Telangana High Court
B. Arjun, vs The Additional Collector Revenue, on 12 November, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
*THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3358 OF 2023
% 12-11-2023
# B.Arjun.
...Petitioner
vs.
$ The Additional Collector (Revenue),
Medak District, Medak and 24 others.
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy
^Counsel for Respondents: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3358 OF 2023
Between:
B.Arjun.
...Petitioner
vs.
The Additional Collector (Revenue),
Medak District, Medak and 24 others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 12.11.2024
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : -
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
3
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3358 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Orders of the Additional Collector (Revenue), Medak vide Case No.F3/132/2021/1, dated 04.02.2023.
2. The case of the petitioner herein is that one Manikabai Rusthumjee W/o.Rusthumjee was the original owner and possessor of the agricultural land measuring an extent of Acs.19-26 gts in Sy.No.320 of Allapur Village, Toopran Mandal. As she had no issues, she took her sister's daughter namely Pochamma in adoption during the life time of her husband. The said Manikabai Rusthumjee died on 20.08.1993 and Pochamma also died prior to her leaving her son Arjun i.e., petitioner herein. Petitioner was residing with Manikabai Rusthumjee and was looking after her needs, as such she executed her last Will on 10.01.1989, registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gajwel, bequeathing her movable and immovable properties including the land measuring an extent of Acs.19-31 gts in Sy.No.320, situated at Allapur Village, in favour of the petitioner.
4
3. Petitioner herein stated that the subject land was a dry land, due to drought condition in those days, he was doing some other works for his livelihood. In the year 2009, when he approached the revenue authorities for mutation of his name in respect of the said land, he was informed that there was an appeal bearing No.9 of 2009, pending before the R.D.O, Siddipet Division, filed by one Khusru Rusthumjee Debera and he questioned the mutation proceedings in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah, whose name was recorded in the revenue records by virtue of 50-B Certificate. Petitioner had filed implead petition in Appeal No.9 of 2009 and the same was allowed. In the appeal he stated that he succeeded to the said land through registered Will deed vide document No.1 of 1989 and the certificate under 50-B will not confer title in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah and thus the subsequent proceedings arose out of 50-B certificate are illegal. The R.D.O, Siddipet, remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Toopran vide Order dated 01.02.2016, for enquiry on the genuineness of the 50-B certificate. The office of the Tahsildar, Toopran, issued endorsement CC.No.D/392/1998, dated 27.06.1998 stating that the file No.A/459/1985 was not available in the record room and a copy of the same was filed before the Court.
5
4. The Tahsildar, Toopran Mandal had reopened the case and the petitioner herein had filed a separate petition for mutation of his name in revenue records and for issuance of Pattadar Passbooks in pursuance of his Will deed dated 10.01.1989. However, the Tahsildar, Toopran dismissed the case No.B/3228/2013, on 18.08.2018 on the ground that petitioner had no locus standi to question the proceedings of 50-B certificate and it was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said Order, he preferred an appeal vide appeal No.G/1206/2018, before the R.D.O, Toopran and mainly contended that the issuance of 50-B certificate was in contravention of Government instructions issued under G.O.Ms.No.419 Rev. dated 10.03.1964 and G.O.Ms.No.560 Rev(G) dated 10.06.1969. The alleged proceedings No.A/459/1985, dated 22.04.1987 was against the Judgment of this Court vide S.A.Nos.121 and 412 of 1980, dated 04.02.1986 and are non-est in the eye of law and do not confer any legal and valid flow of title in favour of the purchasers, who are contesting the appeal.
5. The Tahsildar, Toopran in case No.B/3228/2013, observed that Khusro Rusthumjee Debera approached the R.D.O, Siddipet, after lapse of 24 years from the date of 6 proceedings of 50-B Certificate and petitioner had filed the petition under Section 4 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, after lapse of 28 years and thus they are barred by limitation. Moreover, petitioner did not plead possession over the land and thus petitions are not maintainable and they cannot question the validity of 50-B certificate issued in the year 1985 and they have no locus standi to maintain the petitions and accordingly dismissed the application on 18.08.2018. Aggrieved by the said Order, appeal was preferred before the Additional Collector, Medak in July 2020 and the Additional Collector, Medak also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said Order, preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
6. Manikabai Rusthumjee was the pattedar for the land measuring an extent of Acs.19-31 gts in Sy.No.320, situated at Allapur village of Toopran Mandal. On 19.03.1957, she alienated the said land in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah through five rupees worth Non-Judicial Stamp paper bearing No.490867, for a consideration of Rs.600/- in the presence of witnesses. He applied for validation before the Tahsildar, Gajwel on 10.02.1965. It was referred to A3 Section and numbered as A3/572/1965. The Tahsildar, Gajwel had issued notices in 7 Form-II and Form-III under rule 5 for validation of alienation. The Manikabai Rusthumjee has also submitted a letter to the Tahsildar, Gajwel, on 25.04.1967 stating that she has no claim over the said land as it was sold to the concerned party long back. On verification of Pahanies, the name of Kanukunta Lingaiah was recorded as occupant way back from 1974. The Mandal Revenue Officer, vide proceedings No.459 of 1985, dated 22.04.1987 in Form-IV, validated the alienation in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah.
7. In view of formation of Mandals the file was transferred to Toopran Mandal. On 10.07.1985, the villagers of Allapur have submitted a representation before the R.D.O, Siddipet, stating that Manikabai Rusthumjee was a benami pattedar for the said land and requested to delete her name and assign the same to landless poor persons as Lavuni Patta and not to entertain the application filed by Kanukunta Lingaiah. The said alienation of Manikabai Rusthumjee in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah was initially challenged by Khusro Rusthumjee Debera in appeal No.D/9/2009, in which the petitioner herein was impleaded. By the time when the Additional Collector, Medak called for objections, the said Manikabai Rusthumjee died, as such Hosharg Debara and Khusboo Debara, claiming to be the sons 8 of the vendor, filed objections stating that their mother never sold the land in favour of the Kanukunta Lingaiah and never executed un-registered sale deed on 19.03.1957 and requested to dismiss the application, but the Tahsildar validated the same vide proceedings No.A/459/1985 dated 22.04.1987, by duly collecting stamp duty and registration fee vide Challan No.458 and 459 of 2018 and recorded the name of Kanukunta Lingaiah as pattedar.
8. The petitioner herein stated that Kanukunta Lingaiah, executed registered gift deed in favour of his sons and grandsons and they were also arrayed as respondents and the possession was with them.
9. Now, it is for this Court see whether the 50-B certificate issued in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah is in accordance with the original G.O's and in accordance with the citations before this Court or not.
10. Section 50-B reads as follows:
50-B: Validation of certain alienations and other transfers of agricultural lands;9
i) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, where any alienation or other transfer of agricultural land took place-
a) On or after 10.06.1950, but before the date of coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 and where possession of such land was given to the alienee or transferee before such date of coming into force; and
b) on or after the coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961, but before the date of the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Third Amendment) Act, 1969 and where possession of such land was given to the alienee or transferee before such commencement and such alienation or transfer is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961, the alinee or transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Tahsildar for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid.
ii) On receipt of such application, the Tahsildar shall after making such enquiry as may be prescribed and after satisfying himself that the consideration, if any, payable to the alienor or the transferor has been paid or has been deposited within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the office of the Tahsildar an amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. On the deposit of such amount, the Tahsildar shall issue a certificate to the alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid and such certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in the Indian Registration Act, 1908, be conclusive evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under him."10
11. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that it was stated that Collector can exercise his power at any time, but it implies within a reasonable time depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and various factors such as
a) effect on the rights of third parties due to passage of considerable time, b) change of hands by subsequent bona fide transfers, and c) orders attaining finality under other statutes such as Land Ceiling Act, are also to be looked into.
12. The Additional Collector, Medak, in his Orders observed that application for validation was filed in the year 1965 itself before the cut-off date i.e., 31.03.1972. The Tahsildar, issued notice for objections and issued 50-B certificate in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah on 22.04.1987. As the application was filed before the cut-off date, it cannot be said that 50-B Certificate issued in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah is invalid. It was also observed that Manikabai Rusthumjee, herself in her letter stated that she executed sale deed long back and she has no claim over the suit land. The petitioner contended that in view of deletion of Section 50-B from 1972 onwards, there is no possibility of getting over the invalidity and the issuance of 50-B in the year 1987 itself is not proper and repugnant to the requirement of law. 31.03.1972 was the last date for validating 11 the unregistered sale deeds and Section 50-B of the Tenancy Act is inoperative after 31.03.1972. Manikabai Rusthumjee executed unregistered sale deed on 19.03.1957. An application was given by Kanukunta Lingaiah for validation on 10.02.1965 and 50-B validation certificate was issued to him on 22.04.1987. The Additional Collector observed that application was given within the cut-off date i.e., before 1972 and the Tahsildar conducted due enquiry, as such there was delay in issuance of certificate and thus it cannot be declared as invalid.
13. There was dispute regarding the death of Manikabai Rusthumjee. Petitioner stated that Manikabai Rusthumjee executed Will in his favour in the year 1989 and she died on 20.08.1993. It was also contended that as she has no issues, she adopted her sister's daughter during the life time of her husband and petitioner is her daughter's son. His mother died prior to the death of Manikabai Rusthumjee, as such she executed Will in his favour and he succeeded to the property, but he kept quiet without mutating his name into the revenue records till 2009 and simply stated that said lands were effected with drought, he was eking out his livelihood by other means. When he made an application for mutation, he came to know that already appeal was filed by two persons, who are claiming 12 to be the sons of Manikabai Rusthumjee, against the sale deed executed in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah and he got impleaded in the said appeal. It was observed by the Additional Collector that Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate validity of Will and Adoption. 50-B certificate relates back to 1987. Petitioner herein is having the knowledge of the same in the year 2013 itself. Kanukunta Lingaiah and his legal heirs are in continuous possession of the subject land from 1970 onwards, but petitioner never took any steps for recovery of possession of land and for cancellation of 50-B certificate for the reasons best known to him. The cause title of the counter dated 29.01.1987, shows that Manikabai Rusthumjee died and her legal heirs/sons were brought on record and thus their contention is that as on the date of execution of the Will, she was not alive and the Will itself is fabricated. Purchaser of property (K.Lingaiah) filed a petition through his Counsel on 10.09.1984 before Tahsildar, Gajwel, regarding the notice dated 04.08.1976, issued for appearance. As per said petition, Manikabai Rusthumjee was not alive by 1984 itself. Petitioner has not filed the death certificate of the Manikabai Rusthumjee, when the date of death was disputed by other side. So also, the other two persons, who claims to be legal heirs/sons also not filed death certificate to substantiate their version and thus the date 13 of death of Manikabai Rusthumjee is not established by petitioner.
14. When Hosharg Debara and Khusboo Debara, claims to be the sons of Manikabai Rusthumjee and objected the sale deed dated 19.03.1957, she was not called for immediately and her statement was not recorded. Another dispute is regarding the fact that Manikabai Rusthumjee is issueless and thus whether the petitioner or Hosharg Debara and Khusboo Debara are legal heirs of Manikabai Rusthumjee, was not decided or gone into detail by any authority. Though the petitioner stated that Manikabai Rusthumjee adopted her sister's daughter, not filed adoption deed, but simply relied upon the Will deed executed on 10.01.1989. Mere filing of the Will deed will not establish his title and it is to be proved as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and thus the Will deed cannot be looked into.
15. On behalf of the villagers, Sarpanch objected the issuance of 50-B certificate in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah on the ground that no notice was served upon them. As they are not concerned parties notice need not be served upon them. 14
16. Another point is that M.R.O, Toopran addressed a letter to the District Collector and sought for instructions to dispose of 60 cases relating to 50-B certificate, but without any instructions, he issued 50-B certificate in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah on 22.04.1987, as such it was not valid. Admittedly, Tahsildar is competent to validate unregistered sale deeds on or before 1972, if the possession is given to the purchaser and application was given before the cut-off date. As Kanukunta Lingaiah complied both the conditions, after issuing notice to the concerned parties and on due verification, Tahsildar issued certificate and thus the objection of the petitioner that no instructions are received from the District Collector is not tenable.
17. Additional Collector in his Order discussed all the issues in detail and thus this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said Order.
18. In the result, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the Order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the Additional Collector (Revenue), Medak in Case No.F3/132/2021/1. There shall be no order as to costs. 15
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 12.11.2024 tri L.R copy to be marked: (Yes/No)