T. Ramanaiah vs The Special Chief Secretary To ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 440 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.32 of 2021


                              Date: 16.02.2021
BETWEEN

T. Ramanaiah and another.


                                                       ... APPELLANTS
AND
The Special Chief Secretary to Government,
Revenue (UC.II) Department,
Secretariat,
Hyderabad and others.

                                                   ...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellant       : Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed

Counsel for the Respondents     : GP for Revenue


The Court made the following:

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

Aggrieved by the order, dated 21.12.2020, passed by a learned

Single Judge in WP.No.23136 of 2005, whereby their writ petition was

dismissed, the appellants have approached this Court.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed

before the learned Single Judge.

3. Many of the facts are not in dispute. Hence, only the relevant

facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are being referred to

hereunder:

(a) Originally, one Mandava Ramakoteswara Rao (father of the

respondents No.4 and 6 and husband of respondent No.5), Adusumilli

Ramachandra Rao and Kancharla Appa Rao had jointly purchased an

extent of Ac.4.22 guntas in Sy.No.41 of Yellareddyguda Village,

Hyderabad District vide registered sale deed No.2221 of 1966 dated

23.09.1966. They had also jointly purchased another extent of 3,350

sq. yards (92814 sq. meters) in Sy.No.42 of Yellareddyguda Village,

Hyderabad District vide registered sale deed No.1214 of 1966 dated

13.09.1966. It appears there was a division of the property among the

three owners by metes and bounds whereby 9234 sq. meters was

allotted to Mandava Ramakoteswara Rao; 7008 sq. meters was

allotted to Adusumilli Ramachandra Rao and 4985 sq. meters was

allotted to Kancharla Appa Rao. Mandava Ramakoteswara Rao and

Adusumilli Ramachandra Rao filed declarations before the Special

Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad viz.

E1/5538/76 and E1/10331/76 and Kancharla Appa Rao filed

declaration before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban

Land Ceiling, Vijayawada in File No.B4/2396/76.

(b) After due enquiry, Mandava Ramakoteswara Rao was

determined as surplus land holder to an extent of 8254.12 sq. meters

in Sy.No.41 of Yellareddyguda village and allowed to retain an extent

of 938 sq. meters in Sy.No.42 and 62 sq. meters in Sy.No.41 of

Yellareddyguda Village vide C.C.No.E1/5538/76; Kancharla Appa Rao

was determined as surplus land holder to an extent of 3984.86

sq. meters in Sy.No.41 and allowed to retain an extent of 1000

sq. meters in Sy.No.41 (938 sq. meters) and Sy.No.42 (62 sq. meters)

of Yellareddyguda village and K. Ramachandra Rao was determined as

surplus land holder to an extent of 7031.32 sq. meters in Sy.No.41

(5008.29 sq. meters) of Yellareddyguda and in Sy.No.129/80 (2023.34

sq. meters) in Shaikpet village and allowed to retain an extent of 2000

sq. meters in Sy.No.42 (938 sq. meters) and Sy.No.41 (1062

sq. meters) of Yellareddyguda village.

(c) Three independent appeals were filed against the aforesaid

orders viz. Appeal No.Hyd/83/96 dated 26.05.2000; Appeal

No.Hyd/92/96 dated 26.05.2000 and Appeal No.Hyd/82/96 dated

26.05.2000, challenging the surplus determination. The appellate

authority disposed of the said appeals by remanding the matters back

to the Special Officer and Competent Authority for a fresh enquiry

after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and other

interested persons and Bhagyalakshmi Cooperative Housing Society

Limited (for short 'the society'). After a de novo enquiry, Section 8(4)

orders were passed on 07.08.2004 determining Mandava

Ramakoteswara Rao, died per LR's, as surplus land holder to an extent

of 5881.63 sq. meters in Sy.Nos.41 and 42 of Yellareddyguda Village,

Hyderabad District and holding that they are entitled for 1000 sq.

meters each under Section 4(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act, 1976. Orders under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the

Act were passed on 21.12.2006 and 19.02.2007 respectively by the

Special Officer and Competent Authority. Later, the LR's of Mandava

Ramakoteswara Rao filed applications for regularization of surplus land

under G.O.Ms.No.456 dated 29.07.2002. The Government issued

orders for regularization of surplus land in favour of the applicants vide

G.O.Ms.No.1636 Revenue (UC.II) Department dated 09.09.2009 as

under:

     Sl.        File No.     Name of the applicant                       Extent
     No.                                                                 sq. mtrs
     1.     E1/456/102/04    Sri. M. Ravi S/o. M. Ram Koteswararao        1960.54
     2.     E1/456/100/04    Sri. M. Umarani W/o. V Satyanarayana        1960.54
     3.     E1/456/101/04    Smt. M. Sarojini S/o. M. Ram Koteswararao   1960.54

4. It has to be noted that a statement was given by the declarants

and their GPA, Y. Bala Kotaiah, on 31.01.1997 that the entire declared

land is vacant and non-agricultural in nature. Out of the total area of

22022 sq. yards in Sy.Nos.41 and 42 of Yellareddyguda Village,

an extent of 500 sq. yards was acquired by the Special Deputy

Collector, Land Acquisition (General) for Manjeera Reservoir and

compensation was paid. For the remaining vacant land, the declarants

entered into agreement of sale with the Society by receiving a sum of

Rs.20,000/- in cash and they handed over physical possession to them

on 22.11.1975. They also obtained permission from the Government

under the Act for an extent of 3350 sq. yards in Sy.No.42 of

Yellareddyguda Village vide G.O.Rt.No.240 dated 20.01.1976,

to transfer the land to the Society. Meanwhile, the ULC Act came into

force and they could not execute the sale deed in favour of the society.

In spite of such claim by the Society, no benefit was given to it and

entire parcel of land of 8296 sq. meters (Sy.No.41) and 938 sq.

meters (Sy.No.42) of Yellareddyguda Village was computed to the

holding of the declarants in the orders passed under Section 8(4) of

the ULC Act dated 07.08.2004 in proceedings No.E/5538/76 passed by

the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad.

5. It is claimed that the father of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner

No.2 purchased an extent of 650 sq. yards (which is part of exempted

surplus land of 5881.63 sq. meters vide G.O.Ms.No.1636 dated

09.09.2005) by entering into an agreement of sale with the Society on

22.06.1981, by paying Rs.25,000/- towards the sale consideration.

It is further claimed by the petitioners that physical possession was

handed over to them with specific boundaries and they constructed a

compound wall and a small room in the said premises. Since the

Society did not come forward to execute the sale deed pursuant to the

agreement of sale dated 22.06.1981, the petitioners filed a suit for

specific performance in O.S.No.4862 of 1991. The Society contested

the said suit by filing a written statement. Trial was conducted and the

suit was decreed vide judgment dated 12.11.1999 subject to

compliance of the provisions of the ULC Act. Aggrieved thereby,

the Society filed A.S.No.299 of 1997 challenging the judgment and

decree dated 12.11.1999 before the V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad, which was dismissed.

6. Later, the petitioners filed EP.No.314 of 2000 and the same was

dismissed on 13.10.2003 on the ground that they have not complied

with the provisions of the ULC Act. Subsequently, the petitioners filed

E.P.No.28 of 2005 and the Court executed the sale deed on behalf of

the Society in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 07.03.2005.

Thereafter, the society filed an application in EA.No.558 of 2005

praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 07.03.2005. In spite

of the Executing Court directing registration of sale deed dated

24.03.2005, the same was kept pending registration by the

Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills vide document P.No.187 of 2005. As such,

the petitioners filed WP.No.788 of 2005 for issuing directions to the

Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed dated 24.03.2005. The said

writ petition was disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar to register the

document in accordance with law. It is stated in para 8 of the affidavit

that the sale deed has been kept pending registration by the

Sub-Registrar for want of requisite stamp duty and registration fee.

7. Subsequently, respondents No.4 to 6 filed a suit in O.S.No.205

of 2005, for cancellation of the decree of specific performance in

O.S.No.4862 of 1991 dated 12.11.1999 and the sale deed dated

24.03.2005, executed in favour of the petitioners vide pending

document No.187 of 2004 before the Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills.

The said suit was finally decreed vide judgment dated 01.12.2008.

It is a matter of record that the petitioners have challenged the said

judgment in CCCA.No.283 of 2008, which is pending before the High

Court.

8. The contention of the petitioners is that they are in physical

possession of the subject land and before issuing the impugned

proceedings dated 07.08.2004 in respect of 5881.63 sq. meters,

the competent authority should have given opportunity of hearing to

them. It is further stated that the impugned proceedings were issued

by the respondent No.3 in collusion with the respondents No.4 to 6,

only to defeat the claim of the petitioners in respect of 650 sq. yards

of land held by them under agreement of sale dated 22.06.1981.

9. It is not in dispute that the decree of specific performance in

O.S.No.4862 of 1991 and pending sale deed dated 23.04.2005 in

favour of the petitioners, were set aside in O.S.No.205 of 2005 filed by

the respondents No.4 to 6.

10. Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioners,

vehemently submitted that the impugned proceedings could not have

been issued without notice to the petitioners since they are in actual

and physical possession of the land. By virtue of the judgments of this

Court in G.V. MOHAN v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH1;

ASHRAFUL MADARIS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD v.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH2; RAJ KUMAR SURANA v.

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH3; P. LAXMI KANTHA RAO

v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH4, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the regularization order passed under the

impugned G.O., is illegal. Possession is an important aspect which

could not have been ignored by the authorities and also by the learned

Single Judge.

11. There is nothing pointed out from the record by the learned

counsel for the petitioners to demonstrate that the petitioners are in

actual physical possession of the subject land. The agreement of sale,

if any, executed by the Society and the decree passed in O.S.No.4862

of 1991, binds the Society. The possessory rights, if any, claimed by

the petitioners would only bind the Society and not the respondents

No.4 to 6, who are third parties. In any case, the decree for specific

performance and pending sale deed in favour of the petitioners have

been set aside in O.S.No.205 of 2005. In CCCAMP.No.879 of 2008 in

CCCA.No.283 of 2008 (filed by the petitioners challenging the decree

dated 01.12.20018 in O.S.No.205 of 2005), relief was sought to

restrain the respondents No.4 to 6 herein from alienating the suit

schedule property and status quo orders were passed on 24.12.2008.

It is clear from the record that cancellation of the decree of specific

2011 (1) ALD 761

2014 (2) ALD 87

2014 (2) ALD 125

2015 (3) ALD 248

performance and the pending sale deed is still continuing to operate in

favour of the petitioners and there are no interim orders. Thus, the

petitioners do not have any vested right to challenge the impugned

regularization/exemption proceedings issued in favour of the

respondents No.4 to 6.

12. The decisions, referred to above in para 10, relied upon by the

learned counsel for the appellants deal with cases relating to dispute

with regard to taking over actual and physical possession under

Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act. But the dispute in the

present case is totally different. In the instant appeal, the dispute

raised is by third parties, who claim to be in possession of the subject

land i.e. 650 sq. yards. The principal ground on which the specific

performance decree was set aside vide judgment dated 01.12.2008 in

O.S.No.205 of 2005 was that the Society was not the title holder and it

did not have the right to execute any agreement in favour of the

defendants (petitioners herein); the judgment and decree obtained by

the defendants through the Court against the Society is not valid and

binding on the plaintiffs (respondents No.4 to 6).

13. Thus, viewing the case from any angle, this Court does not find

any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single

Judge. There are no merits in the writ appeal and it is liable to be

dismissed. Accordingly, it is, hereby, dismissed.

The miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J February 16, 2021/DSK