Jrb Agro Private Limited vs The State Of Telangana

Telangana High Court

Jrb Agro Private Limited vs The State Of Telangana on 22 January, 2024

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

                 WRIT PETITION No.30740 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in not considering the letters dated 25.10.2023 addressed by the Petitioners seeking the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to not entertain any registration in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3-15 in Sy.No.35 & Ac.3-15 in Sy.No.36 situated at Vattinagulapally Village, Gandipet Mandal, R.R.District as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional..."

2. The petitioners are Agro Private Limited companies registered

under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners claim

to have purchased agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.3-15 gts in

Sy.No.35 & Ac.3-15 gts in Sy.No.36, situated at Vattinagulapally

Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered

sale deeds. It is the case of petitioners that questioning the orders

dated 22.10.1994 passed by the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar,

regularizing the subject lands in favour of Sri Sattaiah, their

predecessor-in-interest, the respondent No.5 filed an appeal on the

file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar, under Section 5

of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,

1971 (for short "Act, 1971") and the Rules made thereunder. After

contest, the said appeal was allowed vide order dated 01.10.2016 2

setting aside the regularization proceedings and the Revenue

Divisional Officer, directed for restoration of original entries in the

revenue records existing prior to regularization. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioners herein filed a revision on the file of Joint

Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 9 of the Act,

1971 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2018.

Challenging the same, the petitioners herein filed Writ Petition

No.37864 of 2018 on the file of this Court. After hearing the

submissions of the respective parties, the said Writ Petition came

to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2023. It is the

case of the petitioners that when the respondent No.5 along with

her family members, unlawfully and illegally made attempts to

interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the subject

property, they filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.544 of 2023 on the file

of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar, seeking perpetual injunction and the said Court was

pleased to grant status quo order on 17.10.2023 in favour of the

petitioners.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that unofficial respondents

taking advantage of entries made in Dharani Portal, are trying to

alienate land admeasuring Ac.3-15gts in Sy No.35 and Ac.3-15gts 3

in Sy.No.36 situated at Vattinagulapally Village, Gandipet Mandal,

R.R. District.

4. This Court vide order dated 04.12.2023 granted interim

order directing both the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as

on date, in all respects.

5. Considered the rival submissions of the respective counsel

and perused the record.

6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that aggrieved by the

orders dated 19.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.37864 of 2018,

the petitioners have filed Writ Appeal No.1 of 2024 on the file of

this Court. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court after

considering the rival claims of both parties and also the various

provisions of the Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder,

disposed of the said Writ Appeal vide judgment dated 03.01.2024.

Paras 10 and 11 of the said judgment, reads as follows:

"10. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that an alienation or transfer made or affected otherwise than by way of registered document, can be regularized. An agreement of sale cannot be said to be an alienation or transfer and therefore, the Tahsildar by an order dated 22.10.1994 grossly erred in regularizing the sale in favour of the appellant in respect of land measuring Acs.6.30 guntas. Respondent No.5 admittedly was not a party to the proceedings. When the aforesaid proceeding was brought to the notice of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer has 4

rightly set aside the order of regularization. The findings of fact had been recorded against the appellants by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Joint Collector and the learned Single Judge which do not call for any interference in this intra court appeal.

11. However, it is well settled that mere revenue entry does not confer any title on any party. Needless to state that in case any entries are made in pursuance of the orders impugned in this Writ Appeal, the same shall be subject to outcome of the civil suit which may be instituted by either of the parties."

7. It may be noted that there are disputes between the

petitioners and respondent No.5 with regard to title and ownership

over the subject property. Admittedly, the respondent No.5 has

filed an appeal on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer,

Rajendranagar under Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land

and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 challenging the order dated

22.10.1994 passed by the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar, regularizing

the subject lands in favour of Sri Sattaiah, predecessor-in-interest

of the petitioners. After contest, the said appeal was allowed vide

order dated 01.10.2016 setting aside the regularization

proceedings and the Revenue Divisional Officer, directed for

restoration of original entries in the revenue records existing prior

to regularization. It is the specific case of the petitioners that

taking advantage of entries made in Dharani Portal, unofficial

respondents are trying to alienate land admeasuring Ac.3-15gts in

Sy No.35 and Ac.3-15gts in Sy.No.36 situated at Vattinagulapally 5

Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is settled law

that revenue entries do not confer a title. The petitioner and

unofficial respondents are claiming rights in respect of the subject

property and inviting this Court to decide the question relating to

right, title and ownership of the subject property. Since there is a

title dispute between the parties, the writ petition is not the remedy

to resolve the disputes inter se between the parties, in the absence

of examining the documents of title and possession of the

respective parties.

8. In Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria 1 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, observed as follows:

"6: xxxx..... It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate direction to the authority concerned. If the real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is

1 (1992) 4 SCC 61 6

special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly." (emphasis supplied).

9. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal vs. B.D. Agarwal 2 , the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

"The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contra distinguished from a dispute involving public law character. It is also well-settled that a writ remedy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute."

It is well settled law that this Court is not having jurisdiction to

delve into the disputes and come to a conclusion with regard to

right, title and possession of the parties in the absence of

determining the validity or otherwise of their entitlement being

decided at the first instance.

10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to

exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, for granting relief as sought for by the petitioner. Since it is

stated that petitioners herein have instituted a civil suit vide

O.S.No.544 of 2023 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, against the respondent Nos.5,

6 and others seeking perpetual injunction, the parties are relegated