::20:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
Whether title to property can be decided by authorities under the Act?
32. I shall first consider whether any power is conferred on the respondents 1-3 under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 to decide questions of title to property for which application for mutation has been made under the Act.
33. The Act was enacted in the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books and later, post bifurcation of the said composite State into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f.2.6.2014, got renamed as the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, the record of rights in respect of the lands are required to be prepared and updated.
34. Section 3-A contains a non-abstante clause.
35. Section 4 says that acquisition of rights in land are to be intimated to the Tahsildar.
It states:
"4. Acquisition of rights to be intimated:
(1) Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise any right as, owner, pattadar of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right, to the Tahsildar within thirty days from the date of such acquisition. The Village ::21:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch Revenue Officer on noting the acquisition of rights in his jurisdiction shall intimate the Tahsildar within one (1) day as prescribed. The Tahsildar shall give or send a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation to the person making it:
Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian his guardian or other persons having charge of his property shall intimate the fact of such acquisition to the Tahsildar.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, every registering officer appointed under the Act and registering a document relating to a transaction in land, such as sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise shall intimate the Mandal Revenue Officer of the Mandal manually or electronically in which the property is situate of such transaction, as prescribed.
Explanation-I: The right mentioned above shall include a mortgage without possession and a right determined by civil court.
Explanation-II:A person in whose favour a mortgage is discharged or extinguished, or a lease is determined, acquires a right within the meaning of this section.".
36. Section 5 (1) deals with amendment and updating of record of rights. It states:
" Sec.5 (1). On receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in section 4, the Mandal Revenue Officer]shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence thereof and shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination:
Provided that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf.
::22:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
(2) Where the Mandal Revenue Officer has reason to believe that an acquisition of any right of a description to which section 4 applies has taken place and of which an intimation has not been made to him under that section and where he considers that an amendment has to be effected in the record of rights, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall carry out the said amendment in the record of rights.
(3) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The Mandal Revenue Officer shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit. (4) Every order passed under this section shall be communicated to the persons concerned.
(5) Against every order of the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed], within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall, subject to the provisions of section 9, be final.
6) The Tahsildar shall have the power to correct clerical errors, if any, on the request of the Pattadar or any person interested in the land in the Pass Books as prescribed.'
37. Section 6 states:
"Every entry in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise amended in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
::23:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
38. Section 6-A provides for recording of entries in pass books and issuance of pass books reads thus:
" 6-A.(1) Every Owner, Pattadar, of any land shall apply for the issue of a pass book to the Mandal Revenue Officer on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. The owner-pattadar shall apply for the issue of a title deed in addition to a passbook:
Provided that an occupant of an inam land is also eligible to apply for the issue of a 35[pass book and title deed] as an occupant;
Provided further that where no application is made under this sub- section the Mandal Revenue Officer may suo-motu or mandatorily mutate and complete the process within a period of fifteen days] issue a Pass Book after following the procedure prescribed under sub-section (2) and collect the fee prescribed therefor.
(2) On making such application, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall cause an enquiry to be made in such manner as may be prescribed and shall issue a title deed and.pass book in accordance with the Record of Rights with such particulars and in such form as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such title deed and pass book shall be issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer unless the Record of Rights have been brought upto date.
(3) The entries in the title deed and pass book may be corrected either suo-motu or on an application made to the Mandal Revenue Officer in the manner prescribed.
(4) The Government may prescribe by rules the manner in which the title deed and pass book may be issued to all owners, pattadars and to such other person in accordance with the record of rights.
(5) The title deed issued under sub-section (1) and duly certified by the Mandal Revenue Officer or such other authority as maybe prescribed, shall be the title deed in respect of an owner pattadar and it shall have the same evidentiary value with regard to the title for the purpose of creation of equitable mortgage under the ::24:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as a document registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 has, under the law.
39. Section 6-B requires a pass book holder presenting a document of title deed before a registering officer to get entries made in his title deed and pass book of any transaction done by him.
"Section 6-B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, every pass book holder presenting a document of title deed before a registering officer appointed under the said Act, on or after coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books (Amendment) Act, 1994 relating to a transaction in land, such as purchase or sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise shall get the necessary entries in respect of such transaction recorded in the title deed and pass book by such registering officer.
(2) Every pass book holder acquiring a right by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, court decree, or otherwise shall get necessary entries in respect of such right recorded in the title deed and in the pass book by the Mandal Revenue Officer."
40. Section 8 is very important and it states:
"8.(1) No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to an entry made in any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amended.
(2) If any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter-VI of the ::25:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration."
41. Section 11 of the Act provides for rule making power. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, rules known as A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') have been framed.
42. Rule 4 prescribes the procedure for preparation of Record of Rights and updating of the records of rights.
43. Rule 5 provides the procedure to be adopted by the Recording authority after issuance of notification by the Commissioner to make the Record of Rights update in the matter.
44. Rule 6 provides for making an enquiry in the village. Rule 8 enables the recording authority to summon the attendance of any person for purpose of examining him in connection with the enquiry. The recording authority may require any person to produce any document believed to be in his possession, enter upon, inspect and measure or cause to be measured any land.
45. Rule 9 provides for passing of the order by the recording authority. The said rule to the extent relevant for the purpose of this case reads as follows:
" Rule 9(1)(a): After due completion of enquiry, referred to in rule of the recording authority shall pass orders in respect of-
(i) all cases requiring change of registry necessitated by the death of registered holder i.e., succession by heirship, if succession ::26:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch is not disputed. With regard to the entry of the names of the heirs, the names of all the heirs entitled to shares in the property should be registered.
(ii) all cases requiring change of registry necessitated by sale, gift etc., through registered documents, if there is no dispute. In all cases of absolute transfer of title, the Registry of a holding should be altered to correspond with the transfer of its ownership. Where the registered holder is not a party to a registered transaction, the registered holder should be enquired. The parties involved in a transfer should be connected by a complete chair of registered documents. Unregistered documents are not admissible as evidence in this enquiry to prove the ownership or title of their property. Where the chain is not complete, no transfer of registry shall be done. Such cases shall be referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer for disposal after confirmation of the Record of Rights for the village.
(iii) xxxxx
(iv) No order shall be passed for the change of registry or splitting of joint pattas, unless the recording authority is satisfied that the change of Registry or splitting of joint patta is not in contravention of any of the provisions of-
(1)The A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.
(2) The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
(3) The A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
(4) The A.P. (AA) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act.
(5) The A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.
(6) The A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959, Regulation 1 of 1959.
::27:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
(7) The A.P. Mahals (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation 1969.
(8) The A.P. Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969.
(9) The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970."
46. Having noticed the important provisions of the Act, we may note that usually only 'undisputed' transactions of transfer of title are to be dealt with under the provisions of the Act, though there is some limited scope of enquiry provided under the Act for the quasi judicial authorities like respondents 1 to 3 exercising powers under the Act.
47. In Nagar Palika Vs. Jagat Singh5, the Supreme Court also held:
"In any case, an order of mutation in the name of the respondent in the revenue records cannot be a source of title. In the case of Nirman Singh v. Lal Rudra Partab Narain Singh1, in respect of mutation of names in revenue records, it was said:
"They are nothing of the kind as has been pointed out times innumerable by the Judicial Committee. They are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries instituted in the interest of the State for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be put into occupation of it with greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid.
It is little less than a travesty of judicial proceeding to regard the two orders of the Extra Commissioner of Bahraich and Mr M.L. Ferrar, Deputy Commissioner, as judicial determinations expelling proprio vigore any individual from any proprietary right or interest he claims in immovable property."(emphasis supplied) 5 (1995) 3 SCC 426 ::28:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch
48. Though the State of Telangana had enacted the Telangana Rights in Land & Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 by repealing the Telangana Rights in Land& Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, and the new enactment of 2020 was brought into force from 29-10-2020, the new Act of 2020 has not been given retrospective affect and so it does not invalidate the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 under the 1971 Act. So the provisions of the new Act of 2020 need not be taken into account while considering the correctness of the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 which are challenged in this Revision which had been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 10.09.2020 itself, much before the coming into force of the new Act.
49. Since essentially the Act details with aspect of mutation in revenue records, and such mutation orders, as per settled law, cannot be a source of title (see District Collector and others Vs. Harikishan Agarwal and others6), the Act cannot be interpreted as conferring powers on the quasi judicial authorities like respondents 1 to 3 exercising powers under the Act to decide questions of title to the land.
50. In Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust v. Collector, Haridwar7, the Supreme Court held that administrative authorities like Collectors have no jurisdiction to decide questions of title. It declared:
6
2001 (6) ALT 397 (DB) 7 (2017) 16 SCC 418 ::29:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch "24. The basic issue which has to be addressed in the light of the above principles is whether the Collector had jurisdiction to decide a question of title by assuming to himself the power of an adjudicatory forum. The order of the Collector indicates that the issue as to whether the property would vest in the State Government as a result of a failure of heirs within the meaning of Section 29 was a seriously disputed issue turning upon an adjudication of conflicting claims. In the process of determining the issue purportedly under Section 29, the Collector has adjudicated upon various factual matters including (i) whether the property was purchased in 1955 by Mohan Lal with the funds provided by Swamy Udhav Das; (ii) the legality of the registered will stated to have been executed by the Swamy on 22-10-1956; (iii) the identity of the person who executed the deed of acceptance dated 23-3-1958 in comparison with the person in whose name the patta had been acquired in 1955; (iv) whether Mohan Lal died prior to the execution of the deed of trust on 11-11-1957; and (v) whether a presumption in regard to the death of Mohan Lal would arise upon his not being heard of allegedly for seven years. The Collector has proceeded to adjudicate on these, among other, factual issues. Section 29, it may be noted, embodies a principle but does not provide a procedural mechanism for adjudication upon disputed questions. The canvas of the controversy before the Court is an abundant indication of matters which were seriously in dispute. The contention of the State that the property would devolve upon it as a result of Mohan Lal being presumed to be dead and having left behind no legal heir is seriously in question. Such a matter could not have been adjudicated upon by the Collector by assuming to himself a jurisdiction which is not conferred upon him by law."
25. The principle that the law does not readily accept a claim to escheat and that the onus rests heavily on the person who asserts that an individual has died intestate, leaving no legal heir, qualified to succeed to the property, is founded on a sound rationale. Escheat is a doctrine which recognises the State as a paramount sovereign in whom property would vest only upon a clear and established case of a failure of heirs. This principle is based on the norm that in a society governed by the Rule of Law, the court will not presume that private titles are overridden in favour of the State, in the absence of a clear ::30:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch case being made out on the basis of a governing statutory provision.
To allow administrative authorities of the State--including the Collector, as in the present case--to adjudicate upon matters of title involving civil disputes would be destructive of the Rule of Law. The Collector is an officer of the State. He can exercise only such powers as the law specifically confers upon him to enter upon private disputes. In contrast, a civil court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon all matters involving civil disputes except where the jurisdiction of the court is taken away, either expressly or by necessary implication, by statute. In holding that the Collector acted without jurisdiction in the present case, it is not necessary for the Court to go as far as to validate the title which is claimed by the petitioner to the property. The Court is not called upon to decide whether the possession claimed by the Trust of over forty-five years is backed by a credible title. The essential point is that such an adjudicatory function could not have been arrogated to himself by the Collector. Adjudication on titles must follow recourse to the ordinary civil jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." (emphasis supplied)
51. Recently in Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Limited vs. R. Perumalswamy and Ors8, the Supreme Court considered provisions of the Tamilnadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 which are almost in pari materia with the provisions of the Telangana Act and held;
"19. Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987, the Tahsildar is not empowered to adjudicate upon a 'title dispute'. A combined reading of Section 14 and Rule 4(4) indicates that where there exists a dispute with respect to ownership of a land between parties with respect to a patta entry, the correct procedure to be adopted is to approach a civil court having competent jurisdiction. The entry records will be updated on 8 MANU/SC/0562/2020 ::31:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch the basis of the decree of the civil court upon adjudication."(emphasis supplied)
52. A Division Bench of this Court presided over by Justice G.Raghuram held in Govt. of A.P. v. Malik Sultana9 as under:
"34. ... ... the learned Attorney General has categorically urged that none of the orders (dated 15-04-2002, 06-05-2004, 31-07-2004, or the impugned memo dated 21-05-2005) flow from any authority conferred to adjudicate upon competing claims of the State on the one hand and the legal heirs/successors-in-interest of Nusrat Jung I on the other, with respect to the schedule property of Acs. 1634.35 gts in Kokapet village. Neither the counsel for the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 29063 of 2009 nor the counsel for the non-official respondents in the appeals have brought to our notice provisions of any legislation conferring power, authority or jurisdiction on the Government, the Principal Secretary or the Special Chief Secretary to adjudicate disputes between the State and the competing claimants with respect to the schedule property.
35. Judicial power is an integer of sovereign power which inheres in the superior Courts under our Constitutional presents (Articles 32, 131 to 142; Articles 225 to 228; Articles 230 to 231). The jurisdiction to adjudicate civil, criminal or other disputes are conferred on courts inferior to superior courts by Acts of the appropriate legislatures, (exercising legislative power qua the enumerated legislative fields) i.e., Article 246 read inter alia with Entry 95 of the Union List; Entry 65 of the State List; or Entry 46 of the Concurrent List, in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Examples of such legislative conferment of judicial powers and authority are the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There are other enactments which confer jurisdiction on courts or other tribunals. Illustrations of such conferment are the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, whereunder power to adjudicate is conferred on Administrative Tribunals qua Article 323A; jurisdiction to decide disputes is also conferred on 9 2013(2) ALD 177 = Manu/AP/0927/2012 (DB) ::32:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch other Tribunals under several enactments such as the Industrial Disputes Act, the Income Tax Act, the Stamp Act, Urban and Agricultural Lands Ceiling Legislation and Sales Tax enactments of several States, Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code confers wide jurisdiction on courts to adjudicate all disputes of a civil nature except those specifically excluded by legislation.
36. In the case on hand, despite the inconsistent and often incoherent positions (evident from the orders dated 15-04-2002, 06-05-2004, 31-07-2004 and 21-05-2005), the State has doggedly adopted the position that the schedule property belongs to the State and not to the heirs of Nusrat Jung I. In the circumstances and absent any specific power conferred on any executive authority or agency to adjudicate disputes between the State on the one hand and the private claimants to the schedule property on the other, we are unable to countenance any power, authority or jurisdiction in the Government or other State actors (public officials), to adjudicate the competing claims. On this analyses and in the absence of any legislatively explicated exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the conferment of concurrent or exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction on any authority, forum or tribunal, other than the Civil Court, neither the State nor any State actor has any power or authority to determine whether the schedule property belongs to the State or to the private claimants thereto. Other issues presented by the claimants/writ petitioners are equally contested and contestable and fall for adjudication.
37. We therefore conclude that the several instruments: dated 15-04- 2002, 06-05-2004, 31-07-2004 and 21-05-2005 (impugned) have no determinative trajectory whatsoever and are neither constitutive, declaratory or deprecatory of any rights in the schedule property; either in favour of the State or in favour of the claimants (writ petitioners).
.........
39. The judgment under appeal directs the Government to reconsider the issue after notice to the petitioners. What power, authority or jurisdiction the Executive branch of the Government is required to ::33:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch exercise, to adjudicate upon competing claims of itself and of the private claimants to the schedule property, is however not delineated in the judgment under appeal.
40. Our analyses herein before leads us to conclude that no power, authority or jurisdiction, either judicial or quasi-judicial is conferred on the State Government, or on any officer of the State, whether concurrent with or to the exclusion of the indisputably available power, authority and jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 9 CPC to determine whether the schedule property belongs to the State; to the competing claimants, including the writ petitioners; or its possession is required by law to be restored to the claimants, duly considering pleas regarding the bar of limitation period."
53. These decisions are all binding on this Court.
54. Therefore I hold that respondents 1 to 3 could not have held that petitioner's vendor had not title to it and that they are Government lands. Such a finding is wholly without jurisdiction.
55. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for respondents 1 to 3 did not dispute the fact that no jurisdiction has been conferred on respondents 1 to 3 to decide as to whether the subject land belongs to the State or to the petitioner/his vendors or predecessors-in-title.
56. A more serious issue in the case is whether the respondents 1 to 3 as employees of the State can unilaterally decide the issue of title to the subject property in favor of the State at all.
::34:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
57. There can be no dispute that if employees of the State decide such issues relating to title to property in favor of the State, there would be breach of principles of natural justice as well because the issue of bias arises in such cases.
58. That is why if the State intends to set up independent claim to the property claimed by the petitioner, it ought to approach the Civil court and prove it's title and it's employees like the respondents 1 to 3 cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil court and decide the said issue. In fact this is what is provided in Sec.8 of the Act too. Whether the authorities under the Act have jurisdiction to evict the petitioner or other third parties.
59. In the impugned order dt.25.06.2020, the 1st respondent held in para 21 as under:
"... ... I feel it just and necessary to set aside the orders of the Tahsildar, Sangareddy vide Proc. No.C/12312/2005-2, Dated:13.02.2005 and Proc. No.B/10300/2007-1, Dated:13.09.2007. Accordingly, I order to set aside the above proceedings and directed the Tahsildar, Kandi to delete the names of the third parties from the revenue records for an extent of Ac. 63-05 Gts and record the same as Government lands and the Tahsildar, Kandi is also directed to evict the encroachers if any in the said lands and take it into Government custody with immediate effect."
60. As stated above, the Act was passed to maintain record of rights by the Revenue Department when there is acquisition of title by new parties.
::35:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
61. The Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for respondents 1 to 3 did not dispute that the Act contains no provision for eviction of encroachers like the petitioner.
62. It appears that without issuing even a notice to third parties such as Panduranga Rao Deshmukh, his son and his brother's son in whose favour Tahsildar, Sangareddy had issued mutation proceedings vide Proc. No.C/12312/2005-2, Dated:13.02.2005 and to Ancha Srinivasa Rao (vendor of the petitioner) in whose favour Tahsildar, Sangareddy had issued mutation proceedings vide Proc. No.B/10300/2007-1, Dated:13.09.2007, the said orders have also been cancelled by the 1st respondent and they are directed to be evicted and the land was directed to be taken into the custody of the Government.
63. Normally a person in possession can only be evicted and deprived of his property by following due process of law. This is what Art.300-A of the Constitution of India provides for.
64. Though under the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905 summary eviction is possible, the Supreme Court has held in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Tummala Krishna Rao and another10 that the summary remedy of eviction provided by Section 6 of the said Act can be resorted to by the Government only against persons who are in unauthorized occupation of any land which is the property of the Government; but if there is a bonafide dispute regarding the title of the Government to the property, the Government 10 AIR 1982 SC 1081 ::36:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it and on that basis take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6.
65. So even the said remedy under the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is unavailable to the respondents.
66. I shall point out hereafter how there is a bonafide dispute regarding title raised by the petitioner and the State cannot take a unilateral decision without recourse to a Civil Court to evict the petitioner when mutation was made by the then Tahsildar in favour of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his family members in respect of Ac.63.09 Gts in the Dharma Sagar Billa Dakhala land way back on 13.12.2005, fifteen years prior to the impugned order of the 1st respondent.
Consideration of the proceedings under the Land Ceiling Law in respect of Pandurangarao Deshmuk and his family members.
67. As can be seen from the orders passed by respondent nos.1 to 3, all of them have stated that the name of Pandurangarao Deshmukh was recorded in the Pahani for the year 1967-68 without mentioning as to how he acquired rights over these lands.
68. Under Section 4 of the A.P. Land Reform (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 ( for short 'the Land Reforms Act'), a "family unit" consisting of not more than 5 members can hold an extent of land equal to one standard holding.
::37:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
69. Depending on the nature of the land and its location and availability of irrigation source, one Standard Holding which a family unit can retain can go up to 75 acres.
70. Pandurangarao Deshmukh had filed a declaration under the said law in C.C.No.2476 / S / 75, and his major son Deepak had filed declaration under the said law in C.C.No.2473 / S/ 75. Brothers of Pandurangarao by name Vasanth Rao and Yeswanth Rao also filed declarations in C.C.nos.2475 / S/ 75 and 2474 /S/ 75.
71. On 31.05.1989, the Additional Revenue Officer (Land Reforms) Sangareddy held that Pandurangarao Deshmukh and his son Deepak are together entitled to hold 2 Standard Holdings and that Pandurangarao Deshmukh's excess holding is 3.1721 standard holding, which he was liable to surrender to the State under Section 10 of the Act. This order was also confirmed in Appeal in L.R.A.No.21 of 1989 by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Medak.
72. Challenging this, he and his family members had filed C.R.P.Nos.4017, 4018 and 4019 of 1993 in the High Court of A.P contending that from his holding lands in 9 Inam villages, lands for which certificates under Section 38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Holdings Act, 1950 were issued to protected tenants and lands in possession of certain third parties ought to be deleted from his excess holding.
::38:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
73. On 27.12.1995, the said C.R.P.s were allowed and the matter was remitted back to the primary tribunal under the Act for reconsideration and fresh enquiry to look into the above contentions of Pandurangarao Deshmukh and his family members.
74. After remand, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Medak at Sangareddy passed a fresh order on 27.08.1996 in respect of Pandurangarao Deshmukh, his son Deepak and his brothers, Yeshwanth Rao and Vasanth Rao and accepted their plea and declared that they do not hold any surplus land.
75. But it did not disturb the earlier finding that he and his son are entitled to hold land equivalent to 2 Standard Holdings.
76. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration does not dispute these facts. He also does not dispute that since Pandurangarao Deshmukh and his son have been allowed to retain 2 Standard Holdings, what were those lands which they were allowed to retain is not noted anywhere by any of the respondents in the impugned orders.
77. This aspect is critical because the respondent nos.1 to 3 would know these details and the petitioner, who purchased the land in question long afterwards, would not be in a position to get this information.
78. It is quite possible that the Billa Dakhala land (Dharmasagar) at Kandi Chimnapur Village of extent Acs.63.05 gts. is included in the Standard Holding of Pandurangarao Deshmukh and his son.
::39:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
79. The Tahsildar (3rd respondent) in his order dt.22.03.2019 incorrectly stated that Pandurangarao Deshmukh declared that he won't have any interest and rights over these lands, that he declared some other lands and sought deletion of these lands from his Standard Holding. There is no basis for this assumption and a reading of the orders passed in the litigation under the Land Reform Act does not support this finding.
He also stated that Pandurangarao Deshmukh had given an affidavit before the R.D.O. Sangareddy on 05.11.1976 stating that he had no objection to issue Occupancy Right Certificates to poor occupants and that he filed declaration stating that he has no interest over the unsurveyed lands of Dharmasagar in Kandi Village. No such document is produced or filed by the respondents.
A perusal of the order dt.27.08.1986 of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Medak at Sangareddy (the order of the Primary Tribunal under the Land Reforms Act after its remand by the High Court in C.R.P.Nos.4017, 4018 and 4019 of 1993) shows that the Occupancy Right Certificates were issued in respect of land in other villages and that only for some land in Kandi Chimnapur Village they had been issued. This land is comprised in Survey Nos.322, 323, 324, 325 and 326 of Kandi Village of extent Acs.25.72 cents.
::40:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
The Dharmasagar land of Acs.63.09 gts. in Kandi Chimnapur Village is admittedly unsurveyed land and had no survey numbers, according to respondent nos.1 to 3.
Therefore, what is sought for deletion by Pandurangarao Deshmukh and his family members is not the Dharmasagar land of Acs.63.09 gts. in Kandi Chimnapur Village, but other land in the said village which had already been given survey numbers.
This is a blatant error committed by the Tahsildar (3rd respondent) in his order dt.22.03.2019 and is repeated parrot-like by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy in his order dt.04.11.2019 (in page no.13 thereof) and by the Additional Collector (1st respondent) in his order dt.26.06.2020 (in para (ii) at page no.10).
It is not open to respondent nos.1 to 3 to imagine facts contrary to record and with a prejudiced mind come to wrong conclusions that this land does not belong to Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his family and hold that by managing lower level officials, he got his name recorded in the Pahanies as pattedar.
This finding is based on no evidence and is perverse as well. Other points:
A.Finding that Occupancy Right Certificates were issued in 1978 to the land claimed by Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and later cancelled, is not based on any evidence.
80. The Tahsildar (3rd respondent) in his order dt.22.03.2019 also recorded that a final patta certificate was granted in favour of 49 ::41:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch persons covering an extent of Acs.177.39 gts. by the R.D.O., Sangareddy on 16.06.1978 and that it was set aside by the Joint Collector, Sangareddy on 25.07.2017.
The Billa Dakhala land in Dharmasagar of Kandi Chimnapur Village, according to Tahsildar( 3rd respondent), in his order at page no.12 is Acs.242.36 gts.
The land shown to be in the possession of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh in the Pahani of 1967-68 is admittedly Acs.63.09 gts.
Therefore, it is possible that Acs.177.39 gts. is a separate parcel of land having nothing to do with Acs.63.09 gts. admitted to be in the possession of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh since 1967-68, since both extents together would be less than Acs.242.36 gts.
But, the respondent nos.1 to 3 presumed, without any record that Occupancy Right Certificates were issued to Acs.63.09 gts. claimed by Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his family, that this is part of Acs.177.39 gts. for which 49 persons were issued such Occupancy Right Certificates, and so it is Government land and the petitioner or his predecessor's in title have no right, title or interest in the said land.
This finding is also based on no evidence and perverse as well. B. Munthakab was filed by the petitioner in the C.R.P.
81. I may also point out that the petitioner has filed copy of the Munthakab No.3354/1304 Fasli (1894) before this Court on the basis ::42:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch of which succession was ordered on 27.01.1959 by the Atiyath Board, but the respondents have simply stated that petitioner did not produce it and it had not been filed earlier.
C. The evidence in the Revenue Records about possession of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and alienees from him from 1971-72 onwards
82. The petitioner has also filed Pahanies of 1971-72, 1974-75 and 1975-76 of Kandi Village in respect of Ac.75.00 of Dharma Sagar lands showing in Column 11 the name of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh as kathadar. He has also filed Pahani of 1979-80 where he is shown as the owner of Ac.64.38 Gts, Pahani for 1984-85 showing him as pattadar of Ac.61.20 Gts and Pahani of 1996-97 showing him as pattadar of Ac.65.36 Gts.
83. He has also filed Pahani of 2004-05 and 2005-06 showing Panduranga Rao Deshmukh as the pattadar and possessor of Ac.63.09 Gts.
84. These pahanies are prima facie title of his occupation/possession of the Ac.63.09 gts as Owner. D. Succession was sanctioned and Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds were issued to Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his family members and alienees from him
85. Vide proceeding No.C/12312/05-2, dt.13.12.2005, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Sangareddy sanctioned mutatiton to Panduranga Rao Deshmukh, his son Deepak and brother's son Uday - each for an extent of Acs.21.03 gts., totaling Acs.63.09 gts. in respect of the Dharmasagar Billa Dhakala land in Kandi Chimnapur Village.
::43:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
86. On the basis of the said order, pattadar pass books were issued to the son of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh by name Deepak Deshmukh for an extent of Ac.21.03 Gts of Billa Dakhala land (Dharma Sagar) and to Uday Deshmukh, the brother's son of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh for a similar extent have been filed by the petitioner. Similar pattadar pass book was also issued to Panduranga Rao Deshmukh himself in respect of Ac.21.03 Gts according to the petitioner.
87. These proceedings No.C/12312/05-2 dt.13.12.2005 of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Sanga Reddy are now set aside by the 1st respondent without issuing any notice to the legal heirs of the above persons or other alienees from them.
E. Pattadar Pass Book was issued to Petitioner's vendor
88. Pattadar pass book was also issued to Ancha Srinivasa Rao for Ac.18.03 Gts of Billa Dakhala land after he purchased the same from Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his family members and after proceedings No.B/10300/2007-1 were issued by the then Tahsildar, Sanga Reddy (which is now set aside by the 1st respondent in the impugned order again without notice to him and to his legal representatives /alienees).
89. I may point out here that under Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 26 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, title deed or ::44:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch passbook would be given only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land.
90. Therefore, it cannot be said that Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his family members were not in possession at any point of time of the Billa Dakhala lands as is now held by the respondents in the impugned orders.
91. This finding is contrary to record and perverse. F. Allotment of new survey numbers
92. The respondents do not dispute that the Tahsildar, Sanga Reddy Mandal had issued proceedings B/1082/2007 dt.16.02.2013 assigning Survey numbers to the Billa Dakhala land of extent Ac.35.03 Gts in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.25662 of 2007 and C.C.No.624 of 2012.
93. In the said proceeding, it is shown that Ancha Srinivasa Rao, vendor of the petitioner, is allotted khata number 1695 in respect of Ac.8.05 Gts in Sy.No.990 and Ac.1.01 Gt. in Sy.No.1052 and other survey numbers also - amounting to Ac.18.03 Gts which he had purchased from Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his family members.
94. The Pahanies of Faslies 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424 (2010 to 2014) show that the pattadar of land in Sy.No.990 is Ancha Srinivasa Rao and is also in possession thereof.
::45:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
95. This state of affairs is presumed to continue under Section 114
(d) of the Evidence Act, 1872; and if the State claims to have obtained possession of Acs.63.09 gts. including the land purchased by the petitioner from Ancha Srinivasa Rao, it must prove by what means and process / procedure it secured such possession. But no such evidence is forthcoming.
96. Though all the respondents 1-3 relied on Letter No.N1/7696/08 dt.27.11.2010 Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad directing to treat 'Billa Dhakala land' as 'Government land, any proceeding said to have been issued by any officer of Government including the said officer cannot convert prima facie private land as Government land by a stroke of pen without any decision of a Civil Court.
97. The 1st respondent also discovered for the first time during the course of the pendency of the Revision that the subject land claimed by the petitioner is Shikam (Tank Bed), for which there is no Revenue Record referred to or disclosed. In fact, neither the primary authority in his order dt.22.03.2019 nor the Appellate Authority in his order dt.04.11.2019 had given any such finding.
In my opinion, such cooked-up reasons without any factual basis cannot invalidate the claim of petitioner. So this finding is also perverse, based on no evidence and is unsustainable.
::46:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
98. As held in Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust (7 supra), in holding that the respondent nos.1 to 3 acted without jurisdiction in the present case, it is not necessary for this Court to go as far as to validate the title which is claimed by the petitioner to the property. This Court is also not called upon to decide whether the possession claimed by the petitioner and his predecessors including Panduranga Rao Deshmukh from 1967-68 for 53 years is backed by a credible title.
99. The essential point is that such an adjudicatory function could not have been arrogated to themselves by the respondent nos.1 to 3. Adjudication on titles must happen by recourse to the ordinary civil courts of competent jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and not through employees of the State like the respondent nos.1 to 3.
100. I hold that the petitioner and his predecessors were in possession and enjoyment of this land and the State cannot interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner without following the above procedure.
101. In my opinion, there has been a flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law and justice by respondent nos.1 to 3, and if this Court does not interfere, a grave injustice would remain uncorrected.
::47:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
102. I also find that the findings of fact are based on no evidence at all and they are perverse and no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the respondent nos.1 to 3 have come to.
103. Therefore this is a fit case to interfere with the orders dt.26.06.2020 in Case No.F3/2685/2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Sangareddy Division at Sangareddy (1st respondent) under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') confirming the order dt.04.11.2019 in File No.A3/2823/2019 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy District (2nd respondent) under Section 5(5) of the said Act dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District in File No.A/4192/2019 dt.22.03.2019 by exercising the powers conferred on this court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.
104. I.A.No. 1 of 2020 was filed by petitioner to suspend the above orders. Since the CRP has been now allowed, no orders are necessary in this IA.
105. IA No.2 of 2020 has been filed by petitioner to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to forthwith register and release Doc.No.P 746 and P.747 which had been presented by petitioner on 12.7.2017 before District Registrar, Sanga Reddy (4th respondent) without insisting upon Pattadar passbooks and title deeds of the petitioner.
::48:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
106. IA.No.4 of 2020 was filed by petitioner to amend the prayer in IA No.2 of 2020 by substituting respondent no.3 in the place of respondents 4 and 5 in view of the Telangana Rights in land and Pattadar pass books Act, 2020 amending the law relating to record of rights which came into force on 29.10.2020 (after filing of this Revision) conferring power on the 3rd respondent to undertake registration of documents dealing with alienation of agricultural lands.
107. I.A.No.4 of 2020 is allowed and the prayer in IA.No.2 of 2020 is amended as prayed for and the said IA.No.2 of 2020 is also allowed.
108. IA.No.3 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner to direct the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kandi Mandal, Sanga Reddy Mandal (3rd respondent) to forthwith issue E pattadar Pass books and title deeds to the petitioner and also make recommendation to enable the petitioner to avail benefits under the Rythu Bandhu Scheme and Pradhan Mantri Kisan Yojana. The said IA is also allowed.
109. I.A.No.5 of 2020 is filed to receive certain additional documents. The said IA is allowed.
110. Accordingly,
(i) The CRP No.978 of 2020 is allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by respondent nos1 to 3 to petitioner;
::49:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
(ii) the orders dt.26.06.2020 in Case No.F3/2685/2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy District (1st respondent), the order dt.04.11.2019 in File No.A3/2823/2019 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy District (2nd respondent) and order passed by the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District in File No.A/4192/2019 dt.22.03.2019, are all set aside;
(iii) the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kandi mandal, Sanga Reddy District (3rd respondent), the authority now competent to register agricultural properties shall forthwith register and release Doc.No.P.746 and P.747 which had been presented by petitioner on 12.7.2017 before District Registrar, Sanga Reddy (4th respondent) without insisting upon Pattadar passbooks and title deeds of the petitioner; and IA.No.2 of 2020 is allowed.
(iv) the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kandi Mandal, Sanga Reddy District (3rd respondent) is directed to forthwith issue E pattadar Pass books and title deeds to the petitioner and also make recommendation to enable the petitioner to avail benefits under the Rythu Bandhu Scheme and Pradhan Mantri Kisan Yojana; and IA.No.3 of 2020 is allowed;
(v) I.A.No.5 of 2020 is allowed;
(vi) No orders are required in IA.No.1 of 2020.
::50:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
CC.No.1681 of 2019 and CC No.712 of 2020
Interim order on 01.11.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.49482 of 2017 in W.P.No.39913 of 2017
111. Admittedly, this Court had passed an interim order on 01.11.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.49482 of 2017 in W.P.No.39913 of 2017 in favour of the petitioner and another directing the respondents in the Revision apart from the State of Telangana not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by himself and his co-petitioner of the above land pending further orders.
112. The premise on which the said interim order was granted by this Court was that the petitioner was in possession of the subject land.
113. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent on 26.06.2020 directing eviction of the petitioner and other third parties is a willful disobedience of the order dt.01.11.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.49482 of 2017 in W.P.No.39913 of 2017 in so far as the petitioner is concerned, which is still subsisting.
114. Respondents 2 and 3 have also mentioned that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject land and his predecessors in title, Ancha Sreenivasa Rao or Pandurangarao Deshmukh, are not in possession of the land at any point of time. These findings have been held to be not based on evidence and contrary to record in CRP.No.978 of 2020.
::51:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
115. Petitioner contends that the respondent No.s 1 to 3 had attempted to overreach the above orders; and while C.C.Nos.1681 of 2019 is filed to punish the respondents 2, 3 and 4 in the CRP, CC.No.712 of 2020 is filed to punish respondent No.1 in the CRP under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of the order dt.01.11.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.49482 of 2017 in W.P.No.39913 of 2017.
116. The Government Pleader for Arbitration and the Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the Advocate General, appearing for respondents admit that no application had been moved by the respondents to vacate the order dt.01.11.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.49482 of 2017 in W.P.No.39913 of 2017.
117. Each of the respondents 1 to 3 have mentioned in the respective orders passed by them that petitioner and his predecessor were never in possession of the subject land and that it is Government land.
118. In the order passed by the 1st respondent, in para 12, he had even noted the order dt.01.11.2017 in W.P.No.39913 of 2017. Therefore, the 1st respondent is aware of the interim order passed by this Court in favour of petitioner.
119. None of the respondents 1 to 3 can sit in Appeal over the interim order passed by this Court, give findings contrary to it, presume that it is incorrect, and attempt to violate it by passing the impugned order.
::52:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
120. In Baradakanta Misra (1 supra), the Supreme Court declared that quasi judicial authorities are subject to superintendence of the High Court and any order or decision of the High Court is binding on them, that the respondents 1-3 cannot get away from the said order of the High Court by adducing factually wrong and illegitimate reasons.
121. As long as the said interim order of this Court subsists, the respondents 1 -3 must obey it. They cannot decide for themselves that it is not a correct order and disobey it.
122. In Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd11 the Supreme Court declared that even if there is an objection as to jurisdiction of a Court which passed an interim order is raised, the interim order granted by it has to be obeyed and cannot be disobeyed. It declared :
"The correct principle, therefore, is the one recognised and reiterated in Section 9-A -- to wit, where an objection to jurisdiction of a civil court is raised to entertain a suit and to pass any interim orders therein, the Court should decide the question of jurisdiction in the first instance but that does not mean that pending the decision on the question of jurisdiction, the Court has no jurisdiction to pass interim orders as may be called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. A mere objection to jurisdiction does not instantly disable the court from passing any interim orders. It can yet pass appropriate orders. At the same time, it should also decide the question of jurisdiction at the earliest possible time. The interim orders so passed are orders within jurisdiction when passed and effective till the court decides that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. These interim orders undoubtedly come to an end with the decision that this Court had no jurisdiction. It is open to the court to modify these orders while holding that it has no 11 (1997) 3 SCC 443 ::53:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch jurisdiction to try the suit. Indeed, in certain situations, it would be its duty to modify such orders or make appropriate directions. For example, take a case, where a party has been dispossessed from the suit property by appointing a receiver or otherwise; in such a case, the Court should, while holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, put back the party in the position he was on the date of suit. But this power or obligation has nothing to do with the proposition that while in force, these orders have to be obeyed and their violation can be punished even after the question of jurisdiction is decided against the plaintiff provided the violation is committed before the decision of the Court on the question of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied)
123. This was reiterated in Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group12 in the following terms:
"16. It is a settled legal proposition that even if an order is void, it requires to be so declared by a competent forum and it is not permissible for any person to ignore the same merely because in his opinion the order is void. In State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth Naduvil, Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd., M. Meenakshi v. Metadin Agarwal and Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup, this Court held that whether an order is valid or void, cannot be determined by the parties. For setting aside such an order, even if void, the party has to approach the appropriate forum.
17. In State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh this Court held that a party aggrieved by the invalidity of an order has to approach the court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and therefore, not binding upon him. While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance upon the judgment in Smith v. East Elloe RDC, wherein Lord Radcliffe observed: (AC pp. 769-70) "... An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity [on] its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to 12 (2011) 3 SCC 363 ::54:: MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders."
18. In Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba, this Court took a similar view observing that once an order is declared non est by the court only then the judgment of nullity would operate erga omnes i.e. for and against everyone concerned. Such a declaration is permissible if the court comes to the conclusion that the author of the order lacks inherent jurisdiction/competence and therefore, it comes to the conclusion that the order suffers from patent and latent invalidity.
19. Thus, from the above it emerges that even if the order/notification is void/voidable, the party aggrieved by the same cannot decide that the said order/notification is not binding upon it. It has to approach the court for seeking such declaration. The order may be hypothetically a nullity and even if its invalidity is challenged before the court in a given circumstance, the court may refuse to quash the same on various grounds including the standing of the petitioner or on the ground of delay or on the doctrine of waiver or any other legal reason. The order may be void for one purpose or for one person, it may not be so for another purpose or another person."
124. Therefore, I am of the opinion that when the State of Telangana and the 2nd respondent are parties to the interim order dt.27.11.2017 in WPMP.No.49482 of 2017 in WP.No.39913 of 2017 protecting the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and another in respect of the land of Acs.5.01 gts. in Survey No.990 and 1052 of Kandi Chimnapur Village, respondent nos.1 and 3, are equally bound by the same and they cannot hold that he has no title or possession and attempt to violate the said order and dispossess him.
::55:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
125. I hold that the respondent No.1 in CC.No.712 of 2020, and respondents 2 and 3 in CC.No.1681 of 2019 are guilty of willful disobedience of the interim order dt.27.11.2017 in WPMP.No.49482 of 2017 in WP.No.39913 of 2017 by giving findings in their respective orders that petitioner or his vendor or predecessor of title were never in possession of the subject land and to evict him as if he is an encroacher.
126. Accordingly, respondent No.1 in CC.No.712 of 2020, and respondents 2 and 3 in CC.No.1681 of 2019 are sentenced to suffer two months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer one more month of simple imprisonment.
127. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.300/- per day towards subsistence allowance of each of the above respondents.
128. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the above respondents is suspended for a period of 6 weeks.
129. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department of the State of Telangana is directed to initiate disciplinary action against them for disregarding the provisions of the Act and the orders passed by this Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
::56:: MSR,J
crp_978_2020&batch
130. CC.No.s 1681 of 2019 and 712 of 2020 are allowed accordingly as above.
131. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in the Civil Revision Petition and Contempt Cases, shall stand closed.
____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J Date: 15.12.2020 Note :
(i) LR Copy to be marked : YES
(ii) Copy to be marked to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Boorgula Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, Telangana.
B/o.
Svv/Ndr/Gra