B.Anitha vs The State Of Telangana, And 5 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 154 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

                WRIT PETITION No.29962 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Mrs. L.Vani, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Pasala Jojappa, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.5 and 6.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of

respondents, more particularly, respondent No.4 in regularizing the

bogus sale deed alleged to have been executed by the Settler of the

petitioner herein in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4.07 guntas in

Survey No.505A/3, situated at Motakondur Village, Yadagirigutta

Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District through proceedings No.SB/NG/

BG/AM/2016/1753, dated 11.09.2019 in favour of respondent Nos.5

and 6 without issuing any notice to the petitioner or her predecessor-

in-title and against the provisions of Telangana Rights in Land and

Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'Act, 1971') as illegal, and

consequently set aside the same by directing respondent No.4 to

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

remove the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 by cancelling their

passbooks.

3. CASE OF THE PETITIONER:

i) The petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute

owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.4.07 guntas in

Survey No.505A/3, situated at Motakondur Village, Yadagirigutta

Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District, hereinafter referred to as 'subject

land', on the strength of a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing

document No.1826 of 2016, dated 27.06.2016 executed by her

husband, Mr. Bobbala Narayana Reddy.

ii) Originally, the husband of the petitioner was the absolute

owner and possessor of the subject land. Pattadar Pass Book and Title

deed were issued in his favour in respect of the subject land.

iii) The petitioner herein has applied for mutation of her name

in revenue record and issuance of pattadar pass book with respondent

No.4. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are trying to grab the subject property

by creating forged document though the husband of the petitioner did

not execute any document in their favour. They have also tried to

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

regularize bogus sale deed and at their instance, respondent No.4 had

issued Form 12 Notice to the husband of the petitioner. Therefore, he

had approached respondent No.4 and brought the said facts to his

notice with regard to non-execution of any document in favour of

respondent Nos.5 and 6 and requested respondent No.4 to reject the

applications submitted by respondent Nos.5 and 6. Accordingly, the

same was rejected.

iv) Having rejected the aforesaid applications submitted by

respondent Nos.5 and 6, respondent No.4 without giving any file

number, without following due procedure laid down under law, more

particularly, the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books

Act, 2020 (for short 'Act, 2020') and the Rules made thereunder,

issued proceedings No.B/1753/19, dated 11.09.2019 in favour of

respondent Nos.5 and 6.

v) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have obtained the said

proceedings in active collusion with respondent No.4. They have not

served copy of the said proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner was not

in a position to file appeal under Section - 5B of the Act, 1971. She

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

had submitted a written representation dated 18.06.2020 with

respondent No.3 to set aside the aforesaid regularization proceedings.

No action was taken by respondent No.3. Therefore, she had filed a

writ petition vide W.P. No.11208 of 2020, and this Court disposed of

the said writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a

statutory appeal under Section - 5B of the Act, 1971 before respondent

No.3, and respondent No.3 was directed to dispose of the said appeal

in accordance with law within a period of six (06) months.

vi) Accordingly, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before

respondent No.3 on 07.08.2020 and in view of promulgation of Act,

2020, the appeal was transferred to Special Tribunal, Yadadri -

Bhongir District. However, the said appeal was not taken up by the

Special Tribunal, the petitioner had filed a writ petition vide W.P.

No.18719 of 2021, and this Court disposed of the same with a

direction to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The Special

Tribunal refused to take up the matter on the premise that respondent

No.3 did not number the appeal preferred by the petitioner, it is not

pending. Therefore, the Special Tribunal is not in a position to decide

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

the same. Since there is no other alternative, the petitioner has filed

the present writ petition.

4. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6:

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed counter contending as

follows:

i) They have purchased the subject property from the husband

of the petitioner under a Sada Bainama (Simple Sale Deed) dated

31.05.2009 by paying consideration.

ii) Since there was dispute with regard to the payment of

consideration, panchayat was held, wherein consideration was

enhanced and the same was paid. Only an amount of Rs.59,865/- is

due to the husband of the petitioner.

iii) Despite efforts made by respondent Nos.5 and 6, husband

of the petitioner did not come forward to execute a registered sale

deed in their favour. Therefore, they have approached respondent

No.4 by way of submitting Form 5A for regularization of the said

simple sale deed through Mee Seva on 15.06.2016.

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

iv) Respondent No.4 had issued impugned proceedings dated

11.09.2019 strictly following the procedure laid down under the

provisions of the Act, 1971. There is no error in it. Enquiry was

conducted and Panchanama was drawn before passing the impugned

proceedings. Neither the husband of the petitioner, nor the petitioner

appeared before respondent No.4.

v) Initially, the aforesaid application dated 15.06.20216 was

rejected without assigning any reasons. Therefore, they had requested

the Recording Authority time and again to take appropriate enquiry

and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, respondent No.4 has

conducted enquiry in accordance with procedure laid down under the

Act, 1971 and also the Rules made thereunder, issued impugned

proceedings and, thereafter issued latest pattadar pass book and title

deed in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Thus, there is no error in it.

5. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) Challenge to the impugned proceedings by the petitioner is

on the following grounds:

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

a) Husband of the petitioner never executed any document

including the sada bainama dated 31.05.2009 in favour of

respondent Nos.5 and 6;

b) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have created the aforesaid document;

c) It is only an Agreement of Sale, but not sale deed;

d) It is not a registered document;

e) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not Marginal Farmers and,

therefore, they are not entitled for regularization in terms of

Section - 5A of the Act, 1971;

f) Even as per the simple sale deed filed by respondent Nos.5 and

6, they have not paid the consideration to the husband of the

petitioner;

g) No notice was served either on the husband of the petitioner or

on the petitioner before issuance of the impugned proceedings;

h) Therefore, the entire action of respondent No.4 in issuing the

impugned Forms 13-B and 13-C, both dated 11.09.2019 and

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

Pattadar Passbooks issued on 26.10.2019 and 28.10.2019 is

illegal.

ii) WP is opposed on the following grounds:

][[

a) It is a sale deed and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have paid

agreed sale consideration;

b) Whereas, the husband of the petitioner demanded more

money, for which a panchayat was held in the presence of the

village elders, wherein sale consideration was enhanced and

even the enhanced consideration was paid;

c) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are due and liable to pay only an

amount of Rs.59,865/- which they are ready to pay;

d) Despite specific request, husband of the petitioner did not turn

up for execution of registered sale deed;

e) Therefore, they have submitted Form - 5A with respondent

No.4 through Mee Seva on 15.06.2016. The same was

rejected without assigning any reasons;

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

f) Therefore, they requested respondent No.4 to conduct

proper enquiry by following due procedure laid down under

the Act, 1971;

g) Accordingly, respondent No.4 conducted enquiry strictly in

accordance with law and issued Form 13B and 13C, both

dated 11.09.2019 in favour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6

and also the proceedings. It is a sale in terms of Section - 54

of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, there is no

error in it;

h) Reliance was also placed on the copies of the simple sale

deed dated 31.05.2009, receipt 05.06.2009; Form - 12

Notice, dated 26.07.2016, panchanama dated 15.03.2017

and enquiry proceedings dated 15.03.2017 and memo dated

21.03.2017 etc.

iii) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, the issues that

fell for consideration before this Court are:

(a) Whether respondent Nos.5 and 6 are entitled for

regularization proceedings under Section -5A of the Act,

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

1971 basing on an unregistered 'Sada Bainama' (simple

sale deed) dated 31.05.2009?

(b) Whether respondent Nos.5 and 6, being non-marginal

farmers are entitled for regularization proceedings? and

(c) Whether respondent No.4 followed the procedure laid

down under the Act, 1971 and the Rules framed

thereunder?

iv) Admittedly, the Sada Bainama is dated 31.05.2009. It is

scribed in Telugu. Translation Copy is also filed. Perusal of the same

would reveal that the husband of the petitioner being the owner of the

subject land agreed to sell the same on 17.11.2005 in the presence of

the Well-wishers/Mediators. Rs.52,000/- per acre was agreed as sale

consideration. An advance of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- were

received. There was a complaint to the elders/mediators about the rate

being very low and, therefore, panchayat was held, mediators/elders

have decided to increase the rate to Rs.3,50,000/- @ Rs.82,000/- per

acre. On 31.05.2009, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid. Balance

amount was agreed to pay starting from 05.06.2009 and to get

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

registration done. Thus, as per the said simple sale deed, an amount

of Rs.2,90,000/- was paid to the husband of the petitioner leaving

balance of Rs.59,865/-.

v) Whereas, referring to the receipt/MOU, dated 05.06.2009,

learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 would submit

that a panchayat was held in the presence of the elders/mediators with

regard to the consideration. In the panchayat, elders have decided to

increase the sale consideration, and as per the said decision,

respondent Nos.5 and 6 have paid an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to the

brother of the husband of the petitioner herein i.e., Bobbala Yadi

Reddy. According to him, the husband of the petitioner was not

present and the said amount was paid to his brother since they belong

to one family.

vi) Thus, respondent Nos.5 and 6 did not pay the aforesaid

part consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- to the husband of the petitioner

i.e., Bobbala Narayana Reddy. The petitioner is disputing the very

execution of the simple sale deed dated 31.05.2009 said to have been

entered between the husband of the petitioner and respondent Nos.5

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

and 6. There is specific assertion to the said effect. The said factual

aspects including the genuinity of execution of the aforesaid simple

sale deed cannot be gone into either by respondent No.4 under the

Act, 1971 or this Court under Article - 226 of the Constitution of

India. It is for the competent jurisdictional Civil Court to decide the

said aspects.

vii) Section - 5A of the Act, 1971 deals with regularization of

certain alienations or other transfers of lands. Respondent Nos.5 and

6 sought to regularize the subject land basing on the aforesaid sada

bainama. Regularization of sada bainama by invoking the procedure

laid down under the provisions of the Act, 1971 is no more res

integra. A learned Judge of the combined High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad in V. Krishnaiah v. Joint Collector,

Mahabubnagar1 categorically held that the scope of enquiry

under Section - 5A of the Act, 1971 and the relevant rules is limited

and restricted. In a case where the alleged transferor or alienor flatly

denies the execution of the document, in relation to the transaction,

which is sought to be regularized, or where he takes the plea of

. 2007 (3) ALT 720

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

limitation. Once the execution of the document is disputed, its

genuinity can be decided only after a trial and by applying the

principles enunciated in the Evidence Act. If a plea of limitation is

raised, necessary issue has to be framed, and a finding thereon has to

be recorded. With the limited nature of powers conferred upon a

Recording Authority, such a stupendous task becomes almost

impossible for the Recording Authority.

viii) A Division Bench of the combined High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in Konkana Ravinder Goud v. Bhavanarishi Co-operative

House Building Society2, referring to agreement of sale held that

agreement of sale cannot be termed as a complete contract of sale.

Agreement to sell does not convey any right, title or interest in the

property. From the intent and purport of the Act, it is clear that what

was sought to be validated was only a completed contract of sale,

which for want of registration, in view of the provisions of

the Registration Act had not the effect, of conveying rights, title or

interest in favour of the purchaser. The relevant paragraphs of the

aforesaid judgment are extracted as under:

. 2003 (5) ALD 654

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

"62. Agreement to sell does not convey any right, title or

interest in the property. Supreme Court in K. Seetharama Reddy and Anr. v. Hassan Ali Khan, , examined the effect of execution of an agreement of sale. It was argued before the Supreme Court that in India also like England on execution of agreement of sale equitable interest in the property is created. Repelling this argument, it was held that the English doctrine of conversion of realty into personality cannot be bodily lifted from its native English soil and transplanted in statute-bound India law. But, we have to notice that many of the principles of English Equity have taken statutory form in India and have been incorporated in occasional provisions of various Indian statutes such as the Indian Trusts Act, the Specific Relief Act, Transfer of Property Act etc. and where a question of interpretation of such Equity based statutory provisions arises we will be well justified in seeking aid from the Equity source. The concept and creation of duality of ownership, legal and equitable, on the execution of an agreement to convey immoveable property, as understood in England is alien to Indian Law, which recognises one owner i.e. the legal owner. Relying upon the decisions in Rambaran Prosad's case (supra) and Narandas Karsondas case (supra) and, referring to Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, Apex Court held that ultimate paragraph of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act enunciates that a contract of the sale of immovable property does not,

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.

The ultimate and penultimate paragraphs of Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act create an obligation, annexed to the ownership of immovable property, not amounting an interest in the property. Thus, the only right a person acquires by execution of agreement is not an interest in the property but a right to seek enforcement of the agreement by resorting to provisions of the Specific Relief Act and filing a suit to enforce the agreement of sale.

66. The intent and purport of the Act is very much clear that what was sought to be validated was only a completed contract of sale, which for want of registration, in view of the provisions of the Registration Act had not the effect, of conveying rights, title or interest in favour of the purchaser. The learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that the transfer or alienation made by agreement of sale can be regularised by placing reliance upon few decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts for which we need not go into the details since the very approach of the learned Judge to the answer is erroneous. Such decisions could not have been made the basis in holding so. Instead of taking the definition of word "transfer" as contained in the Transfer of Property Act, the learned Single Judge proceeded to make use of the dictionary meaning of the word "transfer" and placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Pandey v. Ramchandra, . The Supreme Court in that case, proceeded to interpret the word

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

'transfer" as contained in Section 71-A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. In the absence of definition of the word 'transfer" under the provisions of the said Act, the Supreme Court held that considering the objects and reasons of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act more particularly Section 71- A of the said Act it was not proper to confine the meaning of the term "transfer" under the Transfer of Property Act or a statutory transfer, The Supreme Court proceeded to hold that even passing of possession from one person to the other as per scheme of the Act would amount to transfer. In our view, the ratio of the said decision could not have been made applicable while interpreting the word "transfer" as contained in Section - 5A of the Act, the scheme of which is different as noticed by us. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy, , Commissioner of Income Tax v. Podar Cement Private Limited, , and Balraj v. Commissioner of Income Tax, , wherein in a different context the words "owner" and "transfer" were construed.

67. In the instant case, we are concerned with the purport and meaning of the word "transfer" as contained in Section 5-A of the Act in the light of the objects and reasons in introducing the said provision, namely, to regularise an unregistered sale transaction, which would not mean to regularise incomplete transfers. There is no machinery or mechanism provided in the Act that even a person who has

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

entered into an agreement of sale and in case sale is not completed but he has been put into possession of the property even on payment of entire sale consideration that can approach the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of a certificate under Section 5-A of the Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer in such a case cannot proceed to hold an enquiry as to whether agreement of sale has been complied with or not. On the failure on the part of vendor to complete the sale transaction, a person in whose favour there is an agreement of sale can seek specific performance of the agreement of sale so as to convey right, title or interest of the vendors. The machinery provided under the Act is not the appropriate machinery for perfecting title merely on the basis of agreement to sell. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the learned Judge that there is a valid transfer of immoveable property under agreements of sale cannot be sustained. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the agreement of sale relied upon by the Society is not covered by the term transfer and cannot be treated as an "alienation" or "transfer" within the scope and meaning of Section 5-A of the Act and we answer the first question accordingly."

ix) It is also trite to note that this Court in Pamshetty

Jojappa, died Per LRs. v. the State of Telangana, represented by

Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat,

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

Hyderabad3 reiterated the aforesaid principle. In the said case also,

the document was validated as it was not a complete contract and it

was executed by the owner of the land. In the present case also,

respondent Nos.5 and 6 have sought regularization of the unregistered

simple sale deed. Therefore, they are not entitled for regularization of

the simple sale deed for the following reasons:

(a) It is an unregistered simple sale deed (In fact, it is an

agreement of sale);

(b) It was pursuant to the agreement dated 17.11.2005;

(c) Total sale consideration was not paid to the husband of the

petitioner;

(d) An amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was paid to the brother of the

husband of the petitioner i.e., Bobbala Yadireddy under a

receipt dated 05.06.2009;

(e) Petitioner herein is disputing the execution of the very simple

sale deed dated 31.05.2009; agreement dated 17.11.2005 and

receipt dated 05.06.2009;

. Order in W.P. No.10558 of 2018, decided on 23.01.2020

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

(f) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 instead of seeking specific

performance of the said agreement of sale deed dated

31.05.2009, sought to regularize the same in terms of Section -

5A of the Act, 1971.

(g) Therefore, respondent Nos.5 and 6 cannot consider the said

simple sale deed dated 31.05.2009 and regularize the same by

way of issuing impugned proceedings No.SB/NG/BG/AM/

2016/1753, dated 11.09.2019;

(h) In respect of both respondent Nos.5 and 6, same proceedings

number is mentioned i.e., SB/NG/BG/AM/2016/1753.

Therefore, the said proceedings are illegal and contrary to the

procedure laid down under the Act, 1971 and also the principle

laid down in the aforesaid judgments. Thus, the same are liable

to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

x) It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has

issued G.O.Ms.No.153, dated 03.06.2016 with regard to regularization

of sada bainama. The last date was fixed to receive Form 'X' claims

up to 15.06.2016. As per Clause - 3 (d) of the said G.O., the

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

Alienee/Transferee is a small /marginal farmer. The Chief

Commissioner of Land Administration and the Special Chief

Secretary, has issued guidelines in the month of May, 2016 for

implementation of said bainama for Executive Officers, vide CCLA's

Ref.No.LR.2/625/2016. Clause - 5 of the said Circular deals with

'Pre-requisite Conditions' and the same is extracted below:

"5. Pre-requisite Conditions:

a. Category of farmers covered under the scheme: i. Sada Bainama holder should be a small and marginal farmer having agricultural lands up to 2.5 acres Wet or 5 Acres of Dry. ii. Sada Bainama should have been executed prior to on or before 02.06.2014.

iii. Sada Bainama holder shall be in possession of the land. iv. The extent of Sada Bainama holders and other extents put together shall in no case exceed the extent as per the corresponding basic revenue record. (Sethwar/khasra/pahani). v. The purchaser must be small /marginal farmer as on the date of application.

vi. The regularizations shall be applicable only to the agricultural lands located in rural areas.

vii. This scheme shall not be applicable for the transfers pertaining to the lands located in the areas of Urban Local Bodies like HMDA, Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats.

viii. The Tahsildar should see that the date of Sada Bainama transaction must be prior to 02.06.2014."

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

As per the said Clause, sada bainama holder should be a small and

marginal farmer having agricultural land up to 2.5 acres Wet or 5

acres Dry. The purchaser must be small/marginal farmer as on the

date of application.

xi) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed counters enclosing

latest pass books, and as per the said pattadar pass books, both

respondent Nos.5 and 6 are owners and possessors of agricultural land

more than Acs.2.5 guntas of wet land or Acs.5.00 guntas of dry land.

Therefore, they will not be treated as small and marginal farmers, as

such, they are not entitled for regularization of the subject land.

xii) Clause - 7 of the said guidelines deals with 'Checking

Applicant details', and as per sub-clause (c), verification of the 'sada

bainama' document and checking up the revenue records, such as

pahani, ROR-1B Register and Encumbrance records for the piece of

land. If there is no encumbrance on the land, the MRO proceeds to

generate the Form XI and XII. If there is an encumbrance on the land,

then MRO shall genuine if the encumbrance is genuine or false. It is

false, then the MRO shall conduct a detailed enquiry and give a

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

speaking order of its rejection. Clause - 9 of the said guidelines deals

with 'Field Inspection'. The Verification Officers / Team shall verify

all details with the basic records, such as Sethwar / Khasra Pahani

(1954-55)/Chessala Pahani (1955-58). They should also verify if the

applicant/transferee is recorded in Column 13 of Pahani as on

02.06.2014 and also in physical possession and enjoyment of the said

land, even though the name is not in the 13 column of the pahani, but

he is in physical possession since long time, the Tahsildar should

conduct discreet local enquiry in the village by recording the

statement of neighbouring pattadar etc. Such procedure was not

followed by respondent No.4 while issuing the aforesaid impugned

proceedings.

xiii) As discussed above, both respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not

small and marginal farmers and, therefore, they are not entitled for

regularization of the subject land under Section - 5A of the Act, 1971.

Respondent No.4 did not follow the aforesaid guidelines issued by the

CCLA vide the aforesaid Circular. Thus, viewed from any angle,

impugned proceedings are illegal.

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

xiv) It is relevant to note that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have

submitted Form - 5A with respondent No.4 seeking regularization of

the aforesaid simple sale deed on 15.06.2016 through Mee Seva with

I.D. No.ROSO21601295719. On coming to know about the said

application, the petitioner had submitted objection with respondent

No.4 stating that her husband never executed any sale deed including

sada bainama in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 that they have

created bogus documents and are trying to regularize the said sada

bainama. Therefore, considering the same, the Tahsildar had rejected

the said application on 28.11.2016. But, there is no challenge to the

said rejection orders.

xv) However, in paragraph No.6 of the counter, respondent

Nos.5 and 6 have contended that such rejection order is without

reasons and it is not passed by following the procedure laid down

under the Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder and, therefore,

they have requested respondent No.4 to conduct proper inquiry and

issue proceedings. On their request, respondent No.4 sought for

report from the Mandal Revenue Inspector, who submitted report.

According to them, inquiry was conducted, statements were recorded

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

and a panchanama was drawn. As stated above, when the application

submitted by respondent Nos.5 and 6 under Section - 5A of the Act,

1971 was rejected, either they have to submit fresh application or

challenge the same. They cannot request respondent No.4 to conduct

proper inquiry without challenging the same. Therefore, the said

contention of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 is untenable and on the said

ground also, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

xvi) Mr. Pasala Jojappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5

and 6 would submit that respondent Nos.5 and 6 were unaware of

such rejection proceedings since they have submitted the application

through Mee Seva. It is relevant to note that Clause - 3 of the

aforesaid guidelines issued by the CCLA deals with

'computerization', and it says that a corresponding database link up

shall be provided by TS Online Team for transferring the application

received at Mee Seva to TLRMS for a detailed scrutiny and

examination using the workflow based regularization module by the

NIC. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 having submitted the aforesaid

application on 15.06.2016 through Mee Seva vide the aforesaid I.D.,

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

they cannot now contend that they have no knowledge of the aforesaid

rejection. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel

appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 is also untenable.

xvii) Rule - 22 of the Telangana Rights in Land

and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 prescribes the procedure for

service of notice on the affected parties. As valuable right to property

is sought to be affected, notice on the vendor/his successor(s) and

persons interested is mandatory. In the present case, respondent No.4

did not follow the above said procedure by duly serving notice on the

petitioner or her husband. Therefore, impugned proceedings dated

11.09.2019 issued by respondent No.4 are in utter violation of the

aforesaid procedure laid down under the Rules, 1989 and therefore, on

the said ground also, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set

aside.

xviii) Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, referring to

Section - 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, would contend that

'sale' is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or

promised or part-paid and part promised. Therefore, the simple sale

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

deed dated 31.05.2009 is a sale and, therefore, respondent No.4 has

considered the same. As stated above, it is an agreement of sale, but

not simple sale deed. Assuming for a moment that it is a simple sale

deed, it is an unregistered sale deed/simple sale deed which cannot be

considered by Recording Authority. Sale consideration was not paid

and the petitioner is disputing the very execution of the said

document. Further, all the said aspects are complicated questions of

fact which this Court cannot consider in a writ petition filed under

Article - 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. CONCLUSION:

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed

setting aside the proceedings No.SB/NG/BG/AM/2016/1753, dated

11.09.2019 issued by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent Nos.5

and 6 in respect of the subject land admeasuring Acs.4.07 guntas in

Survey No.505A/3, situated at Motakondur Village, Yadagirigutta

Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District. However, there shall be no order

as to costs.

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

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

writ petition shall also stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 9th January, 2023 Mgr