Telangana High Court

Hamed Bin Salam vs The State Of Telangana on 23 November, 2021

Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                  WRIT PETITION No.19281 of 2021
ORDER:

Challenging the endorsement No.B/421/2020 dated

04.03.2021 rejecting the application dated 01.02.2021 submitted

by the petitioner seeking permission to convert the land from

agricultural land to non-agriculture land in respect of the patta

land to an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas out of the total extent of

Ac.1-38 guntas in survey No.9/A situated at Kalwakurthy Mandal,

Nagarkurnool District (in short 'subject land'), the present Writ

Petition is filed.

2) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner

and possessor of the subject land. When the respondent

authorities were interfering with his possession, he filed W.P.

No.5075 of 2020 before this Court wherein vide order dated

06.03.2020 directed the respondent authorities not to interfere

with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over

the subject property without following due process of law.

Thereafter, petitioner made an application/representation dated

01.02.2021 before respondent No.4 seeking conversion of the

subject land from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose.

Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent No.4 in passing orders

on his application, the petitioner approached this Court and filed

W.P. No.4721 of 2021. After filing of the said writ petition,

respondent No.4 passed the impugned endorsement dated

04.03.2021 rejecting the application of the petitioner, even without

issuing any notice or giving an opportunity of hearing before

passing the impugned order of rejection. Questioning the same,

the present writ petition is filed.

3) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader of Revenue for all the respondents.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the

Tahsildar concerned without appreciating the fact that the

petitioner has applied for conversion of land in survey No.9/a for

an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas out of total area of Ac.1-38 guntas

belonging to him, has misconstrued the application made by the

petitioner and has dealt with the matter as if the petitioner has

applied for the entire area in survey No.9. Learned counsel has

further stated that the total area of survey No.9 is approximately

Acs.10-31 guntas and the said survey No.9 has already been

divided into sub-divisions and the petitioner is only concerned with

survey No.9/a admeasuring Ac.1-38 guntas only and that his

application for conversion is only for Ac.1-01 guntas. Learned

counsel has further stated that the official respondents have

themselves issued pattadar pass books and title deeds and the

name of the petitioner is entered in 1-B and the pahanies

maintained by the revenue authorities themselves. Moreover, the

name of the petitioner is also reflected in Dharani Portal, as on

date. That the Tahsildar concerned without considering the fact

that the petitioner has nothing to do with the other sub-divisions

of survey No.9 and has considered the application as if the same

pertains to survey No.9, but as a matter of fact, there is no survey

No.9 as on date and it is only the sub-division numbers which are

reflected in the revenue records. Learned counsel for the petitioner

has further stated that the reason for rejecting the application is

on the ground that various cases pending before various Forums

and that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are issued in

respect of the subject land.

5) Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to

the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Revenue Divisional

Officer to show that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

have already been dropped and also the revenue record to show

that the petitioner is not concerned with the other sub-divisions of

survey No.9 and only concerned with survey No.9/a and therefore

prayed to set aside the impugned endorsement.

6) Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, has stated

that as against the rejection of the application filed by the

petitioner for grant of conversion, an appeal provision is available

under the law and without availing said remedy, the petitioner has

straight away filed the present writ petition and therefore the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

7) A perusal of the impugned endorsement dated 04.03.2021

shows that the Tahsildar concerned has dealt with the application

of the petitioner as if the same is made for survey No.9 for an

extent of Ac.1-01 guntas. A perusal of the revenue record shows

that there is no survey No.9 existing as on date and there are

almost 20 sub-divisions in survey No.9 i.e. 9/aa8/1, 9/aa9/1,

9/aa19/1, 9/aa18/1, 9/aa17/1, 9/aa, 9/aa16/1, 9/aa15/1,

9/aa14/1, 9/aa3/1, 9/aa11/1, 9/aa10/1, 9/aa4/1, 9/aa5/1,

9/aa6/1, 9/aa7/1, 9/aa13/1, 9/aa1/1, 9/aa2/1, 9/aa12/1.

When such is the case, the Tahsildar concerned ought to have

considered the application solely for survey No.9/a for an extent of

Ac.1-01 guntas as the application is made only for an extent of

Ac.1-01 guntas out of the area of Ac.1-38 guntas claimed by the

petitioner.

8) This Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, on number

of occasions, have held that mere pendency of civil suits will not be

a ground for the revenue authorities from abdicating their

statutory duties which they are required to perform under the Act

and not passing orders. The authorities cannot take a stand that

they will not pass any orders on the application made by the

authorities solely on the ground that some civil litigation is

pending in respect of the subject survey No.9 when the application

is made by the petitioner only in respect of survey No.9/a for an

extent of Ac.1-01 guntas. The Tahsildar, for the reasons best

known to him, has mechanically rejected the application on the

ground that civil cases are pending and 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings

are also pending. But, as stated supra, the proceedings under

Section 145 Cr.P.C. are already closed by the Revenue Divisional

Officer concerned. Therefore, said ground is also not available.

9) A Division Bench of this Court in Singamaneni

Pullamma vs. Joint Collector, Ongole1, has recorded its findings

on revisional power under Section 9 of the Act as under:

"... Besides the mandate of this provision, the 1st respondent-Joint Collector had specifically been asked to dispose of the revision on merits by the High Court. In our view, the 1st respondent was not correct in keeping the order which was challenged before him in abeyance till the matter was decided by the civil Court. One could understand such a course taken by him if the civil Court was seized of the

1 2004 (7) ALR 963

matter, but there was nothing pending on the civil Court at that time. It is true that the entry made in the revenue records can be challenged in a civil suit, but that does not mean that the revenue records can be challenged in a civil suit, but that does not mean that the revenue authorities will not exercise any discretion which they are required to do under the Act. Pattadar pass books are governed by the act and in case of grievance about the entries in pattadar pass books or about the entries in pattadar pass books or about issuance or non-issuance of pattadar pass books the revenue authorities are supposed to do their job under the Act. Whether a revision had to be allowed or dismissed was a matter which had to be decided by the revisional authority. In case anybody or any party before it was aggrieved of that order, they could workout their remedies. Therefore what we feel that the 1st respondent has failed to exercise his jurisdiction although the High Court had clearly asked him to exercise it and even without a direction from the High Court, he was supposed to pass an order in terms of Section 9 of the Act."

10) The view expressed in above referred judgment has been

reiterated by another Division Bench in Erukula Uma vs.

Government of Andhra Pradesh2.

11) In view of the above proposition of law and also the fact

that proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are not in

subsistence anymore and that the application for conversion is in

respect of survey No.9/a for an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas only and

not for the entire survey No.9, the impugned endorsement dated

04.03.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the

Tahsildar, Kalwakurthy-respondent No.4, for passing orders afresh

on the application made by the petitioner on 01.02.2021, strictly in

accordance with law.