Telangana High Court

G. Varamma, Khammam Dist. vs Agent To Govt. Khammam And 3 Others on 11 September, 2023

Bench: Alok Aradhe, N.V.Shravan Kumar

     THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                          AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

                      WRIT APPEAL No.1290 of 2008


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

      Heard     the    learned    counsel    Mr.    Haziz    Hussain   for

Mr. J.Prabhakar, appearing for the appellant, Mr. P.Ram Prasad,

learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Mr. S.Srinivasa

Sharma, appearing for the 4th respondent and perused the material

made available on record.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the

order dated 22.06.2007 passed in W.P. No.21839 of 2001 by the

learned Single Judge.

3. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner in W.P. No.21839 of

2001 that was filed seeking to declare the orders passed in CMA.

No.79 of 1998 dated 21.01.2001 by the respondent No.1 confirming

the orders of the respondent No.2 in Case No.631-88/KMP dated

18.12.1989 including the action of the respondent No.2 in suo-motu

delivering the property to respondents No.3 and 4, as illegal and

arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same directing the

respondents to redeliver the possession of the land admeasuring

Acs.6.00 guntas in Sy.No.185/254 of Maddulapalli village, Kamepalli

Mandal, Khammam district.

HC, J & NVSK, J

4. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner, in a nutshell, is that

she was in possession of land to an extent of Acs.6.00 guntas in

Survey No.185/254, situated at Maddulapalli village of Khammam

district, having acquired the same on 01.06.1962 from Gunda

Laxminarasaiah and Elka Thirupathaiah, (prior to promulgation of

Regulation 1 of 1970), who purchased the same from the respondent

No.3 and his three other brothers on 25.04.1960 and they were in

possession of the subject property till they sold the same to the

petitioner.

5. While the things stood thus, the respondent No.2 had issued a

notice to the appellant/petitioner under the Regulation 3 of the

A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations and sought her

eviction from the subject land vide notice in Case No.631/88/KMP for

which, the appellant/petitioner had submitted a detailed

representation and thereafter, she was informed that she will receive a

fresh notice regarding the date of hearing but after a lapse of

18 months after final hearing, the respondent No.2 passed orders on

18.12.1989 without any notice to the appellant/petitioner and

subsequently she came to know that the respondent No.2 had passed

further orders on 06.07.1990 ordering her eviction. Against the said

order, she preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 and along

with the said appeal, she filed an application seeking to condone the

delay in preferring the appeal that was ended in dismissal.

Thereafter, she filed W.P. No.5693 of 1991, which was allowed by this HC, J & NVSK, J

Court on 07.02.1997 directing the appellate authority to number the

appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. However,

during the pendency of that proceedings itself, she was dispossessed

from the subject land. Subsequent thereto, the appeal was also

disposed of in favour of the respondent No.4.

6. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.1977 passed in CMA. No.79

of 1998 by the respondent No.1, confirming the order dated

18.12.1989 passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No.631-88/KMP,

the appellant/petitioner filed W.P. No.21839 of 2001, which was

dismissed on 22.06.2007 holding that the sale deed dated 01.06.1962

being an unregistered document, cannot be admitted as evidence in

proof of sale in favour of the petitioner and the same being a question

of fact, cannot be re-adjudicated in the writ petition. Assailing the

same, the appellant/petitioner preferred the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner

would submit that the order dated 09.01.1977 passed in LTR Case

No.817 of 1975 would operate as res-judicata or even otherwise

estopped fresh proceedings from being initiated and it is not a case of

any new cause of action different from the one decided in LTR Case

No.817 of 1975 and that the sale dated 01.06.1962 is binding upon

the respondents No.3 and 4 and the same could not have been

discarded as unregistered one. He would further submit that the

validity or otherwise of the unregistered sale deeds could not have

been decided by the regulation authorities or by the appellate HC, J & NVSK, J

authority being agent to Government and the entire procedure

followed is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land

Transfer Regulations.

8. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader Sri P.Ram

Prasad appearing for the Social Welfare Department would submit

that the sada sale deed is no value in the eye of law and as per the

provisions of Registration Act, 1908, Section 17(1)(b) for transfer of

immovable property requires registration which is mandatory to

complete the sale transaction and convey the title from the Transferor

to Transferee by operation of the law. It is further submitted that if a

statue provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it

has to be done in that manner and no other manner.

9. The following are the issues that falls for consideration before

this Court.

i) whether the earlier orders passed in LTR Case No.817 of 1975 on

09.01.1977 operates as res-judicata?

ii) what is the validity and effect of the unregistered sale deed?

10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 in

W.P. No.21839 of 2001, it has been submitted that based on a

representation submitted by the respondent No.3 stating that the non

tribals namely Gunda Laxmi Narasaiah and another (vendors of

appellant/petitioner) have illegally occupied his patta land to an

extent of Acs.10.00 guntas in Sy.No.185 of Maddulapalli village and HC, J & NVSK, J

requested to restore the land to him. The case was taken on the file

and after issuing notices and upon hearing and on examination of the

material papers submitted by both the parties, the respondent

authorities concluded that the non-tribal respondents are in

possession of the land prior to enforcement of APSALTR 1/59 read

with Regulation 1/70 and dropped the case vide order dated

09.01.1977 in LTR Case No.817 of 1975. Thereafter, in the year 1988,

the UDRI (CAP), Palvancha has submitted a report to the

2nd respondent stating that the petitioner namely Gunda Varamma

(appellant/petitioner) has illegally occupied the tribal patta land

belonging to Sri Kalthi Muthaiah (ST) to an extent of Ac.6.00 guntas in

Sy.No.185/254 situated at Maddulapalli village and requested to

initiate a case under the provisions of APSALTR 1/59 read with

Regulation 1/70. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 has taken on file

for enquiry and issued notices to both the parties and upon hearing

and on perusal of the material papers on record, the respondent No.2

concluded that the appellant/petitioner (non-tribal) has entered into

the schedule land after commencement of APSALTR 1/59 read with

Regulation 1/70 and had passed ejectment orders against the

appellant/petitioner vide LTR Case No.631/88/Kmp dated 18.12.1989

and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamepalli to restore

possession of the writ schedule land to the tribal pattedar or his legal

heirs under cover of panchanama. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue

Officer, Kamepalli has handed over possession of the schedule land to

Sri Kalthi Muthaiah (ST) under cover of panchanama on 05.07.1990.

HC, J & NVSK, J

Thereafter, assailing the order dated 18.12.1989, the

appellant/petitioner filed CMA. No.79 of 1998 and the same was also

ended in dismissal confirming the order dated 18.12.1989 passed in

LTR Case No.631/88/Kmp.

11. It is further submitted that a sada sale deed dated 01.06.1962

was executed by Gunda Laxmi Narasaiah and Yelka Tirupathaiah

(vendors of appellant/petitioner) jointly in favour of the

appellant/petitioner on a stamped paper worth Rs.3/- and the same is

not registered under Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, which

cannot be considered as evidence of proof. The petitioner has failed to

produce any corroborative evidence to substantiate her valid right and

admissible possession over the writ schedule land, hence, the CMA.

No.79 of 1998 under the provisions of APSALTR 1/59 read with

Regulation 1/70 was dismissed. It is further submitted that Sri

Gunda Malla Reddy, husband of the petitioner, attended the

proceedings held on 25.06.1988 and deposed that the schedule land

was purchased in the year 1962 and the land is under their

possession from the date of purchase and he has filed true copy of

sada sale deed dated 01.06.1962 and pahani extracts for the years

1979-80, 1980-81 and 1983-84. As seen from the deposition of the

husband of the petitioner, which is available in file No.631/88/Kmp,

there is no such information about previous case and its result.

12. In earlier case i.e. LTR Case No.817/75, the respondents in the

said proceedings were Gunda Laxmi Narasaiah (died) represented by HC, J & NVSK, J

Gunda Malla Reddy, Yelka Thirupathaiah and Morrimekala Bazaru

and that the extent involved in this case is Acs.12.00 in Sy.No.185 of

Maddulapalli village of Kamepalli Mandal. In later case i.e. in case

No.631/88/Kmp the respondents in the said proceedings are the

appellant/petitioner and extent involved in this case is Acs.6.00

guntas in Sy.No.185/254 of Maddulapalli village of Kamepalli Mandal.

Since the respondents and extent involved in the two cases are not

one and the same, as such, the principle of res-judicata does not apply

in this case.

13. Insofar as the second issue of validity of the unregistered sale

deed is concerned, it is submitted in the counter affidavit that the

appellant/petitioner has not produced original sale deed in the

appellate Court at any time during the trial of the case except a copy

of sada sale deed dated 01.06.1962 in the proceedings in case

No.631/88Kmp. The document is executed by Gunda Laxmi

Narasaiah and yelka Tirupathaiah jointly (vendors of the

appellant/petitioner) in favour of the appellant/petitioner on a

non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.3/-. As the sale deed is not duly

stamped and registered under Section 17(b) of the Registration Act,

the same cannot be considered as evidence of proof. Section 17(b) of

the Registration Act, 1908, reads as under:

"17. Documents of which registration is compulsory. - (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been examined HC, J & NVSK, J

on or after the date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866 (20 of 1866), or the Indian Registration Act, 1871 (8 of 1871), or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force namely-

(a) ......

(b) Other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hudred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;

......"

14. From the above proviso, it is to be seen that for

non-testamentary instruments for the value of One Hundred Rupees

and upwards for immovable property, registration is compulsory.

In the case on hand, the document is executed in favour of the

appellant/petitioner on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.3/- only,

which is an unregistered document. In order to complete the sale

transaction and convey the title from the transferor to transferee, it is

mandatory for registration, which is not done in the present case.

Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that "the appellate

authority also found that the sale deed, dated 01.06.1962, was

executed by Laxmi Narasaiah and Thirapaiah on a stamp paper of