Telangana High Court

Meer Shamsuddin Ahmed Khan, vs The State Of Telangana, on 26 October, 2022

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                           AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                   WRIT APPEAL No.732 OF 2017

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Bhaskar Reddy)

       This appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11788 of

2017 dated 06.04.2017 dismissing the writ petition.

2.     The appellant is the writ petitioner.                    The writ

petition came to be filed questioning the orders passed by

respondent       No.2     in   Case     No.D1/3820/2015            dated

29.09.2016 dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the

petitioner.

3. The Revision Petition has been filed by the

petitioner challenging issuance of pattadar pass books

and title deeds in favour of respondent No.5 for the land

admeasuring Ac.41.36 guntas in Survey Nos.166, 170,

171 & 172 of Narsingi Village, presently in Gandipet

Mandal (old Rajenderanagar Mandal), Ranga Reddy

District, vide proceedings in File No.Narsingi/ROR.174/

1989, dated 31.03.1989, issued by respondent No.4.

4. It is the case of petitioner that his grandfather

namely late Md. Fasiuddin Ahmed Khan @ Moulvi Fashi

Jung was the absolute owner of land in Survey Nos.166,

170, 171 and 172 of Narsingi Village, the same was

devolved upon his legal heirs after his lifetime, the

petitioner succeeded to the said property and ever since

then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land.

While so, a notice was published on 25.01.2015 in Times

of India, Hyderabad Edition, wherein respondent No.5

claimed as the absolute owner of land admeasuring

Ac.68.04 guntas forming part of Survey Nos.166, 167 and

169 to 172 of Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, which also includes the subject

property i.e., Ac.41.36 guntas, relying upon registered

sale deeds and as such the petitioner invoked the

revisional jurisdiction of respondent No.2 by filing a

Revision Petition seeking correction of the entries in the

revenue records and also cancellation of the pattadar

passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of respondent

No.5. The revisional authority has dismissed the

Revision Petition on the ground that the same is barred

by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition

has been filed which was also dismissed by learned

Single Judge. Hence, this appeal.

5. While admitting the writ appeal on 16.06.2017, this

Court granted interim orders in WAMP.No.1438 of 2017

directing all the parties to maintain status quo as on that

date in all respects until further orders.

6. Respondent No.5 filed a counter affidavit stating

inter alia that one Sri Sriram Agarwal executed a

registered trust deed on 28.11.1950 constituting the land

to an extent of Ac.68.04 guntas in Survey Nos.166, 167,

169 to 172 as trust known as "Shri Krishna Goseva

Mandal" registered under the provisions of

A.P.(Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act,

1350 Fasli; the said Sri Sriram Agarwal in turn

purchased the said land through a registered sale deed

on 09.08.1353 Fasli (1943 A.D); the names of respondent

No.5 and their predecessors-in-interest are recorded in

all records viz., Khasra Pahanis, pattadar passbooks,

revenue tax receipts, 1-B copies and basing on the same,

after updation of the revenue records, pattadar

passbooks and title deeds were issued and they are

enjoying the property; they also dug borewells, laid

pipelines for cultivating the lands, constructed sheds, big

community hall and there existed temples in the subject

property; and as such prayed for dismissal of the writ

appeal.

7. Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant, would contend that the appellant's grand

father, late Md. Fasiuddin Ahmed Khan @ Moulvi Fashi

Jung, is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring

Ac.41.36 guntas in Survey Nos.166, 170, 171 and 172 of

Narsingi Village vide Khata No.44 of Narsingi Village; the

petitioner came to know the fact of the entries being

recorded in the name of respondent No.5 only on

publication of notice in Times of India, Hyderabad

Edition, dated 25.01.2015; respondent No.4, without

following the procedure under the Telangana State Rights

in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (briefly "the

Act", hereinafter) and the Rules made thereunder, issued

pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of

respondent No.5 in gross violation of principles of natural

justice and the same are liable to be cancelled. Learned

Senior Counsel would further contend that respondent

No.2, being the revisional authority to revise the entries

made in the revenue records, failed to exercise

jurisdiction vested in it and instead of deciding the

Revision Petition on merits, dismissed the same on the

ground of limitation and as such the order passed by the

revisional authority, as confirmed by the learned Single

Judge, warrants interference in exercise of Letters Patent

jurisdiction.

8. Per contra, Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for respondent No.5, would contend

that respondent No.5 purchased the property through a

registered sale deed vide Document No.219 dated 10th

Thir, 1353 Fasli at Sub-Registrar's office, Taulaka West,

District Atraf Balda, Sarf-e-Khas Mubarak; thereafter, a

Charitable Trust has been established in the year 1950

vide registered document No.445/1970 under provisions

of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies

Registration Act, 1350 Fasli; since the date of purchase

respondent No.5 and their predecessors-in-interest are in

possession and enjoyment of the land; they dug borewells

and are cultivating the land; and the names of

respondent No.5 and their predecessor-in-title have been

recorded in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-1955

and Pahanis for the years 1950, 1955-58, 1960-61,

1961-62, 1963-64, 1965, 1982-83 to 1999-2000 and they

are also paying tax regularly to the local authorities.

Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the

petitioner, with a mala fide intention, created a dispute

and filed the Revision Petition after a period of 25 years of

mutation and nearly after 70 years of the entries in the

revenue records; and as such, the Revision Petition has

been rightly dismissed by respondent No.2 as confirmed

by learned Single Judge and the same does not warrant

interference in the intra-court appeal.

9. We have carefully considered submissions made by

the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective

parties and perused the record.

10. Appellant claiming to be the successor of one late

Md. Fasiuddin Ahmed Khan @ Moulvi Fashi Jung, has

instituted Revision Petition under the provisions of the

Act on the file of respondent No.2. Section 9 of the Act

confers revisional jurisdiction upon respondent No.2,

which reads as under:-

"9. Revision - The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly:

Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation."

11. Respondent No.2, being the revisional authority,

after affording opportunity to the parties, has dismissed

the Revision Petition vide orders dated 29.09.2016 in

Case No.D1/3820/2015. The relevant portion of the said

order reads as under:-

"It is observed that Sri.Mirza Jaffar Nawaz and Mirza Nawaz both sons of Mouli Mirza Gulam Hussain has sold the land bearing Sy.Nos.166,169,170,171 and 172 to an extent of Ac.68.04 gts. situated at Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal (Present) in favour of Sri.Yed T.satyanarayana through Registered Deed No.219 of 1353 Fasli dated:10th Thir. Subsequently, Sri.T.Satyanarayana

sold the entire property purchased by him through above said Registered Document in favour of Sri.Lala Sriram Agarwal through Registered Document No.475/1355 Fasli dated:10th Meher and handed over to the purchaser lands in question.

In turn Sri. Lala Sriram Agarwal has executed a trust deed by (viz.,) Goseva Mandal by virtue of Registered Deed No.2708/1950 Dated:04.12.1950 that the property land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.68-04 gts., in Sy.Nos.166,169,170,171 and 172 situated at Narsingi Village. It is seen that extent of pahanies from 1950 onwards disclose that the Revision Respondent No.1 herein were possession and enjoyment over the suit land.

On perusal of pahanies, it is found that the Revision Respondent No.1 is recorded from the year 1960- 61 to 1992-93 in possession column and from the year 1993-94 to the present year in Pattadar Column as well in possession column in respect of the lands in question and also obtained pattadar passbooks title deeds. The Revision Respondent No.1 herein is in continuous possession without any interruption till today. The claim of the petitioner is based on the sethwar of 1343 Fasli according the which the Nawab Fasih Jung Bahadur along with Mirza Jafar Nawaz and Mirza Nawaz are the pattadars. One Sri.T.Satyanarayana had purchased the lands in Sy.Nos.166,167,169,170,171 and 172 who in turn sold it to Sri Sriram Agarwal vide Registered Sale Deed No.475/1355 Fasli. Again Sri Sriram Agarwal has transferred the said land to a Trust by name Goseva Mandal vide Registered Document No.2708 of 1950 dated:29.11.1950.

Moreover, in the instant case the Revision Petitioner seeks correction of entries in respect of the lands in question from 1993-94 onwards i.e., after a long lapse of (23) years which is barred by limitation. The Revision Petitioner never agitated against the Revision Respondents

any where. The Law of limitation is based on the fundamental public policy cannon that an unlimited and perpetual threat of litigation leads to disorder and confusion.

Though, neither the rule nor the section prescribes any time limit for exercise of the revision, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time. State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghavanatha, AIR 1969 SC 1297.

The Revision Petition is not maintainable on grounds of merits or limitation and is accordingly, dismissed."

12. Respondent No.2 is the competent authority under

Section 9 of the Act to entertain a revision either suo

motu or on an application filed for calling for the records

maintained by the lower authorities for correction of the

record of rights prepared or maintained under the

provisions of the Act and if he is satisfied that the said

entries are found to be recorded illegally, he is entitled to

modify, annul or reverse and remand for re-consideration

of the same by passing suitable orders. While conferring

suo motu revisional powers, the Legislature has not

prescribed any period of limitation for entertaining a

revision.

13. In the instant case, the petitioner filed Revision

Petition seeking correction of record of rights and

issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour

of respondent No.5 vide proceedings in File

No.Narsingi/ROR.174/1989, dated 31.03.1989. Pattadar

passbooks and title deeds will be issued under Section

6-B of the Act to any person who acquired right by

succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition,

Government patta, decree of a Court and basing on the

title. Section 6 of the Act specifically states that every

entry in record of rights shall be presumed to be true

until the contrary is proved or until it is otherwise

amended in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

The property to an extent of Ac.68.04 guntas forming part

of Survey Nos.166, 167, 169 to 172 was mutated in

favour of respondent No.5 and appellant is claiming part

of the land in Survey Nos.167 and 169. Respondent No.5

also instituted a suit vide O.S.No.645 of 2000 on the file

of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District,

and the suit was decreed on 03.03.2006 restraining the

defendants therein from interfering with the possession of

the land to an extent Ac.68.04 guntas including the land

claimed by the appellant. The revisional authority, duly

taking note of the registered document executed in favour

of respondent No.5 vide Document No.475/1355 Fasli,

and the Khasra Pahanis for the period from1954-55 and

Pahanis for the period from 1950, 1955-58, 1960-61,

1961-62, 1963-64, 1965, 1982-83 to 1999-2000 and

registered document No.2708/1950 dated 04.12.1950,

recorded a finding that the entries recorded in favour of

respondent No.5 are continuing from 1993-94 onwards

and dismissed the Revision Petition filed after lapse of 23

years as barred by limitation.

14. In State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha1 the

Supreme Court held as under:-

"11. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under section 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined of the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised."

15. In State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal2, the Supreme

Court held as follows:-

AIR 1969 SUPREME COURT 1297

(1986) 4 SCC 566

"24. Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. We do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with reference to various decisions of this court where it has been emphasized time and again that where there is inordinate and unexplained delay and third party rights are created in the intervening period, the High Court would decline to interfere, even if the State action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal. We may only mention in the passing two decisions of this court one in Ramana Dayaram shetty v. International Airport Authority of India ((1979) 3 SCC

489) and the other in Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Collector ((1980) 1 SCC 180). we may point out that in R.D. Shetty's case1, even though the State action was held to be unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution, this Court refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground that the writ petition had been filed by the petitioner more than five months after the acceptance of the tender of the fourth respondent and during that period, the fourth respondent had incurred considerable expenditure, aggregating to about Rs.1.25 lakhs, in making arrangements for putting up the restaurant and the snack bar. Of course, this rule of laches or delay is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a strait-jacket formula, for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights the High Court may still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the petitioner. But, such cases where the demand of justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay or creation of third party rights would by their very nature be few and far between. Ultimately it would be a matter within the discretion of the court; ex hypothesi every discretion must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it."

16. In Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District vs. D.

Narsing Rao3 the Supreme Court observed as under:-

"31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders

(2015) 3 SCC 695

sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority."

17. It is settled principle of law that revisional power

has to be exercised within a reasonable period.

Exercising revisional jurisdiction by respondent No.2

after a long lapse of 23 years from the date of mutation

proceedings that too seeking correction of entries made in

the year 1950 in favour of the vendors of respondent No.5

is not permissible, as the third parties who acquired

rights in the meantime would be put to hardship for their

no fault, since correction of entries at this length of time

create litigation and it amounts to disturbing settled legal

rights.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find