A.Arundhati vs R,Kamalakar Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 4952 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                          AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR


              WRIT APPEALS No.276 AND 278 of 2022


COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar)

      Heard Mr.Srinivas Kapatia, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel

representing Mr.Ajgal Ravi Babu appearing for the respondent No.1

and also the learned Government Pleader for Revenue Mr. Parsa

Ananth Nageswar Rao and perused the material made available on

record.

2. W.A. No.278 of 2022 was preferred against the order passed in

W.P. No.20576 of 2008 by the appellant, who was arrayed as the

4th respondent and W.A. No.276 of 2022 was preferred against the

order passed in W.P. No.23528 of 2012 by the appellant, who was

arrayed as the 5th respondent. Both the appeals have been preferred

by the same appellant.

3. Since these two appeals have been preferred against the

common order dated 28.06.2021 passed in W.P. No.23528 of 2012

and 20576 of 2008 by the learned single Judge, they are being

disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The appellant and the 1st respondent herein are the respondent

and the writ petitioner in the writ petitions, respectively.

HC, J & NVSK, J

5. Since the subject matter of these appeals has a long chequered

history, it is not desirable to reiterate the undisputed facts of the case,

except which are necessary for determining these appeals.

6. The facts leading to the controversy may briefly be noted:

The total disputed land is to an extent of Acs.16.07 guntas

situated at Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy

district (hereinafter referred to as "the subject land"). The main

dispute arose between the parties when the 1st respondent/writ

petitioner made an application seeking regularisation of the subject

land before the Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, which was allowed

regularising the subject land vide proceedings dated 09.02.1996 and

issued XIII-B certificate in favour of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.

It appears that the proceedings dated 09.02.1996 have been passed

by the Tahsildar based on the documents dated 23.07.1980 and

24.07.1980 followed by receipts dated 19.12.1980. The unofficial

respondents, being the legal heirs of original owner Mr. A.Narayana

Reddy, who died on 07.04.1983, have challenged the proceedings

dated 09.02.1996 by way of an appeal before the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Ranga Reddy district (East Division) and on dismissal of the

appeal vide order dated 16.06.1997, have preferred a revision before

the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district and the same was ended in

dismissal vide order dated 20.05.2000. Challenging the same,

the unofficial respondents earlier filed W.P. No.12763 of 2000 that

was disposed of by this Court on 16.08.2005 setting aside all the HC, J & NVSK, J

aforementioned proceedings and remitted the matter to the original

authority i.e. Tahsildar for fresh adjudication on the ground that the

unofficial respondents were not put on notice before the appellate and

the revisional authority. Thereafter, after being put on notice to the

unofficial respondents, again the Tahsildar vide order dated

25.04.2006 confirmed his earlier orders dated 09.02.1996 passed in

favour of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner and then also on appeal

being preferred by the unofficial respondents, the said orders were

confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 03.11.2007, which

again the unofficial respondents carried the matter in revision before

the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector vide order dated

07.03.2009 allowed the revision filed by the unofficial respondents

setting aside the orders of the appellate and the primary authority.

Again, the order of the revisional authority came to be challenged by

the 1st respondent/writ petitioner in W.P. No.8935 of 2009 that was

allowed vide order dated 18.04.2011 on the ground that no notice was

issued to him and no opportunity of hearing was afforded before

allowing the revision filed by the unofficial respondents and the matter

was remitted for disposal afresh. On remand, considering the various

contentions raised by the unofficial respondents and on the ground

that the documents relied on and submitted by the 1st respondent/

writ petitioner which were sought to be regularised, are mere

agreements of sale and not sale deeds, the revisional authority,

by order dated 07.07.2012, disposed of the revision setting aside the

orders of the Tahsildar dated 25.09.2006 and the orders of the HC, J & NVSK, J

appellate authority i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 03.11.2007

holding that the documents sought to be regularised by the

1st respondent/writ petitioner are mere agreements of sale and not

sale deeds and therefore, they cannot be regularised under the

provisions of Section 5-A of the ROR Act. However, the parties were

granted liberty to approach the competent civil Court for specific

performance and for adjudication of civil disputes.

7. Challenging the order dated 07.07.2012 of the revisional

authority, W.P. No.23528 of 2012 was filed. Further, W.P. No.20576

of 2008 was filed seeking to declare the proceedings under the ULC

Act as not applicable to the subject land.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant while narrating

the factual background of the case reiterated the submissions already

urged before the learned Single Judge and submitted that the learned

Single Judge had passed the impugned common order contrary to law,

facts and settled propositions. The learned counsel for the appellant

has filed written submissions and relied on the judgments which were

already filed as material papers in the Writ Appeals and the same were

relied on in the writ petitions. The grounds urged in the writ petitions

and the written submissions are considered.

9. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the

1st respondent/writ petitioner put forth his arguments in support of

the impugned common order.

HC, J & NVSK, J

10. On rival contentions made across the Bar, the following points

would emerge for consideration in these appeals:

1) Whether the nomenclature of unregistered sale deeds dated 23.07.1980 and 24.07.1980 which culminated into complete sale by virtue of two receipts dated 19.12.1980 is a valid sale?

2) Whether the proceedings under Section 8(4) and the consequential orders issued under Section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the ULC Act issued against a dead person without putting on notice to the affected/interested party is valid?

11. Now it has to be seen whether the learned Single Judge has

properly appreciated the revolved points or not.

12. Point No.1):- The only controversial point urged by the learned

counsel for the appellant is that the nomenclature of documents dated

23.07.1980 and 24.07.1980 itself is agreement of sale and the two

receipts dated 19.12.1980 acknowledging the receipt of balance sale

consideration and delivery of possession in favour of the vendee are

sham, fabricated and created by the 1st respondent/petitioner.

13. The learned Judge at para No.19 of the common order observed

as follows:

"19) To know the intention of the parties to the transaction in this particular case, it is necessary to go through the contents of the document coupled with the receipts to find out as to whether the transaction has HC, J & NVSK, J

been complete or not. A bare reading of the conveyance deed as well as the receipts relied by the petitioner shows that the transaction was not only complete but after receiving the entire sale consideration, the petitioner was put in physical possession. Even though the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent has vehemently argued and relied on the above judgments of this Court, to buttress his case that mere agreement of simplicitor cannot be called as a transaction. The reading of the said Judgments reveals that in all those cases the transaction was not complete, but in the case on hand the fact remains that the sale documents along with the receipts clinchingly establish that the petitioner has not only paid the full sale consideration, but he was also put in physical possession of the property. A reading of the order of the Joint Collector, which is impugned in writ petition No.23528 of 2012, shows that the Joint Collector without looking into the documents, more particularly the receipts, relied by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was put in possession and the entire sale consideration was paid, has simply set aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer solely going by the nomenclature of the document, which is named as agreement of sale.

14. The learned Judge had observed that insofar as the

nomenclature of documents dated 23.07.1980 and 24.07.1980 are

concerned, it is well settled principle of law and in catena of

judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was held that the

nomenclature of the document cannot be the sole basis either for

accepting or rejecting the claim of the parties, but the intention of the

parties and contents of the documents have to be gone through.

HC, J & NVSK, J

15. The learned Judge further observed that the receipts dated

19.12.1980 issued by late A.Narayana Reddy, who was the vendor,

acknowledging the receipt of entire sale consideration followed by

delivery of possession would clearly establish that the right, title,

interest and physical possession in respect of the subject property

stood transferred in favour of the 1st respondent/petitioner from the

date of the initial documents. Another evidence that establish that

the 1st respondent/petitioner was put in possession of the property

are the pahanies for the year 1981-82, 1983-84, which prove the

physical possession of the 1st respondent/petitioner. Thus,

the intention of entering into an agreement between the parties is

completed except execution of registered sale deed.

16. As regards the issuance of the two receipts dated 19.12.1980 is

a sham, fabricated and created by the 1st respondent/petitioner is an

issue which has to be dealt with by the appropriate forum i.e. civil

Court based on the cogent evidence lead by the parties and the same

shall not be considered either by the Revenue Court or by this Court

either under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or in these

appeals.

17. In this regard, it is to be observed that once parties enters into

an agreement of sale and the entire sale consideration is received by

the seller and the purchaser is put into possession, the purchaser

accrues rights over the subject land. As could be seen from the

material on record, the appellant has not filed any counter in the HC, J & NVSK, J

W.P. No.23528 of 2012 disputing the nature of the documents and

that being one of the grounds urged in the Writ Appeals and further it

appears that none of the parties disputed the transaction and never

approached the appropriate forum i.e. Civil Court. As such,

the grounds raised in the Writ Appeals have no merit.

18. As could be seen from the impugned order, it is obvious that the

learned Single Judge has elaborately discussed with regard to the

unregistered sale deeds dated 23.07.1980 and 24.07.1980 coupled

with the receipts dated 19.12.1980 and upheld the order of the

preliminary authority i.e. the Mandal Revenue Officer, who vide orders

dated 09.12.1996 regularised/validated the documents under Section

5-A of the ROR Act and issued the Certificate under Section XIII-B.

19. Point No.2):- Insofar as ULC proceedings are concerned,

the vendor of the 1st respondent/petitioner Sri A.Narayana Reddy filed

a statement under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act in the year 1982

showing the subject land as his excess holding and further

proceedings under the ULC Act took place even by passing order

under Sections 9 and 10 of the ULC Act. On coming to know the

same by the 1st respondent/petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief

Commissioner in the year 2001 seeking to set aside the proceedings

initiated under the ULC Act, including the declaration filed by the

original owner. It is categorically recorded by the learned Single

Judge that in support of his claim he filed copies of old pattadar pass

books and title deeds and also the new pattadar passbooks and title HC, J & NVSK, J

deeds, pahanis for the years 1981-82, 1983-84, 1994-95, which show

his physical possession over the subject lands, pahani for the years

1995-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and also reflect his name both in

pattadar as well as possession columns. At this juncture, it is to be

observed that late A.Narayana Reddy, original owner, died on

07.04.1983 and the same is not disputed by any of the parties.

Further, all the subsequent proceedings issued in the name of the

original owner and alleged service of notice and panchanama are

against the dead person and subsequently all the ULC proceedings

were continued without bringing his legal heirs on record. Therefore,

the said proceedings are automatically abated without issuing any

notice to his legal heirs. Since the 1st respondent/writ petitioner is an

interested and affected party and no notice was served on him, hence,

the proceedings issued under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act dated

27.08.2001 including the alleged panchanama dated 04.09.2001,

after the death of the original owner are void ab initio and non est in

the eye of law.

20. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the

appellant has not made out any merit in both the writ petitions and

the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the

impugned common order and therefore, these appeals are liable to be

dismissed.

21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, HC, J & NVSK, J

these appeals are dismissed by confirming the impugned common

order dated 28.06.2021 passed in W.P. No.20576 of 2008 and 23528

of 2012. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

                                           ___________________________
                                                  UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ


                                           ___________________________
                                                N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
Date:      -09-2022
LSK