HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.334 of 2021
Date: 17.08.2021
BETWEEN
P. Laxman Rao and others.
... APPELLANTS
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat Building,
Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Nagula Srinivas Yadav Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Revenue The Court made the following:
2JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy) This writ appeal is filed assailing the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP.No.1918 of 2021.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the appellants/writ petitioners challenging the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in not incorporating in their names in the revenue records in respect of land in Sy.No.40, admeasuring Ac.1.22 guntas, Sy.No.45, admeasuring Ac.1.04 guntas, Sy.No.46, admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas, Sy.No.47, admeasuring Ac.2.17 guntas, in total admeasuring Ac.6.23 guntas and also lands in Sy.No.34 admeasuring Ac.2.14 guntas, Sy.No.35 admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas and Sy.No.38 admeasuring Ac.1.17 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.4.30 guntas, all together admeasuring Ac.11.03 guntas, situated at Thokatta Village, Tirumalgherry Mandal, Secunderabad as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, null and void, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'ROR Act') and the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 and Rules, 2006 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
3. It is relevant to note that the appellants have not specifically challenged the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Hyderabad in Case.No.B/3883/2009 dated 16.04.2011; the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad District in File No.B/1302/2008 dated 15.05.2008 and also the Memo No.C/4791 of 2007 dated 20.02.2008 on the file of the respondent No.4, based on which their request for entering their names in the revenue records was rejected. However, in I.A.No.1 of 2021 moved in 3 this appeal and in IA.No.1 of 2021 moved in WP.No.1918 of 2021, the appellants have sought for suspension of the impugned proceedings passed by the respondents No.2 to 4. This Court notes that even in the main relief in the writ petition no challenge has been laid to the impugned proceedings. Be that as it may, in the interest of doing substantive justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, this Court is dealing with this appeal on the premise that there was a challenge to the aforesaid impugned proceedings passed by the respondents No.2 to 4.
4. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed before the learned Single Judge. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ affidavit are as under:
(a) The petitioners are the legal heirs of Late P. Yellaiah, S/o. Late Lakshmaiah @ P. Balaiah, who was a protected tenant of the lands in Sy.No.40 admeasuring Ac.1.22 guntas, Sy.No.45 admeasuring Ac.1.04 guntas, Sy.No.46 admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas, Sy.No.47 admeasuring Ac.2.17 guntas in total Ac.6.23 guntas and also lands in Sy.No.34 admeasuring Ac.2.14 guntas, Sy.No.35 admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas and Sy.No.38 admeasuring Ac.1.17 guntas total admeasuring Ac.4.30 guntas, all together admeasuring Ac.11.03 guntas situated at Thokatta Village, Tirumalgherry Mandal, Secunderabad; earlier the family name of the appellants was Thokatta and subsequently, changed to Potharaju in the year 1960; the father of the petitioner No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands and later, the petitioners were in possession of the lands; the name of their grandfather, Yellaiah, was recorded in the pahanies for the year 1955-58 and 1975-76.
4
(b) The father of the unofficial respondents claimed himself as Thokatta Yellaiah @ Lothumalla Yellaiah and got his name incorporated in the revenue records by indulging in manipulation; the petitioners belong to a schedule caste community and they are innocent not financially sound; they approached the respondent No.4 several times to protect their interest in respect of the subject lands; the respondents No.5 to 9, who are having good financial and political background, mislead the respondent No.4 and changed the name appearing in revenue record from 'Thokatta Yellaiah' to 'Lothumalla Yellaiah'; an application was submitted by the petitioners for mutation and issuance of pattadar pass books; the respondent No.4 issued Memo No.C/4791 of 2007 dated 20.02.2008, rejecting their claim; the appeal, preferred by the petitioners before the RDO challenging the proceedings of the MRO, was also dismissed with the following observations:
"In view of the above facts, I do not interfere with the orders issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in File No.B2/7663/0- 6, dated 02-03-2007, as the area in question is not covered under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971, as clarified by the CCLA, Hyderabad vide reference No.ROM/ROR-I/567/06, dated 17.02.2007."
(c) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the MRO and RDO, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Joint Collector in Revision Case No.82/3883 of 2009, which was also dismissed by order dated 16.04.2011.
5. The petitioners contend that the Joint Collector has not considered the possession of the revision petitioners, not referred to crucial date of vesting as well as Khasra Pahani, Sesala Pahani reflecting the name of the forefather of the petitioners; the order was passed by the Joint Collector without following the procedure 5 contemplated under the ROR Act and without considering the fact that they are the actual legal heirs of Late Thokatta Yellaiah.
6. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition noting that there is a delay of 10 years in approaching the Court for relief; no serious effort was made by the petitioners to prosecute the litigation; though no limitation is prescribed to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a party seeking intervention of the Court should invoke the jurisdiction of the Court within a reasonable time. Learned Single Judge, however, observed that it is open to the petitioners to work out their remedies as available in law.
7. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners that the revenue/quasi judicial authorities cannot relegate his clients to the civil Court as they are bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the ROR Act. The petitioners and their family members had serious health ailments and could not pursue the litigation. Thus, the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The writ petition ought to have been considered on merits instead of being dismissed on technical grounds.
8. We have heard Mr. Nagula Srinivas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
9. As seen from the record, the Tahsildar had issued a memo dated 20.02.2008, clearly stating, inter alia, that the pattedar pass books and title deeds could not be given as the land in question is not covered under the provisions of the ROR Act, as it was clarified by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Hyderabad in 6 Ref.No.ROM/ROR1/567/06 dated 17.02.2007 that the ROR Act is not applicable to the Hyderabad District. Vide order dated 14.05.2008, the RDO dismissed the appeal at the admission stage referring to the clarification dated 17.02.2007, issued by the CCLA and also the order dated 02.03.2007 in File No.B2/7663/2006 passed by the District Collector holding that the area in question is not covered under the ROR Act. In the revision petition filed by the appellants/petitioners, reiterating the stand taken by the MRO and RDO, it was held that the ROR Act is not implemented in the Hyderabad District. Therefore, the order passed by the MRO and RDO needs no interference.
10. We are not convinced by the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner for approaching the Court for relief with an inordinate delay of 10 years. The order of the Joint Collector is dated 16.04.2011; the writ petition came to be filed on 25.01.2021. Nothing is stated in the writ petition to explain the reasons for the delay. Having found that the learned Single Judge made adverse observations regarding the delay, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has tried to improve upon the case by raising several new grounds in this appeal, citing health reasons of the petitioners for not approaching the Court within a reasonable time. This Court cannot appreciate such grounds, which were not urged before the learned Single Judge. In any case, the stand of the authorities is that as per the Circular dated 17.02.2007, issued by the CCLA, the ROR Act is not applicable to the Hyderabad District. The appellants/petitioners are unable to satisfy the Court as to how the said Circular issued by the CCLA is not binding on them in respect of the subject lands. The said Circular is also not under challenge. Thus, the appellants/petitioners have not laid any foundation to seek correction of the revenue record and issuance of pattedar pass books 7 and title deeds in their favour. Several judgments have been referred to in the appeal grounds. But learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has not been able to convince us as to how the principles of law laid down in the said decisions are applicable to the facts of the present case.
The writ appeal is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order would not come in the way of the appellants/petitioners, in case they choose to approach the civil Court for adjudication of their rights and title in respect of the subject lands. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed with no order as to costs.
_____________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ __________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J August 17, 2021 DSK