Telangana High Court
Janagama Somi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 26 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.8831 and 20391 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.8831 of 2019 is filed for the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, order or direction or more particularly one in the nature
of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the order passed by the 2nd Respondent
dated 13-04-2018 in case No.B2/1460/20I7 directing the Petitioners herein
to approach the Civil Court for claiming their right over the subject lands in
Sy.No.92/A/1/A, Ac.0-10 gts., Sy.No.143/A/1, Ac.2.10 gts., Sy.No.143/A,
Ac.10.01 gts., Sy.No.147/A/1/1, Ac.12.23 gts., Sy.No. 163/A/1, Ac.1.19 and
in Sy.No.339/A/1, Ac.1.19 gts., in total admeasuring Ac.29.32 gts., (herein
after called as subject lands) situated at Yellamala Village, Jangaon Revenue
Mandal, Jangaon District as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and against the
provisions of R.O.R. Act and consequently direct the Respondents to
consider the request of the Petitioners to mutate their names as pattedars of
the above lands ..."
1.1.
1 W.P.No.20391 of 2019 is filed for the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, order or direction or more particularly one in the nature
of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the 5th respondent proceedings
NO.C/10446/2016 dated 10.7.2019 recognizing the 7th respondent is in
possession of the Lands in Sy.Nos.92/A to an extent of Ac.6.01 guntas, Land
in Sy.No.143/A to an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas, land in Sy.No.147/A to an
extent of Ac.10.01 guntas, land in Sy.No.163/A to an extent of Ac.12.23
guntas and land in Sy.No.339/A to an extent of Ac.1.19 guntas situated at
Yellamla village, Jangam Mandal and District as illegal, arbitrary, null and
void and against the order of the 3rd respondent vide proceedings
No.B2/1460/2017 dated 13.4.2018 as well as the orders passed in the
W.P.No.2408 of 2019 dated 15.2.2019 and set aside the same and
consequently direct the respondents to restore the names of the petitioners
in the possessory column in the revenue records in respect of the above said
lands ..."
2. Brief facts of the case in W.P.No.8831 of 2019:
2.1. The claim of the petitioners is that their ancestors were tenants of the
subject property i.e., land to an extent of Ac.32.24 guntas in Sy.Nos.92, 143,
147, 163 and 339 situated at Yellamala Village of Jangaon Mandal, Warangal
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019
District, presently Jangaon District, which was obtained from Smt. Vasantha
Laxmamma, Mangathayamma and others and thereafter, they have purchased
from them and continued in the possession and enjoyment of the above said
property since 1959 and after their death, the petitioners are in continuous
possession of the subject property. Whereas, the claim of respondent No.6 is
that the subject property was allotted to her in partition pursuant to the
judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Warangal, in O.S.No.7 of
1970, dated 29.08.1977, and she made an application before respondent No.4
dated 15.11.2006 seeking mutation of her name in the subject property.
Accordingly, respondent No.4 had issued proceedings No.A/C/191/2007 dated
09.12.2010 ordering for mutation of the subject property in her favour and to
issue pattadar pass books.
2.2. Questioning the above said order, dated 09.12.2010, petitioners filed
Appeal Case No.I/2475/2015 before respondent No.3 and the same was allowed
and set aside the orders passed by respondent No.4, by its order dated
29.04.2017. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 filed Revision Petition
No.B2/1460/2017 before respondent No.2. The revisional authority set aside the
orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and directed respondent No.6 as well
as the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court and further directed
respondent No.4 to restore the names of the original pattadars i.e.,
Smt.Vasantha Laxmamma, S.Mangathayamma, Nellutla Yadagiri Rao, Kasba
Laxmamma and others and to record occupant column as per physical
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019
possession and to maintain status quo until final order from the competent
Court, by its order dated 13.04.2018. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed
the present writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case in W.P.No.20391 of 2019:
During pendency of W.P.No.8831 of 2019, respondent No.6, who is
respondent No.7 in W.P.No.20391 of 2019, filed W.P.No.2408 of 2019
questioning the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in not implementing the orders
of respondent No.2, dated 13.04.2018, and the same was disposed of at the
stage of admission directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 to take necessary steps for
implementation of the order of respondent No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.6
filed Contempt Case No.541 of 2019 for non-implementation of the above said
order. Subsequently, respondent No.4 had issued proceedings No.C/10446/2016
dated 10.07.2019 implementing the orders of respondent No.2 and. Questioning
the above said proceedings, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.20391 of 2019.
4. During pendency of the proceedings before respondent authorities,
respondent No.6 filed suit in O.S.No.138 of 2016 on the file of the Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the
subject property against the petitioners. Along with the said suit, she filed
application in I.A.No.249 of 2016, wherein temporary injunction was granted on
18.01.2017. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed C.M.A.No.22 of
2018 on the file of Principal District Judge, Jangaon, and the same was dismissed
by its order dated 30.06.2022. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019
C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022 before this Court and the same was dismissed on
20.02.2023.
5. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing Jelli
Narendar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri T. Sharath, learned
counsel, representing Smt.A.B.Lalitha Gayathri, learned counsel for respondent
No.6 in W.P.No.8831 of 2019 and respondent No.7 in W.P.No.20391 of 2019 and
learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official
respondents.
6. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners and their ancestors
have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property since 1959 and
their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books were
also issued in their favour. After lapse of more than 28 years, respondent No.6
filed application seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records before
respondent No.4, pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.7 of
1970 dated 29.08.1977. Respondent No.4, without properly considering the
contentions raised by the petitioners, passed orders, dated 09.12.2010, solely
basing upon the instructions issued by the District Collector dated 16.04.2010
and 19.08.2010, especially respondent No.6 had not questioned the revenue
entries made in favour of the petitioners or their ancestors before any authority
and petitioners are not parties in O.S.No.7 of 1970. Questioning the said order,
petitioners filed statutory appeal before respondent No.3 exercising the powers
conferred under Section 5(5) of the Telangana Rights in Land Pattadar Pass Book
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019
Act, 1971 (hereinafter called brevity, 'the RoR Act'). The appellate authority
after due verification of the records and after hearing both the parties allowed
the appeal and set aside the orders passed by respondent No.4 dated
09.12.2010, by its order dated 19.04.2017. Aggrieved by the same, respondent
No.6 filed revision petition under Section 9 of the RoR Act before respondent
No.2. The revisional authority without considering the contentions of the
petitioners and without assigning any reasons passed the impugned order dated
13.04.2018 by setting aside the orders of respondent Nos.3 and 4, though the
order dated 19.04.2017 passed by respondent No.4 was already set aside by
respondent No.3.
7. Learned senior counsel vehemently contended that respondent No.3
allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners by giving cogent reasons in respect of
each issue by its order dated 19.04.2017. However, respondent No.2 without
assigning reasons or pointing out any illegality, irregularity or error in the said
order, allowed the revision petition and passed cryptic order and the same is
contrary to law. He further contended that respondent No.3 while holding that
respondent No.6 ought to have filed separate petition for recovery of possession,
on the other hand, directed both the parties to approach competent Civil Court
for redressal of their grievance, instead of directing respondent No.6 alone to
approach the Civil Court and the other directions issued in the impugned order
directing respondent No.4 to restore the names of the original pattadars in the
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019
revenue records is also contrary to law, especially the original pattadars have not
made any claim nor questioned the entries made in the revenue records.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.6 contended that the
petitioners or their predecessors are not having any right, interest or title over
the subject property. Respondent No.6 succeeded the subject property pursuant
to the decree and judgment passed in a partition suit in O.S.No.7 of 1970 dated
29.08.1977. Respondent No.4, after following the due procedure as
contemplated under the provisions of 'ROR Act' and Rules made thereunder and
after hearing both the parties, issued proceedings dated 09.12.2010.
Questioning the same, petitioners filed appeal and the same was allowed.
Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 field revision petition before respondent
No. 2 and the revisional authority after considering the contentions of both
parties rightly passed the impugned order dated 13.04.2018, and the said order
was already implemented and the name of respondent No.6 was mutated and
pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in her favour and she is in
physical possession of the subject property. When the petitioners are trying to
interfere with the said property, respondent No.6 filed suit in O.S.No.138 of 2016
on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, seeking perpetual
injunction and the said Court has granted temporary injunction in I.A.No.249 of
2016 and the said order was confirmed in C.M.A.No.22 of 2018 dated
30.06.2022. Questioning the same, petitioners have filed C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022
before this Court and the same was dismissed on 20.02.2023.
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019
9. He further contended that the petitioners have not produced any piece of
evidence before any authorities including before this Court claiming rights over
the subject property. He also contended that revisional authority specifically
observed that in spite of giving several opportunities, the petitioners have not
produced any evidence to prove their rights over the property. Hence, the
petitioners are not entitled any relief much less the relief sought in the writ
petitions.
10. 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 rights over the subject property from their ancestors,
who are in possession since 1959, who were tenants of the original pattadars
namely, Smt.Vasantha Laxmamma, Mangathayamma and others and also
pleaded that later they have purchased the same from them and their names
were recorded in the revenue records. Whereas, respondent No.6 is claiming
rights over the property by virtue of decree and judgment passed in a partition
suit in O.S.No.7 of 1970, dated 29.08.1977. Pursuant to the said decree,
respondent No.6 had submitted an application dated 15.11.2016 before
respondent No.4 for mutation of her name in the revenue records. Basing on
the said application, respondent No.4 passed order dated 09.12.2010 for
mutation of her name in the revenue records and also for issuance of pattadar
pass book. Questioning the above said order, the petitioners have filed appeal
under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act before respondent No.3. The appellate
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019
authority after considering the contentions of the respective parties and after
due verification of the records framed three issues and after hearing both parties
allowed the appeal by giving reasons in respect of each issue, by its order dated
29.04.2017. Questioning the same, respondent No.6 filed revision petition under
Section 9 of the RoR Act before respondent No.2 and the same was allowed, by
its order dated 13.04.2018.
11. The impugned order dated 13.04.2018 clearly reveals that respondent
No.2 simply extracted the facts of the case, written submissions filed by both
parties and set aside the order of the appellate authority dated 19.04.2017
without pointing out any illegality, irregularity or error in the said order and
without assigning any reasons. It is relevant to extract the operative portion of
the order, which reads as follows:
"Therefore, in view of the above observation the orders of the lower court
I/2475/2015 Dt:19.04.2017 and Tahasildar Jangaon Proceedings
F2/4156/2010 dt:19.08.2010, are hereby quashed and this court opines
that the case is civil in nature and it has to be decided by a competent
civil court. Hence the revision petitioner and respondents herein are
directed to approach the competent court for redressal and with a
direction to the Tahsildar Jangaon to restore the names of the original
pattedars i.e., Smt.Vasantha Laxmamma, S.Mangathayamma, Nellutla
Yadagiri Rao, Kasba Laxmamma and others and to record occupant
column as per physical possession and to maintain status quo until final
orders from the competent court."
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019
12. It is very much relevant to place on record that Hon'ble Apex Court in
M/s.Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed 1,
specifically held that quasi judicial authority or administrative authority must
record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers.
13. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works
Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers 2, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of justice delivery system, it is
essential that the Courts should record reasons for their conclusions, while
disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing.
14. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Prasad Jain 3, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and
without the same it becomes lifeless.
15. In ITC Limited, rep. by Pinnamraju Ashok varma, Visakhapatnam,
A.P v. State of A.P. 4, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi held
that where property rights are involved, any adverse order by the authority
results in infringement of right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India.
16. It is already observed supra that respondent No.2 without assigning any
reasons passed cryptic order dated 13.04.2018 and same is gross violation of
2010(9) SCC 496
2010 (4) SCC 785
(2008) 15 SCC 711
2024 (2) ALT 753
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019
principles of natural justice and contrary to the settled principles of law and the
same is liable to be set aside on the above ground alone, without going into
other grounds, the matter is required for reconsideration by the revisional
authority.
17. Insofar as W.P.No.20391 of 2019 is concerned, respondent No.6 filed
independent writ petition i.e., W.P.No.2408 of 2010 questioning the action of
respondent Nos.4 and 5 for non-implementation of the orders passed by
respondent No.2 dated 13.04.2018. It appears from the record that this Court
disposed of the said writ petition and directed respondent No.4 to take steps to
implement the orders. For non-implementation of the said order, respondent
No.6 filed contempt case vide C.C.No.541 of 2019. At that stage, respondent
No.3 had issued proceedings dated 10.07.2019 implementing the orders of
respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.6.
18. The records disclose that while ordering notice before admission in
W.P.No.20391 of 2019, this Court on 19.09.2019 granted status quo obtaining as
on date with respect to entries in the revenue records maintained. Questioning
the said status quo order, the petitioners filed W.A.No.762 of 2019 and the same
was dismissed on 27.09.2019 and the above interim order is continuing till date.
19. It is an undisputed fact that during pendency of the proceedings before
respondent authorities, respondent No.6 filed a suit in O.S.No.138 of 2016 on the
file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, seeking perpetual injunction.
Along with the said suit, petitioner filed I.A.No.249 of 2016 for grant of
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019
temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., wherein
temporary injunction was granted on 18.01.2017. Questioning the same,
petitioners filed C.M.A.No.22 of 2018 before Principal District Judge, Jangaon,
and the same was dismissed on 30.06.2022. Aggrieved by the said order,
petitioners filed C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022 before this Court and the same was also
dismissed on 20.02.2023
20. The State of Telangana, while repealing the Telangana Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, legislated new enactment, namely, the Telangana
Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (Act No.9 of 2020), and the
same is came into force with effect from 29.10.2020. By virtue of repealing the
Act, 1971, respondent No.2 is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate the revision
under Section 9 of R.O.R. (old) Act. However, as per the provisions of the new
enactment Act 9 of 2020, Special Tribunal Rules were constituted under
G.O.Ms.No.4 Revenue (Assignment-I) Dept., dated 12.01.2021, in every District
for adjudication of pending cases. Hence, the Revision Case No.B2/1460/2017
has to be adjudicated by the Special Tribunal, Jangaon District.
21. In view of the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down in the
above said judgments "supra", the impugned order passed by respondent No.2
is set aside and the matter is remitted back to Special Tribunal, Jangaon District,
with a direction to consider the Revision Case No.B2/1460/2017 filed by
respondent No.6 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after
giving notice and opportunity to the petitioners as well as unofficial respondent,
JSR, J
W.P.Nos.8831 & 20391 of 2019
within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Till such time, the parties are directed to maintain Status Quo in respect
of the entries made in the revenue records. It is needless to observe that both
parties are entitled to raise all the grounds which are available under law.
22. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No
costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in both the writ
petitions shall stand closed.
____________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 26.04.2024
Note:
Registry is directed to communicate
the copy of this Order to the District
Collector, Jangaon District.
(b/o)
mar
