Telangana High Court

Guduru Padma Reddy Died vs The State Of Telangana on 24 February, 2023

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
                  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
                                    W.A.No.233 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Papaiah Reddakula, learned counsel for

respondents No.5 and 6.

2. Learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 submits that

respondents No.4 and 7 have already expired.

3. By filing this appeal, appellants have assailed the order

dated 09.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.21285 of 2021 filed by the appellants as the petitioners.

4. Appellants had filed the related writ petition assailing the

order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal in Special

Tribunal Case No.F2/1950/2021.

5. Respondents No.4 to 7, who are family members had filed a

revision case under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in

Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (briefly 'the 1971 Act ::2::

hereinafter) before the Joint Collector of Nalgonda District seeking

correction of the entries in the pahanies commencing from the year

1993-94 till date in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.6-37 guntas

in survey No.251 of Chinna Kondur Village of Choutuppal Mandal

in Yadadri-Bhongir District (briefly 'the subject land' hereinafter)

by deleting the names of the unofficial respondents therein, who

are the present appellants.

6. State of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.4 Revenue (Assignment-

1) Department dated 12.01.2021 constituted Special Tribunal for

disposal of cases pending before various authorities under the 1971

Act. That is how the revision petition came up before the Special

Tribunal. Special Tribunal had rejected the revision petition of

respondents No.4 to 7 on 06.02.2021. However, following

intervention of this Court vide the order dated 18.03.2021 in

W.P.(PIL) No.20 of 2021, the said revision petition was reopened

to give an opportunity of hearing to the revision petitioners

(respondents No.4 to 7).

::3::

7. After hearing the matter, Special Tribunal recorded the

litigation history between the revision petitioners (respondents

No.4 to 7 herein) and the unofficial respondents (appellants herein)

and held as under:

The disputes between the Revision Petitioners and the Respondents dates back to the year 1979 and the suit filed lby the Revision Petitioner against the Respondents are chronicled hereunder:

      Sl.    Number & Date                       Brief of the Document
      No.     of Document
       1.   O.S.No.68 of 1982    The suit filed on 06.08.1979 was registered on
             dated 30.09.1986    28.07.1979 and was finally adjudicated with a direction

t the defendants to pay the sum of Rs.465.50 to the plaintiffs towards the cost of the suit.

2. Appeal No.2 of The appeal filed against the decree and judgment 1988 passed on 30.09.1986 in O.S.No.68 of 1982 was dated 08.10.1990 adjudicated by the Courts of the Subordinate Judge at Bhongir and the appeal is dismissed with costs and the decree and judgment passed on 30.09.1986 in O.S.No.68 of 1982 were upheld with a direction to the appellants to pay Rs.560.00 to the respondents towards the costs of the appeal.

3. S.A.No.7 of 1991 The second appeal filed before the High Court of dated 28.03.2003 Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad against the orders in Appeal No.2 of 1988 dated 08.10.1990 was dismissed and the judgments of the courts below were confirmed.

4. I.A.No.250 of 2014 The suit filed for perpetual injunction is dismissed with in observations that petitioner approached this court with O.S.No.74 of 2011 unclean hands by suppressing the material facts of the dated 19.01.2015 case accordingly the Court refused to grant injunction.

8. Special Tribunal also noted the findings recorded by the trial

court that the plaintiffs were unable to prove the sale alleged to

have been made by the father of defendant No.3 and that issuance

of Section 50-B certificate was obtained by suppression of facts.

::4::

On that basis, Special Tribunal came to the conclusion that entries

made in favour of the appellants in the pahanis commencing from

the year 1993-94 onwards is wrong. That apart, in view of the

finding of the civil courts, since affirmed right up to the High

Court, Special Tribunal held that it could not re-evaluate the facts

and evidence. Consequently, by the order dated 25.06.2021, the

revision petition was allowed by directing the Tahsildar,

Choutuppal Mandal to incorporate the names of the revision

petitioners (respondents No.4 to 7 therein) with regard to the

subject land from the year 1993-94 onwards and take further course

of action in accordance with the subsequent Telangana Rights in

Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020.

9. Learned Single Judge accepted the reasonings given by the

Special Tribunal and declined to invoke the discretionary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vide the

order dated 09.12.2022. Relevant portion of the order dated

09.12.2022 reads as under:

Admittedly, there was a long litigation between the petitioners herein and respondent Nos.4 to 7 in ::5::

respect of the land in the survey numbers in question and the petitioners herein having lost the said litigation up to second appeal stage and having lost possession to respondent Nos.4 to 7 under execution proceedings appears to have made a claim over the balance extent of Acs.6.37 gts., in survey No.251. As the petitioners herein failed to base their title to subject land on any legally permissible source and also in view of the fact that, the petitioners herein having instituted O.S.No.74 of 2014 seeking a permanent injunction over the subject property basing on title have withdrawn the said suit after inviting adverse findings in an order passed in I.A.No.250 of 2014, this Court is inclined to acknowledge the reasoning given by the Special Tribunal on merits of the case as well as on the ground of the limitation.

The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary relief and any party approaching this Court invoking the said jurisdiction is expected to approach this Court with clean hands and by placing the true facts before this Court. In the instant case, as already observed above, the petitioners failed to trace their right and title over the subject property through any legal methods and also failed to even state as to how their names were entered in the Revenue records. It is ::6::

settled law that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and it will be exercised only in furtherance of interest of justice and not on the making out of a legal ground or technical defect/ground as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and others (1 (1997) 1 SCC

134). Though in the case on hand there appears to be a delay in approaching the revisional authority, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Certiorari jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Special Tribunal. In addition to the above reasons, there is yet one another reason that disentitles the petitioners herein for any relief. In the present Writ Petition, as already noted above, respondent Nos.4 and 7 are no more and the same is also brought to the notice of the petitioners herein by way of a counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent Nos.4 and 7 are stated to be no more as on the date of filing Writ Petition itself. In spite of the same, the petitioners failed to take any steps for bringing the legal representatives of respondent Nos.4 and 7 on record. As already noted above, the Revision Petition was filed by respondent Nos.4 and 7 jointly in respect of the subject property. By virtue of demise of ::7::

respondent Nos.4 and 7 herein, before filing the Writ Petition, the impugned order has become final insofar as respondent Nos.4 and 7 are concerned. As the said impugned order has become final as against respondent Nos.4 and 7, the same cannot be interfered with even in respect of respondent Nos.5 and 6 as well. Therefore, for this reason also the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Though, several other submissions are advanced by the learned counsel on either side by referring to the pleadings in the civil litigation between the parties, it is not necessary to refer to the same in view of the conclusion arrived at by this Court as above. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the interim order granted on 08.09.2021 shall stand vacated.

10. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the learned

Single Judge. Despite a successful litigation battle, respondents

No.4 to 7 are yet to reap the benefits thereof. In the meanwhile, as

submitted by learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6, their

parents i.e., respondents No.4 and 7 have expired. This is indeed

very tragic and paints a very sorry state of affairs. We have noticed

that on one pretext or the other, appellants have tried to keep the ::8::

matter alive despite categorical findings rendered by the civil court.

We are of the view that the related writ petition was not filed

bona fide and was a clear abuse of the process of the court. Not

content with that, the present appeal has been filed.

11. We therefore dismiss the appeal with cost of Rs.50,000/- to