Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

12

12. Mr.D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.45203 of 2022 submitted that Maharaja Kishen Pershad, the predecessor-in-title of petitioners has acquired the subject property under oral Hiba (gift) from Mohommed Mehdi Nawaz Jung. The said oral gift was accepted and the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad was recorded in Supplementary Sethwar and in the sale deed Nos.394/1343 Fasli (1933) and 413/1343 Fasli (1933) executed by Mohd. Mehdi Nawaz Jung, in favour of third parties, the boundaries describe the land of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is also submitted that Jamabandi register prepared in the year 1346 Fasli, the lands were shown in the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad for the land in Sy.No.396 to an extent of Ac.7-00 gts and in remarks column it is shown that the building is existing in the said land. While relying on the revenue entries, the learned Senior Counsel denied the execution of registered gift deed and ownership of Mohd. Asadullah Khan, i.e, predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 9. It is also contended that the entries in Wasool Baqi, Revisional Sethwar, ROR record from 1954 to 1982 and Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) prepared as per provisions of Telangana Survey Boundaries Act, 1923 would clinchingly prove that Maharaja Kishen Pershad was the owner and pattadar and at no point of time, any documents have been executed by the pattadar Mohd. Mehdi Nawaz in favour of Khaja Asadullah Khan. It is stated that the oral Hiba/gift requires no registration when the same is acted upon. It is further stated that in order to establish that the oral hiba was acted upon, the name of Maharaja Kishen Pershad was recorded in the Sethwar, thereby evidencing that the property was gifted by the pattadar in favour of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that after the death of Maharaja Kishen Pershad, H.E.H Nizam has conferred rights by issuing Farman in favour of Khaja Arjun Pershad S/o. Maharaja Kishen Pershad. It is submitted that Asadullah Khan, who is the son of Maharaja Kishen Pershad was allowed to live and enjoy the property as licensee without transferring the rights and permissive possession is never considered to be transfer of title. It is further submitted that the declarations filed by the vendors of the respondent Nos.1 to 9 claiming to be successors of Late Asadullah Khan and pending finalization of the same, has fraudulently created permissions under Section 27(3) of ULC Act, 1976 vide Permission No.6816/1979, 6833/1979, 6842/1979 and 6870/1999 dated 27.04.1980 in Proceedings No.E/ 5946/76 dated 22.06.1982 and 11.09.1982, C.C.No.E/6384/76, C.C.No.8948/76 and executed the subject sale deeds dated 06.10.1980 and supplementary document No.6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982 as if the exemptions were granted under the provisions of the ULC Act and as no such permissions are available on record, the same has to be treated as fraudulent documents and hit by Section 5 of the ULC Act read with provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. It is submitted that the note file produced by the Government reveals that the proceedings in C.C. Nos.E/6384/76 and E/8948/76 did not culminate in a Final Declaration under the ULC Act, 1976. Therefore, the claim of the respondents that exemption orders were issued stands falsified, and the recitals in the sale deeds vide Document Nos. 1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982 are contrary to record. It is contended that the said sale deeds are not valid in law, as fraud vitiates all judicial acts, whether ecclesiastical or temporal, and can be challenged even in collateral proceedings. It is further contended that the petitioners, upon obtaining information under RTI Act, came to know that the respondents had misrepresented facts by stating that permission had been granted by the ULC authorities for execution of the subject sale deeds. In view of such discovery, it is submitted that the principles of limitation and laches do not apply to the maintainability of the present writ petitions. It is further submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare the proceedings under the ULC Act as void, illegal, or non-est, and therefore, the present writ petitions, which challenge the proceedings initiated under the ULC Act, are maintainable even after the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short "ULC Repeal Act, 1999"), as adopted by the State of Telangana. Consequently, this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is competent to declare the said sale deeds as null, void, and non-est in the eye of law. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions in Ameer-un-Nissa Begum and others vs. Mahboob Begum 1; Director of Endowments, Government of Hyderabad and others vs. Akaram Ali 2; Ningawwa vs. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar and others 3; Syed Shah Ghulam Ghouse Mohiuddin vs. Syed Shal Ahmed Mohiuddin Kamisul Quadri 4; Bankey Bahadur Srivastava vs. District Judge, Varanasi 5; State of Gujarat and others vs. Parshottamdas Ramdas Patel and others 6; K.S. Mariyappa vs. K.T. Siddalinga Setty 7; The Government of A.P. vs. J. Raghothama Reddy 8; Col. Denzyl Winston Ferries vs. Abdul Jaleel 9; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kumar and Ors. 10; Uppari Muttamma vs. Special Tribunal 11; Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian and others12; 1 (1955) SCC Online SC 23 (Paras 19 & 20) 2 (1955) SCC Online SC 62 (Paras 10 & 11) 3 (1968) SCC Online SC 206 (Paras 5 & 6) 4 (1971) 1 SCC 597 (Para 19) 5 1982 SCC Online (Paras 5 & 6) 6 (1988) 1 SCC 132 (Paras 10 & 12) 7 (1988) SCC Online Kar 53/ I.L.R 1989 KAR 425 (Para 12) 8 (1991) SCC Online AP 30 (Paras 16 & 21) 9 (1992) SCC Online AP 1 (Para 14) 10 (1995) 2 SCC 627 (Paras 3, 4 & 5) 11 1997 SCC Online AP 433 (Para 49) 12 (2001) 7 SCC 549 (Para 48) Joseph Severance and others vs. Benny Mathew and others 13; Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala and others 14; Prem Singh vs. Birbal 15; A.V.Papayya Sastry and others vs. Government of A.P and others 16; Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat 17; Ritesh Tewari vs. State of UP 18; Hafeeza Bibi and others vs Shaikh Farid (dead) by LRs. and others 19; Union of India vs. Ibraheem Uddin and another 20; P. Vijaya Jyothi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 21; State of Orissa vs. Fakir Charan Sethi 22; Madhukar Sadba Shivarkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others 23; State of UP vs. Adarsh Sevs Samithi 24; S.P.S. Rathore vs. CBI 25; Sunil Kumar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others 26; Jamila Begum vs. Shami Mohd. (D) through L.Rs. and others 27; The Competent Authority, Calcutta vs. David Mantosh and others 28; Partap Singh vs. Shivram 29; Saurav Jain and another vs. A.B.P. Design and 13 2005 7 SCC 667 (Paras 7 & 8) 14 (2006) 8 SCC 210 (Paras 15 & 16) 15 (2006) 5 SCC 353 (Paras 16, 17 & 18) 16 (2007) 4 SCC 221 (Paras 21, 22, 27, 28 & 30) 17 (2008) 12 SCC 353 (Paras 18-22, 24 -25) 18 (2010) 10 SCC 677 (Paras 21, 27, 31, 32 & 35) 19 (2011) 5 SCC 654 (Paras 26 & 27) 20 (2012) 8 SCC 148 (Paras 85.3 & 85.4) 21 (2013) SCC Online AP 418 (Paras 14, 15 & 16)) 22 (2015) 1 SCC 466 (Paras 17 & 18) 23 (2015) 6 SCC 557 (Para 27) 24 (2016) 12 SCC 493 (Paras 4, 5 & 6) 25 (2017) 5 SCC 817 (Para 47) 26 2019 SCC Online Bom 959 (Paras 9 to 12) 27 (2019) 2 SCC 727 (Paras 21 & 22) 28 (2020) 12 SCC 542 (Paras 44, 47 & 64) 29 (2020) 11 SCC 242 (Paras 25 & 26) another 30; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ghisilal 31; Asst Commissioner of Proh. and others vs. K.Anjaiah and others32; Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P.Velayutham and others 33 and Umadevi Nambiar vs. Thmarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese 34.

15. Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Rohit Pogula, learned counsel for respondent No.10 in W.P.No.45203 of 2022, vehemently contended that respondent Nos.1 to 9 are the lawful owners and possessors of the subject property, having purchased the same from the rightful owners after obtaining necessary permission for alienation under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976. It is submitted that such ownership is substantiated by the documents filed in support of I.A. No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.45203 of 2022. It is argued that the registered sale deeds in question were executed much prior to the insertion of Section 22-A into the Registration Act, 1908, introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 4 of 1999, which came into force on 01.04.1999. The 35 Civil Appeal No.13651 of 2024 dated 17.03.2025 = 2025 INSC 348 36 Laws (SC) 2020-11-21 37 Laws (SC) -2024-4-50 38 Laws (SC)-2025-4-11 39 2002 2 CalLJ 68 = 2002 0 Supreme (Cal) 305 learned Senior Counsel submitted that even a perusal of the photocopy of the note file in C.C. No. B/5946/76 makes it evident that exemption orders were passed under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the ULC Act and the same is supported by the records in File Nos.E/8947/76 and E/8948/76, wherein orders dated 10.08.1982 reflect that the declarants were protected under Section 4(11) of the ULC Act and that there was no excess vacant land available for vesting. It is therefore contended that in the absence of any excess land vesting with the State Government, neither the State nor the petitioners in W.P. No.45203 of 2022/respondent Nos.22 to 40, have the locus standi to challenge the ULC proceedings or the sale transactions, particularly after the lapse of several decades and following the repeal of the ULC Act. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908 do not confer any power upon the Registering Authority to adjudicate upon the validity or legality of the documents at the time of registration. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions in Shri Sohan Lal vs. Union of India & another 40; Mohan Pandey & another vs. Usha Rani & others 41; State of Rajasthan vs. 40 (1957) SCC OnLine SC 39 41 (1992) 4 SCC 61 Bhawani Singh & others 42; State of Rajasthan vs. Mangilal Pindwal 43; Bina Murlidhar Hemdev vs. Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev 44; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar vs. Arthur Import & Export Co., 45; Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. vs. Sukamani Das 46; Dilboo (Dead) By LRS and others vs. Dhanraji (Dead) and others 47; Syed Kazim Bahadur vs. District Collector, Hyderabad 48; Raidurg Co-operative House Building Society Limited vs. Government of A.P. & others 49; Yanala Malleshwari vs. Ananthula Sayamma 50; Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd vs. State of Haryana 51; Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil 52; Swati Ferro Alloys Private Limited vs. Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation & Others 53; Uma Devi & others vs. Anand Kumar & others (supra); Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 54; Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez & others 55; Popat Rao vs. Patil vs. State of Maharashtra 42 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 43 (1996) 5 SCC 60 44 (1999) 5 SCC 222 45 (2019) 3 SCC 191 46 (1999) 7 SCC 298 47 (2000) 7 SCC 702 48 2002 SCC OnLine AP 437 49 2003 SCC OnLine AP 323 50 2006 SCC OnLine AP 909 51 (2009) 7 SCC 363 52 (2010) 8 SCC 329 53 (2015) 4 SCC 204 54 (2016) 10 SCC 767 55 (2019) 2 SCC 329 & others 56; Gaurav Jaiswal vs. Union of India & others57; Ganesh Industrial Estate vs. Addl. Deputy Collector and others 58; Padhiyar Prahladji Chenanji (Deceased) through LRs vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) through LRs and others59 and Rushali Khera vs. Govt of NCLT of Delhi 60.

25. This Court has carefully examined the rival contentions of the respective parties and the decisions relied upon by them in support of their case. Prima facie, it appears that there is a serious title dispute in respect of the subject property. While it is true that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are not amenable to jurisdiction of Civil Court, it is settled law that a declaration made under the ULC Act neither confirms title nor extinguishes the rights of any party so as to validate or invalidate the registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982. The core contention of the petitioners is that in response to their RTI application dated 10.01.2024, the Public Information Officer, Urban Land Ceiling Wing, Hyderabad, vide Memo No.A4/RTI/27/2024 dated 31.01.2024, furnished information stating that the Proceedings Nos.6816, 6833, 6842, and 6870/1979 dated 27.04.1980 were not issued by their office. In contrast, respondent Nos.1 to 9 rely on Photostat copies of proceedings dated 27.04.1980 in support their claim. Whereas, the stand of the Government is that the said proceedings were destroyed within the prescribed period of one year in accordance with the rules, and no original records are presently available. The learned counsel for the respective parties placed reliance on internal note files to support or question the validity of the sale deeds. It is settled law that a note file is an internal record or documentation and, unless it culminates into a formal order or proceeding, it does not constitute legal action so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present cases, there is no material on record to show that the ULC authorities ever passed final orders under Sections 8(4), 10(3), 10(5), or 10(6) of the ULC Act. In fact, it appears that pending ULC proceedings, the ULC Act, 1976 was repealed and the same was adopted by the State on 22.04.2008. In the absence of any concluded proceedings under the provisions of the ULC Act, and having regard to the destruction of original records in accordance with the applicable rules, the claims of the petitioners, which are based on unverified note files, cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

31. Whereas respondent Nos.1 to 9 are relying upon the registered gift deed bearing document No.250/1937 dated 23rd Isfindar 1347 Fasli (1937 AD) executed by the pattadar Mohammed Mehdi @ Mehdi Nawaz Jung, in favour of Nawab Khaja Asadullah Khan S/o. Maharaja Bahadur Sir Kishen Pershad. The said registered document was disputed by the petitioners and respondent Nos.22 to

40. The contention of the petitioners is that no permission was granted to the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9 (Jafferunnisa Begum and others) for alienation of the subject land under the provisions of ULC Act and the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9 are in permissive possession. Having taken plea that vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9 are not having any title, no reasons are forthcoming as to why the petitioners or the respondent Nos.22 to 40 or their predecessors, have not filed any declaration during the subsistence of ULC Act, 1976 or initiated proceedings for eviction of Jafferunnisa Begum and others (vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9) from the subject property. The main contention in these writ petitions is that no permission was granted by ULC Authorities and suppressing the said fact, fraudulent 66 (1997) 7 SCC 137 67 (2009) 5 SCC 591 68 2001 (3) ALD 600 registered sale deeds have been executed in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 9. If that is the case, the aggrieved parties are not the petitioners or the respondent Nos.22 to 40 and it is for the State to exercise its powers as per the Registration Act, 1908 seeking cancellation of the registered sale deeds, on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. The codicils referred in the disputed documents are admittedly binding the parties to the said documents and the same cannot extinguish any rights of the third parties and the registration binds inter se parties to the said documents. If the petitioners are under the impression that the aforesaid documents were executed fraudulently taking away their rights, they are always entitled to agitate their grievance before the competent Civil Court. Even if some of the conditions in the sale deed were made with a fraudulent intention to circumvent the proceedings under the ULC Act, it is evident from the orders passed by the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority under the ULC Act, vide Proceedings No.CC E1/8948/1976 dated 11.08.1982, that the land, which is the subject matter of the declaration, is exempted under Section 4(11) of the ULC Act. As on that date, no proceedings were issued under Sections 8(4), 10(3), 10(5), and 10(6) of the ULC Act, 1976. Accordingly, the benefit under the ULC Repeal Act, 1999, would enure to the declarants. In addition, the Special Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad has placed written instructions dated 01.05.2025 stating that they have issued proceedings under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of ULC Act, granting permission to alienate the subject lands. (scanned copy of instructions is reproduced above).