THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.1482 OF 2017
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Bhaskar Reddy)
1. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants; Mr. P.Venugopal, learned
Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Parsa
Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7.
2. The writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.25907 of 2006, dated 21.07.2017, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein directing the respondents 5 to 7 herein to make necessary corrections in the revenue records by incorporating the name of the father of the appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein/respondent Nos.10 to 13 (wrongly typed in the writ petition as respondent Nos.10 to 14), i.e., late M.China Lingaiah to an extent of Acs.7.33 2 guntas in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. The case of the writ petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein as stated before the learned Single Judge is that the first writ petitioner's mother late Raja Rani Bai had purchased half of the extent in survey No.148 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.115 of 1996, dated 19.09.1956 from one Kannaiahlal, who was the absolute owner of the property, along with Survey Nos.151 to 157 and 159 to 164 and 166 of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Survey No.148 is an extent of Acs.21.12 guntas and out of the said extent, Acs.2.02 guntas had been acquired for the purpose of laying a road, an award was passed, half of the compensation awarded was paid to the mother of the first writ petitioner and the remaining balance amount was paid to the father of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 in the writ petition/appellant Nos.2 to 4 herein. Subsequently, an application was submitted on 17.11.1996 by the father of the respondent Nos.10 to 3 13/appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein seeking mutation before the fifth respondent herein/Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheswaram Mandal and the fifth respondent herein being the competent authority under the provisions of the Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, the Act) after considering the objections raised by the first writ petitioner passed orders on 28.01.1997 for correction of entries in the revenue records for the total extent of land in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of one Mallapu China Lingaiah, father of the respondent Nos.10 to 13 in the writ petition/appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed an appeal on the file of the sixth respondent herein/Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 5(5) of the Act. The sixth respondent herein after considering the entire material disposed of the said Appeal by order dated 23.04.1998 directing the writ petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of their 4 grievance. Questioning the said orders, again the writ petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed a Revision under Section 9 of the Act before the seventh respondent herein/Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Revisional Authority after examination of entire material dismissed the revision, by order dated 17.06.2006 on the ground that the revision is not maintainable in view of the parallel proceedings in O.S.No.29 of 1997, which is decreed by the competent civil court. Challenging the said orders of the Revisional Authority, dated 17.06.2006, the writ petition is filed.
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 21.07.2017 after considering the proceedings issued under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act in favour of the father of the appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein/respondent Nos.10 to 13 in respect of an extent of Acs.7.33 guntas only in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and it was recorded that the said factum was admitted by both the parties in the writ petition. The 5 learned Single Judge also observed that as the fifth respondent herein, i.e., the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheswaram Mandal has travelled beyond the said extent and granted mutation in respect of the entire extent of land in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, directed the fifth respondent herein to make necessary corrections in the revenue records by incorporating the name of the father of respondent Nos.10 to 13 in the writ petition/appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein, namely M.China Lingaiah, to the extent of Acs.7.33 guntas only in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as admittedly the said extent was purchased by the father of respondent Nos.10 to 13 in the writ petition/appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana appearing for the appellants submits that respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein/writ petitioners filed 6 O.S.No.29 of 1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment and the same was decreed vide Judgment and decree dated 07.09.2004. Against the said order, the appellants herein filed A.S.No.176 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the same was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the again respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein/writ petitioners filed Second Appeal i.e., S.A.No.224 of 2006 on the file of this Court and this Court dismissed the Second Appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.176 of 2004. Learned Senior Counsel submits that having failed to obtain favourable orders from the civil Courts and this Court, respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein/writ petitioners have approached this Court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to determine the question relating to title and possession, which is illegal and impermissible 7 and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the writ courts are not having jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari for correction of entries in the revenue records. He further submits that the learned Single Judge, ignoring all these aspects, allowed the writ petition, warranting interference by this Court. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S.Radhakrishnan1.
6. Mr. P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4/writ petitioners submits that the first writ petitioner's mother along with others had purchased the land in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under registered sale deed vide document No.115 of 1956, dated 19.09.1956 and part of the land was acquired for laying a road and awarded compensation amount was also paid to her. He further submits that the regularisation of alienation in favour of the father of appellant Nos.7 to 10 1 AIR 1964 SC 477 8 herein/respondent Nos.10 to 13 is not valid in law and the same was not in accordance with the Rules framed under the Act and therefore, the proceedings issued by the fifth respondent herein for mutation of entries in revenue records in favour of the father of appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein/respondent Nos.10 to 13 is bad in law, illegal and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.1020, dated 03.12.1997 and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The father of the appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein/respondent Nos.10 to 13, namely M.China Lingaiah purchased land in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the same was validated under the provisions of the Act as admitted by both the parties. The suit being O.S.No.29 of 1997 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4/writ petitioners for simplicitor injunction in respect of Acs.7.33 guntas of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy 9 District was initially decreed vide judgment and decree dated 07.09.2004 by the Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, and the appeal carried by the appellants herein was allowed by judgment and decree dated 07.11.2005 passed in A.S.No.176 of 2004 by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in the suit. Again the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein/writ petitioners carried the matter by way of filing second appeal in S.A.No.224 of 2006 before this Court and this Court dismissed the said appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.176 of 2004 as no substantial question of law was involved in the second appeal. This Court is of the view that learned Single Judge without adverting to such facts allowed the writ petition directing the fifth respondent herein/Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheswaram Mandal to correct the entries in the revenue records to an extent of Acs.7.33 guntas only in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which is therefore required to be interfered with by this Court. It is 10 settled proposition of law that the parties agitating their rights have to approach the competent civil court to establish their title and possession by adducing evidence and after obtaining necessary orders from the competent civil courts only, they are entitled for correction of revenue records and mutation of their names in the revenue records. It is also settled proposition of law that the revenue authorities cannot decide the question of title and possession, however the revenue authorities being the regulating authority is entitled to consider the applications submitted for mutation of the properties strictly in accordance with the procedure contained in the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge in stead of allowing the writ petition for correction of entries ought to have relegated the parties to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievance to carry out necessary entries in the revenue records.
9. The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 was replaced with the enactment of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 11 2020 (for short, 'Act No.9 of 2020'). By virtue of Section 16 of Act No.9 of 2020, all the pending Appeals and Revision cases under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 stood transferred to the Special Tribunals.
10. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the orders of the Revisional Authority and the Appellate Authority, with liberty to respondent Nos.1 to 4/writ petitioners to approach the Special Tribunal constituted under Act No.9 of 2020 for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law, if so advised.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 16.08.2022 JSU