Telangana High Court
Dattu, vs The State Of Telangana And 6 Others on 25 July, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.7153 of 2023
ORDER:
The crux of the case of the petitioners, as per the writ affidavit, is that their father is the owner of land in an extent of Ac.16.29 guntas in Survey No.6 of Pippaldhari village, Adilabad mandal, having purchased the same in the year 1954 from one Mohd. Nayeemullah Khan who is a non-tribal, and since then they are in peaceful possession of the land. Thereafter, their father shifted to another village for some time and taking advantage of the same, the respondents 5 to 7 got entered their names in the revenue records as cultivators and in fact no transactions took place between the petitioners and respondents 5 to 7. While so, respondent No.3 passed ejection orders dated 15.04.1997 stating that transaction took place between petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 and directed for resumption of the land to Government custody, and the said ejection orders were not communicated to the petitioners. A revision petition was filed before the 1st respondent by respondents 5 to 7; and the petitioners have also filed revision petition before the 1st respondent on 11.02.2009. While so, though revision petition was pending, the respondents tried to assign the lands to third parties by dispossessing the petitioners. The petitioners filed WP No.9046 of 2009 before this Court. The respondents filed counter in the said writ petition and stated that the 1st respondent passed orders vide GOMs.No.59 dated 06.06.2009 in the revision petition filed by 2 respondents 5 to 7 and also stated that the revision petition filed by the petitioners was rejected as time-barred and therefore the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with liberty to challenge the orders passed by 1st respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare.
3. Counter affidavits are filed by respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Adilabad Rural; and respondent No.6-Kemi Raja Reddy. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4-Tahsildar is that as per the Revenue Record Khasra Pahani, the name of Sri Nayeemullah Khan was recorded as pattadar and the name of Dattu, father of petitioners 2 to 4 was recorded as cultivator, and it was also reported by the Tahsildar, Adilabad that Sri Dattu S/o Yashwanth Rao was dispossessed from the suit land in Survey No.6 extent of Ac.13.38 guntas, and Sri Dattu was recorded as pattadar for the year 1967-68 without valid document and approval of the Jamabandhi officer in the faisal patti wherein the mutation are to be sanctioned, and thus it is clear that the name of Dattu was recorded in the pahani without approval of Jamabandhi Officer during Jamabandi through mutation i.e., Form No.5 Warga Kammi and 6 Warga Izafa of faisal pati. The name of Sri Dattu continued as pattadar for the year 1993-94 and it is in possession of Kemi Raja Reddy, Kemi Ashanna and Kemi Linganna, the legal heirs of purchaser as per Registered Document No.9/1967 3 dated 05.01.1967 purchased the land from original pattadar Sri Nayeemullah Khan. Since the father of the petitioner was dispossessed by the Tahsildar from tenancy in favour of Original Pattadar Sri Nayyemullah Khan. Hence, the petitioners do not have any right over the subject land as their father was not declared as protected tenant and was also dispossessed from the land, and the petitioners are not in possession of the land upto 1422F, 1423F, 1425F and 1426F. In reply to paragraph 4 and 5 of the counter, it is stated in the counter that as per pahani for 1954 shows that Dattu was recorded as pattadar without approval from the Jamabandhi Officer through Faisal Patti in Forms 5 and 6; and the Tahsildar Adilabad has furnished the list of land transfer cases taken place in between non-tribals in notified village Pippaldhari village, according to which the land in Surveyy No.6 extent 16.38 acres is in possession of Kemi Raja Reddy S/o Ashanna, Kemi Ashanna S/o Rajanna and Kemi Linganna S/o Rajanna. As there is reason to believe that transfer of immovable property took place in between non-tribals to non-tribal. Therefore the Special District Collector (TW) Utnoor, has initiated a case for violation of provisions of Sub-Clause (1) of Section 3 APSALTR, 1959 read with Amended Act 1 of 1970 vide case Nos.A2/873/96, A2/874/96, and A2/875/96 separately and issued notices in Form E that Kemi Raji Reddy contravened the provisions of LTR Act and is in possession of 4-02 acres in Survey No.6 of Pippaldhari village and Kemi Ashanna S/o Rajanna is in possession of 6.09 acres in Survey No.6 and Smt. Kemi 4 Janakibai W/o Linganna is in possession of 6.00 acres in Sy.No.6 of Pippaldhari village were directed to explain and to produce documentary evidence. It is further stated that Sri K. Ashanna has appeared before the Court on 02.01.1997 and requested for granting time to produce the documentary evidence. Another notice issued by Special Deputy Collector (TW) Utnoor to Kemi Ashanna S/o Rajanna and Smt. Janakibai issued notice in Form-E under Rule 7(2) of LTR Act, for illegal possession of 6.09 acres and 6.00 acres in Sy.No.6 for violation of Section 3(1) of LTR Act, and directed to produce the recorded and documentary evidence on 02.01.1997, and they requested to grant time and produce the documentary evidence and time was granted upto 04.02.1997. Sri K. Ashanna has produced the Xerox copy registered sale deed No.9/1967 and deposed that he knew the suit land bearing Sy.No.6 extent 13.38 acres of Pippaldhari village and stated that his elder brother Gangaram had purchased the land from Nayeemullah Khan pattadar for a sale consideration of Rs.5000/- through registered document No.9/1967 Gangaram has got share at Nipani village. His share in Sy.No.6 extent of 6.00 acres came to his share under family partition of property. His son Raja Reddy and his sister-in-law Janakibai w/o Linganna are also in equal share in the land, according to their family partition. Sri Ashanna requested to allow time to produce documentary evidence upto 11.04.1997, and he has not submitted documentary evidence in support of his claim. The Special Dy.Collector (TW), Utnoor has come to conclusion on 5 verification of Xerox copy of registered sale deed No.9/1967 dated 05.01.1967 it is found that one Sri Nayeemullah Khan had sold the land to an extent of 13.38 acres in Sy.No.6 of Pippaldhari village to Sri M. Lachmanna and Sri M. Shankar both son of Gangaram for a sale consideration of Rs.5000/-. As per the particulars furnished by the Tahsildar (MRO), Adilabad that one Sri Dattu S/o Yeshwanth Rao is pattadar of land bearing Sy.No.6 measuring 16.38 acres of Pippaldhari village and the above 3 respondents are in actual possession and cultivation of the land. The Special Deputy Collector (TW), Utnoor came to the conclusion that the present occupiers did not purchase the land from pattadar Sri Dattu and also not proved that the seller Nayeemullah Khan was the rightful owner of the suit land at the time of selling the land to them through registered sale deed No.9/1967 dated 05.01.1967. Moreover they have also failed to prove that the purchasers Sri M. Lasmanna and Sri M. Shankar both sons of Gangaram are their own family members or relatives and that they (respondent) are rightful persons to hold that the land purchased by them in a rightful manner. Hence, the transaction took place between non-tribals to non-tribals in the notified village Pippaldhari in Survey No.6 extent 16.39 acres is in violation of Sub-Section(1) of Section 3 of APSALTR Act, 1959, amended Act, 1/1970. Hence the transactions are null and void and ordered for ejection of respondents from the suit land and also ordered to take the l and into Government custody till further orders. Aggrieved by the 6 orders of the Special Deputy Collector, Utnoor in case Nos.TWA2/873/96, TWA2/874/96 AND TWA2/875/96 dated 15.04.1996, Sri Kemi Raja Reddy, S/o Ashanna, Sri kemi Ashanna S/o Rajanna and Smt Janakibai W/o late Linganna have filed an appeal before the Additional Agent to Government and PO, ITDA, Utnoor. The Additional Agent examined the documentary evidence produced by the appellants and grounds of appeal and order of the Lower Court i.e., Special Deputy Collector (TW), Utnoor, orders dated 15.04.1997 in Nos.TWA2/873/96, TWA2/874/96 AND TWA2/875/96 dated 15.04.1997 and come to conclusion and delivered the judgment upon present of pahani from 1954-55 onwards, whereunder that the protected tenancy rights were continued in that year itself, and the subsequent registered sale deed No.9/1967 dated 05.01.1967 executed by Nayeemullah Khan and the then purchaser Sri M. Shanker and Sri M. Lasmanna has no legality. Even the Bedhakal cancelling of protected tenancy right of Dattu, subsequent report of Tahsildar are to be believed. There is no right accruing to the original pattadar and he could not have legally right to execute the registered sale deed without supporting all these facts, thus the appeal Court has come to conclusion that the registered sale deed No.9/1967 dated 05.01.1967 is of no evidentiary value. The ordinary sale deed dated 21.02.1980 which is a document of sale transaction between two non-tribals i.e., respondents as seller and the appellant as purchaser, and the PO, ITDA, Utnoor vide Proceedings No.A4/5/1997, dated 29.07.2006 has 7 rejected the claim of appellant and uphold the orders of the lower Court for ejection of the appellants from the suit land bearing Sy.No.6 extent 16,28 acres for taking the land into Government custody. Aggrieved by the orders of Additional Agent to Government, a revision petition was filed by Kemi Raja Reddy S/o Ashanna under Section 6 of the APSALTR Act, 1959 in proceedings No.A4/5/1997 dated 29.07.2006 and the Government (SW) department has allowed the petition filed by Kemi Raja Reddy and 2 others vide GOMs.No.59 (SW) LTR-2 Department dated 06.06.2009 after careful examination of the case record of lower Court and ground urged in the revision petition, written arguments submitted by the counsel for petitioner Kemi Raja Reddy and other documentary material available on file, vide GOMs.No.59, SW(LTR02) dated 06.06.2009, set aside the orders of Additional Agent to Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Utnoor passed in Proceedings No.A4/5/1997, dated 19.07.2006 confirming in common order of Special Deputy Collector (TW), Utnoor, dated 15.04.1997 in Case No.A2/873/96, A2/874/96, A2/875/96, allowed the revision petition filed by Kemi Raja Reddy and requested the PO, ITDA Utnoor to take action in the matter. The Special Deputy Collector (TW) Utnoor vide Letter No.TWA2/873/96 dated 25.06.2009 has issued orders to revert back the land to Kemi Raja Reddy as the Government has set aside the orders of PO, ITDA and SDC (TW), Utnoor vide GOMs.No.59 SW (LTR-2) dated 06.06.2009 and also to implement the registered sale deed No.9/67, dated 05.01.1967 in revenue records. 8 Accordingly the possession of Land in an extent of 16.29 acres handed over on 10.06.2009 under panchanama. It is further stated in the counter that as per the report of the Tahsildar, the father of the petitioner Dattu was not declared as protected tenant over the suit land bearing Sy.No.6 extent of 16.29 acres situated at Pippaldhari village, and as per revenue records Sri Nayeemullah Khan was the pattadar and Sri Dattu was recorded as cultivator, and Dattu was terminated from the tenancy register as per the report of Tahsildar Certificate No.75322 dated 07.03.1955. Sri Dattu was recorded as pattadar without approval sanctioned from the Jamabandhi officer during the jamabandi without valid document of 38/E certificate in favour of Dattu. The father of petitioners was terminated as he was not a protected tenant and recorded as pattadar without approval of competent authority through faisal patta (mutations ) in Form 5 and 6 under land revenue rules 1317F. It is further stated the petitioners filed WP No.9046 of 2009 before this Court and the same was dismissed as infructuous as the revision petition filed by the respondents 5 to 7 was allowed by 1st respondent vide GOMs.No.59, SW(LTR-2), Department dated 06.06.2009; and therefore the present writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
4. The recitals in the counter affidavit of respondent No.6 are on the lines of the orders passed by the Agent to Government and the 1st respondent Revisional authority.
9
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit and would primarily contend that the petitioners are in possession of the land and his father purchased the land in the year 1954 from Nayeemulla Khan who is a non-tribal; and therefore the order of ejection passed by 3rd respondent and affirmed by 2nd respondent, and also dismissal of the revision petition are illegal.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare would contend that as per Khasra Pahani for 1954-55, the name of Nayeemullah Khan was recorded as pattadar and the name of father of petitioners is recorded as Cultivator and it is reported by the Tahsildar that the father of petitioner was dispossessed from suit land in Sy.No.6 in extent of 13.38 acres, and thereafter he was recorded as pattadar in the year 1967-68 without any valid document and approval of the Jamabandi officer in the faisal patti wherein the mutation are to be sanctioned; and the name of Dattu continued as pattadar for the year 1993-94 and it is in possession of Kemi Raja Reddy, Kemi Ashanna and Kemi Linganna, the legal heirs of purchaser as per Reg Doc No.9/1967 dt.05.01.1967 purchased the land from original pattadar Sri Nayeemuddin Khan since the father of petitioner was dispossessed by the Tahsildsr from tenancy in favour of original pattadar Sri Nayeemulla Khan, and hence the petitioners have no right over the suit land, and therefore there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10
7. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the material on record, it is pertinent to note that the Additional Agent to Government by basing on the fact that the father of petitioners (Dattu) having been found to be cultivator in the column of the pahani of 1954-55, and tenant, has come to the conclusion that Dattu was a protected tenant from that year itself without there being a protected tenancy certificate. In the revision petition filed before the 1st respondent challenging the orders of respondents 2 and 3, the revisional authority has considered the point as to whether Dathu (father of the petitioners) is a protected tenant in the year 1954-55, and if so whether the subsequent Bedhakal by the Tahsildar, Adilabad, would restore ownership to the original pattadar Nayeemullah Khan? The revisional authority after considering the above aspect, has observed as follows:
b) As seen from pahani of 1954-55, the name of original pattadar Nayeemullah was found in pattadar column while name of Dathu s/o Yeshwanthrao was found in cultivator as purchased for Rs.9,000/- and tenant. Merely basing on this, theAddl. Agent to Govt & Project Officer, ITDA utnoor arrived at a conclusion that he was protected tenant from that year itself without any PT certificate. Moreover, it is found that the said Dathu never objected to the possession and enjoyment by the petitioners and their fore-fathers nor attended before the lower and appellate courts. To the final notice issued on 19.4.2005, his son appeared before the Addl. Agent on 22.6.2005 and did not submit any evidence of his father owning the land but requested to give possession.
c) It is evident from the certificate of Tahsildar, Adilabad, in file No.A3/24536, dt.3.5.1960 that Dattu had been terminated from Protected Tenancy u/sec.32 sub-sec.2 of AP Tenancy Act, 1950 due to 11 non-payment of rent. The Tahsildar Adilabad had also addressed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad in Rc.No.A3/184/1/66 dt.12.2.1966 that Dattu had been terminated from PT because he was residing and living Balapur village of Circle Jainath and other persons were cultivating the land. In his opinion, the land was sublet for a long period to other persons. The Tahsildar, Adilabad also reported that the Village Patwari directly made Dattu as Pattadar without taking approval of Tahsildar in the Faisal Patti (Mutation). Thus, after termination of PT rights of Dattu, the original pattadar Sri Nayeemullah Khan was restored ownership and possession but the revenue authorities failed to make necessary entries to that effect in the pahanies and continued Dattu as tenant for which there is no documentary evidence except pahani entry made by them in 1954-55. Hence, the transaction between the original pattadar Mohd. Nayeemulla Khan and Maneri Lasmaanna and Maneri Shankar through registered sale deed No.9/67 dt. 5.1.1967 is valid. As the purchasers Maneri Lasmanna and Maneri Shankar ahad no male children, the subsequent devolution to the petitioners as certified by the Tahsildar, Adilabad on 16.10.1996 and the GP Secretary, Wanwat on 29,.5.2006 is also valid as per Sec.2(g) of APSALTR 1/59 as amended by 1/70. In the circumstances, the agreement dt.21.2.1980 said to be executed by Dattu has no legal validity."
8. It may be noted that in the revision petition filed by the respondents 5 to 7 before the 1st respondent, it was specifically observed by the 1st respondent that the father of petitioners (Dattu) was recorded as cultivator and the Additional Agent has come to a conclusion that Dattu was a protected tenant merely basing on that entry, without any Protected Tenancy Certificate. Further, Dattu had been terminated from Protected Tenancy under the provisions of AP Tenancy Act, 1950 due to non-payment of rent because he was residing at Balapur village and some other persons were cultivating the 12 land. Further, the Tahsildar, Adilabad also reported that the Village Patwari directly made Dattu as Pattadar without taking approval of Tahsildar in the Faisal Patti (Mutation), and thus after termination of PT rights of Dattu, the original pattadar Sri Nayeemullah Khan was restored ownership and possession but the revenue authorities failed to make necessary entries to that effect in the pahanies and continued Dattu as tenant for which there is no documentary evidence except pahani entry made by them in 1954-55. The revisional authority held that the transaction between the original pattadar Mohd. Nayeemulla Khan and Maneri Lasmaanna and Maneri Shankar through registered sale deed No.9/67 dt. 5.1.1967 as valid, thereby subsequent devolution of the land in favour of respondents 5 to 7 was also held to be valid as per Sec.2(g) of APSALTR 1/59 as amended by 1/70, and held that the agreement dt.21.2.1980 said to be executed by Dattu has no legal validity. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka July, 2024 ksm