Jangga Buchaiah vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5960 Tel

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

                 WRIT PETITION No. 3474 OF 2022

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling

for the records pertaining to the order passed by respondent No.2-

Special Tribunal in ST No.39/2021/D1/455/2018, dated

23.06.2021 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.3.21 gts., situated

in Sy.No.215 of Madharam Village, Ghatkesar Mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District and to quash the same and to set aside

the mutation proceedings issued by respondent No.3 in proceeding

Nos.B1/552/2006, B1/553/2006 and B1/537/2006, dated

25.12.2006, 30.11.2006 and 25.12.2006, respectively.

2. Heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for

respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for Sri M.Sreenivas, learned counsel for

respondent No.4.

3. Through the impugned order dated 23.06.2021, respondent

No.2-Special Tribunal refused to entertain the Revision Petition

filed by the petitioners herein against the mutation proceedings 2 MSK,J wp_3474_2022

issued by respondent No.3 bearing Nos. B1/552/2006,

B1/553/2006 and B1/537/2006, dated 25.12.2006, 30.11.2006

and 25.12.2006, respectively. Through the said mutation

proceedings, respondent No.3 herein ordered for mutation of the

name of respondent No.4 herein in the Revenue records in respect

of the land situated in Sy.No.215 of Madharam Village, Ghatkesar

Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in favour of respondent No.4

herein. Aggrieved by the said mutation proceedings of the year

2006, the petitioners herein filed the revision petition under

Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books

Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971'), before the Joint Collector,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District in the month of February, 2018. The

said revision petition, pending on the file of Joint Collector,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, was transferred to respondent

No.2-Special Tribunal by virtue of Section 16 of the Telangana

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020. The said

revision petition came to be disposed of by respondent No.2-Special

Tribunal through the impugned order, dated 23.06.2021 refusing

to interfere with the mutation proceedings issued by respondent 3 MSK,J wp_3474_2022

No.3 and relegating the petitioners to approach the competent Civil

Court.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that Maddi Buchaiah,

Maddi Ramulu and Janga Pochaiah are the absolute owners of

land admeasuring Ac.0.23 gts., Ac.0.22 gts., and Acs.1.05 gts., in

Sy.No.215 of Madharam Village and whereas Janga Balaiah and

Bathini Myasaiah are the joint owners of land admeasuring

Acs.1.05 gts., in Sy.No.215 of Madharam Village. The above said

persons claimed to have acquired right and title over their

respective extents of lands as mentioned above by virtue of a

ownership certificate issued under Section 38(E) of Andhra

Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

1950 (for short 'the Act, 1950'). It is the further case of the

petitioners that the above said extents of land total admeasuring

Acs.3.15 gts., was mutated in the name of the above said five (05)

persons through proceeding Nos.ROR/98/1992, dated 28.05.1992.

Basing upon the said ownership certificate issued under Section

38(E) of the Act, 1950, the petitioners 1,2,7 and 8 herein are

claiming through Janga Pochaiah and whereas the petitioner No.3

herein is claiming through Maddi Ramulu. Similarly, petitioner 4 MSK,J wp_3474_2022

No.4 herein is claiming through Janga Balaiah and whereas

petitioner Nos.5 and 6 herein are claiming through Bathini

Myasaiah. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the

grievance of the petitioners herein is that the name of respondent

No.4 herein is mutated in respect of the land in Sy.No.215 of

Madharam Village without putting the petitioners herein on notice

and without following the procedure contemplated under the

provisions of the Act, 1971. It is also the further case of the

petitioners that though respondent No.4 herein claims to have

purchased the subject land through various registered sale deeds,

the vendors under the said registered documents have sold the

subject land in favour of respondent No.4 though they were not

having the right and title over the extents sold by them. In other

words, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners

that the vendors of respondent No.4 herein have sold the extents

more than the extents owned by them in Sy.No.215 of Madharam

Village. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that respondent No.4 herein and its respective vendors

have played fraud and got the registered documents executed for

the land more than what is owned by the respective vendors. It is 5 MSK,J wp_3474_2022

also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that

respondent No.2-Special Tribunal failed to advert to various

contentions raised by the petitioners in their revision petition and

without examining the matter on merits, the Special Tribunal

passed the impugned order thereby causing great prejudice to the

petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners also

placed reliance on the Pattadar Pass Book issued in favour of the

petitioners herein by duly including the land in Sy.No.215 for the

respective extents claimed by the petitioners herein.

5. On the other hand, Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, leaned Senior

Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, contended that the

mutation proceedings were issued as early as in the year 2006 and

the revision petition came to be filed by the petitioners herein

against the said mutation proceedings of the year 2006 only in the

year 2018, that is after a long lapse of twelve (12) years and further

contended that the vendors of respondent No.4 have got absolute

right and title over the land which is acquired by respondent No.4

herein under various registered sale deeds namely document

Nos.4900 of 2006, 5292 of 2006 and 5291 of 2006. It is further

contended that the respondent No.4 herein purchased the entire 6 MSK,J wp_3474_2022

extent of Acs.17.25 gts., of land situated in Sy.No.215 of

Madharam Village along with certain other extents of land in other

Sy.Nos. under the above referred sale deeds and the name of

respondent No.4 is rightly mutated in the Revenue records and was

also issued Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds. It is further

contended that the name of respondent No.4 was mutated as early

as in the year 2006 in the Revenue records and the same is

continuing as on today. But, for the reasons best known, the

petitioners herein have kept quite for more than twelve (12) years

and at a belated stage made an attempt to disturb the right and

title of respondent No.4 over the subject property. It is also

contended that though the petitioners herein are claiming under a

ownership certificate said to have been issued under Section 38(E)

of the Act, 1950, and under mutation proceedings of the year

1992, neither of the same are placed on record either before the

Special Tribunal or before this Court and further contended that

when respondent No.4 herein made an attempt to obtain such

mutation proceedings of the year 1992 from the office of

respondent No.3, the office of respondent No.3 informed the 7 MSK,J wp_3474_2022

respondent No.4, that the said proceedings is not traceable in the

office of respondent No.3.

6. Respondent No.2-Special Tribunal refused to entertain the

revision petition filed by the petitioners herein under Section 9 of

the Act, 1971, on the ground that there is a serious dispute of title

over the property between the rival claimants and such a dispute

cannot be adjudicated by the Revenue Authorities and such claims

have to be agitated before a competent Civil Court.

7. Having considered the submissions made on either side and

having perused the material on record, this Court is of the

considered view that respondent No.2-Special Tribunal has rightly

arrived at such a conclusion and rightly relegated the parties to

approach the competent Civil Court. The reasons for the same are

as under:

8. Though the petitioners herein claimed that they have

obtained mutation proceedings bearing No.ROR/98/1992, dated

28.05.1992 basing upon a ownership certificate issued under

Section 38(E) of the Act, 1950, neither the said ownership

certificate, nor the mutation proceedings dated 28.05.1992 is

placed before the Special Tribunal , nor before this Court. In spite 8 MSK,J wp_3474_2022

of a serious dispute raised about the said 38(E) certificate and the

mutation proceedings including the genuineness of such

proceedings in the counter filed by respondent No.4, the petitioners

herein though filed a detailed reply affidavit, failed to place on

record such proceedings. In the absence of placing on record the

said ownership certificate issued under Section 38(E) and the

mutation proceedings of the year 1992 which are the basis for the

claim of the petitioners herein, it is not possible for respondent

No.2-Special Tribunal to appreciate the claim made by the

petitioners herein. A perusal of the Pattadar Pass Books, which are

issued in favour of the petitioners herein, on which a strong

reliance is placed by the petitioners also shows that the land in

Sy.No.215 is shown to have been entered in the respective Pass

Books by interpolation and also by making corrections which are

evident to the naked eye. No reasonable explanation is offered for

such an interpolation in the respective Pattadar Pass Books of the

petitioners herein. The said interpolation is by inserting the

Sy.No.215 and the extent of land in between the other survey

numbers and by changing the serial number of the different items

of property. The said interpolation in the respective Pattadar Pass 9 MSK,J wp_3474_2022

Books and the failure of petitioners herein in placing on record, the

ownership certificate said to have been issued under Section 38(E)

and the mutation proceedings of the year 1992, creates a strong

doubt on the claim of the petitioners over the land in Sy.No.215 of

Madharam Village.

9. In the light of the above observations and failure of the

petitioners to show their prima facie right and title over the land in

Sy.No.215 a mere stray entries made in the Revenue records

during one particular year does not confer any right and title on

the petitioners. As the petitioners herein fail to establish their

prima facie right and title over the subject property and the claim

of respondent No.4 herein is based upon a registered sale deed of

the year 2006, this Court is of the considered view that there is no

necessity to examine the right, title and entitlement of respondent

No.2 in detail. Admittedly, the name of respondent No.4 is mutated

in the Revenue records in the year 2006 and the same is

continuing as on date. Had the petitioners established their right

over the subject property, respondent No.2-Special Tribunal or this

Court would have examined the matter in further detail.

                                     10                                 MSK,J
                                                                 wp_3474_2022

10. In view of the findings recorded above, the contentions of the

learned counsel for the petitioners that the names of the

petitioners have been deleted from the Revenue records without

putting them on notice contrary to the law laid down by this Court

in a Judgment reported in Chinnam Pandurangam v.The Mandal

Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli, Rangareddy District1 is of no

avail.

11. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any error or

illegality in the order passed by the Special Tribunal and does not

find any merit to interfere with the order passed by the respondent

No.2-Special Tribunal in exercise of Certiorari Jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open

for the petitioners to agitate their rights before the competent Civil

Court in accordance with law.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this

Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

___________________________________ MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J

Date: 17.11.2022 Nds

2007 (6) ALD 348 11 MSK,J wp_3474_2022

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No. 3474 OF 2022

Date:17.11.2022

Nds 12 MSK,J wp_3474_2022