THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL Nos.579 of 2016 AND 1013 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
The writ appeal, namely W.A.No.579 of 2016 has
been filed by the State of Telangana, whereas writ appeal
No.1013 of 2023 has been filed by Hindustan Aeronautical
Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited
(hereinafter referred to as 'Cooperative Society'). Both the
appeals emanate from an order dated 17.03.2016 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15056 of 2014 and
were, therefore, heard together and are being decided by
this common judgment.
2. The respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
writ petitioner') purchased vide registered sale deed dated 10.06.2005, land measuring Acs.24.35 guntas of survey No.77 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject land'). The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed an application 2 seeking mutation of its name in the revenue records. The aforesaid application was allowed by Tahsildar by an order dated 14.11.2005.
3. The aforesaid order of mutation was assailed in revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The revisional authority by an order dated 06.02.2007 set aside the order of mutation in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner thereupon challenged the order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the revisional authority in a writ petition, namely W.P.No.10074 of 2008, which was allowed by an order dated 15.12.2008 and the order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the revisional authority, namely the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District was set aside and the matter was remitted to the authority to pass an order afresh.
4. After the remand, the revisional authority, namely the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 06.05.2009 passed the order granting mutation in favour of the writ petitioner and directing the Tahsildar to implement the 3 same. The aforesaid order was not complied with. Thereupon, the writ petitioner filed writ petition No.15056 of 2014, in which the following prayer was made:
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to act in accordance with law and incorporate the name of the petitioner as the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.24.35 guntas in Sy.No.77 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in all the revenue records including the pahanies by deleting the present entry "government land" in consonance with the mutation order passed by the 3rd respondent in Proc. No.B/965/2004, dated 14.11.2005 in recognition and reflection of the title and right of the petitioner over the said land and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
5. Learned Single Judge by an order dated 17.03.2016 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents therein to incorporate the name of the writ petitioner as owner and in possession of the subject land in all revenue records including the Pahanies by deleting the entry "government land". Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, 4 the State Government has preferred an intra-Court appeal, namely W.A.No.579 of 2016. The Cooperative Society has filed an application for impleadment in W.P.No.15056 of 2014 preferred by the writ petitioner and also has independently assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.A. No.1013 of 2023. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals arise for our consideration.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the writ petitioner has no title in respect of the subject land in question as its vendor had no title and in fact land in question belongs to the State Government. It is further submitted that the subject land is part of C.S.No.14 of 1958. However, the learned Additional Advocate General has not disputed the fact that order dated 06.05.2009 passed by the Joint Collector was not assailed by the State Government.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the scope of intra-Court appeal is confined to examining the validity of the order passed by the learned 5 Single Judge and the same cannot be enlarged in this intra-Court appeal. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Roma Sonkar vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission 1. It is further submitted that the interveners have not challenged the order of mutation passed in favour of the writ petitioner and their remedy is to challenge the same before appropriate forum. The Cooperative Society cannot be permitted to contend in this intra-Court appeal that the writ petitioner either has no title or is not in possession of subject land. It is also submitted that the mutation entry does not confer or take away the title of any party. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited 2.
8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for Cooperative Society submitted that implead petitioner in W.P.No.15056 of 2014 and appellant in W.A. No.1013 of 1 (2018) 17 SCC 106 2 (2014) 2 SCC 269 6 2023 is a prior purchaser through registered sale deeds executed in its favour in the years 1981 and 1982. It is further submitted that no title is conveyed to the writ petitioner as its vendor had an unregistered assignment deed in its favour. It is further submitted that the name of the Cooperative Society has already been mutated in the revenue records. It is pointed out that the order passed in W.P.No.15056 of 2014 has been obtained by suppressing material facts inasmuch as the order dated 17.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps directing the an enquiry into registration of sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioner was not brought to the notice of the Court. It is contended that the order was passed in W.P.No.27045 of 2013 directing the District Collector to submit a report with regard to more than one registered deed in respect of subject land, was also not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that the order of mutation has been obtained by playing fraud and learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 30.12.2014 passed in W.P.No.27045 of 2013 had issued 7 direction for cancellation of the sale deed of the writ petitioner. However, even the aforesaid fact was not brought to the notice of learned Single Judge. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P.Velayutham 3.
9. By way of rejoinder, learned Additional Advocate General submits that in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2016 in W.P.No.15056 of 2014, the name of the writ petitioner has already been reflected in the revenue records. A copy of relevant extract of Dharani Portal is produced by the learned Additional Advocate General, which is taken on record. It is further submitted that the aforesaid entry in Dharani Portal be made subject to decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.7154 of 2021 and the decision of this Court in C.S.No.14 of 1958.
10. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The scope of this 3 (2022) 8 SCC 210 8 appeal is to examine the validity of the order passed by learned Single Judge. From perusal of the relevant extract of Dharani Portal produced before us, it is evident that in compliance of the order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15056 of 2014, the name of the writ petitioner has already been incorporated in the revenue records. However, in the aforesaid Dharani Portal, the nature of land is still shown to be 'government land'.
11. In view of the stand taken by learned Additional Advocate General that the order dated 17.03.2016 in W.P.No.15056 of 2014 has already complied with and the same be made subject to decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.7154 of 2021 and decision of this Court in C.S.No.14 of 1958, we direct the State Government to delete the nature of land as 'government land'.
12. The order passed by the learned Single Judge has been accepted upon and the entry has been made in favour of the writ petitioner in the revenue records. The aforesaid entry in the revenue records does not confer any title on the writ petitioner in respect of subject land. Even 9 otherwise, in view of the Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal vs. Union of India 4 and Thansingh Nathmal vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri 5, it is trite law that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate the question of title. The Cooperative Society is claiming its independent right, title and interest in the subject land, which cannot be adjudicated in this proceeding as the same is beyond the scope of this appeal. Even otherwise, it is well settled that mere entry in the revenue records does not confer any right over the subject property. The title of either the writ petitioner or the Cooperative Society cannot be examined in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or in this appeal, the scope of which is confined to examining validity of the order directing mutation of name of writ petitioner. In view of entry made in Dharani Portal in favour of the writ petitioner, in compliance of the order of learned Single Judge, we need not examine various contentions urged by 4 AIR 1957 SC 529 5 AIR 1964 SC 1419 10 the Cooperative Society, which can even otherwise be examined in an appropriate proceeding which may be instituted by the Cooperative Society. Needless to state that the Cooperative Society shall be at liberty to assail the validity of the order dated 06.05.2009 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, granting mutation in favour of the writ petitioner as well as the entry made in favour of the writ petitioner in Dharani Portal, in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.
13. It is clarified that neither the learned Single Judge nor this Court has expressed any opinion with regard to title and interest of either the writ petitioner or the Cooperative Society. It is open for the parties to agitate their respective claims of title in appropriate proceedings. Needless to state that Cooperative Society shall also be at liberty to challenge the entry made by the State Government in Dharani Portal in favour of the writ petitioner in appropriate proceedings. It is also made clear that the entry made in Dharani Portal in favour of the writ petitioner shall be subject to outcome of S.L.P.No.7154 of 11 2021 and the Judgment of this Court in C.S.No.14 of 1958. An entry to the said effect shall be made in Dharani Portal.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the writ appeals are disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 19.10.2023 pln