Anup Kumar Roy, Hyd And Another vs M/S Sri Aditya Homes Private Ltd., Hyd ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2636 Tel

Telangana High Court

Anup Kumar Roy, Hyd And Another vs M/S Sri Aditya Homes Private Ltd., Hyd ... on 10 July, 2024

   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                                  AND

  THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

W.A.Nos.408, 439, 442, 542, 543, 623 and 649 of 2011


COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)

Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel

representing Mr. N.M.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for

appellants in W.A.Nos.408, 439 and 442 of 2011.

Mr. T.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the

appellants in W.A.Nos.623 and 649 of 2011.

Mr. Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for appellants

Nos.2, 4 and 5 in W.A.No.542 of 2011.

Ms. Anitha Swain, learned counsel for appellant Nos.6

to 11 in W.A.No.543 of 2011.

Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel

representing Ms. C.Apoorva Reddy, learned counsel

appears for respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.439 and 543 of

2011.

Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing

Ms. C.Apoorva Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1

in W.A.No.649 of 2011.

Mr. M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.9 to 20 in W.A.No.408 of 2011.

2. Aggrieved by the common order of the learned Single

Judge in the W.P.Nos.24525, 24506 of 2008 (allowed) and

28272 of 2008 (dismissed), the following seven (7) Writ

Appeals have been filed:

I. Three writ appeals filed:

W.A.No.439 of 2011 - Filed by Cyrus Investments

W.A.No.543 of 2011 - Filed by Mohd.Qamuruddin Khan and Others

W.A.No.649 of 2011 - Filed by Anup Kumar Roy and Mohd. Mustafa Ali

Against

W.P. No. 24506 of 2008:

Aditya Homes - Petitioner

Mohd. Qamuruddin Khan and 4 Others - Respondent Nos. 4 to 8

Nawab Mohd. Naseeruddin Khan - Respondent No. 9

Anup Kumar Ray and Mohd. Mustafa Ali - Respondent Nos. 10 and 11

II. Three writ appeals filed:

W.A. No. 442 of 2011 - Filed by Cyrus Investments

W.A. No. 542 of 2011 - Filed by Mohd. Qamuruddin Khan and Others

W.A. No. 623 of 2011 - Filed by Anup Kumar Roy and Mohd. Mustafa Ali

Against

W.P. No. 24525 of 2008:

Ganesh Pershad and 11 Others (Suraj Bhan Family) - Petitioners

Mohd. Qamuruddin Khan and 4 Others - Respondent Nos. 4 to 8

Nawab Mohd. Naseeruddin Khan - Respondent No. 9

Anup Kumar Ray and Mohd. Mustafa Ali - Respondent Nos.10-11.

III. One writ appeal filed:

W.A. No. 408 of 2011 - Filed by Cyrus Investments Ltd.

Against

W.P. No. 28272 of 2008:

Cyrus Investments Ltd. - Petitioner

Mohd. Qamuruddin Khan and 4 Others - Respondent Nos. 4 to 8

Ganesh Pershad and 11 Others (Suraj Bhan Family) -

Nawab Mohd. Naseeruddin Khan - Respondent No.21

Since the issue involved is common in all the Writ

Appeals, they are heard together and are being disposed of

by this common judgment.

3. For brevity, facts and parties as arrayed in

W.A.No.408 of 2011 are referred to.

Brief facts:

The subject matter pertains to parcel of land

admeasuring Ac.7.05 guntas in Sy.No.1, situated at Darga

Hussain Shavali Village, Serilingampally Village. As per the

appellant in W.A.No.408 of 2011, one Bahadurunnisa

Begum was the owner of subject land and sold the subject

property to H.E.H. Nizam under registered sale deed dated

26.04.1964. M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited purchased

the subject property from H.E.H. Nizam. Thereafter, name

of M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited entered in the revenue

records.

3.1 Legal heirs of Bahadrunnisa Begum, namely

respondent Nos.4 to 8 filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of

the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass

Books Act, 1971 (for short 'ROR Act, 1971') before Special

Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional officer (for

Short 'RDO'), Chevella Division, i.e., respondent No.2

herein, on the ground that, Mandal Revenue Officer (for

short 'MRO'), Serlingampally, i.e., respondent No.3 herein,

sanctioned mutation of subject property in the names of

Ganesh Pershad, Jagadish Pershad and Mahavir Pershad,

legal heirs of one Suraj Bhan. However, their names are

required to be deleted and names of respondent Nos.4 to 8

have to be entered in the revenue records. It is the case of

legal heirs of Smt. Bahadrunnissa Begum that her name

was deleted and names of legal heirs of late Suraj Bhan i.e.,

Ganesh Pershad, Jagadish Pershad and Mahavir Pershad,

were inserted without notice. RDO in the appeal by order,

dated 22.05.2007, directed deletion of names of Ganesh

Pershad, Jagadish Pershad and Mahavir Pershad from

revenue records and directed to enter the names of

respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein in the revenue records.

3.2 Revision under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971 was

preferred before Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy (for short

'JC') by respondent Nos. 9 to 20 and respondent No.21

herein in Case No.D5/2437/2008. Another revision petition

was filed by the appellant herein i.e., M/s. Cyrus

Investments Limited vide Case No.D5/2437/1/2008. JC

upholding the order of RDO disposed of both the appeals by

common order, dated 18.10.2008. In the revision petition

filed by respondent Nos.9 to 20 in Case No.D5/2437/2008,

the JC held that RDO was right in passing the order. In the

revision petition filed by M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited in

Case No.D5/2437/1/2008, JC observed that revision

petitioner failed to establish the claim of the company's

case. JC further held that subject property is no longer

agricultural land and as there is a dispute of title between

the parties, it was not open to revenue authorities to

entertain the proceedings under ROR Act, 1971. It was also

held that the appropriate course of action is to refer both

the disputes to civil Court with a direction to get their civil

rights adjudicated through appropriate proceedings before

the civil Court.

3.3 W.P.No.24525 of 2008 is filed by Ganesh Pershad and

others, W.P.No.24506 of 2008 is filed by M/s. Aditya

Homes Private Limited, claiming to be the agreement holder

of Ganesh Pershad and others and W.P.No.28272 of 2008

is filed by M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited.

3.4 Learned Single Judge by a common order, dated

08.04.2011, allowed W.P.Nos.24506 and 24525 of 2008

and dismissed W.P.No.28272 of 2008. Challenging the

common order, the Writ Appeals are filed.

4. Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of appellant in W.A.Nos.408, 439 and

442 of 2011 (M/s. Cyrus Investments, Writ Petitioner in

W.P.No.28272 of 2008) submitted that appellant purchased

the decreetal rights of Bahadurunnissa Begum vide

registered sale deed dated 26.04.1964 and sought for

incorporation of appellant's name in revenue records. It is

further submitted that learned Single Judge having set

aside the order of JC dated 18.10.2008 and orders of RDO

dated 22.05.2007 and 24.03.2008 on the ground that

orders were passed against dead persons and in violation of

principles of natural justice, should have remanded the

matter. It is also submitted that JC in his order opined that

the insertion of name of Suraj Bhan by deleting the name of

Bahadurunnissa Begum was a collusive act of MRO and

hence it being an act of fraud, ground of delay would be of

no consequence in seeking rectification. It is fairly

submitted that order of the RDO, dated 22.05.2007, was

against dead persons and no notice was issued to legal

heirs and the matter could have been remanded.

5. It is submitted by Mr. M.V.Durga Prasad, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.9 to 20 in W.A.No.408 of 2011

(i.e., Ganesh Pershad and 11 Others (Suraj Bhan Family)

that Suraj Bhan purchased the property vide registered

document No.2490/1964 from successor-in-interest of

Jahandurunnisa Begum, that his name was entered in the

revenue records from 1964-65, after his demise in 1973,

names of his three sons Ganesh Pershad, Jagdeesh

Pershad and Mahaveer pershad were entered in the

revenue records and after their demise, names of

respondent Nos.9 to 20 i.e., their legal heirs were mutated

in the revenue records by MRO vide proceedings dated

10.01.1994 and that they have entered into development

agreement with M/s. Aditya Homes Private Limited

(petitioner in W.P.No.24506 of 2008). It is also submitted

that respondent Nos.4 to 8 filed appeal before RDO against

entries in the revenue records and no challenge is made to

mutation proceedings. It is further submitted that

challenge to entries in revenue records after long delay

cannot be entertained. It is urged that respondent Nos.9 to

20 filed an appeal against order of RDO and the JC on an

erroneous finding confirmed the order of RDO. It is also

submitted that M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited is not a

party to the proceedings before the RDO, but filed an

appeal before JC for insertion of the name in revenue

records. Learned counsel has supported the order of the

learned Single Judge. It is contended that appellant in

W.A.No.408 of 2011 is seeking implementation of RDO

order and the request cannot be granted and the

submission of remand is untenable.

6. Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of appellant in W.A.Nos.408, 439 and

442 of 2011 (M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited, Writ

Petitioner in W.P.No.28272 of 2008) in his reply to the

contention raised that there is only a stray entry in the

pahani for the year 1983-84, submitted that JC has

observed that in the khasra pahani, the name of

Bahadurunnissa Begum is reflected and the same would be

suffice as Khasra pahani is a crucial document. It is further

submitted that JC findings have not been considered by the

learned Single Judge that there is an over writing in the

revenue records and that the contention that there is delay

in approaching the authorities when fraud is played cannot

be sustained. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that if

only one conclusion is possible, a writ would not be issued

only because there was violation of principles of natural

justice. Reliance is placed on Md. Ammanullah Ghouri Vs.

Government of Andhra Pradesh and others1.

7. Mr. Raghu Gurram, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants in W.A.No.542 of 2011 (Mohd.

Qamuruddin Khan and 4 Others - Respondent Nos. 4 to 8

in W.P.No.28272 of 2008) supported the order of the JC

and submitted that the JC has rightly upheld the order of

RDO, and no interference was necessitated. It is further

submitted that as fraud is played and there being a title

dispute, same have to be decided by civil Court and the

matter be relegated to civil Court. It is urged that the order

of learned Single Judge is bad in law and be set aside. It is

submitted that as per Section 8(2) of the ROR Act, 1971, it

is the civil Court which is competent to decide the issues.

Ms. Anitha Swain, learned counsel for appellant Nos.6 to

11 in W.A.No.543 of 2011 has adopted the arguments of

2013 (3) ALD 345 (DB)

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in

W.A.No.542 of 2011.

8. Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel for

respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.439 and 543 of 2011

submitted that legal heirs (successors-in-interest) of Suraj

Bhan, entered into development agreement with

M/s. Aditya Homes Private Limited, under registered

documents dated 15.12.2005 and 23.06.2005. It is further

submitted Suraj Bhan Purchased property in the year 1964

and the names of Ganesh Pershad, Jagdish Pershad,

Mahaveer Pershad were recorded in pahanies after the

death of Suraj Bhan and that after demise of Ganesh

Pershad and Jagdish Pershad, the names of legal heirs

were entered in the revenue record in the year 1994. It is

also submitted that the RDO entertained the appeal for

rectification after 20 years on a stray entry in the record of

rights of the year 1983-84. It is urged that the RDO passed

order against dead persons, that legal heirs were not put on

notice and the names of dead persons were shown as

respondents by the respondent Nos.4 to 8 and an ex parte

order was invited by resorting to paper publication. It is

further urged that legal heirs of Suraj Bhan were

deliberately not arrayed as parties. It is lastly submitted

that the question of remand doesn't arise. Learned Senior

Counsel supported the order of the learned Single Judge.

9. Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel for

respondent No.1 in W.A.No.649 of 2011 adopted the

arguments of Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel

for respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.439 and 543 of 2011.

10. Mr. T.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the

appellants in W.A.Nos.623 and 649 of 2011 submitted that

Anup Kumar Roy and Mohd. Mustafa are GPA holders of

respondent Nos.4 to 8, vide GPA, dated 22.12.2006,

(hereinafter referred to as "GPA holders of respondent Nos.

4 to 8"). It is further submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 8

under the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, have authorized

them to appear and act in all Courts on their behalf,

appoint Advocates and sell the property in question and

execute sale deeds and file applications before revenue

authorities for succession and corrections of records. It is

also submitted that Suraj Bhan is not the owner of the land

in question, but Smt. Bahadurunissa Begum is the original

owner, that she died on 24.09.1972 leaving behind her

daughter Smt. Azeezunissa Begum, who died on

18.11.1981, leaving behind respondent Nos.4 to 8. He

submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 8 upon coming to know

that the names of the predecessors-in-interest of late Suraj

Bhan were mutated in the record of rights by then Mandal

Revenue Officer vide his proceedings dated 10.01.1984 and

24.05.1985, without following the procedure prescribed by

law, have filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act,

1971 before respondent No.2 i.e., RDO by making the

successors-in-interest of late Suraj Bhan, namely Ganesh

Pershad, Jagadish Pershad and Mahaveer Pershad as

party-respondents. Learned counsel supported the order of

RDO and JC. It is also submitted that the order of learned

Single Judge in setting aside the orders of RDO and JC is

bad and the Writ Appeals be allowed.

11. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and

considered the rival submissions.

12. The nature of dispute raised in the writ petitions and

the orders which are under appeal relate to correctness or

otherwise of the orders passed by revenue authorities in

relation to the mutation or correction/rectification of the

names of the persons in the record of rights. The question

of delving into the disputes as to ownership or title is not

within the purview of this Court. The aspect of dealing with

rights and liabilities of the parties arising out of the

Agreement of Sale-GPA doesn't arise.

13. An appeal in case No.3668/2006 was filed under

Section 5(5) of ROR, 1971 against wrong entries made in

the revenue records in respect of land bearing Sy.No.1

admeasuring Acs.7-05 gts situated at Darga Hussain

Shahvali Village of Serilingampally Mandal, by legal heirs of

Bahadurunnisa Begum, i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein,

stating that MRO, Serilingampally Mandal, without any

base sanctioned mutation in favour of respondent Nos.9, 10

and 17 in respect of subject land. RDO on 22.05.2007

passed the following order:

"Appeal is taken on file and issued notices to the respondents. In spite of repeated notices respondents are not served. On application for substantial service the same was order for paper publication on 21-4-2007 pursuant to the orders for substitute service the appellants published the notice in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily News paper for the Hyderabad District Edition on 24-4-2007 intimating the date of hearing as 11-5-2007. In spite of the said notice through paper publication respondents neither personally appeared on that day nor appeared through advocate on 11-5-2007.

Heard the arguments of the appellants and perused the documents and till date no counter is filed by the respondents.

The appellants contended that, their grand children and legal heirs of Late Bahadrunnisa Begum who was the

absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.1 adm. Ac.7-05 gts of Darga Hussain Shahvali Village, Serlingampally Mandal. R.R.Dist. In support of the same they relied as the copy of Sethwar. Pahanies for the year 1983-84, 1984-85 and orders of the Hon'ble High Court in application No.1076/2004 in C.S.14/58, dated 5-11-2004.

Copies of the Sethwar and Pahani patrika clearly indicates that Bahadurunnisa Begum was the absolute owner of the land in question and further it is clear as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court in Appl.No1076 of 2004 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 dated 5-11-2008, that the applicants are the legal heirs of Late Bahdurunnisa Begum

Appellants further contended that Smt. Bahadurunnisa Begum and her legal heirs never alienated the land in question in favour of any person including the respondent as pattedars is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice in the documents mentioned in pahani for the year 1983-84 and 1984-85 is no way concerned with appellants and their predecessor in title and further contended that the enquiry is conducted for mutation of the lands in favour of the respondents as required under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar passbooks Act 1971 and no faisal pattadar is issued changing the name of the pattadars of the land in question. In support of the contention they relied upon the Memo No. RK/201/2006 dated 2-2-2006 issued by the MRO. Serilingampally and documents No.2490/64 dated 2/9/1964. There is one Mr.Nawab Mohammed Mifthauddin Khan S/o. Late Nawab Abdul Fateh Khan Bahadur who is no way concerned with the land in

question as his name does not reflect in the Revenue Records. From the above discussion it is clear that, mutation took place in the year 1984-85 without conducting any enquiry and there is no faisal patti issued changing the names of the pattadars. The appeal is filed immediately; after knowing the illegal entries made in favour of the respondents and the mutation took place without knowledge to the appellants or their predecessor, as such the appeal is entertained.

To the foresaid reasons appeal is allowed and the entries made in favour of Respondents in respect of Sy.No.1 extent Ac.7-05 gts of Darga Hussain Shahwali Village, Serilingampally Mandal, is hereby set aside and the recording authority further directed MRO and in question in favour of appellants, who are the legal heirs of Late Bahadurunnisa Begum and the Revenue Records may be updated."

14. Pursuant to directions of order of RDO, dated

22.05.2007, MRO initiated the process for entry of names

in revenue records. On receiving notices from concerned

MRO, respondent Nos.9 to 20 and respondent No.21 filed

appeal before the RDO in case No.3668/2006 under

Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, 1971. RDO passed orders on

24.03.2008. A few relevant paragraphs of the order are

extracted, which are as follows:

"..In Pursuant of the said order the MRO has issued notices and Conducted enquiry. Basing on the enquiry and on receiving objection petition from the LRs of Respondents, the MRO has brought to the notice of this court that the orders are passed on dead persons and requested to re-open the Case and adjudicate the matter afresh.

In the mean time, in response to the notices issued by the MRO vide B/633/00 dated: 18-06-2007 and 16-07- 2007, the LRs of Respondents 1 and 2 have filed petitions, stating that they came to know through the notice dated 16- 07-2007 from MRO that this court was pleased to pass an order vide C/3668/2006 dtd.22-05-2007 after setting the dead persons ex parte and after publication in newspaper at the instance of the alleged appellants. The R-1 and R-2 died on 20-03-1987 and 15-03-1988 respectively leaving behind them as LRs. The names of LRs were mutated in Revenue Records and their names are shown in Pahanies since 1995-96. But they are not impleaded and no notices reserved on anyone. Further Smt. Bahadoorunnisa Begum through whom the appellant are claiming has nothing to do with the subject land and her name was never shown in the pahanies as any point of time. Neither she nor any one claiming through her have any right to question the entries and therefore they have no locus-standi to file appeal. Further no rectification is permissible under the guise of

appeal U/s 5(5) and not maintainable. The appeal U/S 5(5) of the ROR Act has to be filed within (60) days, but the appeals is filed after (22) years without giving any reasons what so ever for, condonation of delay and even an application for condonation of delay is not maintainable after such a long time. The set aside petition is filed within the period of limitation of (30) days, as per Article 123 of limitation Act, from the date of knowledge i.e., from the date of receipt of notice on 19-07-2007 from MRO. The Petitioners requested to set aside the order dated 22-05-2007 passed against the dead persons. Sri Mahaveer Pershad and his (3) sons have also filed the petition on similar grounds.

One Sri Nawab Mohd Naseeruddin Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Mohd Badruddin Khan, has filed impleading petition through his GPA Mohamined Jaweed, S/o. Mohd Jahangir, stating that Smt.Jahandarunnisa Begum the original pattadar expired in the year, 1949 only. After her demise, her son Nawabul Mulk has succeeded the said lands. After the demise of said Sultanul Mulk his son Fareed Nawaz Jung has succeeded him as pattadar of the said land. Said Fareed Nawaz Jung Bahadur has become the owner and pattadar of the said land through Muntakhab, issued by the office of the Directorate of Atiyat, Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide Certificate No. GCP-332/2000 dtd. 25-04-1960. After demise of said Nawab Fareed Jung his lonely daughter, Smt. Asmat Jahan Begum Saheba has succeeded him as his legal heir as per preliminary decree passed in OS No. 470of 1965 on the file of the Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. After the demise of said Asmatunnissa Begum, her son the impleading petitioner has succeeded as pattadar of the said land and his name was included as Defendant No. 60 in the said preliminary decree. Thus the impleading petitioner is successor of the Jaḥandarunnisa Begum (Lady Viquor) who is the Original Pattadar of the said land.

Further it is stated that the appellants have played a fraud and got inserted their names for the year 1983-84 and 1984-85 in respect of the said land, as if they are the pattadars and respondents are the tenants. The appellants filed the appeal alleging that there were some wrong entries made in Revenue Records for the year 1983-84. They intentionally got ex parte orders 22-05-2007 in their favour. The appellants are neither Concerned with the said land nor the pattadars of the same. The Original pattader Smt. Jahandaninnisa Begum was enjoying the land and she was has let out the said land to Suraj Bhan as tenant. After his demise the Respondents were Cultivating the land as Tenants only. But all of a sudden their names were found in the records as pattadars against which the appellants filed this Appeal. In fact neither the Appellants are owners nor the Respondents and this impleading petitioner being the legal heir of original pattadar is the pattadar of the said land. The MRO has mutated the names of the Respondents as pattadar without issuing any notice to the impleading petitioner. The same is liable to be set aside. The Appellants and Respondents gave fraudulently and mischievously filed this appeal in collusion. As such petitioner is necessary and

essential party to be impleaded for proper adjudication of the said case. Further they field another affidavit and petition reiterating the contents of impleading petition prayed to delete the names of Respondents as patiadars from Revenue Records.

The above petitions taken on file. On issuing the notices, the above petitioners who are the successors of Respondents 1 & 2 have filed counters and replies to the impleading petitions.

As per the death Certificates filed by the petitioners Ganesh Pershad died on 20-03-1987 and his successors are arrayed as Respondent No. 3 to 6. Jagadish Pershad died on 15-03-1988 and his successors are arrayed as. Respondents 7: 1 & 8 and the Original Respondents No.3 Mahaveer Pershad and his three sons are arrayed as Respondents 9 to 12."

15. After taking note of the facts pleaded by respondent

Nos.9 to 20 and respondent No.21 herein, RDO passed the

following order.

"ORDER:

The appeal is taken on file the report submitted by the Dy. Collector & MRO, Serilingampally Mandal. The appeal filed by the appellants herein have already been disposed by this court vide reference No.C/3668/2006 dated.22-5-2007: Therefore this court is not having any Jurisdiction to reopen

the case on passing of final orders u/s. 5 (5) of AP. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971.

In view of the above observations, the present appeal is disposed off and both the parties are at liberty to file appeals before the competent authorities aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities under relevant provisions of laws."

16. Aggrieved by order dated 22.05.2007 of RDO, Chevella

Division, two revisions were preferred before JC, Ranga

Reddy, under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971. Case

No.D5/2437/2008 was filed by respondent Nos.9 to 20

herein i.e., successors-in-interest of Suraj Bhan and Case

No.D5/2437/1/ 2008 was filed by M/s. Cyrus Investments

Limited, appellant herein. JC in his order dated 18.10.2008

held as follows:

"Both Revision Petitions are taken on file and called for the records from the M.R.O and R.D.O. The revision petition filed by the Ganesh Pershad, that the Vendor of the Suraj Bhanu has no right or title over the Sy.No.1 of Darga Hussain Shah Wali Property, Even as per Khasra pahani and Setwar, Bahadurunnisa Begum name was reflected. That the plan annexed to the sale deed dated: 02-09-64 in favour of Suraj Bhanu contains Begumpet Property, but not

the Sy.No.1 of Darga Hussain Shah Wali Property. The then M.R.O without looking into those facts, incorporated the name of the sons of Suraj Bhanu in revenue records by deleting the name of Bahadurunnisa Begum. The counsel for the respondents draw the attention on pahanis for the year 1983-84 and 1984-85, it is clearly mentioned as "Inkumarputo rayabadi unnadi". It appears that the then M.R.O colluded with the parties and incorporated the Ganesh Pershad names by deleting the name of Bahadurunnisa Begum in revenue record. As seen from the records passed in B1/1496/83, the then M.R.O did not follow the procedure prescribed in the provisions of R.O.R Act. As per R.O.R Act whenever M.R.O receives any application for mutation, the said M.R.O shall issue/cause notices to all interested parties to the said property. But in the present case the then M.R.O did not issue any notice to Bahadurunnisa Begum or her legal heirs, though their names were reflecting in the Setwar and Khasra pahani and pahanis and incorporated the names of Ganesh Perrshad and others in the revenue records. When this fact was brought to the notice of the R.D.O by the Respondents herein in the 1st week of September, 2006 by way of Appeal, the R.D.O rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein and directed the M.R.O to delete the name of revision petitioners herein incorporate the names of the respondents herein in revenue records. When the parties played fraud and incorporated their names in revenue records, the lower appellate authority either suo motto or on application, can correct the entries by passing final order. Even M/s. Cyrus Investment Ltd., also failed to

establish his case and the alleged claim of the said company basing the sale deed in respect of the item 33 of Schedule - IV of C.S.No. 14/58, but not Sy.No.1 of Darga Hussain Shah Wali Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District. Hence they have no right or interest over the said property i.e Sy.No.l of Darga Hussain Shah Wali. However, the suit, scheduled land is no longer an agricultural land and moreover, the contention of the parties examined clearly, there is a dispute of title is raised, it is not open to revenue authorities to entertain proceedings under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The appropriate course of action is to refer both the disputants to the Civil Court with a direction to get their civil rights adjudicated through appropriate proceedings before the civil court.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it may not be proper and competent for this court to enquire and decide, as such questions can only be decided by civil court, nor such questions can be decided in a summary enquiry like this, further, this court being an authority under the statue has to take its power only to the specific provisions of the statue and hence cannot assume the role of civil court.

Therefore, the parties are directed to approach, the civil court, get the title dispute evolved, there after approach the revenue authorities for appropriate relief under the act."

17. Challenging the orders of revenue authorities of JC

and RDO, three writ petitions were filed. M/s. Sri Aditya

Homes Private Limited, represented by its Managing

Director and legal heirs of late Ganesh Pershad and late

Jagadish Pershad, filed W.P.Nos.24506 and 24525 of 2008

respectively, praying for the following relief:

"to issue an appropriate writ or order, more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in R.P.No.D5/2437/2008 and D5/2437/1/2008, confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent in File No.C/3668/2006, dated 22.05.2007 and 24.03.2008 passed against dead persons, directing deletion of entries in the pahanies from 1983-84 onwards, and quash the same, as being illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

18. M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited, represented by their

General Power of Attorney, Dr. P.S. Prasad, filed

W.P.No.28272 of 2008, praying for the following relief:

"to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the order of the 1st respondent in File No.D5/2437/08, dated 18.10.2008 and consequently direct the implementation of the appellate order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, in File

No. C/3668/2006, dated 22.05.2007 and further direct the revenue authority/appellate authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of mutation over the subject land admeasuring Acs.7.09 cents in Sy.No.1 of Darga Hussain Shahwali village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, based on the orders passed in C.S.No.14 of 1958 and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case".

19. Learned Single Judge by order dated 08.04.2011

dismissed W.P.No.28272 of 2008 filed by M/s. Cyrus

Investments Limited, and allowed writ petitions filed by

M/s. Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited and the legal heirs of

late Ganesh Pershad and late Jagadish Pershad, i.e.,

W.P.Nos.24506 and 24525 of 2008. The relevant portion of

the order is as follows:

"In the instant case, as noted above, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 neither made the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 as party respondents nor respondent No.2 issued notice to them, even though their names were recorded in the record of rights. The publication of notice in the newspaper after the notices sent to the dead persons returned unserved, as held by the Full Bench of this Court, in the above referred case, cannot be treated as effective and valid service of notice on

the persons whose names are recorded in the Record of Rights. That being so, the order dated 22.05.2007 passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1, vide orders dated 18.10.2008, passed in revision, directing deletion of the names of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 and directing mutation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, being an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and a nullity, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. There can be no dispute on the proposition of law that an order passed setting aside an invalid order or passed without jurisdiction, cannot be interfered with because any interference therewith, would amount to reviving or resurrecting an invalid order. In the case on hand, the names of successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, namely Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad, were recorded way back in the years 1975-76, and after their death, the names of their legal heirs, namely petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, were recorded in the revenue records. Even though, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and respondent Nos. 10 and 11 contend that the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan and subsequently after their death, their legal heirs got their names recorded in the Record of Rights, in collusion with the then Mandal Revenue Officer, without issuing notice to others, the fact remains, the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, does not contain the proceedings relating to the mutation effected long back. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing

on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 merely sought to justify the order of respondent No.2 dated 22.05.2007, which was confirmed in revision by respondent No. 1 by order dated 18.03.2008, stating that it has set aside an illegal order. In the absence of any record, to show that the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan were recorded in the record of rights by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, illegally and without following the procedure, no exception can be taken to the recording of the names of the successors- in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan. In M.B. Ratnam v. Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R. Dist., a Division Bench of this Court held: The entries in the record of rights are made after holding public enquiries. The entries made in the record of rights carry with them a great evidentiary value, sometimes they constitute the only evidence available in order to establish one's title to the lands. The record of rights is thus prepared, maintained and updated by the public servants in discharge of their official duties. It would be impossible to accept that the entries made in the record of rights in the instant case which remained in the record of rights for a period of over 10 years have not been notified by the respondents until they have preferred the appeals before the appellate authority. The vague expression offered by the respondents about the entries and the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, is totally unacceptable. In the case on hand, the names of the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, were said to have been recorded in the record of rights about 43 years back, and while respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed appeal before respondent No.2, without explaining the long and inordinate delay in filing the appeal properly, except

stating that the successors-in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, got their names recorded in the record of rights, illegally in collusion with the then Mandal Revenue Officer, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Be that as it may, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and respondent Nos. 10 and 11, as already noted above, in the appeal filed before respondent No.2, merely sought rectification of the entries in the record of rights. They filed the appeal only against the successors- in-interest of late Sri. Suraj Bhan, namely Sri. Ganesh Pershad, Sri. Jagadish Pershad and Sri. Mahaveer Pershad. By the time, they filed appeal before respondent No.2, already the names of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008, were recorded in the record of rights, vide proceedings dated 10.01.1994 of the then Mandal Revenue Officer. However, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 neither made them parties to the appeal nor sought setting aside the order dated 10.01.1994, passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, mutating the names of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24525 of 2008 in the record of rights, except stating that they did not question, because the said order was not served on them, and that in spite of their best efforts, they could not obtain a copy of the same. In that view of the matter, the order dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2, which was confirmed by respondent No.1, vide orders dated 18.10.2008, passed in revision, is not binding on the petitioners in W.P.No.24525 of 2008, because it was passed without notice to them. In view of the above, there is no need to go into the questions whether the petitioner in W.P.No.24506 of 2008, which entered into development agreements with the petitioners in W.P.No.24525 of 2008 or the petitioner in W.P.No.28272 of

2008, who filed the same claiming that they have purchased the suit schedule property, from HEH Nizam, who is said to have purchased the same from Smt. Bahadurunissa Begum, which filed W.P.No.28272 of 2008, is entitled to incorporation of their names in the Record of Rights, because whatever rights their title-holders get in the land, will flow to them. Since the order dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1, is against dead persons and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the same cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. However, the setting of the impugned orders, does not preclude the parties to agitate their rights before the appropriate authorities/forum. For all the foregoing reasons, the order dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1, vide orders dated 18.10.208, passed in revision, are set aside. Consequently, W.P. Nos. 24506 and 24525 of 2008, which questioned the said orders, are allowed. Since the order dated 22.05.2007 passed by respondent No.2, as confirmed by respondent No.1, vide orders dated 18.10.2008, passed in revision, are set aside, the order dated 24.03.2008, passed by respondent No.2, refusing to set aside the ex parte order dated 22.05.2007, which merged with order dated 18.10.2008 of respondent No.1 in revision, is also set aside. As a result thereof, the writ petition in W.P. No. 28272 of 2008, which sought implementation of the order dated 22.05.2007, passed by respondent No.2, is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed".

20. It is evident from the record that MRO vide order,

dated 10.01.1994, mutated the names of legal heirs of

Ganesh Pershad and Jagdish Pershad, successors-in-

interest to the property of Suraj Bhan, in the revenue

records under ROR Act, 1971. Respondent Nos.4 to 8 filed

appeal before the RDO in the year 2006, for insertion of

their names in revenue records claiming to be legal heirs of

Bahadrunnisa Begum. RDO passed an order on

22.05.2007. Order of RDO was an ex parte order and it is

recorded in the order that notices were issued to

respondents, but returned and a paper publication was

directed to be issued. A notice by way of paper publication

in Andhra Jyothi Telugu daily news paper, Hyderabad

edition was issued on 28.04.2007. The order of RDO does

not reflect the name of any advocate or representative

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.9, 10 and 17. RDO

by order, dated 22.05.2007, directed the MRO to enter the

names of legal heirs of Bahadrunnisa Begum i.e.,

respondent Nos.4 to 8 in the revenue records. Pursuant to

directions of RDO, MRO initiated proceedings.

21. It is trite to note that Ganesh Pershad died in the year

1987, Jagdish Pershad died in the year 1988 and

subsequent to their death, legal heirs of late Ganesh

Pershad and Jagadish Pershad, namely Om Prakash,

Deepak Kumar, Rajender Kumar, Vikas Kumar, Mahender

Kumar, Pavan Kumar, Anil Kumar, Sunil Kumar, and

Manish Kumar and Mahaveer Pershad succeeded to the

property, and their names were entered in the revenue

records, vide proceedings dated 10.01.1994. Surprisingly

Ganesh Pershad, Jagdish Pershad, Mahaveer Pershad were

made respondents in the appeal before RDO. Appeal was

filed on 18.11.2006, as on that date, names of respondent

Nos.9 to 20 were very much there in the record of rights.

Though Mahaveer Pershad, was alive, address was wrongly

mentioned. The fact that notices were sent to wrong

addresses, though names of legal heirs appeared in the

revenue records and they were not arrayed as parties in

appeal before RDO is suffice to infer that the appeal was

not being pursued in the right spirit. Appeal filed against

dead persons, legal heirs not arrayed as parties, notices

sent to wrong addresses, reflect the very nature of appeal

being pursued and order passed.

22. Due service of notice is presumed when it is sent to

the correct address. In Chinnam Pandurangam v.

Mandal Revenue Officer 2, a Full Bench of this Court held

as follows:

"The requirement of issuing notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment is independent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rules 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive provision contained in

2 AIR 2008 AP 15

Section 5(3), which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment".

Order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, dated

18.10.2008, cannot be sustained.

23. MRO, who initiated proceedings for rectification,

pursuant to directions of RDO, enlightened the fact to RDO

that order was passed against dead persons and requested

to reopen the case and adjudicate the matter afresh. After

receipt of notices from MRO, respondent Nos.9 to 20 and

respondent No.21 herein filed appeal before RDO. RDO

disposed of appeal on 24.03.2008 with the observation that

parties were at liberty to file appeals before competent

authorities as he was not empowered to reopen the case

having passed the final orders on 22.05.2007.

24. JC in his order, dated 18.10.2008, noted that records

were called from the concerned MRO and RDO. Appellate

Authority, during appeal proceedings, is under an

obligation to verify the entire record including orders

passed by the authorities below, before arriving at a

conclusion. A perusal of the order of RDO, dated

24.03.2008, would have enlightened the JC that concerned

MRO brought to the notice of RDO that order, dated

22.05.2007, was passed against dead persons. JC

confirmed the order passed by RDO demonstrating a

complete non-application of mind. JC grossly erred in

holding that the RDO rightly allowed the appeal. Order of

JC cannot be sustained. Needless to state that the orders

of RDO get merged into the order of JC. Learned Single

Judge has rightly set aside the impugned orders of JC and

RDO and further rightly observed that the same do not

preclude the parties to agitate their rights before

appropriate authorities/forum. This Court is not inclined to

take a different view from that of the learned Single Judge,

we are in agreement with the view, no grounds are made

out for interference.

25. As a result, W.A.No.408 of 2011 is dismissed and

W.A.Nos.439, 543 and 649 of 2011 arising out of

W.P.No.24506 of 2008 along with W.A.Nos.442, 542 and

623 of 2011 arising out of W.P.No.24525 of 2005 are

dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

__________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date:10.07.2024 KRR