Thrilokendra Reddy vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept., Hyd., 3 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3831 Tel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                  W.P.No. 40550 of 2016

Between:
B.Thrilokender Reddy
                                                  ... Petitioner
And

1. The State of Telangana
    Rep. by its Principal Secretary
2. The Joint Collector, Warangal District
3. The Tahsildar, Chityal Mandal
4. Kodela Sailendra Babu

                                                ... Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 22.07.2022


  THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA



1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers          :       yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?                  :   yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
      see the fair copy of the Judgment?          :       yes



                                           ______________
                                           SUREPALLI NANDA, J
                             2
                                                             SN,J
                                                    WP_40550_2016




  THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                W.P.No. 40550 of 2016
% 22.07.2022

Between:

# B.Thrilokender Reddy
                                            ..... Petitioner

                          And:
$ The State of Telangana
   Rep. by its Principal Secretary
  and another
                                         .....Respondents


< Gist:
> Head Note:


! Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. J.Vasudeva Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Bathula Raj Kiran
                                 Standing counsel for LIC




? Cases Referred:
                                3
                                                                 SN,J
                                                        WP_40550_2016




     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                   W.P.NO.40550 OF 2016

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri

Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ order or

direction especially one in the nature of writ of Certiorari

calling for the records pertaining to RC No.E5/2356/2014,

dated 23.09.2016 of the 2nd respondent as illegal and

therefore liable to be set aside and declare that petitioner is

the owner, pattedar and possessor of the land to an extent of

Ac.4.20 gts in Survey No.167/A, Chityal Village and Mandal,

Jayashanker Bhupalpally District and the pattedar passbooks

and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner by Tahsildar,

Chityal are legal and valid.

3. The brief facts of the petitioner are as follows:

The Petitioner in this Writ Petition is represented by his

General Power of Attorney. The petitioner is the owner of

SN,J WP_40550_2016

land to an extent of Ac.4.20 Gts. situated in Survey No.167/A

of Chital Village and Mandal. The daughters of the petitioner

initially purchased an extent of Ac.2.10 Gts. in Survey No.167

by sada sale deed dated 15.02.2002 from the 4th Respondent

for valuable consideration. Subsequently, the daughters of the

petitioner have executed a simple sale deed in favour of the

petitioner on 14-03-2004 for a valuable consideration. In the

year 2012, the said simple deeds were impounded before the

District Revenue Officer, Warangal (DRO) and the petitioner is

in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property

since the date of his purchase. After the petitioner purchased

the property and after the documents are impounded by the

RDO, the petitioner filed an application to the revenue officials

for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Upon

verification and enquiry into the matter, the Revenue officials

entered the name of the petitioner in the records including

Form 1-B register as owner, possessor and Pattadar of the

subject property. The petitioner also obtained the pattadar

passbook and title deeds from the 3rd Respondent vide Patta

No.6 & Book No.101686. Subsequently, the Government

SN,J WP_40550_2016

verified the pattadar passbooks of the petitioner and

conducted enquiry about the genuinity of the said passbooks

and allotted the unique No.2105420270164 to the petitioner.

The Respondent along with his father and brothers are having

their property abutting to the petitioner's property.

Subsequent to the selling of property to an extent of Ac. 4.20

Gts, in Survey No.167 (hereinafter referred to as "subject

property"). Subsequently, the respondents have given sub

division No. as 167/1 and are trying to interfere with the

peaceful possession of the petitioner's land, taking advantage

of the absence of the petitioner, since he is residing out of

country. The GPA holder of the petitioner and the persons

belonging to the petitioner, with great difficulty resisted the

illegal interference of the 4th Respondent and his henchmen.

The petitioner also approached the Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Warangal by filing O.S.No.834 of 2014 for an

injunction suit against the 4th Respondent restraining the 4th

respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the petitioner's property. Subsequently, the

interim orders were passed restraining the 4th Respondent

SN,J WP_40550_2016

and their henchmen from interfering with the petitioner's

property. However, the said suit is pending for consideration

before the said court. Later on, the 4th respondent with an ill-

motive and to defraud the petitioner, made false claim in

respect of the petitioner's property, and approached the 3rd

respondent, Chityal by filing a petition for cancellation of

Pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the

petitioner. The 3rd respondent dismissed the petition.

Aggrieved by the orders of 3rd Respondent, the 4th respondent

filed Appeal No. F/1751/2011 before the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Mulugu contending that he is the absolute owner of

the subject schedule property to an extent of Ac.4.20 gts in

Survey No.167 at Chityal Village, Warangal District as he

received the said land towards his share from his father Sri

Kodela Sammaiah, who is the pattadar and possessor of the

said property. It is submitted by the petitioner that the 4th

Respondent alleged that the 4th Respondent is in possession

of the said land and he never sold the same to the Petitioner

and the petitioner falsely got mutated his name in patta

columns by creating fabricated documents by colluding with

SN,J WP_40550_2016

revenue authorities who issued pattadar passbooks and title

deeds in favour of petitioner without his notice and without

following the procedure contemplated under ROR Act.

4. The main contentions put-forth by learned counsel for

the petitioner are that the order passed by the 2nd respondent

is illegal and improper. The order of the 2nd Respondent is

without any cogent reasons. The 2nd Respondent on

presumptions and assumptions passed the order without

properly looking into the record and appreciating in the

matter. The order passed is an order passed exparte without

hearing the petitioner or his GPA holder Sri Jinna Bhupathi

Reddy. The 2nd Respondent did not consider the matter in the

proper prospective way. The pattedar pass books and title

deeds were issued in favour of the petitioner, after conducting

thorough enquiry and the documents produced by the

petitioner. The petitioner obtained the latest pahaninakals

from the year 2010 to 2016 on 28.10.2016 from the Office of

the 3rd Respondent. The pahaninakals would clearly disclose

that the name of the petitioner is entered as Pattadar and

possessor of the property to an extent of schedule property.

SN,J WP_40550_2016

Therefore, the order of the 2nd Respondent is illegal and liable

to be set aside.

5. The main contentions put forth by learned counsel for

the 4th respondent are that the petitioner has obtained an

interim order dated 08.12.2016 by suppressing the true facts

before the High Court and hence, the writ petition is liable to

be dismissed in limine. The present writ petition is not

maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on

the ground that non-joinder of necessary party i.e., Revenue

Divisional Officer, Mulugu, who is the Appellate Authority

whose order was set aside by the 2nd Respondent. The

allegations made against the 4th respondent are false and are

denied. The facts of the case are that the 4th respondent's

father is the owner and possessor of entire land admeasuring

Ac.11-3 Gts in Chityal Village and he purchased the same

under a registered sale deed dated 09.04.1979 and that the

4th respondent's name was mutated as pattadar and

possessor with respect to the above-mentioned land. That the

revenue officials have issued Rythu pass book in the name of

the 4th Respondent's father. The entire land in Sy.No.167

SN,J WP_40550_2016

stands in name of the 4th Respondent's father and the 4th

respondent's name is recorded as a possessor to an extent of

Ac.4-00 Gts. The Writ petitioner filed O.S.No.834/2014

through GPA Holder (J. Bhoopathi Reddy) and he is continuing

as a GPA of the writ petitioner as on today in the above-

mentioned suit. Therefore, the fact that the GPA has

colluded with the 4th Respondent and played fraud with the

petitioner and has not submitted his case before the 2nd

respondent is false and denied. That in the month of June,

2011 the petitioner filed suit vide O.S.No.513/2011 on the file

of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal for injunction

against the 4th Respondent, his father and his brother with

false claim that he was the owner and possessor of the

property and that the revenue authorities have issued

pattadar pass books in his favour. Upon receipt of the

summon in the said suit, the 4th Respondent came to know

that the name of the petitioner is recorded as Pattadar and

possessor in the revenue records with respect of suit

property. Upon further enquiry done by the 4th respondent,

he learnt that the petitioner in collusion with the then 3rd

SN,J WP_40550_2016

Respondent, Deputy Joint Collector, VRO of Chital Mandal

have clandestinely mutated name of the petitioner in the

concerned revenue records by impersonating and forging the

signatures of the 4th Respondent's. The 4th Respondent filed

an application before 3rd Respondent, Chityal under R.T.I Act

for information with regard to the mutation of patta in the

name of the petitioner. However, the 3rd Respondent through

memo dated 30.06.2011 informed that the said OR file is not

available. Subsequently, the 4th Respondent filed an appeal

before R.D.O., Mulugu under ROR Act challenging the

mutation of the suit land in the name of the writ petitioner

vide Appeal No.F/1751/2011. During the pendency of above

appeal, the 3rd Respondent has forwarded the mutation

proceedings vide File No. B/2381/2008 to the R.D.O., Mulugu,

but Form No.13-A was not enclosed to the file. As per the

mutation proceedings, the petitioner filed an application

before the 3rd Respondent to mutate his name in respect of

the suit property, alleging that he purchased the said land

from the 4th Respondent under sale deed dated 18.12.1970.

During the enquiry proceedings, the R.D.O, Mulugu has

SN,J WP_40550_2016

sought enquiry report from 3rd Respondent, Chityal and the

then 3rd Respondent has conducted field inspection and

enquired the adjacent farmers. Upon his enquiry, it is

revealed that the 4th Respondent is in the possession of the

land. The 3rd Respondent, Chityal again caused enquiry about

the physical possession of the property and as per enquiry, 4th

Respondent is in possession of the property and was issued

with a letter No.A/333/2014, dt.6-8-2014. The petitioner has

no prima facie case and balance of convenience does not also

lie in his favour. It is submitted that the petitioner also

suppressed the filing of the O.S.No.513/2011 on the file of I

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in the affidavit filed in

support of the writ petition, and also about the filing of

O.S.No.834/2014 on thefile of Senior Civil Judge, Warangal

for permanent injunction. However, the suit was dismissed.

The petitioner also filed I.A. No.63/2013 for setting aside the

dismissal order dt.14.11.2012 and the said I.A. was allowed

and thereafter several adjournments were taken but at any

point of time writ petitioner was not getting ready for

arguments therefore, the I Additional Senior Civil Judge,

SN,J WP_40550_2016

Warangal again dismissed the suit for default on 28.09.2015.

The 4th Respondent filed private complaint on 23.06.2015

against the petitioner and other under Sec. 167, 192, 416,

418, 464, 466, 470, 471, 109, 120-A of the IPC before the

Judicial First-class Magistrate. The same was forwarded to the

SHP P.S Chityal, Warangal for investigation. However, the

same is still pending as on today. It is submitted that while

dismissing the appeal No. F/1761/2011, dated 20.05.2014,

the RDO, who is the appellate authority has not considered

the grounds of the 4th Respondent along with the report of the

3rd Respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th Respondent

filed revision before the 2nd Respondent, Warangal, who is the

2nd respondent in the above writ petition and after considering

the grounds and report filed along with documents of the 3rd

Respondent, 2ndrespondent herein allowed the revision and

given a finding that "on perusal of the records it is observed

that the sale deed dated 15.02.2002 is not regularized in

terms of the G.O.Ms.No.45, Revenue (SSI) Department, dated

17.01.2006 as the said G.O. is applicable for the lands

purchased on or before 31.12.2000 as seen from the file of

SN,J WP_40550_2016

the 3rd Respondent, Chital i.e., the 3rd respondent herein in

file No.B/ROR/2008/2381, it is observed that the date of

purchase was mentioned as 8.12.1970, but the sale deed is

dated as 15.02.2002, which are contradictory. However, there

was no 13-(A) and the challans of stamp duty are in the name

of Gouda Vasantha. The document dt.08.12.1970 set to be

executed by the Revision Petitioner is also not valid as the

Revision petitioner was born on 16.05.1974. In view of the

above observations, the 2nd respondent set aside the orders of

the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu in file No.F/1751/2011,

dt. 20.05.2014 and proceedings of the 3rd Respondent,

Chityal in file No.B/ROR/2008/2381. Therefore, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. In the impugned order in Rc.No.E5/2356/2014, dated

23.09.2016 at page '2' it is observed as under:

"There is no representation from the respondent side as the respondent is abroad (U.S.A.) and from his G.P.A. holder, Sri Jinna Bhupathi Reddy."

SN,J WP_40550_2016

8. A bare perusal of the proceedings in

Rc.No.E5/2356/2014, dated 23.09.2016 clearly indicates that

the petitioner herein who is the respondent in the revision

filed under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar

passbooks Act, 1971 preferred by the respondent herein

against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulug in

File No.F/1751/2011, dated 20.05.2014 by which the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Mulgu has dismissed the appeal for

cancellation ofPPB/Td issued in favour of the petitioner herein

for an extent of Ac.4.20 gts in Survey No.167 of Chityal

Village and Mandal was not heard nor represented by

his GPA holder Sri Jinna Bhupathi Reddy before the 2nd

respondent. In view of the fact that it is specifically averred

by the petitioner at para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of

W.P.No.40550 of 2016 as under:-

"Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.4 filed revision bearing Rc.No.E5/2356/2014 before the Joint Collector, Warangal. It appears the Joint Collector issued notice to the then GPA holder of the petitioner Sri J.Bhupathi Reddy. Sri J.Bhupathi Reddy colluded with respondent No.4 and did not attend before the Joint Collector,

SN,J WP_40550_2016

inspite of the notice received by the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector passed orders dated 23.09.2016 allowing the revision and set aside the proceedings of the Tahsildar,Chityal inB/rOR/2008/2381, by order dated 23.09.2016."

9. This Court opines that for ends of justice the matter has

to be reconsidered by the competent authority. It is a fact

that this Court vide its order dated 08.12.2016 granted status

quo as on the date to be maintained in respect of the subject

property with regard to the entries and possession for a

period of ten weeks. However, it appears that the said orders

have not been extended by this Court.

10. Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar

Pass Books Act, 2020 reads as under:

(1) On such repeal all the pending appeal and revision cases under the provisions of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 shall stand transferred to the Special Tribunals. (2) On disposal of appeal or revision by the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal shall be final and shall be implemented under the provisions of this Act.

11. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned

counsel for the 4th respondent submitted to this Court that

they have no objection, if the matter is remanded to the

SN,J WP_40550_2016

concerned special Tribunal for passing of fresh orders by

giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner herein in

conformity with principles of natural justice.

12. Admittedly, as borne on record the documents relied

upon by the petitioners in support of the petitioner's case

that is the pattadar passbooks, title deeds and the

pahaninakals from the year 2010 to 2016 filed by the

petitioner herein as material documents in support of the

present writ petition it appears were not looked into nor

considered or even referred to by the 2nd respondent in the

order impugned dated 23.0.2016 of the 2nd respondent, since

admittedly as borne on record neither the petitioner nor his

GPA represented before the 2nd respondent in the hearing.

13. Without going into the merits of the case, in the ends of

justice, this Court deem it fit and proper, that, only on the

ground of providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner

to ensure passing of a detailed reasoned order on merits, to

remit the matter to the Special Revenue Tribunal, Warangal

District constituted under Section 16 of the Telangana Rights

in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 and accordingly,

SN,J WP_40550_2016

the same is remitted to the concerned Special Revenue

Tribunal, Warangal District. The said special Tribunal,

Warangal District shall dispose off the revision filed by the 4th

respondent against the orders of the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Mulug in file No.F/1751/2011, dated 20.05.2014,

which was dismissed for cancellation of the pattadar passbook

and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner to an extent

of Ac.4.20 gts in Survey No.167 of Chityal Village and Mandal,

in accordance with law, within a period of three months in

conformity with the principles of natural justice by giving

reasonable opportunity of being heard both to the petitioner

and also the 4th respondent herein. The impugned order vide

Rc.No.E5/2356/2014, dated 23.09.2016 passed by the 2nd

respondent is accordingly quashed.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 22.07.2022 Kvrm