Telangana High Court
Smt. Korem Lakshmi vs The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its ... on 22 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No.6700 of 2017
% Dated 22.01.2024
# Smt Korem Lakshmi, W/o.late Mukanda Reddy,
Aged about 75 years, R/o.Kothagattu Village,
Sankarampatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District
and 2 others
....Petitioners
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and 5 others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy,
^ Counsel for Respondent
Nos.1 to 4 : Assistant Government Pleader
for Revenue
^ Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao,
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. MANU/AP/0028/2003=2003(1) ALD 826=2003(1) ALT 688
2. 2011 (1)SCC 484
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.6700 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" ...to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a
Writ of Certiorari, calling for all the connected records
including the impugned Proceedings of the 2ndrespondent
passed in Memo No.D1/4798/2016 dated 17.12.2016 as
illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law
violative of principles of natural justice and without
jurisdiction and quash the same and pass such order or
orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
The Brief facts of the case are as under;
2. Petitioner No.1 had submitted online application on
25.05.2016, through Meeseva, to Respondent No.4, for issuance of
death certificate of late Korem Papaiah who is none other than her
father-in-law and the said application was forwarded to the
respondent No.3 through letter dated 3-6-2016, recommending for
issuance of death certificate and basing upon the said report
respondent No.3 issued Memo No.E/7226/2016 dated 13.06.2016
stating that, the fact of death of late Korem Papaiah was confirmed
as in the year 1968, but the exact date of death could not be
ascertained. Therefore, request for issuance of death certificate
was rejected.
3. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.5 filed application on
05.11.2016 before respondent No.2 and requested him to conduct
enquiry and take necessary action. After due verification of the
records respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 17-12-
2016 vide Memo No.D1/4798/2016 cancelling the memo dated
13.06.2016 issued by the respondent No.3. Questioning the same
petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
4. Heard Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Sri K.Ram Mohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao,
learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy,
learned counsel for respondent No.5. In spite of service of notice,
respondent No.6 has not chosen to enter appearance.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners vehemently
contended that respondent No.2 is not having any authority or
jurisdiction to entertain the application dated 05.11.2016 filed by
the respondent No.5 and treating the same as appeal/revision
invoking the provisions of Section 158 of A.P (Telangana Area)
Land Revenue Act,1317 Fasli (for short "the Act 1317 Fasli"),
especially when the respondent No.3 passed order/memo dated
13.06.2016 under the Provisions of Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 (for short 'the Act'), and the provisions of "the
Act 1317 Fasli" is not applicable. Hence, the impugned order dated
17.12.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction
and the same is liable to be set aside.
5.1 He further contended that respondent No.5 has not filed
appeal as prescribed under law and he only submitted application
and as such the same cannot be treated as an appeal. He also
contended that respondent No.3 without issuing any notice and
opportunity to the petitioner No.1, who is a effected party, passed
the impugned order and the same is in violation of the principles
of natural justice.
5.2 In support of his contentions, he relied upon the Division
Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in
M.B.Ratnam and Ors. Vs.Revenue Divisional Officer and
Ors. 1
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.5, vehemently contended that petitioner No.1
1 MANU/AP/0028/2003=2003(1) ALD 826=2003(1) ALT 688
submitted application dt: 25.05.2016 to the respondent No.3, for
issuance of death certificate of late Korem Papaiah, more than 48
years after his death, without explaining any reasons for the said
delay and not produced any iota of evidence that Korem Papaiah
died on particular date. He further contended that petitioner No.1,
with a malafide intention filed application before respondent No.3,
to defeat the rights over property of the respondent No.5 to an
extent of Acs.1-27 guntas in Sy.No.712/A, situated Molangur
Village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District, though
he had purchased the same from Korem Papaiah in the year 1970
through sada sale deed by paying valuable sale consideration and
the same was regularized/validated by the then MRO,
Shakarapatnam, and issued 13-B Proceedings and his name was
mutated in the revenue records, pattadar pass book and title deed
were also issued.
6.1 He further contented that respondent No.4 submitted a
report basing upon the fabricated documents i.e. death ceremony
cards produced by the petitioner No.1, wherein in one of the card
it was mentioned that late Korem Papaiah died on 18.11.1968 and
in another document it was mentioned that as he died on
28.11.1968. Basing upon the alleged report respondent No.3
without conducting any independent enquiry and in the absence of
evidence, issued Memo dated 13.06.2016, holding fact that the
death of late Korem Papiah was confirmed as in the year 1968, but
the exact date of death could not be confirmed and the same is
contrary to the law.
6.2 He further contended that respondent No.3 without issuing
any notice and opportunity to the respondent No.5 who is really
effected party passed order on 13.06.2016 and the same is clear
violation of principles of natural justice.
6.3 He further contented that respondent No.2 has rightly
exercised the powers conferred under the provisions of Act 1317
Fasli, and passed the impugned order dated 17.12.2016, and there
is no illegality and irregularity in the said order to invoke the
jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that when
the irregular order passed by respondent No.3 was brought to the
notice of was respondent No.2, he being a superior officer, rightly
passed the impugned order and the same is in accordance with
law.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, the following points arise for consideration.
(i) Whether respondent No.2 is having jurisdiction to
entertain the application of respondent No.5 and pass
the impugned order dated 17.12.2016, exercising the
powers conferred under the provisions of Section 158 of
A.P (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli ?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief in
the writ petition?
(iii) What relief?
9. As per the pleadings and documents filed in support of the
writ petition it reveals that, petitioner No.1 had submitted
application on 25.05.2016 through Meeseva for issuance of death
certificate of late Korem Papaiah and respondent No.4 forwarded
the said application to respondent No.3 and submitted proposals
for issuance of death certificate vide report dated 03.06.2016.
Basing upon the said report, respondent No.3 passed order vide
Memo.No.E/7226/2016 dated 13.06.2016, rejecting the
application for issuance of death certificate. However, by relying
upon the report of respondent No.4, he stated that the fact of the
death of late Korem Papaiah was confirmed as in the year 1968,
but the exact date of death could not be confirmed. It is very much
relevant to extract the said order which reads as follows:
"It is to inform you that, through reference 1st
cited, you have filed an application in Meeseva
through vide application No. LRBD021600687518
regarding the issue of Late Registration of Death
Certificate of Sri Late Korem Papaiah S/o
Machaiah.
Through reference the 2nd cited, the
Tahsildar, Shanakarapatnam has forwarded and
recommended the proposals of Smt. Korem Laxmi,
W/o.Late Mukunda Reddy for issue of Late
Registration of Death Certificate.
On Verification of the proposals submitted by
the Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam it is noticed that,
the applicant's father-in-law was expired (48)
years long back and mentioned the date of death
as 28.11.1968, and applied as per Late
Registration of Birth & Death Act, 1969.
In this regard, as per the report submitted
by Tahsildar,Shankarapatnam, vide Reference 2nd
cited, the fact of the death of Sri Late
KoremPapaiah was confirmed as in the year 1968,
but the exact date of death could not be confirmed.
The request for issue of death certificate is
rejected."
10. It further appears from the record that aggrieved by the order
dated 13.06.2016 to the extent of confirming the year of death of
Late Korem Papiah as in the year 1968, respondent No.5
approached respondent No.2 and filed application dt: 05.11.2016
and the said authority while exercising the powers conferred under
the Provisions of Act 1317 Fasli, and after due verification of the
records passed the impugned order dated 17.12.2016, cancelling
the Memo/order passed by respondent No.3 dated 13.06.2016.
11. It is very much relevant to place on record that respondent
No.3 has not passed the above said order dated 13.06.2016 under
the Provisions of the Act 1317 Fasli. Respondent No.2 is having
authority and jurisdiction to entertain the appeal invoking the
provisions of Sec.158 of the Act, if any decision or order is passed
by a Revenue Officer under the Act 1317 Fasli. Hence respondent
No.2 treating the application dated 05.11.2016 filed by respondent
No.5 as an appeal and passing order invoking the provisions of
Sec. 158 of the Act 1317 Fasli, is not permissible under law.
12. In M.B.Ratnam and Ors(supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this court specifically stated that A.P.Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (ROR Act) being a special law in
relation to record of rights shall prevail over the provisions of the
Act 1317 Fasli and the remedies provided under the ROR Act alone
would be available to the aggrieved individual. It is relevant to
extract Paragraph No.66, which reads as follows:
"66. We have no doubt whatsoever in our mind to hold
that the A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli is a
general law which deals mainly with land revenue and
allied matters whereas the R.O.R. Act not only being a
subsequent Act but also being a special law in relation to
record of rights shall prevail over the provisions of the
A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. In our
considered opinion, the remedy provided under Section
158 of the Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli is not available
to challenge any order passed by the Mandal Revenue
Officer under the provisions of the R.O.R. Act. The
remedies provided under the R.O.R. Act alone would be
available to the aggrieved individual. The contention
urged by the learned Counsel for respondents is
accordingly rejected. Thus, the appeals preferred by the
respondents herein before the first respondent cannot be
treated as appeals filed under Section 158 of the Land
Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.
13. Similarly, respondent No.3, rejected the claim of the
petitioner No.1 for issuance of death certificate on the ground of
non-availability of exact date of death of late Korem Papaiah,
solely basing upon the report of respondent No.4 dated 03.06.2016
and confirmed the year of death of late Korem Papaiah as 1968.
Learned counsel for respondent No.5, had rightly pointed out that
the documents relied upon by the petitioner No.1 itself shows that
in one document it was mentioned that late Korem Papaiah died
on 18.11.1968 and in another document it was mentioned that as
he died on 28.11.1968.
14. It also reveals that, respondent No.3 without following
mandatory procedure as prescribed under law, and without giving
any notice to the effected parties, especially respondent No.5, who
is claiming the rights over the subject property, basing upon the
sadha sale deed executed by the late Korem Papaiah in the year
1970, passed the order dated 13.06.2016. By virtue of finding
given by respondent No.3 in the above said order, that the death of
late Korem Papaiah was confirmed as in the year 1968, the rights
of respondent No.5 were going to be effected. Hence the order
passed by the respondent No.3 is clear violation of principles of
natural justice. If this Court allows the writ petition it amounts to
upholding the irregular order passed by respondent No.3.
15. It is very much relevant to place on record that in M.
Sudakar vs. V. Manoharan and Others 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that the power to mold relief is always available to the Court
possessed with the power to issue high prerogative writs. In order
to do complete justice, it can mold the relief depending upon the
2 2011 (1)SCC 484
facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts of a given case, a
Writ Petitioner may not be entitled to the specific relief claimed by
him, but this itself will not preclude the Writ Court from granting
such other relief to which he is otherwise entitled. Hence, although
there may be no specific prayer, the Court thinks that, to meet the
requirements and to do complete justice in the matter, the relief
can be molded by the Court.
16. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court while exercising
the powers conferred under the Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to render substantial justice to the parties, is of the consider
view that, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 dated
17.12.2016 as well as order passed by respondent No.3 in memo
dated 13.06.2016, are liable to be setaside. Accordingly set aside.
17. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the application
submitted by the petitioner dated 25.05.2016 and pass
appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after issuing notice
and opportunity to the petitioners, respondent No.5 and other
effected parties if any, including personal hearing, within a period
of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
It is needless to observe that both the parties are entitled to raise
all the grounds as are available under law. Point Nos.i to iii are
answered accordingly.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this writ petition,
shall stand closed.
______________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO,J
Dated 22.01.2024
Note:L.R.Copy to be marked.
b/o.
Smk
