The State Of Telangana, ... vs M/S. Vediri Estates ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3327 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                   AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


      WRIT APPEAL Nos.579 of 2016 AND 1013 of 2023


COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


       The writ appeal, namely W.A.No.579 of 2016 has

been filed by the State of Telangana, whereas writ appeal

No.1013 of 2023 has been filed by Hindustan Aeronautical

Employees         Cooperative        Housing        Society        Limited

(hereinafter referred to as 'Cooperative Society'). Both the

appeals emanate from an order dated 17.03.2016 passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15056 of 2014 and

were, therefore, heard together and are being decided by

this common judgment.


2.     The respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

writ petitioner') purchased vide registered sale deed dated

10.06.2005, land measuring Acs.24.35 guntas of survey

No.77 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject

land'). The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed an application

seeking mutation of its name in the revenue records. The

aforesaid application was allowed by Tahsildar by an order

dated 14.11.2005.

3. The aforesaid order of mutation was assailed in

revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Andhra

Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,

1971. The revisional authority by an order dated

06.02.2007 set aside the order of mutation in favour of the

writ petitioner. The writ petitioner thereupon challenged

the order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the revisional

authority in a writ petition, namely W.P.No.10074 of 2008,

which was allowed by an order dated 15.12.2008 and the

order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the revisional authority,

namely the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District was set

aside and the matter was remitted to the authority to pass

an order afresh.

4. After the remand, the revisional authority, namely the

Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 06.05.2009

passed the order granting mutation in favour of the writ

petitioner and directing the Tahsildar to implement the

same. The aforesaid order was not complied with.

Thereupon, the writ petitioner filed writ petition No.15056

of 2014, in which the following prayer was made:

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to act in accordance with law and incorporate the name of the petitioner as the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.24.35 guntas in Sy.No.77 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in all the revenue records including the pahanies by deleting the present entry "government land" in consonance with the mutation order passed by the 3rd respondent in Proc. No.B/965/2004, dated 14.11.2005 in recognition and reflection of the title and right of the petitioner over the said land and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

5. Learned Single Judge by an order dated 17.03.2016

allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents

therein to incorporate the name of the writ petitioner as

owner and in possession of the subject land in all revenue

records including the Pahanies by deleting the entry

"government land". Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order,

the State Government has preferred an intra-Court appeal,

namely W.A.No.579 of 2016. The Cooperative Society has

filed an application for impleadment in W.P.No.15056 of

2014 preferred by the writ petitioner and also has

independently assailed the order passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.A. No.1013 of 2023. In the aforesaid

factual background, these appeals arise for our

consideration.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted

that the writ petitioner has no title in respect of the subject

land in question as its vendor had no title and in fact land

in question belongs to the State Government. It is further

submitted that the subject land is part of C.S.No.14 of

1958. However, the learned Additional Advocate General

has not disputed the fact that order dated 06.05.2009

passed by the Joint Collector was not assailed by the State

Government.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has

submitted that the scope of intra-Court appeal is confined

to examining the validity of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge and the same cannot be enlarged in this

intra-Court appeal. In support of the aforesaid submission,

reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme

Court in Roma Sonkar vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public

Service Commission 1. It is further submitted that the

interveners have not challenged the order of mutation

passed in favour of the writ petitioner and their remedy is

to challenge the same before appropriate forum. The

Cooperative Society cannot be permitted to contend in this

intra-Court appeal that the writ petitioner either has no

title or is not in possession of subject land. It is also

submitted that the mutation entry does not confer or take

away the title of any party. In support of the aforesaid

submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of

the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Vasavi

Cooperative Housing Society Limited 2.

8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for

Cooperative Society submitted that implead petitioner in

W.P.No.15056 of 2014 and appellant in W.A. No.1013 of

(2018) 17 SCC 106

(2014) 2 SCC 269

2023 is a prior purchaser through registered sale deeds

executed in its favour in the years 1981 and 1982. It is

further submitted that no title is conveyed to the writ

petitioner as its vendor had an unregistered assignment

deed in its favour. It is further submitted that the name of

the Cooperative Society has already been mutated in the

revenue records. It is pointed out that the order passed in

W.P.No.15056 of 2014 has been obtained by suppressing

material facts inasmuch as the order dated 17.09.2012

passed by the Commissioner and Inspector General of

Registration and Stamps directing the an enquiry into

registration of sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioner

was not brought to the notice of the Court. It is contended

that the order was passed in W.P.No.27045 of 2013

directing the District Collector to submit a report with

regard to more than one registered deed in respect of

subject land, was also not brought to the notice of the

learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that the order

of mutation has been obtained by playing fraud and

learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated

30.12.2014 passed in W.P.No.27045 of 2013 had issued

direction for cancellation of the sale deed of the writ

petitioner. However, even the aforesaid fact was not

brought to the notice of learned Single Judge. In support of

the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel has

placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs.

S.P.Velayutham 3.

9. By way of rejoinder, learned Additional Advocate

General submits that in compliance of the order dated

17.03.2016 in W.P.No.15056 of 2014, the name of the writ

petitioner has already been reflected in the revenue

records. A copy of relevant extract of Dharani Portal is

produced by the learned Additional Advocate General,

which is taken on record. It is further submitted that the

aforesaid entry in Dharani Portal be made subject to

decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.7154 of 2021

and the decision of this Court in C.S.No.14 of 1958.

10. We have considered the rival submissions made on

both sides and have perused the record. The scope of this

(2022) 8 SCC 210

appeal is to examine the validity of the order passed by

learned Single Judge. From perusal of the relevant extract

of Dharani Portal produced before us, it is evident that in

compliance of the order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15056 of 2014, the name of

the writ petitioner has already been incorporated in the

revenue records. However, in the aforesaid Dharani Portal,

the nature of land is still shown to be 'government land'.

11. In view of the stand taken by learned Additional

Advocate General that the order dated 17.03.2016 in

W.P.No.15056 of 2014 has already complied with and the

same be made subject to decision of the Supreme Court in

S.L.P.No.7154 of 2021 and decision of this Court in

C.S.No.14 of 1958, we direct the State Government to

delete the nature of land as 'government land'.

12. The order passed by the learned Single Judge has

been accepted upon and the entry has been made in favour

of the writ petitioner in the revenue records. The aforesaid

entry in the revenue records does not confer any title on

the writ petitioner in respect of subject land. Even

otherwise, in view of the Constitution Bench decisions of

the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal vs. Union of India 4 and

Thansingh Nathmal vs. Superintendent of Taxes,

Dhubri 5, it is trite law that this Court in exercise of powers

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot

adjudicate the question of title. The Cooperative Society is

claiming its independent right, title and interest in the

subject land, which cannot be adjudicated in this

proceeding as the same is beyond the scope of this appeal.

Even otherwise, it is well settled that mere entry in the

revenue records does not confer any right over the subject

property. The title of either the writ petitioner or the

Cooperative Society cannot be examined in a proceeding

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or in this

appeal, the scope of which is confined to examining validity

of the order directing mutation of name of writ petitioner.

In view of entry made in Dharani Portal in favour of the

writ petitioner, in compliance of the order of learned Single

Judge, we need not examine various contentions urged by

AIR 1957 SC 529

AIR 1964 SC 1419

the Cooperative Society, which can even otherwise be

examined in an appropriate proceeding which may be

instituted by the Cooperative Society. Needless to state

that the Cooperative Society shall be at liberty to assail the

validity of the order dated 06.05.2009 passed by the Joint

Collector, Ranga Reddy District, granting mutation in

favour of the writ petitioner as well as the entry made in

favour of the writ petitioner in Dharani Portal, in an

appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.

13. It is clarified that neither the learned Single Judge

nor this Court has expressed any opinion with regard to

title and interest of either the writ petitioner or the

Cooperative Society. It is open for the parties to agitate

their respective claims of title in appropriate proceedings.

Needless to state that Cooperative Society shall also be at

liberty to challenge the entry made by the State

Government in Dharani Portal in favour of the writ

petitioner in appropriate proceedings. It is also made clear

that the entry made in Dharani Portal in favour of the writ

petitioner shall be subject to outcome of S.L.P.No.7154 of

2021 and the Judgment of this Court in C.S.No.14 of 1958.

An entry to the said effect shall be made in Dharani Portal.

14. With the aforesaid directions, the writ appeals are

disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

19.10.2023 pln