Sri. S. Ravinder Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2155 Tel

           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

               WRIT PETITION No. 16966 of 2019

                        Date : 20.07.2021

Between:

Sri S Ravinder Reddy S/o S Narasimha Reddy
Aged about 54 years Occ Business
R/o Plot No 262 Road No 78 Jubilee Hills
Hyderabad and another
                                                  ....Petitioners

                                 And
The State of Telangana
represented by its Principal Secretary
Department of Revenue Secretariat Hyderabad & others

                                                 ....Respondents

The Court made the following :

                                           2                                        PNRJ
                                                                           WP 16966_2019




                   HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

                         WRIT PETITION No. 16966 of 2019

ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri O.Manohar Reddy,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and though notices

are served on respondents 5 and 6, no appearance is entered.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking relief as under:

....to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed in Case No D5/1174/2017 dt 30 03 2019 passed by the 2nd respondent and order passed in Case no A2/4685/2015 dated 10/05/2016 passed by the 3rd respondent as being illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and be pleased to pass...

3. To the extent necessary, the facts as averred in the affidavit

and material placed on record, reflect as under.

3.1. Mohd Abdul Raheem and 10 others were Inamdars of land to

the extent of Ac.0.34 guntas and Ac. 12.06 guntas in Survey Nos. 821

and 822 along with road area admeasuring Ac.0.25 guntas in Survey No.

822 of Mankal village, Maheshwaram mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

Smt.Chunnu Begam purchased the said extent of land.

From Smt.Chunnu Begam, petitioners purchased the land by way of

registered sale deed Nos 7526 of 2015 and 7527 of 2015 dated 7.4.2015

respectively. That being so, Sri Gunti Yadaiah and Sri Gunti Narsing

Rao- respondents 5 and 6 herein claimed that this very land was sold to

them by Smt.Chunnu Begam by way of unregistered agreement of sale

and vested possession in them. They applied to the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Ranga Reddy District (East Division) [Inams Tribunal], to grant

Occupancy Rights Certificate (for short ORC). The Revenue Divisional

Officer, issued orders on 29.10.1991 granting ORC to them. Based on

the said ORC, their names were mutated in the revenue records.

Alleging that the said certificate was granted beyond her back, without 3 PNRJ WP 16966_2019

notice and opportunity, Smt.Chunnu Begam filed appeal under Section

24 of the A.P (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The said

appeal was numbered as F1/692/2009. By order dated 7.7.2009 the

Appellate Authority allowed the appeal on the ground that the appellant

was not afforded opportunity of hearing and set aside the ORC granted

on 29.10.1991 in favour of respondents 5 and 6 herein and remitted the

matter to the Revenue Divisional officer for fresh consideration to grant

ORC.

3.2. On remand, the Special Deputy Collector and Revenue

Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East division, vide proceedings

dated 11.1.2010 held that Smt.Chunnu Begam is entitled to ORC on the

above extent of land and ordered accordingly. This order was challenged

by respondents 5 and 6 in the appeal under Section 24 of the Act, 1955.

By order No.F/667/2010 dated 6.1.2011 the appellate authority

observed as under:

"In the instant case ORC had been issued to a person who claims to have purchased the land by agreement of sale which is not a valid transfer in accordance with law. The vendor by way of agreement of sale had transferred to theappellants and now the vendor (respondent) is disputing the same and is claiming for ORC based on registered sale deed. It is not clear whether the vendor to this respondents had a valid ORC at the time of sale.

Thus, on perusal it is seen that both the claimants are disputing the sale deeds and the issue had assumed the nature of a civil dispute and the inam angle had disappeared with lapse of time. Third party interests have come on the subject land. Hence, both the parties are agitate their claims before competent Civil Court."

3.3. However, the appellate authority has not disturbed the ORC

granted to Smt.Chunnu Begam on 11.1.2010. Vide proceedings

No.B/1242/2011 dated 30.1.2014 the Tahsildar ordered amendment of

revenue records and to record name of Smt.Chunnu Begam on land to

an extent of Ac.34 guntas in survey No.821 and Ac.3.11 guntas in survey

No.822. It is appropriate to note at this stage that in the mean time,

Government acquired land to an extent of Ac.9.13 guntas from out of the 4 PNRJ WP 16966_2019

original extent of land of about Ac.13.00 and therefore only the above

extent of land remained in contest.

3.4. Challenging the orders of Tahsildar granting mutation in

favour of Smt.Chunnu Begam, respondents 5 and 6 preferred appeal

under Section 5-B of A.P. Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,

1971 before the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional

Officer. By order dated 10.5.2016 the appellate authority allowed the

appeal setting aside the order of Tahsildar granting mutation and

advised the parties to agitate the claim over the subject land before the

competent Civil Court. Challenging the decision of the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Smt.Chunnu Begam preferred revision under Section

9 of Act, 1971 which was assigned No. D5/2691/2016. During the

pendency of the above revision Smt.Chunnu Begam died. Petitioners

claiming to be purchases of very same land also filed revision under

Section 9 of the Act, 1971 which was assigned No. D-5/1174/201.

Learned counsel appearing for Smt.Chunnu Begam, reported her death

to the Revisional Authority and sought leave to withdraw the review No.

D5/2691/2016. Accordingly, revision filed by Smt.Chunnu Begam was

closed and revision preferred by petitioners herein was considered.

Revisional authority affirmed the view taken by the appellate authority

and dismissed the revision. This writ petition is filed challenging the said

decision.

3.5. To complete the narration, respondents 5 and 6 instituted

O.S.No.501 of 2015 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Senior Civil

Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy district praying to grant decree of

perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with

peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.3.27 guntas in survey Nos.821

and 822 of Mankhal village, Maheshwaram mandal, Ranga Reddy

district/subject land herein. In the said suit, they have also filed 5 PNRJ WP 16966_2019

I A No. 336 of 2015 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151

of CPC praying to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the

respondents/defendants, their henchmen, agents etc from interfering

with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment. The said I. A

was dismissed by order dated 27.4.2016. Court is informed that said

order has become final.

4. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for

petitioners made the following submissions:

4.1. Vendor of petitioners Smt.Chunnu Begam purchased the

subject land from the original Inamdar by way of registered sale

transaction and her name was mutated in the revenue records as

successor to the original Inamdar and she was entitled to secure ORC as

held by division bench of this court in S. Veera Reddy and Ors. Vs.

Chetlapalli Chandraiah and Ors1. While that being so, the Revenue

Divisional Officer could not have granted ORC to respondents 5 and 6

based on unregistered agreement of sale. As a corollary, since petitioners

purchased the land by way of registered sale deed from smt. Chunnu

Begum, they are entitled to succeed to Smt.Chunnu Begam and

respondents 5 and 6 have no manner of right on the subject land. This

fact is not appreciated by the Appellate and Revisional authorities and

erroneously they observed that it is civil dispute.

4.2. According to learned counsel based on an agreement of sale

respondents 5 and 6 illegally obtained ORC behind the back of

Smt.Chunnu Begam. Thus, ORC granted to respondents 5 and 6 was

rightly set aside and ORC was validly granted to Smt.Chunnu Begam.

4.3. He further submitted that though Appellate Authority

observed that there is civil dispute and parties have to avail the civil law

1995 (2) ALT 172 6 PNRJ WP 16966_2019

remedy to resolve the inter se disputes, he has not set aside the ORC

granted on 7.7.2009 to late Smt.Chunnu Begam and therefore, her right

and title to the property was crystallized long ago. It is his further

submission that mere observation by the Appellate Authority that there

is interse civil dispute does not amount to setting aside the ORC.

4.4. As Smt.Chunnu Begam is ORC holder, she is entitled to

mutation of her name in the revenue records. Thus, there was no

illegality in the decision of the Tahsildar granting mutation to her and

from her to petitioners. He therefore submits that the Appellate

Authority as well as the Revisional Authority mis-directed themselves in

setting aside the mutation granted in favour of petitioners and advising

the parties to avail civil law remedy. According to learned counsel for

petitioners, ORC is not disturbed and since law supports the claim of

Smt.Chunnu Begam to secure ORC having succeeded to the right and

interest in the property by way of registered sale transaction from the

original Inamdar and ORC was granted to her on 7.7.2009, she need not

avail civil law remedy to assert her right and title to the property and as

petitioners succeeded to her, they need not avail civil law remedy. If

respondents 5 and 6 are disputing the claim of Smt.Chunnu Begam and

they are asserting their right and title over the property, they have to

avail civil law remedy.

4.5. He further submitted that in O.S.No.501 of 2015 filed by

respondents 5 and 6, they only sought for bare injunction against

interference by Smt.Chunnu Begam and her son claiming that they are

in legal possession by placing reliance on the agreement of sale. They

also prayed to grant temporary injunction. On detailed consideration,

their claim to grant temporary injunction was rejected by the trial Court.

This would clearly show that respondents 5 and 6 are not even in

possession. The Appellate Authority erred in assuming that there is a 7 PNRJ WP 16966_2019

civil dispute and mechanically the Revisional Authority upheld the

decision of the Appellate Authority. There was no application of mind by

both authorities. Thus, both orders are not sustainable in law.

5. In a nut shell, facts as culled out from the material placed on

record, it is apparent that from the original Inamdar, Smt.Chunnu

Begam purchased the land in issue and from Smt.Chunnu Begam,

petitioners have purchased the land by way of registered sale deed.

Smt.Chunnu Begam was granted ORC on 7.7.2009. Even though, the

Appellate Authority observed that parties have to avail the civil law

remedy but it has not disturbed the ORC granted to Smt.Chunnu

Begam. As purchasers of land from ORC holder, petitioners' names

mutated in the revenue records, reversed by the Appellate Authority as

affirmed by the Revisional Authority, impugned herein.

6. Under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of

Inams Act, 1955, an Inamdar can apply for ORC, subject to his

compliance of the requirements of the Act. The subsequent purchaser of

Inam land can step into the shoes of the Inamdar and can apply to grant

ORC.

7. In S.Veera Reddy, Division Bench of this Court considered

the very issue. The Division Bench held as under:

"28. From the above discussion what follows is that, notwithstanding abolition of inams, an inamdar can transfer his rights in favour of any third person and the transferee would be entitled to all those rights and that such a transfer is not prohibited by the provisions of the Act.

30 The same view is taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Kodithala Keshavulu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1978(2) A.W.R.3. Therein, the learned single Judge observed as follows:-

"Had all the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, been brought into force in 1955, then there is no doubt that the inamdar would have been recognised (subject to the requirements of Section 4 being satisfied) as an occupant and he would then have been entitled to alienate or transfer the said lands. Merely because there has been a delay in implementing some of the provisions of the Act, such right of inamdar should not be taken away. Rule 5 clearly provides for an 8 PNRJ WP 16966_2019

application being made not only by an inamdar, but also by his successor- in-interest. The word 'successor-in-interest is of wide amplitude. It need not be confined only to heirs. An interest can devolve either by succession or by private treaty or by the operation of law. In all these cases the person upon whom the interest devolves would be a successor-in-interest."

(emphasis supplied)

8. Having regard to the consistent view of this Court, per force,

Smt Chunnu Begum having purchased the land in possession of original

Inamdar, is a 'successor-in-interest' and therefore she was validly

granted the ORC. At this stage, it is appropriate to note that the

entitlement of original Inamdar and as a purchaser, Smt Chunnu Begum

to secure ORC is not disputed. From her, based on registered sale deed

title was validly passed on to petitioners.

9. Both the statutory authorities failed to appreciate that claim

of respondents 5 and 6 to acquire right and title over subject property is

traceable to alleged agreement of sale executed in their favour by Smt

Chunnu Begum. That being so, granting ORC to Smt Chunnu Begum no

manner impacted their claim to succeed to the subject property. It thus

waters down to enforcement of agreement of sale.

10. No right or interest accrue, merely based on agreement of

sale. To fructify into a right to secure ORC, perforce, they have to firm

up their legal relationship with Smt Chunnu Begum by enforcing the

agreement of sale. That stage was not crossed by them when they

obtained ORC behind the back of Smt. Chunnu Begum. Therefore, it

was rightly set aside.

11. At this stage, it is apt to note the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State

of Haryana,2. Hon'ble Supreme Court held,

"18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and

(2012) 1 SCC 656 9 PNRJ WP 16966_2019

registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.

19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter." (emphasis supplied)

12. Smt Chunnu Begum executed registered sale deed in favour

of petitioners. Again, it is apt to note at this stage that, respondents 5

and 6 never sought enforcement of agreement of sale and have not filed

suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement of sale stated to

have been executed by Smt Chunnu Begum. Further, they have not

questioned the validity of the sale deed registered in favour of petitioners.

The sale transaction between Smt Chunnu Begum and petitioners holds

and in terms thereof right and interest in the subject property hitherto

vested in Smt Chunnu Begum, devolves on petitioners.

13. The Appellate Authority has not gone into the merits, has

not assessed the entire issue holistically, but proceeded to set aside the

mutation granted by the Tahsildar on the premise that respondents were

in possession and have interest in the property and a person in

possession was entitled to notice and opportunity before accepting

mutation claim of an applicant.

14. Having regard to this approach of the Appellate Authority

and that for strange reasons respondents 5 and 6 are not contesting the

writ petition, the Court also tested the validity of the decision of the

Tahsildar on the touchtone of 'audi alteram partam', the corner stone of

rule of law, to prima facie assess validity of the view taken by the

Appellate Authority.

                                            10                                          PNRJ
                                                                               WP 16966_2019

15. Respondents 5 and 6 instituted O.S.No.501 of 2015 in the

Court of XVI Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy

district praying to grant decree of injunction from interference. Claim of

possession by respondents 5 and 6 was elaborately considered by

learned trial Judge in I.A.No.336 of 2015. In the temporary injunction

application, the trial Court has recorded that no manner of right vested

in respondents 5 and 6 to claim possession and enjoyment and were not

in possession and rejected the prayer to grant temporary injunction.

16. It is appropriate to note the prima facie findings recorded by

trial Court in I.A.No.336 of 2015:

"21. One prima facie thing that is so visible and apparent in this case is petitioners have not traced their title from any specific person and have not disclosed the same further if they were the occupants of the Inam land then under what capacity they were the occupants. There are just not saying the basis of their occupancy rights as earmarked by law or contemplated in law. Not only that the petitioner herein are just not narrating in this case the relevance, joinder and requirement of respondent no.1 in this petition and have not disclosed the full facts and particulars of what all proceedings happened and are in between them and the respondent no.1 in various Authorities and as to how respondent no.1 is connected with the petition schedule land and the correct position of revenue pronouncements in between them by the Revenue Authorities. The petitioners present the respondent no.1 as a rank outsider, no way concerned with the petition schedule land and that this temporary injunction is very much needed against her as she is interfering in their possession without any basis and reason. The petitioners have done the same without disclosing the full facts before this Court and approached this Court to claim the temporary injunction reliefs from this Court. The same represents a conduct which cannot be condoned by while dealing with a discretionary equitable relief.

25. That apart Ex.R4 and R5 there are sale deeds in favour of the third persons executed by the respondent no.1 and the same is altogether a different ground reality saying the possession too was delivered. Respondent says that the petitioners are even aware of the same but filed this suit ignoring the same. Thus, prima facie what the petitioners are trying to project in the affidavit seeking the indulgence of this Court is not correct and that the petitioners have not disclosed the true and correct facts to get the temporary relief as per the settled requirements of law.

26. One should note that petitioners are too tracing the origin of their title by virtue of an agreement of sale dated 12.8.1983 from respondent no.1 herein. The said fact is not disclosed herein but has come up in the revenue litigation between them and respondent no.1. Therefore, the petitioners terming the respondent as trespasser cannot be justified even in this limited enquiry and the rival contention as put before this Court and the documents Ex.R1 to R.14 goes to show that petitioners are coming with unclean hands and they cannot be afforded any protection by this Court as a temporary measure.

27........

28. Hence, this Court holds that petitioners are not having prima facie case and they are also not having any balance of convenience in their favour. The mischief rule does not favour the petitioners in as much as more loss or harm will be caused to the respondent if the order is given than the loss or harm to be caused to the petitioner if the order is not given in as much as petitioners have tried not to project the true and correct facts before this Court and are not making any reference or mention of the revenue litigation in between them and the 11 PNRJ WP 16966_2019

respondent no.1 and the setting aside of their occupancy certificate. Further, prima facie there cannot be any protection afforded to the petitioners for the manner they have acted more particularly in usurping the rights of rightful owners and title holders by their sheer brazenness and legal chicanery. The petitioner would not suffer any irreparable loss and damage in as much as they are failing to prima facie seek the indulgence of this Court in seeking the protection of their possession. That there is likely hood of genuine persons be troubled and harassed by the petitioners by way of threat of any orders from this Court in their favour which may result in irreparable damage to third persons who are not party to this suit and who are in possession. Petitioners are not having elements to be given the relief of temporary injunction as prayed in the petition. Prima facie, petitioners tracing their title are unable to establish that they are in possession of the petition schedule property as on the date of the filing of the petition in as much as no prima facie proof as to possession of petitioners is there before this court to afford any protection to petitioners. Hence, there are no elements in favour of the petitioners to get the relief of temporary injunction as per settled law and as prayed by the petitioners. This point is answered against the petitioner."

(emphasis supplied)

17. The order of the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy district in I.A.No.336 of 2015 makes it

abundantly clear that respondents 5 and 6 were not in possession. Their

claim on interest in the property is based on agreement of sale. This

nullifies the foundation on which Appellate Authority granted relief to

them.

18. Principle of natural justice is not an inflexible rule moulded

into a water tight compartment. An order of a statutory authority need

not be set aside only on that ground if surrounding facts give clear

dimension to the issue and points out to one conclusion.

19. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma3, Supreme Court

examined the issue whether merely because a person is not afforded

reasonable opportunity should it automatically result in setting aside the

decision of a competent authority unless the person also satisfies the

writ court that grave prejudice was caused and if only opportunity was

afforded he would have satisfied that authority to take a view in his

favour as against him. In this case, Supreme Court introduced the test

of prejudice principle to test the validity of a contention on denial of

reasonable opportunity. Supreme Court delineated the principles that

(1996) 3 SCC 364 12 PNRJ WP 16966_2019

should govern the issue of denial of reasonable opportunity. To the

extent relevant they read as under:

"33. We may summarise the principles emerging from the above discussion. (These are by no means intended to be exhaustive and are evolved keeping in view the context of disciplinary enquiries and orders of punishment imposed by an employer upon the employee):

(1) xxxx

(2) A substantive provision has normally to be complied with as explained hereinbefore and the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice would not be applicable in such a case.

(3) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, the position is this: procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under -- "no notice", "no opportunity" and "no hearing" categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. In this connection, it may be remembered that there may be certain procedural provisions which are of a fundamental character, whose violation is by itself proof of prejudice. The Court may not insist on proof of prejudice in such cases. As explained in the body of the judgment, take a case where there is a provision expressly providing that after the evidence of the employer/government is over, the employee shall be given an opportunity to lead defence in his evidence, and in a given case, the enquiry officer does not give that opportunity in spite of the delinquent officer/employee asking for it. The prejudice is self-evident. No proof of prejudice as such need be called for in such a case. To repeat, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., whether the person has received a fair hearing considering all things. Now, this very aspect can also be looked at from the point of view of directory and mandatory provisions, if one is so inclined. The principle stated under (4) hereinbelow is only another way of looking at the same aspect as is dealt with herein and not a different or distinct principle.

(4)(a) In the case of a procedural provision which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined from the standpoint of substantial compliance. Be that as it may, the order passed in violation of such a provision can be set aside only where such violation has occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee.

(b) xxxxx

(5) Where the enquiry is not governed by any rules/regulations/statutory provisions and the only obligation is to observe the principles of natural justice -- or, for that matter, wherever such principles are held to be implied by the very nature and impact of the order/action -- the Court or the Tribunal should make a distinction between a total violation of natural justice (rule of audi alteram partem) and violation of a facet of the said rule, as explained in the body of the judgment. In other words, a distinction must be made between "no opportunity" and no adequate opportunity, i.e., between "no notice"/"no hearing" and "no fair hearing".

(a) In the case of former, the order passed would undoubtedly be invalid (one may call it 'void' or a nullity if one chooses to). In such cases, normally, liberty will be reserved for the Authority to take proceedings afresh according to law, i.e., in accordance with the said rule (audi alteram partem).

                                                13                                           PNRJ
                                                                                    WP 16966_2019

(b) But in the latter case, the effect of violation (of a facet of the rule of audi alteram partem) has to be examined from the standpoint of prejudice; in other words, what the Court or Tribunal has to see is whether in the totality of the circumstances, the delinquent officer/employee did or did not have a fair hearing and the orders to be made shall depend upon the answer to the said query. [It is made clear that this principle (No. 5) does not apply in the case of rule against bias, the test in which behalf are laid down elsewhere.]

(6) While applying the rule of audi alteram partem (the primary principle of natural justice) the Court/Tribunal/Authority must always bear in mind the ultimate and overriding objective underlying the said rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice. It is this objective which should guide them in applying the rule to varying situations that arise before them.

(7) There may be situations where the interests of State or public interest may call for a curtailing of the rule of audi alteram partem. In such situations, the Court may have to balance public/State interest with the requirement of natural justice and arrive at an appropriate decision."

20. The same principle should also guide the quasi-judicial authorities.

21. In M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India and others4, by referring

to Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P.5, Supreme Court

observed,

"21. It is, therefore, clear that if on the admitted or indisputable factual position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the Court need not issue a writ merely because there is violation of the principles of natural justice."

(emphasis supplied)

22. This principle is applied in all subsequent decisions by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

23. It is significant to notice that between the decision of

Tahsildar dated 30.01.2014 and the decision of the appellate authority

dated 10.05.2016, respondents 5 and 6 knocked the doors of the Court

of XVI Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy district in

O.S.No.501 of 2015. The trial Court out rightly rejected the possessory

claim of respondents 5 and 6, albeit at the interlocutory stage but

observations made to reject the claim are significant. Thus, by the time

appeal was decided their possession was not established. Further, the

(1999) 6 SCC 237

AIR 1966 SC 828 14 PNRJ WP 16966_2019

claim of respondents 5 and 6 acquiring right and title to subject property

is traceable to agreement of sale. This agreement never fructified into a

deed of conveyance in their favour. On the contrary petitioners acquired

the right and title over the same land by way of a registered sale deed

executed by Smt Chunnu Begum. Under Act 26 of 1971, a person in

possession of an agricultural land may be entitled to object to mutation

claim even if he has no title to the land. As noticed above the trial Court

prima facie held that respondents were not in possession. Further, Act 9

of 2020 does not recognize claims of a person in possession while

considering the application for mutation. The sale deed executed in

favour of petitioners is not assailed by respondents 5 and 6. As noticed

by trial Court this sale deed also incorporated delivery of possession.

These facts are staring on the face of the record. Therefore, putting them

on notice and affording opportunity of hearing would not have made any

impact on the outcome of decision by the Tahsildar.

24. The Revisional Authority though holds that the respondents

5 and 6 have not filed any record to support their claim and their rights

over the land were not ascertained, declines to grant relief to petitioners

only on the ground that civil suit is pending and directs the parties to

await the outcome of civil suit.

25. This clearly shows total non-application of mind. He failed

to note that in O.S. No. 501 of 2015 the prayer was only to grant decree

of bare injunction based on possessory claim. After elaborate

consideration, the trial Court held that respondents 5 and 6 were not in

possession and rejected Interlocutory Application to grant injunction

from interference. This order has become final. It appears that no suit is

filed seeking decree of specific performance of agreement of sale or/and

challenging the deed of conveyance executed in favour of petitioners. The 15 PNRJ WP 16966_2019

Revisional Authority failed to note these glaring facts while holding that

suit is pending.

26. Both authorities failed to notice that suit instituted by

respondents 5 and 6 is for bare injunction from interference and no civil

litigation is pending on title dispute. It is thus apparent that the

Appellate Authority misdirected in interfering with the order of Tahsildar

granting mutation to petitioners and the Revisional Authority failed to

apply his mind to decide the issue. Both authorities misdirected in

assessing the issue in right perspective vitiating the decision making

process and the decisions per-se.

27. For all the aforesaid reasons, the orders impugned are liable

to be set aside. They are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is

allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.

                                              ___________________________
                                               JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
Date: 20.07.2021
Tvk/kkm
                          16                              PNRJ
                                                 WP 16966_2019




          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO




              WRIT PETITION No. 16966 of 2019

                     Date :20.07.2021

Tvk/kkm