Telangana High Court
Sri K. Ravinder Reddy S/O. Late K. ... vs The State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2024
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.P. Nos.28580 AND 28582 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER :
Since the issues involved and the parties (principals) in both the writ petitions are same, with the consent of both sides, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Initially, W.P. No.28580 of 2021 was filed by the GPA Holder Mr. G. Subash Reddy and W.P. No.28582 of 2021 was filed by the GPA Holder Mr. K. Ravinder Reddy on behalf of their Principals (1) Mr. T. Rajsekhar Reddy, (2) T. Madhan Mohan Reddy, (3) T. Laxmi Narsimha Reddy, and (4) Smt. V. Shamala.
3. Subsequently, separate applications in I.A. No.2 of 2021 were filed by the GPA Holders, in the respective writ petitions, seeking to implead (transpose) the writ petitioners (Principals) as respondent Nos.8 to 11 as they were objectors in the impugned proceedings, and the same were allowed by the order dated 18.11.2021. Further, separate applications in I.A. No.3 of 2021 were filed by the GPA Holders, in the respective writ petitions, seeking to substitute them BVRJ WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021 2 (GPAs) as writ petitioners which were also allowed by the order dated 13.12.2021.
4. Thus, the original writ petitioners - principals are transposed as respondent Nos.8 to 11 in both the writ petitions and their GPA Holders are substituted as writ petitioner.
5. In both these writ petitions, Memo No.E5/4423/2019 dated 15.09.2021 issued by respondent No.2 - the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District is under challenge where by request of the petitioner in W.P. No.28580 of 2021 for deleting the land admeasuring land admeasuring Acs.0-23 guntas in Survey Nos.89 and Acs.10-17 guntas in Survey No.90, total admeasuring Acs.11-00 guntas; and the petitioner in W.P. No.28582 of 2021 for deleting the land admeasuring Acs.9-05 guntas in Survey No.89; situated at Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject lands'), from the Prohibitory Properties Register (PPR) maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act 1908, in view of the orders of this Court in C.R.P. No.1267 of 2008 dated 01.06.2016 W.P. No.10225 of 2020 and W.P. No.10224 of 2020 dated 14.07.2020 respectively, has been rejected.
BVRJ WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021 3
6. In the earlier round of litigation, W.P. Nos.10225 of 2020 and 10224 of 2020 were filed by the principals through their respective GPA Holders aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in not deleting the subject lands from the PPR in spite of the judgment of this Court in C.R.P. No.1267 of 2008 dated 01.06.2016; and, to declare action of respondent No.7 - the Sub Registrar, L.B. Nagar, Medchal- Malkajgiri District in not entertaining registrations in respect of the subject lands; to declare action of respondent No.5 - the Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in not incorporating names of the petitioners in the revenue records including Form-1B, Web Land Register and in not issuing Pattadar Pass Books to the petitioners in respect of the subject lands; as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct respondent No.2 to delete the subject lands from the PPR and to direct respondent No.7 to receive, process and register any document of alienation relating to the subject lands, if presented by the petitioners for registration.
7. By the separate orders dated 14.07.2020, both the writ petitions (W.P. Nos.10225 and 10224 of 2020) were disposed of by this Court directing respondent No.2 to consider application of the BVRJ WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021 4 petitioners for deletion of the subject lands from the PPR maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act 1908 taking into consideration the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.1267 of 2008 dated 01.06.2016, whereby the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, was set aside upholding the order in Case No.L/85/2004 dated 07.10.2005 passed by respondent No.4 - the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District; further, it was observed that the Certificate issued under Section 38E of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1971 (for short 'Tenancy Act 1971') by respondent No.4 was confirmed by this Court by the order dated 01.06.2016 in C.R.P. No.1267 of 2008.
8. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14.07.2020 in W.P. Nos.10225 and 10224 of 2020, applications of the petitioners dated 23.07.2020 were entertained by respondent No.2.
9. It appears, respondent No.8 viz., Mr. T. Rajshekar Reddy submitted written explanation / objections dated 28.08.2021 stating that Mr. T. Ram Reddy, who is Principal No.1 in both the G.P.As. dated 03.11.2006, expired on 03.08.2008; the effect of death of his BVRJ WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021 5 father was concealed by the petitioners; after death of Principal No.1, the G.P.A. becomes invalid and unenforceable; all the co-owners did not appoint the G.P.As.; physical possession of the subject lands was not delivered to the purchasers as the entire sale consideration was not paid to the owners. It was further contended by respondent No.8 that GPA holders (writ petitioners) have used invalid G.P.A. and filed representations and cases before this Court without their knowledge.
10. The petitioners (GPA Holders) contended before respondent No.2 that mere death of one co-owner of the subject lands does not result in automatic cancellation of G.P.A. If all the co-owners of the subject lands did not join the GPA, it is a purely civil dispute between the interested parties and the matter has to be decided by the competent civil Court. The G.P.As. contain a clause that the executants have received entire sale consideration and signed the same. Thus, respondent No.8 cannot raise a plea contrary to the contents of the G.P.As. In the impugned order, respondent No.2 noted the above contentions of both the parties and further referred to the ceiling proceedings in C.C. NO.203/1975 dated 07.11.1981 and made the following observations:
BVRJ WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021 6 "In this regard, the matter has been examined with reference to the report of RDO, Kandukur Division and written statements submitted by both the parties and available material on file and it reveals that, the lands in question were declared as ceiling surplus vide LRT orders in CC No. 203/1975, Dated: 07-11-1981 and possession was also taken over by the Government on 22.01.1982 and the said orders were implemented in Revenue Records by recording as Kharizkhata from the year 1986-87 onwards. Subsequently, Sri.Teegala Ram Reddy was granted Ownership Certificate for the land bearing Sy No. 89 (Ac. 9-25) and Sy No. 90 (Ac. 10-20 gts) situated at Badangpet Village of Saroornagar Mandal vide RDO, RR East Division orders in File No.L/85/2004, dt: 07.10.2005 which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in CRP No. 1267/2008, Dated: 01-06-2016 by setting aside the orders of the JC, RR District, dt:31.12.2007 in File No.F2/5320/2006 in which the said 38- E Certificate granted was set aside. Based on the said orders of the Hon'ble High Court, dt:01.06.2016 in CRP No. 1267/2008, the LR of Late Teegala Ram Reddy (38-E Certificate Holder) namely Sri.T.Manik Prasad Reddy has filed an application before this office requesting to direct the Tahsildar, Balapur Mandal to grant succession in their names of all legal heirs of Late T.Ram Reddy over the subject land. The same was forwarded to the RDO, Kandukur Division vide this office Lr.No.F1/457/2021, dt: 13.03.2020 calling for report and same is under progress.
BVRJ WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021 7 As such, it is clear that, there are dual claims by the pattedars and GPA Holders against the convention by taking contradictory views and interests, whereas the LRs of Late Teegala Ram Reddy has filed a petition for grant of succession over the subject land by implementation of 38-E Certificate interms of orders of the Hon'ble High Court in CRP No.1267/2008, dt: 01.06.2016 which is under progress and not yet implemented. On the other hand, the GPA Holders are requesting to remove the subject lands from Prohibitory Properties list without implementation of 38-E Certificate.
In view of the above, the request of the petitioner for removal of subject Sy. Nos. from prohibitory properties list cannot be considered and hereby rejected, since the claimed lands are recorded as Government /Kharizkhata and claim of the LRs of Late Teegala Ram Reddy (38-E Holder) for grant of succession is pending. Thus, the petition dt:23.07.2020 is considered incompliance of the Hon'ble High Court orders, dt: 14.07.2020 in W.P.Nos.10224/2020 & 10225/2020 and disposed accordingly."
11. As evident from the record, there was a dispute regarding ownership certificate granted to Mr. T. Ram Reddy (father of respondent Nos.8 to 11) under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act 1971 by the proceedings of respondent No.4 in File No.L/85/2004 dated 07.10.2005. The subject lands were earlier declared as ceiling surplus lands by the order in C.C. No.203 of 1975 dated 07.11.1981 by the BVRJ WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021 8 Land Reforms Tribunal cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division, and subsequently possession was taken over by the Government on 22.01.1982. The said orders were implemented in the revenue records by recording as 'Kharizkhata' from the year 1986-87 onwards. Mr. T. Ram Reddy challenged determination of surplus holding and consequently possession on the strength of 38E Certificate and the dispute culminated into the order of this Court dated 01.06.2016 in C.R.P. No.1267 of 2008. There is no dispute whatsoever that 38E Certificate issued to Mr. T. Ram Reddy has been upheld by this Court by the order 01.06.2016 in C.R.P. No.1267 of 2008. Pursuant to the same, it appears, Mr. T. Manik Reddy, legal representative of Mr. T. Ram Reddy, filed an application for succession which was under process.
12. Even according to respondent No.2, there is no dispute that 38E Certificate issued to Mr. T. Ram Reddy has attained finality. The claim before respondent No.2 was only to the extent of deletion of the subject lands from the PPR and removing the entry 'Kharij Khata.' The inter se dispute between the GPA Holders (writ petitioners) and respondent Nos.8 to 11 (Principals cum Owners) was not germane and relevant for deciding whether the subject lands are to be removed from BVRJ WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021 9 the PPR. It is neither the case of respondent Nos.8 to 11 nor any finding given by respondent No.2 in the impugned order that the Kharij Khata entry and inclusion of the subject lands in the PPR have to be sustained. It is relevant to note that respondent Nos.8 to 11 only objected to the validity of the G.P.As. They never contended that the G.P.As. were cancelled. However, they stated that one of the co-owners cum principal died and thereby the G.P.As. resulted in automatic cancellation.
13. It is necessary to point out that the enquiry before respondent No.2 in the impugned proceedings was no way related to cancellation of the G.P.A. or inter se title dispute between the G.P.As. and the Principals. The dispute was limited only to the extent of deleting the subject lands from the PPR and removing the Kharizkhata entry. Thus, when 38E Certificate issued to Mr. T. Ram Reddy has attained finality and the subject lands are no more ceiling surplus by virtue of the order in C.R.P. No.1267 of 2008 dated 01.06.2016, the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the request of the petitioners in deleting the subject lands from the PPR on the ground that objectors (Principals - Respondent Nos.8 to 11) made a rival claim is extraneous and unsustainable.
BVRJ WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021 10
14. Therefore, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned Memo No.E5/4423/2019 dated 15.09.2021 issued by respondent No.2 - the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, is set aside. Consequently, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to forthwith remove the subject lands i.e., admeasuring Acs.0-23 guntas in Survey Nos.89 and Acs.10-17 guntas in Survey No.90, total admeasuring Acs.11-00 guntas relating to W.P. No.28580 of 2021; and Acs.9-05 guntas in Survey No.89 relating to W.P. No.28582 of 2021; situated at Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from the PPR; and delete the entry kharizkhata in respect thereof; and respondent Nos.6 and 7 are directed to entertain registrations in respect of the subject lands. No order as to costs.
15. It is made clear that the issue regarding validity of the G.P.As. and title between the principals and the G.P.As. is not decided by this Court and left open to the parties to adjudicate the same before the civil Court, if they are so advised.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions stand closed.
____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J Date: March 27, 2024.
PV