P. Laxman Rao And 9 Others vs Sate Of Telangna And 9 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2395 Tel

           HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                    AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                   WRIT APPEAL No.334 of 2021


                              Date: 17.08.2021
BETWEEN

P. Laxman Rao and others.


                                                        ... APPELLANTS
AND


The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat Building,
Hyderabad and others.

                                                      ...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Nagula Srinivas Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Revenue

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy)

This writ appeal is filed assailing the order dated 04.02.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP.No.1918 of 2021.

2. The writ petition has been filed by the appellants/writ petitioners

challenging the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in not

incorporating in their names in the revenue records in respect of land

in Sy.No.40, admeasuring Ac.1.22 guntas, Sy.No.45, admeasuring

Ac.1.04 guntas, Sy.No.46, admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas, Sy.No.47,

admeasuring Ac.2.17 guntas, in total admeasuring Ac.6.23 guntas and

also lands in Sy.No.34 admeasuring Ac.2.14 guntas, Sy.No.35

admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas and Sy.No.38 admeasuring Ac.1.17

guntas, total admeasuring Ac.4.30 guntas, all together admeasuring

Ac.11.03 guntas, situated at Thokatta Village, Tirumalgherry Mandal,

Secunderabad as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural

justice, null and void, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in

Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'ROR Act') and the

A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Andhra Pradesh

Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006

and Rules, 2006 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

3. It is relevant to note that the appellants have not specifically

challenged the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Hyderabad in

Case.No.B/3883/2009 dated 16.04.2011; the order passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad District

in File No.B/1302/2008 dated 15.05.2008 and also the Memo

No.C/4791 of 2007 dated 20.02.2008 on the file of the respondent

No.4, based on which their request for entering their names in the

revenue records was rejected. However, in I.A.No.1 of 2021 moved in

this appeal and in IA.No.1 of 2021 moved in WP.No.1918 of 2021,

the appellants have sought for suspension of the impugned

proceedings passed by the respondents No.2 to 4. This Court notes

that even in the main relief in the writ petition no challenge has been

laid to the impugned proceedings. Be that as it may, in the interest of

doing substantive justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation,

this Court is dealing with this appeal on the premise that there was a

challenge to the aforesaid impugned proceedings passed by the

respondents

No.2 to 4.

4. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed before the learned

Single Judge. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ

affidavit are as under:

(a) The petitioners are the legal heirs of Late P. Yellaiah,

S/o. Late Lakshmaiah @ P. Balaiah, who was a protected tenant of the

lands in Sy.No.40 admeasuring Ac.1.22 guntas, Sy.No.45 admeasuring

Ac.1.04 guntas, Sy.No.46 admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas, Sy.No.47

admeasuring Ac.2.17 guntas in total Ac.6.23 guntas and also lands in

Sy.No.34 admeasuring Ac.2.14 guntas, Sy.No.35 admeasuring Ac.1.08

guntas and Sy.No.38 admeasuring Ac.1.17 guntas total admeasuring

Ac.4.30 guntas, all together admeasuring Ac.11.03 guntas situated at

Thokatta Village, Tirumalgherry Mandal, Secunderabad; earlier the

family name of the appellants was Thokatta and subsequently,

changed to Potharaju in the year 1960; the father of the petitioner

No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands and later,

the petitioners were in possession of the lands; the name of their

grandfather, Yellaiah, was recorded in the pahanies for the year

1955-58 and 1975-76.

(b) The father of the unofficial respondents claimed himself as

Thokatta Yellaiah @ Lothumalla Yellaiah and got his name incorporated

in the revenue records by indulging in manipulation; the petitioners

belong to a schedule caste community and they are innocent not

financially sound; they approached the respondent No.4 several times

to protect their interest in respect of the subject lands;

the respondents No.5 to 9, who are having good financial and political

background, mislead the respondent No.4 and changed the name

appearing in revenue record from 'Thokatta Yellaiah' to 'Lothumalla

Yellaiah'; an application was submitted by the petitioners for mutation

and issuance of pattadar pass books; the respondent No.4 issued

Memo No.C/4791 of 2007 dated 20.02.2008, rejecting their claim;

the appeal, preferred by the petitioners before the RDO challenging

the proceedings of the MRO, was also dismissed with the following

observations:

"In view of the above facts, I do not interfere with the orders issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in File No.B2/7663/0- 6, dated 02-03-2007, as the area in question is not covered under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971, as clarified by the CCLA, Hyderabad vide reference No.ROM/ROR-I/567/06, dated 17.02.2007."

(c) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the MRO and RDO,

the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Joint Collector in

Revision Case No.82/3883 of 2009, which was also dismissed by order

dated 16.04.2011.

5. The petitioners contend that the Joint Collector has not

considered the possession of the revision petitioners, not referred to

crucial date of vesting as well as Khasra Pahani, Sesala Pahani

reflecting the name of the forefather of the petitioners; the order was

passed by the Joint Collector without following the procedure

contemplated under the ROR Act and without considering the fact that

they are the actual legal heirs of Late Thokatta Yellaiah.

6. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the

writ petition noting that there is a delay of 10 years in approaching the

Court for relief; no serious effort was made by the petitioners to

prosecute the litigation; though no limitation is prescribed to entertain

a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a party

seeking intervention of the Court should invoke the jurisdiction of the

Court within a reasonable time. Learned Single Judge, however,

observed that it is open to the petitioners to work out their remedies

as available in law.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners

that the revenue/quasi judicial authorities cannot relegate his clients

to the civil Court as they are bound to act in accordance with the

provisions of the ROR Act. The petitioners and their family members

had serious health ailments and could not pursue the litigation.

Thus, the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the writ

petition on the ground of delay and laches. The writ petition ought to

have been considered on merits instead of being dismissed on

technical grounds.

8. We have heard Mr. Nagula Srinivas Yadav, learned counsel for

the appellants/petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

9. As seen from the record, the Tahsildar had issued a memo

dated 20.02.2008, clearly stating, inter alia, that the pattedar pass

books and title deeds could not be given as the land in question is not

covered under the provisions of the ROR Act, as it was clarified by the

Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Hyderabad in

Ref.No.ROM/ROR1/567/06 dated 17.02.2007 that the ROR Act is not

applicable to the Hyderabad District. Vide order dated 14.05.2008,

the RDO dismissed the appeal at the admission stage referring to the

clarification dated 17.02.2007, issued by the CCLA and also the order

dated 02.03.2007 in File No.B2/7663/2006 passed by the District

Collector holding that the area in question is not covered under the

ROR Act. In the revision petition filed by the appellants/petitioners,

reiterating the stand taken by the MRO and RDO, it was held that the

ROR Act is not implemented in the Hyderabad District. Therefore,

the order passed by the MRO and RDO needs no interference.

10. We are not convinced by the grounds urged by the learned

counsel for the petitioner for approaching the Court for relief with an

inordinate delay of 10 years. The order of the Joint Collector is dated

16.04.2011; the writ petition came to be filed on 25.01.2021.

Nothing is stated in the writ petition to explain the reasons for the

delay. Having found that the learned Single Judge made adverse

observations regarding the delay, learned counsel for the

appellants/petitioners has tried to improve upon the case by raising

several new grounds in this appeal, citing health reasons of the

petitioners for not approaching the Court within a reasonable time.

This Court cannot appreciate such grounds, which were not urged

before the learned Single Judge. In any case, the stand of the

authorities is that as per the Circular dated 17.02.2007, issued by the

CCLA, the ROR Act is not applicable to the Hyderabad District.

The appellants/petitioners are unable to satisfy the Court as to how

the said Circular issued by the CCLA is not binding on them in respect

of the subject lands. The said Circular is also not under challenge.

Thus, the appellants/petitioners have not laid any foundation to seek

correction of the revenue record and issuance of pattedar pass books

and title deeds in their favour. Several judgments have been referred

to in the appeal grounds. But learned counsel for the

appellants/petitioners has not been able to convince us as to how the

principles of law laid down in the said decisions are applicable to the

facts of the present case.

The writ appeal is devoid of merits and it is accordingly

dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order would not come in

the way of the appellants/petitioners, in case they choose to approach

the civil Court for adjudication of their rights and title in respect of the

subject lands. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed with no order as to costs.

_____________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J August 17, 2021 DSK