Jangili Sattaiah vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 261 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

               WRIT PETITION No.34095 OF 2022
ORDER:

Heard Mr. Lalitha Kamesh, learned counsel representing Mr. J.

Raghuram, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government

Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and

Mr. K.V. Sudhakar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of respondent

No.2 vide Proc.No.E3/1035-14/2021, dated 17.06.2022 for denial of

restoration of name of the petitioner in Dharani Portal as well as

connected revenue records even after setting aside the illegal pattas of

respondent Nos.5 and 6 in Survey No.628 to an extent of Acs.7.05

guntas, situated at Phanigiri Village, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet

District, assigning reasons pending of civil suit filed by respondent

Nos.5 and 6 vide O.S. No.97 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet, as illegal and against the provisions of Section - 8 (2) of the

Old ROR Act, and for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to

restore the name of the petitioner for the land in Survey No.628 to an

extent of Acs.7.05 guntas instead of Acs.5.05 guntas.

KL,J W.P. No.34095 of 2022

3. CASE OF THE PETITIONER:

i) The petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of

the land to an extent of Acs.14-11 guntas in Survey No.628 of

Phanigiri Village, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District, on par with his

elder brother, late Jangili Dathaiah. The said property is ancestral

property.

ii) The name of the father of the petitioner was recorded as

pattadar and possessor in Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 and also

Sethwar. Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed were also obtained.

iii) Mr. Jangili Dathaiah, the elder brother of the petitioner,

during his life time, sold the land admeasuring Acs.4.00 guntas out of

Acs.7.06 guntas to Mr. Akula Venkanna and Mrs. Mangamma,

leaving balance of land to an extent of Acs.3.06 guntas. Mutation

proceedings vide B/683/2009, dated 12.01.2008 were also issued. In

the revenue records, the names of his two sons i.e., Mr. Jangili

Simhaiah and Mr. Laxmi Narayana were recorded in respect of the

balance land admeasuring Acs.3.06 guntas vide proceedings

No.B/267/2019, dated 07.06.2019.

KL,J W.P. No.34095 of 2022

iv) Taking advantage of the petitioner's illness, the father of

respondent Nos.5 and 6 have executed two (02) registered Gift

Settlement Deeds bearing Nos.5254 of 1992 and 5255 of 1992, both

dated 02.11.1992. In fact, the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 has no

title over the aforesaid land. He has obtained pattadar pass books in

respect of the subject land in collusion with the Revenue Authorities.

Therefore, the petitioner herein had filed an appeal under Section - 5B

of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971

(for short 'ROR Act, 1971') challenging the aforesaid mutation

proceedings and pattadar pass books issued in favour of respondent

Nos.5 and 6. The said appeal was allowed setting aside the mutation

proceedings granted in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and directed

to restore the petitioner's name. Even then, respondent No.2 did not

restore the name of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid land in

Survey No.628 of Phanigiri Village.

v) Though there is no order from any Court prohibiting

respondent No.2 from entering the name of the petitioner in respect of

the aforesaid land, respondent No.2 is not accepting the request made

by the petitioner to enter his name.

KL,J W.P. No.34095 of 2022

vi) A suit vide O.S. No.97 of 2019 filed by respondent Nos.5

and 6 against the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein

for declaration of title, perpetual injunction and rectification of wrong

entries in revenue records, is pending before the Senior Civil Judge at

Suryapet. The petitioner herein had filed I.A. No.219 of 2020 under

Order - VII, Rule - 11 (d) of the CPC, to reject the plaint in the said

suit. The said I.A. was dismissed on 07.12.2021. Assailing the said

order, the petitioner herein has filed a revision vide C.R.P. No.2108 of

2021 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2022.

According to the learned counsel, the petitioner herein had preferred

SLP and the same is pending.

vii) Pendency of the aforesaid Civil Suit is not a bar to the

Revenue Authorities to conduct inquiry as per the provisions of the

ROR Act, 1971, and the petitioner placed reliance on the principle laid

down in an unreported judgment in Peruri Venkata China

Krishnaiah v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram1.

Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned order dated

17.06.2022 of respondent No.2 is illegal.

. Order in W.P. No.24074 of 2006, decided on 20.11.2006.

KL,J W.P. No.34095 of 2022

4. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.5 & 6:

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed counter contending that:

i) The present writ petition is not maintainable since a suit vide

O.S. No.97 of 2019 filed by them seeking declaration of title,

perpetual injunction and rectification of wrong entries is pending.

ii) Respondent No.4 vide order dated 29.02.2016 advised

respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the petitioner to approach Civil Court for

settlement of grievance. The said order is on consideration of the

entire facts. The said order was confirmed by the Joint Collector in

his order dated 18.08.2018. Accordingly, respondent Nos.5 and 6

have filed the aforesaid comprehensive suit which is pending. The

petitioner herein has filed his written statement.

iii) Considering the said facts, respondent No.2 vide impugned

order dated 17.06.2022 held that the matter is sub judice in O.S. No.97

of 2019, necessary action will be taken as per the outcome of the

aforesaid suit. There is no error in it. The petitioner instead of

waiting for the outcome of the aforesaid suit filed the present writ

petition with mala fide intention.

KL,J W.P. No.34095 of 2022

iv) In fact, the petitioner has no right or title over the subject

land i.e., the land admeasuring Acs.2-35 guntas in Survey No.628,

situated at Phanigiri Village, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District.

v) With the said submissions, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.5 and 6 sought to dismiss the present writ petition.

5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 4:

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions,

would submit that the aforesaid comprehensive suit filed by

respondent Nos.5 and 6 is pending and, therefore, during pendency of

the said suit, the Revenue Authorities cannot decide title dispute and

cannot conduct inquiry as per the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971.

Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order passed by

respondent No.4.

6. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) The aforesaid submissions would reveal that the petitioner is

paternal uncle of respondent Nos.5 and 6. The subject property is

their ancestral property. Even according to the petitioner, the father of

respondent Nos.5 and 6 taking advantage of the petitioner's illness,

created the aforesaid two registered Gift Settlement Deeds i.e.,

document Nos.5254 of 1992 and 5255 of 1992, both dated

KL,J W.P. No.34095 of 2022

02.11.1992, and on the strength of the said gift settlement deeds,

respondent Nos.5 and 6 have obtained mutation proceedings and also

pattadar pass books. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the

aforesaid two registered gift settlement deeds are fraudulent

documents executed in their favour by their father, who do not have

any right and title over the aforesaid land. With the said contentions,

the petitioner herein had filed an Appeal Case No.D2/1441/2015

under Section - 5 (5) of the ROR Act, 1971, seeking to set aside the

pattas issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. The said appeal was

allowed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 21.11.2015 and the

pattas issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were set aside.

Entries made in the revenue records, pattadar pass books and title

deeds issued in the name of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were cancelled.

The matter was remanded back to respondent No.4 with a direction to

conduct de novo inquiry duly affording an opportunity of hearing to

both parties and other interested persons, if any, and pass appropriate

orders within a period of three (03) months from the date of the said

order.

ii) It is trite to note that challenging the said order, dated

21.11.2015 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet (Respondent

KL,J W.P. No.34095 of 2022

No.3 herein), respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed a revision vide ROR

Revision Case No.F2/124/2016 before the Joint Collector, Suryapet,

who in turn, vide order dated 18.08.2018, dismissed the said revision

confirming the order dated 21.11.2015 passed by respondent No.3 and

advised the parties to approach Civil Court.

iii) After remand of the matter, respondent No.4 on conducting

de novo inquiry, passed the order dated 29.02.2016 advising the

parties to settle the dispute in Civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioner

herein requested respondent No.2 to alter the extent of land in Survey

No.628 to an extent of Acs.7.05 guntas instead of Acs.5.05 guntas

situated at Phanigiri Village of Nagaram Mandal by way of filing

Online application. The said online application was not considered by

respondent No.2 and, therefore, the petitioner herein had filed a writ

petition vide W.P. No.5852 of 2022. This Court vide order dated

28.02.2022 directed respondent No.2 to consider the online

application submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law.

iv) In compliance with the said order of this Court, respondent

No.2 vide order dated 17.06.2022 held that the matter is sub judice,

therefore, he cannot interfere with the matter at this stage and

KL,J W.P. No.34095 of 2022

necessary action will be taken as per the outcome of the aforesaid suit.

Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein filed the present writ

petition.

v) It is not in dispute that Smt. J. Andalamma wife of late

Jangili Dasaradha, who is brother of the petitioner and paternal uncle

of respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed a suit vide O.S. No.151 of 1968

seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule

properties therein. In the said suit, the land in Survey Nos.627 and 628

is not mentioned in the suit schedule property. The said suit was

decreed. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner herein had filed a

suit vide O.S. No.51 of 2016 against respondent Nos.2 to 6 for

declaration of title and rectification of revenue entries and also to

declare the aforesaid two registered gift deeds as null and void, and

the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet dismissed the injunction

petition by vacating the injunction granted earlier. Thereafter, the

petitioner herein withdrew the aforesaid suit on 18.06.2019.

Thereafter, the petitioner herein had submitted the aforesaid online

application with respondent No.2 with a request to correct the extent

to Acs.7.05 guntas instead of Acs.5.05 guntas in Survey No.628 of

Phanigiri village.

KL,J W.P. No.34095 of 2022

vi) In Peruri Venkata China Krishnaiah1relied on by the

petitioner, the action of the RDO in entertaining the appeal under

Section - 5B of the ROR Act, 1971 during pendency of O.S.No.52 of

2006 was under challenge. The said suit was filed by the petitioner

therein seeking declaration and recovery of possession of the property

on the strength of a Will Deed. Possession of the suit schedule

property was in question. During pendency of the said suit,

respondent No.2 therein sought to file an appeal seeking cancellation

of pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the petitioner

therein. Therefore, referring to Rule - 9 (1 )(c)(ii) of the A.P.Rights in

Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, this Court held that the

petitioner therein has to file declaration along with copy of the plaint

and liberty was granted to the petitioner therein. Therefore, the facts

of the said case are altogether different to the facts of the present case.

In the present case, the aforesaid two comprehensive suits for

declaration, rectification of entries and cancellation of the aforesaid

Gift Settlement Deeds are pending.

vii) It is also relevant to note that this Court, vide order dated

20.07.2022 in C.R.P. No.2108 of 2021, held that limitation is mixed

question of fact and law, and on the said ground plaint cannot be

KL,J W.P. No.34095 of 2022

rejected. This Court also referred about filing of suits i.e., O.S.

No.151 of 1968 and O.S. No.51 of 2016 filed by the petitioner. This

Court also referred about the suit, O.S.No.293 of 1971 filed by the

elder brother of the petitioner herein seeking rectification of entries.

Perusal of the aforesaid orders including the order passed by this

Court in the aforesaid CRP and the impugned order would reveal that

there are serious title dispute between the petitioner and respondent

Nos.5 and 6. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid two registered

gift settlement deeds are fraudulent documents executed by the father

of respondent Nos.5 and 6 who has no right in the aforesaid property.

However, he has filed the aforesaid suit vide O.S. No.51 of 2016

seeking to declare the aforesaid two registered gift deeds as null and

void apart from declaration and rectification of revenue entries.

Thereafter, he withdrew the said suit.

viii) Suit vide O.S.No.97 of 2019 filed by respondent Nos.5

and 6 seeking declaration of title, perpetual injunction and also

rectification of wrong entries in revenue records is also pending.

During pendency of the aforesaid comprehensive suit, the petitioner

herein sought to correct the entries with regard to the extent of land in

Survey No.628 of Phanigiri village. The same was rejected by

KL,J W.P. No.34095 of 2022

respondent No.4 vide impugned order dated 17.06.2022 stating that

the matter is sub judice. Therefore, according to this Court, the

petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 have to wait for the outcome of

the aforesaid suit. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner herein

cannot seek for correction of the aforesaid entries. Thus, respondent

No.4 vide impugned order dated 17.06.2022 rightly held that he

cannot interfere with the matter at this stage since the matter is sub

judice. The petitioner has to wait for the outcome of the aforesaid

suits. Therefore, there is no error in the order dated 17.06.2022 passed

by respondent No.4. The petitioner failed to make out any case to

interfere with the impugned order. In view of the same, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. CONCLUSION:

The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However,

there shall be no order as to costs.

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

the writ petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 20th January, 2023 Mgr