Telangana High Court

Peddi Govardhan Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh Represented By ... on 8 April, 2024

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
               WRIT PETITION No.29510 of 2013

 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

"to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ or Writs Order or Direction interdicting the 2nd Respondent from proceeding further with case in File No. B/856/2013 on his file and to consequently hold that 2nd Respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by Respondent Nos 3 to 11 for correction of entries in revenue records".

2. Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and

Sri E. Madhan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 11.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land to

an extent of Ac.6-07 gts covered by Sy.No.12/1 situated at

Akbarjha Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

belongs to one Mohammed Akbar Ali Khan who had conveyed the

same in favour of Shaik Hafeezuddin, through registered Sale

Deed bearing Document No.63 of 1330 Fasli, dated 2nd Aradi

Bahisht 1330 Fasli (1920 A.D.). Subsequently, the said Shaik

Hafeezuddin had conveyed the above said land in favour of Ram

Singh, Pebba Yellaiah, Pebba Narsaiah, Pampari Narsaiah and

Bolla Narsaiah, through Registered Sale Deed vide Document

No.56 of 1355 F dated 20th Aradi Bahisht 1355 F. Out of the said

extent of Ac.6-07 gts, Ram Singh, Pebba Yellaiah and Pebba

Narsaiah have conveyed their share to an extent of 4 Anas each,

which comes to Ac.4-27 gts, through registered Sale Deed vide

document No.7 of 1359 Fasli, dated 16th Azur 1359 F equivalent

to 23rd Zihajja 1368 Hijri, in favour of Peddi Malla Reddy who is

the father of P.Janardhan Reddy - petitioner No.3 and

grandfather of petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

3.1. He further submits that Peddi Malla Reddy, S/o. Bagi Reddy

name was entered into Khasra Pahani in Coloumn Nos.13 and 18

and in Column No.14 and his name was recorded as owner and

possessor in all Pahanies including Sesala Pahani for the year

1955-58 up to 1991-92 and also issued Rhythu Pass Book in his

favour to an extent of Ac.4-27 gts in Sy.No.12/1/A. Thereafter,

the names of Peddi Goverdhan Reddy and Peddi Sai Reddy, the

grand sons of Peddi Malla Reddy, are recorded as owners and

possessors in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.14 gts. and

Ac.2.13 gts. from 1992-93 on the basis of orders in proceedings

No.ROR/ AKBARJSH/6/89, dated 09-10-1989.

3.2. He further submits that the land to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts

in Sy.No.12/1/B, the name of Pampari Rajaiah is recorded in the

Sesala Pahani as owner and possessor. The said extent of land

was sold by Pampari Rajaiah under an unregistered Sale Deed,

dated 29.04.1959 in favour of Peddi Malla Reddy and his name

was recorded in the possession column from 1961-62 till 1991-

92. Pursuant to the application filed by Peddi Malla Reddy under

Section 5-A of ROR Act, the concerned authorities regularized the

same and passed order vide Proc.No.ROR/3306/1989 dated

11.01.1990 and issued certificate in Form No.13-B in favour of

Peddi Malla Reddy and his name was mutated in the revenue

records and Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed were issued. After

his death, succession certificate was granted in favour of

petitioner No.3, through proceedings No.ROR/2898/93 dated

08.04.1994 and his name was recorded in revenue records and

Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed were issued.

3.3. He further submits that petitioner No.2 has agreed to sell an

extent of Ac.1-00 gts. in Sy.No.12/1/A, out of Ac.2-13 gts and

petitioner No.3 has agreed to sell an extent of Ac.0-20 gts, out of

Ac.0-30 gts in Sy.No.12/1/B, in favour of S.Malla Reddy and have

executed registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA vide Document

No.2813 of 1999, dated 25.10.1999. Similarly, petitioner No.3

had conveyed an extent of Ac.0-10 gts, in Sy.No.12/1/B in favour

of B.Ram Mohan and P.Swathi, through registered Sale Deed vide

Document No.4081/2010, dated 26.11.2010. The said

purchasers have made an application for mutation of their names

before respondent No.2 and the said proceedings are pending.

3.4. He further submits that while things stood thus, respondent

Nos.3 to 11 have submitted representation dated 08.04.2013

before respondent No.2 for correction of entries in the revenue

records, even without disclosing alienation made by their

ancestors through registered sale deed way back in the year 1949

basing on the said representation respondent No.2 issued the

impugned notice dated 15.04.2013.

3.5. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the respondent

No.2 is not having authority or jurisdiction to initiate the

proceedings basing on the representation submitted by the

unofficial respondents invoking the powers conferred under A.P.

Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (hereinafter

called, 'Act' for brevity) for incorporation of their names in subject

property to an extent of Ac.6-07gts, after lapse of more than 50

years and the same is not permissible under law.

3.6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy

District and another vs. D.Narsing Rao and others with

Chairman, Joint Action Committee of Employees, Teachers

and Workers Andhra Pradesh vs. D.Narsing Rao and others 1.

4. Per contra, Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents, submits that the

petitioners are claiming rights over the property basing on the

sale deed vide Document No.7 of 1359 Fasli. Especially, the said

document is a fabricated one and basing on the said document,

they are not entitled to claim any rights over the subject property.

He further submits that unofficial respondents or their ancestors

have not sold the subject property to anyone including to the

ancestors of petitioners and respondent No.2 had rightly initiated

the proceedings exercising the powers conferred under the Act.

Petitioners have already filed objections/counter before

respondent No.2 and when the said proceedings are pending,

petitioners filed the present Writ Petition and the same is not

maintainable under law.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue also

reiterated the very same submissions made by the learned Senior

Counsel for the unofficial respondents.

(2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 695

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and after perusal of the material available on

record it reveals that the petitioners are claiming the rights over

the property through registered documents and also basing upon

the regularization proceedings dated 11.01.1990 and their names

were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and

title deeds were issued in their favour. Whereas unofficial

respondents have submitted a representation before respondent

No.2 dated 07.05.2012 stating that their ancestors or they have

not sold the property to anyone including the petitioners or their

ancestors and the sale deed document No.3/1359 is fabricated

and not genuine one and requested the respondent No.2 to

correct the revenue entries. Pursuant to the same, respondent

No.2 issued impugned notice dated 15.04.2013.

7. The specific claim of the petitioners that their names and the

names of their ancestors were recorded in the revenue records

and respondent no.2 merely after lapse of more than 50 years

basing upon the representation submitted by the unofficial

respondents, respondent No.2 is not having authority or

jurisdiction to issued the impugned notice exercising the powers

conferred under provisions of ROR Act.

8. It is very much relevant to mention here that in Joint

Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another (1 supra),

Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the decision of Division bench of

this court in Joint Collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad

and another vs. D. Narasing Rao and others 2 by

emphasizing that statutory authorities should refrain from

exercising unlimited powers after an unreasonable delay,

especially in the absence of a prescribed time limit within

the relevant legislation and which reads as follows:

15. Section 166-B reads as follows:

"166-B. Revision. (1) Subject to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 F, the Government or any Revenue Officer not lower in rank to a Collector the Settlement Commissioner of Land Records may call for the record of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and may make suitable order in that behalf:

Provided that no order or decision affecting the rights of the ryot shall be modified or annulled unless the parties concerned are summoned and heard.

(2) Every Revenue Officer lower in rank to a Collector or Settlement Commissioner may call for the records of a case or proceedings for a subordinate department and satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and if, in his opinion, any order or

2010 (6) ALD 748 (DB)

decision or, proceedings should be modified or annulled, he shall put up the file of the case and with his opinion to the Collector or Settlement Commissioner as the case may be. Thereupon the Collector or Settlement Commissioner may pass suitable order under the provisions of sub-section (1).

(3) The original order or decision or an authentic copy of the original order or decision sought to be revised shall be filed along with every application for revision."

16. No time-limit is prescribed in the above section for the exercise of suo motu power but the question is as to whether the suo motu power could be exercised after a period of 50 years. The Government as early as in the year 1991 passed an order reserving 477 acres of land in Survey Nos.36 and 37 of Gopanpally Village for house sites to the government employees. In other words, the Government had every occasion to verify the revenue entries pertaining to the said lands while passing the Government Order dated 24-9-1991 but no exception was taken to the entries found. Further the respondents herein filed Writ Petition No. 21719 of 1997 challenging the Government Order dated 24-9-1991 and even at that point of time no action was initiated pertaining to the entries in the said survey numbers. Thereafter, the purchasers of land from Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a civil suit in OS No. 12 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District praying for a declaration that they were lawful owners and possessors of certain plots of land in Survey No. 36, and after contest, the suit was decreed and said decree is allowed to become final. By the impugned notice dated 31-12-2004 the suo motu revision power under Section 166-B referred to above is sought to be exercised after five decades and if it is allowed to do so it would lead to anomalous position

leading to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties over immovable properties."

17. In the light of what is stated above we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in affirming the view of the learned single Judge of the High Court that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law."

9. In Ithagani Lachaiah and others Vs. Joint

Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Nalgonda

and others 3, this Court held that;

27. While concurring with the view taken by Justice Sri

C. Nagappan, Justice T.S. Thakur held as under:

"To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third party rights that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority."

3 2015 (4) ALD 490

28. The principle laid down in Jt. Collector Ranga

Reddy Dist's case. (1 Supra) by the Division Bench was

followed by another Division Bench in Joint Collector,

Rangareddy District vs. P. Harinath Reddy and

others. One of the issues for consideration was whether

order of resumption of assigned land on the ground of

violation of Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands

(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, can be passed after

long lapse of time. Following the decision of Supreme

Court in Ponnala Narsing Rao vs. Nallolla Pantaiah

and others 4, Division Bench of this Court held that it is

not permissible to exercise power of resumption after

long lapse of time. In that case, it was 40 years.

29. In Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie

Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy and others 5, the

exercise of suo motu power under Section 50-B(4) of the

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, was in issue. Such power

was invoked to cancel validation certificates issued 13 to

15 years after issuance thereof and 10 years after

insertion of Section 50-B(4) of the Act. This was held to

be bad. In Ponnala Narsing Rao's Case, the issue

considered by the Supreme Court was with reference to

(1998) 9 SCC 183

(2003) 7 SCC 667

the filing of an application under Section 32 of the Act. It

was contended that after unreasonable delay, such an

application was filed and the same ought to have been

dismissed. Upholding such contentions, the Supreme

Court held as under:

"So far as the second contention is concerned, it is true that though no express period of limitation is provided for filing application under Section 32 of the Act, such applications have to be moved within reasonable time. It may be because of such belated applications, the other side may stand adversely affected. It may have changed its position in the meantime. Equities may have arisen in his favour, he may have spent large amounts on land by improving it. But all these questions have to be pleaded and proved. Surprisingly, no such contention was ever canvassed much less tried to be proved on any equitable ground by the petitioner. Therefore, this second contention on the facts of the present case cannot be sustained. It has also to be noted that no plea of adverse possession was put forward by the petitioner in support of his case."

10. In the above judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this

Court has specifically held that where there is no time limit prescribed

under the statute, the said powers should be exercised within a

reasonable period. In the instant case, the respondent No.2 initiated the

proceedings under the provisions of ROR Act basing upon the

representation submitted by the unofficial respondents on 07.05.2012,

after lapse of more than 50 years. It is also relevant to place on record

that the unofficial respondents are disputing the title of the petitioners

over the subject property and the same cannot be adjudicated by

respondent No.2 exercising the powers conferred under ROR Act or this

Court in a Writ Petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shri Sohan Lal vs

Union of India 6 and another held that the disputed questions should