Telangana High Court
Janagama Somi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 26 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.8831 and 20391 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.8831 of 2019 is filed for the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, order or direction or more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 13-04-2018 in case No.B2/1460/20I7 directing the Petitioners herein to approach the Civil Court for claiming their right over the subject lands in Sy.No.92/A/1/A, Ac.0-10 gts., Sy.No.143/A/1, Ac.2.10 gts., Sy.No.143/A, Ac.10.01 gts., Sy.No.147/A/1/1, Ac.12.23 gts., Sy.No. 163/A/1, Ac.1.19 and in Sy.No.339/A/1, Ac.1.19 gts., in total admeasuring Ac.29.32 gts., (herein after called as subject lands) situated at Yellamala Village, Jangaon Revenue Mandal, Jangaon District as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and against the provisions of R.O.R. Act and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the request of the Petitioners to mutate their names as pattedars of the above lands ..."
1.1.
1 W.P.No.20391 of 2019 is filed for the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, order or direction or more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the 5th respondent proceedings NO.C/10446/2016 dated 10.7.2019 recognizing the 7th respondent is in possession of the Lands in Sy.Nos.92/A to an extent of Ac.6.01 guntas, Land in Sy.No.143/A to an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas, land in Sy.No.147/A to an extent of Ac.10.01 guntas, land in Sy.No.163/A to an extent of Ac.12.23 guntas and land in Sy.No.339/A to an extent of Ac.1.19 guntas situated at Yellamla village, Jangam Mandal and District as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and against the order of the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No.B2/1460/2017 dated 13.4.2018 as well as the orders passed in the W.P.No.2408 of 2019 dated 15.2.2019 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the names of the petitioners in the possessory column in the revenue records in respect of the above said lands ..."
2. Brief facts of the case in W.P.No.8831 of 2019:
2.1. The claim of the petitioners is that their ancestors were tenants of the subject property i.e., land to an extent of Ac.32.24 guntas in Sy.Nos.92, 143, 147, 163 and 339 situated at Yellamala Village of Jangaon Mandal, Warangal JSR, J W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019 2 District, presently Jangaon District, which was obtained from Smt. Vasantha Laxmamma, Mangathayamma and others and thereafter, they have purchased from them and continued in the possession and enjoyment of the above said property since 1959 and after their death, the petitioners are in continuous possession of the subject property. Whereas, the claim of respondent No.6 is that the subject property was allotted to her in partition pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Warangal, in O.S.No.7 of 1970, dated 29.08.1977, and she made an application before respondent No.4 dated 15.11.2006 seeking mutation of her name in the subject property.
Accordingly, respondent No.4 had issued proceedings No.A/C/191/2007 dated 09.12.2010 ordering for mutation of the subject property in her favour and to issue pattadar pass books.
2.2. Questioning the above said order, dated 09.12.2010, petitioners filed Appeal Case No.I/2475/2015 before respondent No.3 and the same was allowed and set aside the orders passed by respondent No.4, by its order dated 29.04.2017. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 filed Revision Petition No.B2/1460/2017 before respondent No.2. The revisional authority set aside the orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and directed respondent No.6 as well as the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court and further directed respondent No.4 to restore the names of the original pattadars i.e., Smt.Vasantha Laxmamma, S.Mangathayamma, Nellutla Yadagiri Rao, Kasba Laxmamma and others and to record occupant column as per physical JSR, J W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019 3 possession and to maintain status quo until final order from the competent Court, by its order dated 13.04.2018. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed the present writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case in W.P.No.20391 of 2019:
During pendency of W.P.No.8831 of 2019, respondent No.6, who is respondent No.7 in W.P.No.20391 of 2019, filed W.P.No.2408 of 2019 questioning the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in not implementing the orders of respondent No.2, dated 13.04.2018, and the same was disposed of at the stage of admission directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 to take necessary steps for implementation of the order of respondent No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.6 filed Contempt Case No.541 of 2019 for non-implementation of the above said order. Subsequently, respondent No.4 had issued proceedings No.C/10446/2016 dated 10.07.2019 implementing the orders of respondent No.2 and. Questioning the above said proceedings, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.20391 of 2019.
4. During pendency of the proceedings before respondent authorities, respondent No.6 filed suit in O.S.No.138 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the subject property against the petitioners. Along with the said suit, she filed application in I.A.No.249 of 2016, wherein temporary injunction was granted on 18.01.2017. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed C.M.A.No.22 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Judge, Jangaon, and the same was dismissed by its order dated 30.06.2022. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed JSR, J W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019 4 C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 20.02.2023.
5. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing Jelli Narendar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel, representing Smt.A.B.Lalitha Gayathri, learned counsel for respondent No.6 in W.P.No.8831 of 2019 and respondent No.7 in W.P.No.20391 of 2019 and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents.
6. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners and their ancestors have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property since 1959 and their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books were also issued in their favour. After lapse of more than 28 years, respondent No.6 filed application seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records before respondent No.4, pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.7 of 1970 dated 29.08.1977. Respondent No.4, without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioners, passed orders, dated 09.12.2010, solely basing upon the instructions issued by the District Collector dated 16.04.2010 and 19.08.2010, especially respondent No.6 had not questioned the revenue entries made in favour of the petitioners or their ancestors before any authority and petitioners are not parties in O.S.No.7 of 1970. Questioning the said order, petitioners filed statutory appeal before respondent No.3 exercising the powers conferred under Section 5(5) of the Telangana Rights in Land Pattadar Pass Book JSR, J W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019 5 Act, 1971 (hereinafter called brevity, 'the RoR Act'). The appellate authority after due verification of the records and after hearing both the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by respondent No.4 dated 09.12.2010, by its order dated 19.04.2017. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 filed revision petition under Section 9 of the RoR Act before respondent No.2. The revisional authority without considering the contentions of the petitioners and without assigning any reasons passed the impugned order dated 13.04.2018 by setting aside the orders of respondent Nos.3 and 4, though the order dated 19.04.2017 passed by respondent No.4 was already set aside by respondent No.3.
7. Learned senior counsel vehemently contended that respondent No.3 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners by giving cogent reasons in respect of each issue by its order dated 19.04.2017. However, respondent No.2 without assigning reasons or pointing out any illegality, irregularity or error in the said order, allowed the revision petition and passed cryptic order and the same is contrary to law. He further contended that respondent No.3 while holding that respondent No.6 ought to have filed separate petition for recovery of possession, on the other hand, directed both the parties to approach competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance, instead of directing respondent No.6 alone to approach the Civil Court and the other directions issued in the impugned order directing respondent No.4 to restore the names of the original pattadars in the JSR, J W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019 6 revenue records is also contrary to law, especially the original pattadars have not made any claim nor questioned the entries made in the revenue records.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.6 contended that the petitioners or their predecessors are not having any right, interest or title over the subject property. Respondent No.6 succeeded the subject property pursuant to the decree and judgment passed in a partition suit in O.S.No.7 of 1970 dated 29.08.1977. Respondent No.4, after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of 'ROR Act' and Rules made thereunder and after hearing both the parties, issued proceedings dated 09.12.2010. Questioning the same, petitioners filed appeal and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 field revision petition before respondent No. 2 and the revisional authority after considering the contentions of both parties rightly passed the impugned order dated 13.04.2018, and the said order was already implemented and the name of respondent No.6 was mutated and pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in her favour and she is in physical possession of the subject property. When the petitioners are trying to interfere with the said property, respondent No.6 filed suit in O.S.No.138 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, seeking perpetual injunction and the said Court has granted temporary injunction in I.A.No.249 of 2016 and the said order was confirmed in C.M.A.No.22 of 2018 dated 30.06.2022. Questioning the same, petitioners have filed C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 20.02.2023.
JSR, J W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019 7
9. He further contended that the petitioners have not produced any piece of evidence before any authorities including before this Court claiming rights over the subject property. He also contended that revisional authority specifically observed that in spite of giving several opportunities, the petitioners have not produced any evidence to prove their rights over the property. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled any relief much less the relief sought in the writ petitions.
10. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioners are claiming rights over the subject property from their ancestors, who are in possession since 1959, who were tenants of the original pattadars namely, Smt.Vasantha Laxmamma, Mangathayamma and others and also pleaded that later they have purchased the same from them and their names were recorded in the revenue records. Whereas, respondent No.6 is claiming rights over the property by virtue of decree and judgment passed in a partition suit in O.S.No.7 of 1970, dated 29.08.1977. Pursuant to the said decree, respondent No.6 had submitted an application dated 15.11.2016 before respondent No.4 for mutation of her name in the revenue records. Basing on the said application, respondent No.4 passed order dated 09.12.2010 for mutation of her name in the revenue records and also for issuance of pattadar pass book. Questioning the above said order, the petitioners have filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act before respondent No.3. The appellate JSR, J W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019 8 authority after considering the contentions of the respective parties and after due verification of the records framed three issues and after hearing both parties allowed the appeal by giving reasons in respect of each issue, by its order dated 29.04.2017. Questioning the same, respondent No.6 filed revision petition under Section 9 of the RoR Act before respondent No.2 and the same was allowed, by its order dated 13.04.2018.
11. The impugned order dated 13.04.2018 clearly reveals that respondent No.2 simply extracted the facts of the case, written submissions filed by both parties and set aside the order of the appellate authority dated 19.04.2017 without pointing out any illegality, irregularity or error in the said order and without assigning any reasons. It is relevant to extract the operative portion of the order, which reads as follows:
"Therefore, in view of the above observation the orders of the lower court I/2475/2015 Dt:19.04.2017 and Tahasildar Jangaon Proceedings F2/4156/2010 dt:19.08.2010, are hereby quashed and this court opines that the case is civil in nature and it has to be decided by a competent civil court. Hence the revision petitioner and respondents herein are directed to approach the competent court for redressal and with a direction to the Tahsildar Jangaon to restore the names of the original pattedars i.e., Smt.Vasantha Laxmamma, S.Mangathayamma, Nellutla Yadagiri Rao, Kasba Laxmamma and others and to record occupant column as per physical possession and to maintain status quo until final orders from the competent court."
JSR, J W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019 9
12. It is very much relevant to place on record that Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s.Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed 1, specifically held that quasi judicial authority or administrative authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers.
13. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of justice delivery system, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for their conclusions, while disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing.
14. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Prasad Jain 3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.
15. In ITC Limited, rep. by Pinnamraju Ashok varma, Visakhapatnam, A.P v. State of A.P. 4, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi held that where property rights are involved, any adverse order by the authority results in infringement of right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
16. It is already observed supra that respondent No.2 without assigning any reasons passed cryptic order dated 13.04.2018 and same is gross violation of 1 2010(9) SCC 496 2 2010 (4) SCC 785 3 (2008) 15 SCC 711 4 2024 (2) ALT 753 JSR, J W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019 10 principles of natural justice and contrary to the settled principles of law and the same is liable to be set aside on the above ground alone, without going into other grounds, the matter is required for reconsideration by the revisional authority.
17. Insofar as W.P.No.20391 of 2019 is concerned, respondent No.6 filed independent writ petition i.e., W.P.No.2408 of 2010 questioning the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 for non-implementation of the orders passed by respondent No.2 dated 13.04.2018. It appears from the record that this Court disposed of the said writ petition and directed respondent No.4 to take steps to implement the orders. For non-implementation of the said order, respondent No.6 filed contempt case vide C.C.No.541 of 2019. At that stage, respondent No.3 had issued proceedings dated 10.07.2019 implementing the orders of respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.6.
18. The records disclose that while ordering notice before admission in W.P.No.20391 of 2019, this Court on 19.09.2019 granted status quo obtaining as on date with respect to entries in the revenue records maintained. Questioning the said status quo order, the petitioners filed W.A.No.762 of 2019 and the same was dismissed on 27.09.2019 and the above interim order is continuing till date.
19. It is an undisputed fact that during pendency of the proceedings before respondent authorities, respondent No.6 filed a suit in O.S.No.138 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, seeking perpetual injunction. Along with the said suit, petitioner filed I.A.No.249 of 2016 for grant of JSR, J W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019 11 temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., wherein temporary injunction was granted on 18.01.2017. Questioning the same, petitioners filed C.M.A.No.22 of 2018 before Principal District Judge, Jangaon, and the same was dismissed on 30.06.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022 before this Court and the same was also dismissed on 20.02.2023
20. The State of Telangana, while repealing the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, legislated new enactment, namely, the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (Act No.9 of 2020), and the same is came into force with effect from 29.10.2020. By virtue of repealing the Act, 1971, respondent No.2 is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate the revision under Section 9 of R.O.R. (old) Act. However, as per the provisions of the new enactment Act 9 of 2020, Special Tribunal Rules were constituted under G.O.Ms.No.4 Revenue (Assignment-I) Dept., dated 12.01.2021, in every District for adjudication of pending cases. Hence, the Revision Case No.B2/1460/2017 has to be adjudicated by the Special Tribunal, Jangaon District.
21. In view of the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down in the above said judgments "supra", the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to Special Tribunal, Jangaon District, with a direction to consider the Revision Case No.B2/1460/2017 filed by respondent No.6 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioners as well as unofficial respondent, JSR, J W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019 12 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the parties are directed to maintain Status Quo in respect of the entries made in the revenue records. It is needless to observe that both parties are entitled to raise all the grounds which are available under law.
22. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in both the writ petitions shall stand closed.
____________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 26.04.2024 Note:
Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this Order to the District Collector, Jangaon District.
(b/o) mar