Telangana High Court

Salla Chandra Reddy And 4 Others vs State Of Telangana And 9 Others on 30 July, 2024

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                WRIT PETITION No.18138 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition came to be filed seeking to issue writ of

certiorari calling for records relating to the order dated 25.06.2021

passed in ST No.1/2021/D1/92/2017 by the respondent No.2 and

consequently quash the same and set aside the orders of the

respondent No.5 in proceedings in File Nos.B/ROR/25/89 and

B/ROR/26/989 dated 23.02.1990 and for other reliefs.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the successors

in interest of one S.Ram Reddy, who is said to have purchased the

property in an extent of Ac.4-15gts in Sy.No.151 of Uppal

Bagayath Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is also

their case that out of the said extent, an extent of Ac.2-08gts is

covered by registered sale deed vide document No.970/65/E dated

30.06.1965 and the remaining extent has been purchased under

Sadabainama. It is the case of the petitioners that the name of said

S.Ram Reddy has been entered in the revenue records and their

predecessors in interest are in possession of the property since

more than two decades. It is their further case that the respondent

Nos.6 to 10 claiming to be legal heirs of one Susheela and others

have fraudulently got entered their names in the revenue records,

relying upon the proceedings issued under Section 5A of the

Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbook Act, 1971 (for

short "ROR Act, 1971") in File No.B/ROR/25 and B/ROR/26/89

dated 23.12.1990. Aggrieved by the orders passed under Section

5A of the ROR Act, in favour of the respondent Nos.6 to 10, it is

stated that the petitioners filed appeal on the file of Revenue

Divisional Officer and the said appeals were dismissed on

30.11.2019 holding that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no

jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners filed a revision before the Joint Collector vide Revision

Case No.D5/1031/2010 and D5/1032/2010 and the same were

dismissed on 02.06.2012 on the ground that as on the date of

passing order by the appellate authority there was no provision of

appeal provided under Section 5B of the Act. Questioning the said

action, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.21600 and 22027 of 2012 on

the file of this Court and the same were partly allowed by this

Court vide common order dated 20.10.2016. The learned Single

Judge of this Court was of the opinion that as on the date of filing

revision, the Revisional Authority has power to deal with the orders

passed by the Tahsildar-respondent No.5 herein dated 23.02.1990,

and placing reliance on the decision in M.B.Ratnam and others v.

Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District and others 1,

2003 (1) ALD 826 (DB)

the order dated 02.06.2012 passed in case Nos.D5/1031/2010

and D5/1032/2010, by the revisional authority-Joint Collector,

Ranga Reddy District, was set aside and the matters were

remanded back to the Joint Collector, for fresh disposal in

accordance with law.

3. Pending adjudication of the lis between the inter se parties

on the file of respondent No.3 herein i.e, Joint Collector, Ranga

Reddy District, the ROR Act, 1971 was repealed and replaced with

Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks, 2020 (Act 9 of

2020) and the Government exercising the powers under the

provisions of the said Act 9 of 2020, issued G.O.Ms.No.4, Revenue

(Assignment-I) Department dated 12.01.2021 constituted the

Special Tribunal with District Collector and Additional Collector

Revenue as members for disposal of cases pending before various

Revenue authorities under the Act, 9 of 2020. The Revision Cases

filed by the petitioners pending on the file of respondent No.3 were

transferred to the Special Tribunal, Medchal-Malkajgiri and

renumbered as ST No.1/2021/D1/92/2017 dated 25.06.2021.

Accordingly, the Special Tribunal while adjudicating the issue

whether to entertain the appeal or not after long lapse of 30 years,

observed that though, no prescribed period of time limit is

mentioned in the Act to entertain the revision, to decide the claim

after long lapse of time, since third party interests and nature of

land might have been changed and to order for any changes after

lapse of almost three decades, is not justifiable and with the above

observations, the appeal was disposed of granting liberty to the

aggrieved parties to approach competent court for redressal of

their claim. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is

filed.

4. This Court has carefully examined the contentions of the

respective parties and perused the record.

5. The case of the petitioners is that they are the successors in

interest of one Late S.Ram Reddy, who stated to have purchased

the land admeasuring Ac.4-15gts in Sy.No.151 of Uppal Bagayath

Village, under registered sale deed dated 30.06.1965 vide

document No.970/65/E dated 30.06.1965 and remaining extent of

land under Sadabainama. It is not in dispute that the names of the

unofficial respondents have been entered in the revenue records

vide file Nos.B/ROR/25/89 and B/ROR/26/89 by the Tahsildar.

Initially, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Revenue

Divisional Officer in File Nos.D5/1031/2010 and D5/1032/2010

questioning the proceedings initiated under Section 5A of the Act

and also issuance of pattedar passbooks and title deeds and

mutating the names in the revenue records. From 1989 to till the

date of filing appeal, the names of respondent Nos.6 to 10 have

been recorded in the revenue records either in the occupier column

or in the pattedar column. Admittedly, there is a serious dispute

with regard to the entries made in the revenue records. It is settled

law that mutation of entry in revenue records neither creates nor

extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title.

Such entry only enables the person in whose favor the mutation is

ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others 2,

held that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party

before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is

serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the

Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent court

and not to decide the question of title himself against the

occupant. Coming to the instant case, admittedly, the petitioners

have filed Revision Nos.D5/1031/2010 and D5/1032/2010 under

ROR Act after two decades. It is true that entries made in revenue

records can be challenged in Civil Suit but that does not mean that

the revenue authorities will not exercise any discretion which they

are entitled to do under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

The Revisional Authority who is conferred with the power has to

exercise revisional jurisdiction in a reasonable time. No doubt,

AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1297

this rule has an exception when a benefit is applied by playing

fraud. The Rule that a Revisional Jurisdiction should be exercised

within a reasonable time has no application but where statute is

silent as to time limit, the power of revision to be exercised within

reasonable time. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioners are

insisting the Special Tribunal to exercise revisional powers nearly

after 30 years disputing the Sadabainama validated under the

provisions of the Section 5 of the ROR Act by the respondent No.5

dated 23.02.1990. It is rightly observed by the Special Tribunal

that in view of mutation of property long back and change of land

use and as the third parties rights are involved and at this stage, if

any changes are made without hearing the parties whose rights

are being effected, such action amounts to disturbing the settled

possession of the parties. Further, in view of the serious disputes

relating to the Sadabainama/subsequent validation/entries in the

revenue records/issuance of pattedar passbooks/change of nature

of the land/rights of third parties, the proper course for the

aggrieved party is to institute a comprehensive civil suit seeking

declaration and possession. It is also case of the petitioners that

unofficial respondents herein have instituted a Civil Suit vide

O.S.No.41 of 2018 on the file of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, seeking perpetual injunction

against the petitioner No.2 and the same was dismissed vide

judgment dated 30.01.2018. Further Section 8(2) of the ROR Act,

1971 states that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which

he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he

may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to

deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under

Chapter-VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 43 of 1963),

and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in

accordance with any such declaration.

6. In view of the above, the issues raised in this writ petition, in

my view, are pure questions of fact, which could be answered one

way or the other only by the competent civil court in a properly

instituted civil suit on the basis of the evidence adduced by the

parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

7. In Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria 3 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed as follows:

"6: xxxx.....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

(1992) 4 SCC 61

special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly."

8. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal 4, 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 basing on

the entries made in the revenue records at this length of time and it

amounts to disturbing the settled position to unsettled.

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

exercise its discretion under summary jurisdiction as the orders

passed by the respondent No.2 does not suffer from legal infirmities

warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition

filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be

dismissed.