Telangana High Court
Reddy Reddy Ram Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 1 July, 2021
Bench: P Naveen Rao
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No.14509 of 2021
% 01.07.2021
# R. Ram Reddy S/o.Late Ranga Reddy,
Aged about 76 yrs, Occu : Retd. Govt. Employee,
R/o.H.No.1-8-700/8, Padma Colony,
Shankermutt, Hyderabad
..... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, BRKR Bhavan,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others.
..... Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Bhanu Prakash
Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader
for Revenue
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Citations : 2014 (2) ALD 228
-2-
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
********
WRIT PETITION No.14509 of 2021
Between:
R. Ram Reddy S/o.Late Ranga Reddy,
Aged about 76 yrs, Occu : Retd. Govt. Employee,
R/o.H.No.1-8-700/8, Padma Colony,
Shankermutt, Hyderabad
..... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, BRKR Bhavan,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others.
..... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 01.07.2021
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes / No
may be allowed to see the Judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes / No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : Yes / No
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
-3-
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.14509 of 2021
Date:01.07.2021
Between:
R. Ram Reddy S/o.Late Ranga Reddy,
Aged about 76 yrs, Occu : Retd. Govt. Employee,
R/o.H.No.1-8-700/8, Padma Colony,
Shankermutt, Hyderabad
.....Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, BRKR Bhavan,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others.
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
-4-
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.14509 of 2021
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :
"to issue writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in
not recording/entering the name of the petitioner on online
dharani and not issuing E-patta pass book (PPB)/Title deed (TD)
under Section 5, 6 (1) and 10 of Telangana Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 in respect of agricultural land
Adm.Ac.3-39 gts in Sy.No.24, Ac.1.33 gts in Sy.No.25, Ac.1.08 gts
in Sy.No.26, Ac.3.00 gts in Sy.No.47 and Ac.4.03 gts in
Sy.No.331/1, total admeasuring Ac.14.03 gts., situated at Inole
Village, Achampet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District as illegal,
arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and
further declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the
endorsement vide No.A/1346/2019 dt.16.07.2020 by
rejecting/denying the application of the petitioner is also illegal,
arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against the principles of
natural justice and consequently set aside the endorsement
No.A/1346/2019 dt.16.07.2020 of the 3rd respondent and pass
such other order or orders..."
2. According to petitioner, he is the owner of land to an extent
of Ac.14.03 guntas spread over several survey numbers in 24, 25,
26, 47 and 331/1 of Inole Village, Achampet Mandal,
Nagarkurnool District, having inherited the same by way of
partition deed dated 12.05.1975 and registered Will deed
document No.8 of 1985. Petitioner name was mutated in the
revenue records. He was issued pattadar passbook and title deed
with Patta No.479. Though petitioner inherited larger extents of
land, as of now, he is in possession of Ac.14.03 guntas of land
only. Petitioner applied for issuance of e-patttadar passbook by his
representation dated 29.05.2020. In response to the said
representation, the Tahsildar issued endorsement dated
16.07.2020 informing the petitioner that in view of pendency of
O.S.No.159 of 2007 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge
(FTC) at Mahabubnagar, the property is included in Part-B revenue
records and his request cannot be accepted till disposal of the said
suit.
3. Aggrieved by the rejection of request by the Tahsildar,
petitioner submitted representation to the District Collector,
Nagarkurnool-2nd respondent on 10.02.2021 requesting to issue e-
pattadar passbook and alleging inaction, this writ petition is filed.
4. According to learned counsel, O.S.No.159 of 2007 was
disposed of on 12.06.2017. He submits that O.S.No.22 of 2017 is
filed in the Court of IX Additional District Judge at Wanaparthy
praying to grant partition of the suit schedule lands and allotment
of Ac.50.30 guntas of land to the plaintiffs therein. Petitioner
herein is the 1st defendant in the said suit and the same is pending
consideration and no injunction order is operating in the said suit.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that mere
pendency of the suit is not a bar to consider the application
submitted by the petitioner to grant e-pattadar passbook, more so,
when the name of petitioner stands in the revenue records as an
independent pattadar since 1975 that the Tahsildar could not have
rejected the request for grant of e-pattadar passbook by referring to
suit which was already disposed of.
6. According to learned counsel, as held by the Division Bench
of this Court in Erukala Uma Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh
& Others1, mere pendency of suit is not a ground to refuse to
grant e-pattadar passbook.
2014(2)ALD 228
7. The issue for consideration is whether mere pendency of a
suit in civil Court or a case in this Court is sufficient to deny
request to issue mutation and/or pattadar passbook under the
Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (Act 9
of 2020) ?
8. Section 82 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar
Passbooks Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) imposed bar on suits.
According to Sub-Section (2), if a 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.
9. A bare reading of the provision makes it clear that an
aggrieved person who seeks enforcement of his right under
Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, can avail civil law remedy and
if he obtains declaration from the civil Court, the revenue records
are required to be amended in compliance of such declaration.
10. There was debate on scope of application of Section 8 of the
Act 26 of 1971. It was contended that in view of the provision in
Section 8, whenever a suit is pending on any issue concerning
agriculture land, the request for mutation is not maintainable and
the revenue authorities should not undertake any exercise till a
decision is made by the civil Court.
8. Bar of suits. - (1) No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of
Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to an entry made
in any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amended.
(2) 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 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights
shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.
11. In Erukala Uma's case, on considering the earlier decision of
this Court, the Division Bench of this Court held as under :
"13. We are of the opinion that the Act provides a complete
mechanism in respect of making entries in the revenue records.
The Act contains a prescribed procedure and lays down the
powers of the authorities in relation to passing orders and
making entries. The provision envisages that whenever an
application is filed before the authorities intimating them about
the acquisition of rights and seeking amendment of the entries,
the authorities have to put all such persons to notice, whose
names are entered in the record of rights, who are interested
and who are going to be affected by the amendment. When a
person receives a show cause notice from the authorities, it is
incumbent upon him, to appear before the authorities and by
way of a reply, submit before the authorities all relevant facts
including pendency of civil suit, if any. But he cannot
straightaway approach this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and seek a writ of Mandamus. In such
cases, this Court should refrain from exercising the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
14. Hence, we deem it appropriate to clarify the judgment of
the learned single Judge of this Court in V.Goutham Rao's case,
to the extent that, when a show cause notice is issued by a
competent authority, just because a civil suit is pending, ipso
facto, it will not entitle a party to approach the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the law laid
down in V.Gowtham Rao's case, but the party has to approach
the authority by way of a reply and should bring all the relevant
facts to the notice of the authority otherwise, the purpose of the
Act itself would be frustrated, which is enacted for effective
implementation of entries in Record of Rights."
12. In supercession of the Act 26 of 1971, Act 9 of 2020 is
promulgated. The Act 9 of 2020 has dispensed with various
provisions then existing and simplified the system of mutation in
the revenue records and issuance of pattadar passbook.
13. Section 93 of the Act 9 of 2020 deals with bar on suits.
According to this Section, no suit shall lie against the Government
or any officer of the Government who made an entry in respect of
any land or amended or omitted from the record of rights. This
clause is something similar to Section 8 (1) of the Act 26 of 1971
and the provision similar to Sub-Section 2 of Section 8 of the Act
26 of 1971 is not incorporated in the Act 9 of 2020. In other
Section 9 : No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government
who have made an entry, in respect of any land, made in or amended or omitted from
the Record of Rights.
words, after promulgation of Act 9 of 2020, no restriction is
imposed on consideration of applications under the Act 9 of 2020,
merely because a suit is pending on any issue touching upon the
agriculture land.
14. However, it is apt to note word of caution that whenever an
injunction order is passed by the civil Court or interlocutory order
by this Court imposing any restraint on parties to the litigation
and/or on the revenue authorities, that shall be binding on the
authorities while considering any application filed under the Act 9
of 2020 affecting the property in issue. But for this contingency, as
things stand now, there is no restraint on processing the
applications for mutation or issuance of pattadar pass book,
merely because a suit is pending before civil Court or a case
pending before this Court concerning the property in issue.
15. Coming back to the facts of this case, the Tahsildar's
endorsement refusing to issue pattadar passbook is on the ground
that in O.S.No.159 of 2007, an injunction order was granted by the
Court of I-Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court) at
Mahabubnagar. Therefore, he cannot issue pattadar passbook. No
exception can be taken to the said decision, if an injunction order
was operating. But as can be seen from the material on record,
the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.06.2017
and no injunction was operating.
16. Thus, there was no application of mind by the Tahsildar.
Ordinarily, it is a clear case to remand. However, according to
learned Assistant Government Pleader mere pendency of a suit or a
writ petition is sufficient to deny the claims.
17. In view of the liberty granted by the Court of I-Additional
Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court) at Mahabubnagar, though a
new suit is instituted, it appears, sofar no injunction is granted by
the civil Court. Thus, as of now, there is no injunction order
operating, concerning the subject land.
18. Having regard to Section 9 of Act 9 of 2020 and the law laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in Erukala Uma, I see no
merit in the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader.
Further, the said suit relied by the Tahsildar was already disposed
of by the time the endorsement was issued to the petitioner by the
Tahsildar, impugned herein. Thus, the said endorsement is
erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
19. However, matter does not rest here. Having regard to the
subsequent developments, the Tahsildar cannot deal with the
issue at this stage. In supercession of the Act 26 of 1971, the Act
9 of 2020 was promulgated. The Act 9 of 2020 simplified procedure
of mutation into three categories. It has laid down detailed
procedure to issue pattadar passbook. However, Act 9 of 2020 has
not envisaged power in the Tahsildar to deal with pending
application made when Act 26 of 1971 was in force. In order to
redress any grievance on land matters, including similar to
grievance of petitioner the Chief Commissioner of Land
Administration issued Instructions in Circular No.1 of 2021
dt.15.01.2021 authorising the District Collector to look into the
grievances and to resolve them wherever possible.
20. In view of the same, the District Collector is directed to
consider the representation dated 10.02.2021 of the petitioner
- 10 -
acknowledged on 11.02.2021 duly taking note of the principle laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in Erukala Uma. While
considering the representation of the petitioner, he shall ascertain
that there is no subsisting injunction order granted by the Civil
Court affecting the lands in issue and the name of petitioner
continues to reflect in the revenue records. If the District Collector
agrees to the request of petitioner he shall take steps to issue
e-pattadar passbook. However, issuing pattadar passbook to
petitioner does not enure to the petitioner any advantage and
defeat the claim of plaintiffs in O.S.No.22 of 2017 pending in the
Court of IX Additional District Judge at Wanaparthy and it shall
abide the ultimate result of pending suit. The entire exercise shall
be completed by the District Collector within ten (10) weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
21. Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. Pending miscellaneous
petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
P.NAVEEN RAO,J
1st July, 2021
Note :
L.R.Copy to be marked.
B/o.
Rds
- 11 -
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.14509 of 2021
Date:01.07.2021
Rds
