THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 3474 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by respondent No.2- Special Tribunal in ST No.39/2021/D1/455/2018, dated 23.06.2021 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.3.21 gts., situated in Sy.No.215 of Madharam Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and to quash the same and to set aside the mutation proceedings issued by respondent No.3 in proceeding Nos.B1/552/2006, B1/553/2006 and B1/537/2006, dated 25.12.2006, 30.11.2006 and 25.12.2006, respectively.
2. Heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M.Sreenivas, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
3. Through the impugned order dated 23.06.2021, respondent No.2-Special Tribunal refused to entertain the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners herein against the mutation proceedings 2 MSK,J wp_3474_2022 issued by respondent No.3 bearing Nos. B1/552/2006, B1/553/2006 and B1/537/2006, dated 25.12.2006, 30.11.2006 and 25.12.2006, respectively. Through the said mutation proceedings, respondent No.3 herein ordered for mutation of the name of respondent No.4 herein in the Revenue records in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.215 of Madharam Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in favour of respondent No.4 herein. Aggrieved by the said mutation proceedings of the year 2006, the petitioners herein filed the revision petition under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971'), before the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in the month of February, 2018. The said revision petition, pending on the file of Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, was transferred to respondent No.2-Special Tribunal by virtue of Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020. The said revision petition came to be disposed of by respondent No.2-Special Tribunal through the impugned order, dated 23.06.2021 refusing to interfere with the mutation proceedings issued by respondent 3 MSK,J wp_3474_2022 No.3 and relegating the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that Maddi Buchaiah, Maddi Ramulu and Janga Pochaiah are the absolute owners of land admeasuring Ac.0.23 gts., Ac.0.22 gts., and Acs.1.05 gts., in Sy.No.215 of Madharam Village and whereas Janga Balaiah and Bathini Myasaiah are the joint owners of land admeasuring Acs.1.05 gts., in Sy.No.215 of Madharam Village. The above said persons claimed to have acquired right and title over their respective extents of lands as mentioned above by virtue of a ownership certificate issued under Section 38(E) of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act, 1950'). It is the further case of the petitioners that the above said extents of land total admeasuring Acs.3.15 gts., was mutated in the name of the above said five (05) persons through proceeding Nos.ROR/98/1992, dated 28.05.1992. Basing upon the said ownership certificate issued under Section 38(E) of the Act, 1950, the petitioners 1,2,7 and 8 herein are claiming through Janga Pochaiah and whereas the petitioner No.3 herein is claiming through Maddi Ramulu. Similarly, petitioner 4 MSK,J wp_3474_2022 No.4 herein is claiming through Janga Balaiah and whereas petitioner Nos.5 and 6 herein are claiming through Bathini Myasaiah. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the grievance of the petitioners herein is that the name of respondent No.4 herein is mutated in respect of the land in Sy.No.215 of Madharam Village without putting the petitioners herein on notice and without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act, 1971. It is also the further case of the petitioners that though respondent No.4 herein claims to have purchased the subject land through various registered sale deeds, the vendors under the said registered documents have sold the subject land in favour of respondent No.4 though they were not having the right and title over the extents sold by them. In other words, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the vendors of respondent No.4 herein have sold the extents more than the extents owned by them in Sy.No.215 of Madharam Village. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.4 herein and its respective vendors have played fraud and got the registered documents executed for the land more than what is owned by the respective vendors. It is 5 MSK,J wp_3474_2022 also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2-Special Tribunal failed to advert to various contentions raised by the petitioners in their revision petition and without examining the matter on merits, the Special Tribunal passed the impugned order thereby causing great prejudice to the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the Pattadar Pass Book issued in favour of the petitioners herein by duly including the land in Sy.No.215 for the respective extents claimed by the petitioners herein.
5. On the other hand, Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, leaned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, contended that the mutation proceedings were issued as early as in the year 2006 and the revision petition came to be filed by the petitioners herein against the said mutation proceedings of the year 2006 only in the year 2018, that is after a long lapse of twelve (12) years and further contended that the vendors of respondent No.4 have got absolute right and title over the land which is acquired by respondent No.4 herein under various registered sale deeds namely document Nos.4900 of 2006, 5292 of 2006 and 5291 of 2006. It is further contended that the respondent No.4 herein purchased the entire 6 MSK,J wp_3474_2022 extent of Acs.17.25 gts., of land situated in Sy.No.215 of Madharam Village along with certain other extents of land in other Sy.Nos. under the above referred sale deeds and the name of respondent No.4 is rightly mutated in the Revenue records and was also issued Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds. It is further contended that the name of respondent No.4 was mutated as early as in the year 2006 in the Revenue records and the same is continuing as on today. But, for the reasons best known, the petitioners herein have kept quite for more than twelve (12) years and at a belated stage made an attempt to disturb the right and title of respondent No.4 over the subject property. It is also contended that though the petitioners herein are claiming under a ownership certificate said to have been issued under Section 38(E) of the Act, 1950, and under mutation proceedings of the year 1992, neither of the same are placed on record either before the Special Tribunal or before this Court and further contended that when respondent No.4 herein made an attempt to obtain such mutation proceedings of the year 1992 from the office of respondent No.3, the office of respondent No.3 informed the 7 MSK,J wp_3474_2022 respondent No.4, that the said proceedings is not traceable in the office of respondent No.3.
6. Respondent No.2-Special Tribunal refused to entertain the revision petition filed by the petitioners herein under Section 9 of the Act, 1971, on the ground that there is a serious dispute of title over the property between the rival claimants and such a dispute cannot be adjudicated by the Revenue Authorities and such claims have to be agitated before a competent Civil Court.
7. Having considered the submissions made on either side and having perused the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.2-Special Tribunal has rightly arrived at such a conclusion and rightly relegated the parties to approach the competent Civil Court. The reasons for the same are as under:
8. Though the petitioners herein claimed that they have obtained mutation proceedings bearing No.ROR/98/1992, dated 28.05.1992 basing upon a ownership certificate issued under Section 38(E) of the Act, 1950, neither the said ownership certificate, nor the mutation proceedings dated 28.05.1992 is placed before the Special Tribunal , nor before this Court. In spite 8 MSK,J wp_3474_2022 of a serious dispute raised about the said 38(E) certificate and the mutation proceedings including the genuineness of such proceedings in the counter filed by respondent No.4, the petitioners herein though filed a detailed reply affidavit, failed to place on record such proceedings. In the absence of placing on record the said ownership certificate issued under Section 38(E) and the mutation proceedings of the year 1992 which are the basis for the claim of the petitioners herein, it is not possible for respondent No.2-Special Tribunal to appreciate the claim made by the petitioners herein. A perusal of the Pattadar Pass Books, which are issued in favour of the petitioners herein, on which a strong reliance is placed by the petitioners also shows that the land in Sy.No.215 is shown to have been entered in the respective Pass Books by interpolation and also by making corrections which are evident to the naked eye. No reasonable explanation is offered for such an interpolation in the respective Pattadar Pass Books of the petitioners herein. The said interpolation is by inserting the Sy.No.215 and the extent of land in between the other survey numbers and by changing the serial number of the different items of property. The said interpolation in the respective Pattadar Pass 9 MSK,J wp_3474_2022 Books and the failure of petitioners herein in placing on record, the ownership certificate said to have been issued under Section 38(E) and the mutation proceedings of the year 1992, creates a strong doubt on the claim of the petitioners over the land in Sy.No.215 of Madharam Village.
9. In the light of the above observations and failure of the petitioners to show their prima facie right and title over the land in Sy.No.215 a mere stray entries made in the Revenue records during one particular year does not confer any right and title on the petitioners. As the petitioners herein fail to establish their prima facie right and title over the subject property and the claim of respondent No.4 herein is based upon a registered sale deed of the year 2006, this Court is of the considered view that there is no necessity to examine the right, title and entitlement of respondent No.2 in detail. Admittedly, the name of respondent No.4 is mutated in the Revenue records in the year 2006 and the same is continuing as on date. Had the petitioners established their right over the subject property, respondent No.2-Special Tribunal or this Court would have examined the matter in further detail.
10 MSK,J
wp_3474_2022
10. In view of the findings recorded above, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the names of the petitioners have been deleted from the Revenue records without putting them on notice contrary to the law laid down by this Court in a Judgment reported in Chinnam Pandurangam v.The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli, Rangareddy District1 is of no avail.
11. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Special Tribunal and does not find any merit to interfere with the order passed by the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal in exercise of Certiorari Jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open for the petitioners to agitate their rights before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________________ MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J Date: 17.11.2022 Nds 1 2007 (6) ALD 348 11 MSK,J wp_3474_2022 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 3474 OF 2022 Date:17.11.2022 Nds 12 MSK,J wp_3474_2022