Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.3 He further contended that the parties filed simple suit for perpetual injunction and basing on the reasons assigned in the said order, the petitioners are not entitled to deny the rights of the unofficial respondents and the nature of proceedings adjudicated by the revenue authorities under the provisions of ROR Act are different. He further contended that ground raised by the petitioners that the provisions of the ROR Act is not applicable and the Mandal Revenue officer is not having power or authority to regularize the sale deed exercising the powers conferred under Section 5(A) of the ROR Act on the ground that the subject property is not an agricultural land as defined under Sub-Section (4) of Section 2 of the Act is not true and correct on the ground that the subject land was neither used nor converted from agricultural to non-agricultural. Unless and until the same was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural through process of law, the land remains as agricultural land, hence respondent No.3 rightly passed the impugned order dated 30.04.2005 and the then Mandal Revenue officer had also rightly regularized the proceedings dated 24.09.1996 exercising the powers conferred under Section 5(A) of the Act and issued Form 13(B) and Form No.13(C) on 18.01.2002 after duly receiving an amount of Rs.8,25,000/- towards registration fee and the petitioners have not questioned the said order and the said orders have become final and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the unofficial respondents. He also contended that the Unique Builders through V.P Srinivas purchased Acs.12.00 in the same survey No.9/1/H through the same Firman. However, the petitioners have suppressed the said fact. Learned Senior counsel further contended that there is no illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 and the writ petition Nos. 11275 of 2005, 16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2009 are liable to be dismissed.

2. Whether the respondent No.1 before issuing regularization proceedings followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of ROR Act and rules made thereunder?

3. Whether the revenue authorities or this Court is having power or authority to decide the disputed questions of fact between inter se parties in respect of subject property especially when the petitioners are claiming rights through Ratnabhai who in turn claiming the rights through document dated 24.03.1964 executed by claiming rights through document dated 21.03.1973 executed by Mohd Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan and they are claiming the rights through Firman dated 30.05.1961.

4. Whether the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is sustainable under law?

5. Whether the petitioners are entitled any relief sought in the writ petition, if so what relief?

Point Nos.1 to 5:

14. As per the records, it reveals that the petitioners are claiming rights over the subject property through Smt.Ratnabhai who had purchased to an extent of Acs.23.17 guntas in Survey No.9/1 Saroornagar village, Ranga Reddy District from HEH the Nizam through Registered sale deed dated 24.03.1964. Her vendor executed the said sale deed pursuant to the permission granted by the revenue authorities under Section 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural lands Act, 1954. It also reveals that the subject land to an extent of Acs.23.17 guntas surrounded by survey No.11 and Survey No.9/1 subdivided into Survey No.9/1/H and the same stands in the name of HEH Nizam. Ratnabhai sold the land to various persons after obtaining permission from the Saroornagar Grampanchayat through lay out sanction file bearing No.3045 of 1996. Members of the petitioners association in W.P.Nos.11275 of 2005 have purchased the house plots from Ratnabhai in 1996 and since then they have been in the possession and enjoyment of the subject property. The unofficial respondents are claiming right and title over the property covered in Survey No.9/1/H consisting of Acs.37.12 guntas which stands in the name of HEH Nizam. In the said survey Number a part of plot No.4 was allotted to Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan of a large extent through Firman dated 30.05.1961 and they have entered into agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973 with unofficial respondents and the same was regularized by the Mandal Revenue Officer exercising the powers conferred under Section 5(A) of the ROR Act vide proceedings No.B/840/95 dated 24.09.1996 and issued validation certificate in Form 13-B and 13-C on 18.01.2002 after collecting registration charges and since then they have been in possession.

5. Whether giving of Pattadar Pass Books / Title Deeds to the respondents justifiable or not.

6. Whether the original entries prior to 1995-96 can be restored or not.

7. Whether the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed Dated: 24-03- 64 executed by HEH Nizam in favour of Smt. Ratanbai and physical possession of the appellant are tallied or not.

18. Respondent No.2 after hearing both the parties and also after due verification of the documentary evidence on record allowed the appeals by setting aside the regularization proceedings under Section 5(A) of the Act issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer in favour of unofficial respondents dated 24.09.1996 and consequential 13-B and 13-C certificate dated 18.01.2002 and also cancelled pattadar passbooks, title deeds issued in their favour by giving cogent reasons by its order dated 21.07.2003 holding that the then Mandal Revenue officer, Saroonagar without verifying the records and also provisions of ROR Act regularized the unregistered document through order dated 24.09.1996 and also issued 13-B and 13-C certificates on 18.01.2002 and the same are contrary to the provisions of the ROR Act and Rules and also further held that temporary injunction order granted in favour of unofficial respondents in I.A.No.1000 of 1994 in O.S.No.328 of 1994 is vacated and the said order has become final in CRP No.924 of 1997 and the unofficial respondents ought to have established their title and possession before competent Civil Court. Aggrieved by the above said order, the unofficial respondents filed revision petitions vide Case Nos. D5/6631/2003, D5/6632/2003 and D5/6633/2003 before respondent No.3 under Section 9 of the ROR Act. The revisional authority allowed the Revision petitions by setting aside the order of respondent No.2 on 30.04.2005 holding that the unofficial respondents are claiming right and title through registered holder of the land i.e., HEH Nizam and the said HEH Nizam allotted the same to unofficial respondents' vendor through Firman dated 30.05.1961 and the unofficial respondents claiming rights through document dated 21.03.1973 and the same was regularized by respondent No.1 under Section 5(A) of the Act.