Telangana High Court
Salla Chandra Reddy And 4 Others vs State Of Telangana And 9 Others on 30 July, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.18138 of 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition came to be filed seeking to issue writ of certiorari calling for records relating to the order dated 25.06.2021 passed in ST No.1/2021/D1/92/2017 by the respondent No.2 and consequently quash the same and set aside the orders of the respondent No.5 in proceedings in File Nos.B/ROR/25/89 and B/ROR/26/989 dated 23.02.1990 and for other reliefs.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the successors in interest of one S.Ram Reddy, who is said to have purchased the property in an extent of Ac.4-15gts in Sy.No.151 of Uppal Bagayath Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is also their case that out of the said extent, an extent of Ac.2-08gts is covered by registered sale deed vide document No.970/65/E dated 30.06.1965 and the remaining extent has been purchased under Sadabainama. It is the case of the petitioners that the name of said S.Ram Reddy has been entered in the revenue records and their predecessors in interest are in possession of the property since more than two decades. It is their further case that the respondent Nos.6 to 10 claiming to be legal heirs of one Susheela and others have fraudulently got entered their names in the revenue records, 2 relying upon the proceedings issued under Section 5A of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbook Act, 1971 (for short "ROR Act, 1971") in File No.B/ROR/25 and B/ROR/26/89 dated 23.12.1990. Aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 5A of the ROR Act, in favour of the respondent Nos.6 to 10, it is stated that the petitioners filed appeal on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer and the said appeals were dismissed on 30.11.2019 holding that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a revision before the Joint Collector vide Revision Case No.D5/1031/2010 and D5/1032/2010 and the same were dismissed on 02.06.2012 on the ground that as on the date of passing order by the appellate authority there was no provision of appeal provided under Section 5B of the Act. Questioning the said action, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.21600 and 22027 of 2012 on the file of this Court and the same were partly allowed by this Court vide common order dated 20.10.2016. The learned Single Judge of this Court was of the opinion that as on the date of filing revision, the Revisional Authority has power to deal with the orders passed by the Tahsildar-respondent No.5 herein dated 23.02.1990, and placing reliance on the decision in M.B.Ratnam and others v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District and others 1, 1 2003 (1) ALD 826 (DB) 3 the order dated 02.06.2012 passed in case Nos.D5/1031/2010 and D5/1032/2010, by the revisional authority-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, was set aside and the matters were remanded back to the Joint Collector, for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
3. Pending adjudication of the lis between the inter se parties on the file of respondent No.3 herein i.e, Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the ROR Act, 1971 was repealed and replaced with Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks, 2020 (Act 9 of 2020) and the Government exercising the powers under the provisions of the said Act 9 of 2020, issued G.O.Ms.No.4, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 12.01.2021 constituted the Special Tribunal with District Collector and Additional Collector Revenue as members for disposal of cases pending before various Revenue authorities under the Act, 9 of 2020. The Revision Cases filed by the petitioners pending on the file of respondent No.3 were transferred to the Special Tribunal, Medchal-Malkajgiri and renumbered as ST No.1/2021/D1/92/2017 dated 25.06.2021. Accordingly, the Special Tribunal while adjudicating the issue whether to entertain the appeal or not after long lapse of 30 years, observed that though, no prescribed period of time limit is mentioned in the Act to entertain the revision, to decide the claim 4 after long lapse of time, since third party interests and nature of land might have been changed and to order for any changes after lapse of almost three decades, is not justifiable and with the above observations, the appeal was disposed of granting liberty to the aggrieved parties to approach competent court for redressal of their claim. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
4. This Court has carefully examined the contentions of the respective parties and perused the record.
5. The case of the petitioners is that they are the successors in interest of one Late S.Ram Reddy, who stated to have purchased the land admeasuring Ac.4-15gts in Sy.No.151 of Uppal Bagayath Village, under registered sale deed dated 30.06.1965 vide document No.970/65/E dated 30.06.1965 and remaining extent of land under Sadabainama. It is not in dispute that the names of the unofficial respondents have been entered in the revenue records vide file Nos.B/ROR/25/89 and B/ROR/26/89 by the Tahsildar. Initially, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in File Nos.D5/1031/2010 and D5/1032/2010 questioning the proceedings initiated under Section 5A of the Act and also issuance of pattedar passbooks and title deeds and mutating the names in the revenue records. From 1989 to till the 5 date of filing appeal, the names of respondent Nos.6 to 10 have been recorded in the revenue records either in the occupier column or in the pattedar column. Admittedly, there is a serious dispute with regard to the entries made in the revenue records. It is settled law that mutation of entry in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. Such entry only enables the person in whose favor the mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others 2, held that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent court and not to decide the question of title himself against the occupant. Coming to the instant case, admittedly, the petitioners have filed Revision Nos.D5/1031/2010 and D5/1032/2010 under ROR Act after two decades. It is true that entries made in revenue records can be challenged in Civil Suit but that does not mean that the revenue authorities will not exercise any discretion which they are entitled to do under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The Revisional Authority who is conferred with the power has to exercise revisional jurisdiction in a reasonable time. No doubt, 2 AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1297 6 this rule has an exception when a benefit is applied by playing fraud. The Rule that a Revisional Jurisdiction should be exercised within a reasonable time has no application but where statute is silent as to time limit, the power of revision to be exercised within reasonable time. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioners are insisting the Special Tribunal to exercise revisional powers nearly after 30 years disputing the Sadabainama validated under the provisions of the Section 5 of the ROR Act by the respondent No.5 dated 23.02.1990. It is rightly observed by the Special Tribunal that in view of mutation of property long back and change of land use and as the third parties rights are involved and at this stage, if any changes are made without hearing the parties whose rights are being effected, such action amounts to disturbing the settled possession of the parties. Further, in view of the serious disputes relating to the Sadabainama/subsequent validation/entries in the revenue records/issuance of pattedar passbooks/change of nature of the land/rights of third parties, the proper course for the aggrieved party is to institute a comprehensive civil suit seeking declaration and possession. It is also case of the petitioners that unofficial respondents herein have instituted a Civil Suit vide O.S.No.41 of 2018 on the file of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioner No.2 and the same was dismissed vide 7 judgment dated 30.01.2018. Further Section 8(2) of the ROR Act, 1971 states that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter-VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 43 of 1963), and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.
6. In view of the above, the issues raised in this writ petition, in my view, are pure questions of fact, which could be answered one way or the other only by the competent civil court in a properly instituted civil suit on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. In Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"6: xxxx.....The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is 3 (1992) 4 SCC 61 8 special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly."
8. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contra distinguished from a dispute involving public law character. It is also well-settled that a writ remedy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute."
It is well settled law that this Court is not having jurisdiction to delve into the disputes and come to a conclusion with regard to right, title and possession of the parties in the absence of determining the validity or otherwise of their entitlement basing on the entries made in the revenue records at this length of time and it amounts to disturbing the settled position to unsettled.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under summary jurisdiction as the orders passed by the respondent No.2 does not suffer from legal infirmities warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4 (2003) 6 SCC 230 9
10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 30.07.2024 scs