Telangana High Court
Vijay Raju, vs The Mandal Revenue Officer on 31 July, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.11275, 16662 & 6118 of 2005, 25029
of 2009 and 26767 of 2010
ORDER:
These writ petitions are filed for the following relief:
W.P.No.11275 of 2005
"issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
the orders passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy
District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, the 3rd Respondent herein
in Case No.D5/6631/2003, D5/6632/2003 and
D5/6633/2003 dated 30.4.2005 as void abinitio, illegal and
unconstitutional for violation of various provisions of Articles
14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and declare the
same as null and void and further declare that the order
passed by the Court of Special Dy., Collector in Letter
No.A2/997/1998 dt.21.7.2003 alone is valid and binding on
the parties and issue a consequential direction to the
Respondents not to interfere with the possession of the
Petitioner and pass such other order or orders as are deemed
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling
the records from office of the Joint Collector R. R. District
pertaining to the orders dt. 30.4.2005 in Case
No.D5/6631/2003 and case No.D5/6633/2003 and set
aside the same by declaring the orders as illegal and void
and further confirm the orders dt. 21.7.2003 in case
No.A2/9977/1998 passed by the Revenue divisional officer
R.R. District East Division is valid and binding on the parties
and issue a consequential direction to the respondents Nos.4
and 5 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner
and pass such other order or orders".
"issue a writ order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
1st respondent removing the petitioner from service by
passing a resolutions dt 25.11.2009 and 30.3.2007 without
conducting any enquiry issuing the show cause notice and
consulting District Level Committee is illegal, arbitrary,
without jurisdiction and contrary to the item No.7 Chapter-V
of the Special byelaws issued by Registrar of Cooperative
Societies Rule 72 of A.P.Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964
and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner into service with all consequential benefits".
W.P.No.6118 of 2005:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the
respondent n trying to construct park in the land bearing
Sy.No.9/1/H of an extent of Ac.5.00 each of the petitioner,
enclosed with fence situated at Saroornagar Village and
Mandal, without following the procedure contemplated under
Section 326 of the Municipal Corporation Act, read with
Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property Rules, 1967,
as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India..."
W.P.No.26767 of 2010:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of writ of Mandamus against the
Respondent No.1 to 4 declaring that the action of the
Respondent No.1 in unauthorisedly interfering with the
petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
property admeasuring 10 acres of land forming part of
Survey No.9/1/H, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District,
thereby allowing Respondent No.5 to put a Board on the
property without issuing any notice and without following
any procedure is totally illegal, unconstitutional being
violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A and consequently
direct the Respondent No.1 not to dispossess the petitioners
from the property to an extent of 10 acres of land forming
part of Survey No.9/1/H, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District,
thereby directing Respondent No.1, 6 and 7 to remove the
Board put up by Respondent No.5 ..."
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The claim of the petitioners association - Amritnagar Colony -
II Plot Owners Welfare Association is that one late Smt.Ratnabai had
purchased the land covered by Survey No.9/1 admeasuring
Acs.23.17 guntas from Department of Nizams Private estate through
GPA holder vide Registered sale deed document bearing No.922/64
dated 24.03.1964, after obtaining permission under Section 47 and
48 of Tenancy Act and since then she has been in possession and
enjoyment of the subject property and her name has been recorded
in the concerned Pahanies for the year 1964-65 to 1993-94 and
later on the above said survey number is renumbered as Survey
No.9/1/H. The said Ratnabhai executed various sale deeds in
favour of 84 plot owners like members of the petitioners association
in W.P.No.11275 of 2005 and petitioners in other two
W.P.Nos.16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2005(hereinafter called
'petitioners' for brevity) after obtaining permission from the
competent authority, including layout sanction issued by the
Saroornagar Grampanchayat vide bearing No.3045 of 1966. The
petitioners further stated that unofficial respondents in
W.P.No.11275 of 2005, W.Ps.16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2005 and
petitioners in W.P.Nos.6118 of 2005 and 26767 of 2010 (hereinafter
called 'unofficial respondents' for brevity) in collusion with the
Mandal Revenue Officer got the name of the Ratnabhai removed
from the Revenue records without any notice. They further stated
that unofficial respondents have filed O.S.No.328 of 1994 on the file
of Principle District Munsif, Hyderabad, East and North, Ranga
Reddy District against Ratnabhai and Vijayraj and obtained the
ex-parte injunction on 13.06.1994 in I.A.No.1000 of 1994 and later
on same was vacated on 02.01.1995 in I.A.No.2328 of 1994.
Aggrieved by the same, unofficial respondents have filed appeal in
C.M.A.No.5 of 1995 before the II Additional Judge, Ranga Reddy
District and the same was dismissed on 09.08.1996. Aggrieved by
the same, they have filed C.R.P.No.924 of 1997 before erstwhile
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the same was also
dismissed on 01.04.1997.
2.1 Questioning the deletion of Revenue entries, the petitioners
have filed three independent appeals i.e., A2/997/98, A2/2820/98
and A2/1682/2002 on the file of Special Grade Deputy Collector
and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division
including the memo issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar
in File No.Record/C/29/98, dated 21.03.1998 exercising the powers
conferred under A.P/Telangana Rights in land and pattadar
passbooks Act, 1971 ('ROR Act' for brevity). The appellate authority
after considering the contentions of the appellants therein and after
due verification of the records, allowed the appeals on 21.07.2003
and held that names of unofficial respondents are to be deleted from
the possession column of Pahanies 1995-96 and 96-97 in respect of
Survey No.9/1/H and original entries of 1994-95 are to be
incorporated thereunder and further held that Section 5-A
proceedings passed by Mandal Revenue officer, Saroornagar in
favour of unofficial respondents in Proceedings No.B/840/95, dated
24.09.1996 and Form 13-B and 13-C certificates dated 18.01.2002
issued in their favour are illegal and also cancelled the pattadar
passbooks and title deeds. Aggrieved by the above said order,
unofficial respondents filed Revisions vide Case Nos.D5/6631/2003,
D5/6632/2003 and D5/6633/2003, respectively under Section 9 of
the ROR Act before respondent No.3-Joint collector. Revisional
authority allowed the revision petitions and set aside the orders
passed by respondent No.2 dated 21.07.2003, by its order dated
30.04.2005. Questioning the same, the petitioners have filed the
W.P.Nos.11275 and 16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2009.
3. The unofficial respondents filed counter affidavit stating that
Survey No.9 consisting Acs.501.01 guntas and by virtue of the order
passed by Collector in the year 1962 to an extent of Acs.245.14
guntas fell to the share of the Government and the remaining
balance of land fell to the share of HEH the Nizam and further
stated that land which fell to the share of Government was retained
in Survey No.9/1 and allotted to various departments and the land
fell to the share of HEH the Nizam was allotted Survey Nos.9/1/A to
9/1/L. The petitioners are claiming the land through Ratnabhai.
She had purchased the land to an extent of Acs.23.17 guntas
through registered sale deed dated 24.03.1964 in Survey No.9/1
and the land purchased by Ratnabhai is surrounded by the Survey
No.11 on three sides and the unofficial respondents are not claiming
property in Survey No.9/1 and their property is covered in Survey
No.9/1/H consisting of Acs.37.12 guntas which stands in the name
of HEH, the Nizam. In the said survey Number a part of plot No.4
was allotted to Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan and they have
entered into agreement of sale with unofficial respondents and the
then Mandal Revenue Officer after following the due procedure as
contemplated under the Act, regularized the said document
exercising the powers conferred under Section 5(A) of the ROR Act
and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. They further stated
that the petitioners are claiming rights over the Survey No.9/1
whereas unofficial respondents are claiming rights in respect of
Survey No.9/1/H, the survey number and boundaries claimed by
writ petitioners are different from those held and the Joint Collector
after following the due procedure as contemplated under law and
after considering the contentions of the respective parties rightly
passed the impugned order. The petitioners have raised several
disputed questions of facts and they ought to have approached
competent Civil Court by establishing their rights.
4. Heard Sri Gandra Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri P.Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned Senior counsel, representing Sri
Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for unofficial respondents, in
W.P.No.11275 of 2005 and Sri V.V.Raghavan, learned counsel for
the petitioner in W.P.No.6118 of 2005 and 26767 of 2010 and Sri
T.S.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2005 and Sri K.R.K.Gargeya,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri
M.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1 in W.P.No.6118 of 2005 and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of revenue
authorities.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.11275 of
2005 contended that members of the petitioner's association have
purchased plots to an extent of Acs.6.14 guntas out of Acs.23.17
guntas from original owner namely Ratnabhai through registered
sale deeds in the year 1996 by paying valuable sale consideration
and their vendor namely Ratnabhai had purchased to an extent of
Acs.23.17 guntas in Survey No.9/1 later renumbered as 9/1/H
situated at Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District
through registered sale deed dated 24.03.1964 from HEH the Nizam
through GPA holder for the estate, Nawab Deen Yar Jung after
obtaining necessary permissions as per the provisions of Tenancy
Act and her name was mutated in the Pahanies for the years 1964-
1965 to 1993-1994. Ratnabhai sold the land to various persons
after obtaining necessary permissions from the Saroornagar
Grampanchayat through layout sanction File bearing No.3045 of
1996. Members of petitioners association have purchased the
house plots from Ratnabhai in the year 1996 and since then they
have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. The
unofficial respondents are not having any right in respect of the
subject property. He further contended that unofficial respondents
in collusion with revenue officials got their names mutated in the
revenue records by deleting the name of Ratnabhai. He further
contended that Mandal Revenue officer had not issued any notice to
the petitioners or their vendor namely Ratnabhai while
incorporating the names of unofficial respondents. The unofficial
respondents are claiming rights over the property basing on the
alleged agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973, basing on the same
they are not entitled to claim any rights.
5.1 He further contended that the then Tahsildar, is not having
power or jurisdiction to regularize the unregistered agreement of
sale by exercising the powers conferred under the Section 5-A of the
Act and the then Mandal Revenue Officer without following the due
procedure as contemplated under the provisions of ROR Act and
Rule 22 of A.P/Telangana Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks
Rules('Rules' for brevity) regularized the said document and
respondent No.1 had not followed the mandatory procedure
prescribed under the provisions of the Act and Rules while deleting
the name of Smt. Ratnabhai in the Revenue records. The appellate
authority/Revenue Divisional Officer-respondent No.2 after
considering the contentions of respective parties and after due
verification of the records allowed the appeals by giving cogent
reasons by its order dated 21.07.2003. He further contended that
the revisional authority without considering the contentions of the
petitioners allowed the revision petitions without assigning any
reasons much less valid reasons.
5.2 Learned Senior counsel further contended that subject land
was already converted from agricultural land to non agricultural
land through sanction layout in the year 1966 and the same was
divided into house plots, hence the provisions of ROR Act is not
applicable and the subject land does not come within the purview of
land as defined under Sub-section 4 of Section 2 of the Act. Hence,
respondent No.1 is not having authority or jurisdiction to regularize
the unregistered agreement of sale exercising the powers conferred
under the 'ROR Act'.
5.3 He further contended that the unofficial respondents have
filed suit in O.S.No.328 of 1994 in respect of subject property for
grant of perpetual injunction along with the said suit they filed
application for grant of temporary injunction and the said
application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the unofficial
respondents have filed appeal in C.M.A.No.5 of 1995 before the
Chairman LRAT cum II Additional Judge, Ranga Reddy District and
the same was dismissed on 09.08.1996. Aggrieved by the same,
they have filed C.R.P.No.924 of 1997 before erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was also dismissed on
01.04.1997 and the said orders have become final. Hence the
unofficial respondents are not entitled to claim any rights over the
property and they have to approach the competent Civil Court to
establish their right, title and interest over the subject property.
Revisional authority without giving any reasons set aside the well
considered order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer and the same
is gross violation of principle of natural justice and contrary to law.
5.4. Learned counsel further contended that document dated
21.03.1973 which was relied upon by unofficial respondents does
not contain survey numbers and boundaries and no particulars to
whom the property sold. The competent Civil Court had already
given the specific finding that unofficial respondents are not in
possession of the subject property and the judgment passed by
competent Civil Court is binding upon the revenue officials.
5.5 In support of his contention learned Senior counsel relied
upon the following judgments:
1. Konkana Ravinder Goud and others
Vs.Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building
Society, Hyderabad and others 1.
2. Vanga Narsa Reddy and another Vs. Joint
Collector District Adilabad, Adilabad District
and others 2.
3. N.S.Srinivas and others Vs. Madduri
Mallareddy and others 3.
4. K. Seeethrama Reddy and another Vs. Hassan
Ali Khan and others 4.
5. State of U.P. and two others Vs. Raj Bhadur
Pastor(Special Appeal No.21 of 2022).
6. Sri T.S Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2005 submits that the
petitioners have filed writ petitions questioning the common order
passed by respondent No.3 dated 30.04.2005 and the same is
maintainable under law. Ratnabhai had purchased Acs.23.17
guntas in Survey No.9/1 from HEH the Nizam, under Registered
sale deed dated 24.03.1964 after obtaining necessary permissions
from the revenue authorities under Section 47 and 48 of Hyderabad
Tenancy Agricultural Act from Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur. The
said land was surrounded by Survey No.11. Survey No.9/1 was
2003 (5) ALD 654
2012 (5) ALD 576
2005 (1) ALT 169
2003 (1) ALT 276
sub-divided into Survey No.9/1/H. In the Revenue records, the
name of Ratnabhai was shown in possession column in Survey
No.9/1/H for the years 1964-1965 and there was also compromise
between Ratnabhai and HEH the Nizam in case No.U2/6/87/62 in
the Board of Revenue on 06.09.1962 and since then she has been in
possession and enjoyment of the subject property. When some
persons are trying to interfere with the possession of Ratnabhai, she
filed suit O.S.No.395 of 1994 seeking perpetual injunction against
unofficial respondents and others and the said suit was decreed.
Aggrieved by the same, unofficial respondents have filed appeal and
the same was dismissed. He further contended that alleged
predecessor in title of unofficial respondents have filed suit in
O.S.No.328 of 1994 on the file of Principle District Munsif,
Hyderabad East and North Ranga Reddy District, seeking injunction
against the petitioners and obtained interim injunction in
I.A.No.1000 of 1994. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed
I.A.No.2338 of 1994 seeking vacation of the said interim injunction
and the said court after going through the records and after hearing
the contentions of the respective parties vacated the injunction
order specifically holding that the Ratnabhai was owner and
possessor of the land in Survey No.9/1/H. Questioning the said
order, unofficial respondents filed CMA No.5 of 1995 on the file
Chairman LART cum II Additional Judge at Ranga Reddy District
and the said appeal was dismissed on 09.08.1996. Questioning the
said order, unofficial respondents filed CRP No.924 of 1997 before
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the same
was also dismissed on 01.04.1997. He also contended that
unofficial respondents filed suit O.S.No.262 of 1997 against various
plot owners for injunction over the scheduled property in Survey
No.9/1/H and filed I.A.No.1493 of 1997 seeking temporary
injunction and the said petition was dismissed on 18.03.1998.
6.1 He further contended that the unofficial respondents are
claiming property to an extent of Acs.10.00 in Survey No.9/1/H,
basing on the unregistered agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973 from
Mohd.Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan who have filed suit
against the petitioners and the same was dismissed. Hence,
unofficial respondents are not entitled to claim any rights over the
subject property. He also contended that Mandal Revenue Officer
has illegally entered the names of the unofficial respondents in the
Pahanies for the year 1994-95, 95-96 in respect of Survey No.9/1/H
and the said illegal entries were made without issuing any notice to
Ratnabhai. Questioning the said illegal entries the petitioners have
filed appeals before respondent No.2. The appellate authority
framed seven issues and allowed the appeals after considering the
contentions of respective parties and after going through the entire
records by giving cogent reasons. He further contended that the
subject land seized to be agricultural land, respondent No.1 have
entered names of the unofficial respondents in the revenue records
even without issuing notice as required under Rule 22 of Rules.
Respondent No.3 without considering the contentions raised by the
petitioners allowed the revision petition and passed the impugned
order and the same is contrary to the evidence on record and to the
provisions of the Act and the same is liable to be set aside.
6.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in
O.S.No.328 of 1994 on the file of learned Principle District Munisif
Hyderabad East and North Ranga Reddy in I.A.No.1000 of 1994
exparte interim injunction was granted in favour of the unofficial
respondents and when the petitioners filed I.A.No.2338 of 1994
seeking vacation of the said interim injunction and the said court
vacated the injunction order specifically holding that the Ratnabhai
was owner and possessor of the land in Survey No.9/1/H and the
unofficial respondents are not entitled to claim injunction and the
unofficial respondents have not established their possession over
the property and the said finding was confirmed in CMA No.5 of
1995 and also in CRP No.924 of 1997. By virtue of the same,
unofficial respondents are not entitled to claim any right, interest
and title over the property.
6.3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the
following judgments:
1. Canara Bank and others Vs. Debasis Das and
others 5.
2. Ameer-un-Nissa Begum and others Vs.Mahboob
Begum and others 6.
7. Sri K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned senior counsel representing
Sri Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for contesting respondents
submits that W.P.No.11275 of 2005 filed by the petitioners
association invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of
Constitution of India by way of Writ of Mandamus is not
maintainable under law. Respondent No.3 while exercising the
quasi-judicial powers under the ROR Act passed the impugned
order and the petitioners ought to have filed Writ of Certiorari but
not Writ of Mandamus and the same is liable to be dismissed. He
also contended that the petitioners have raised several disputed
questions of facts. Hence, the petitioners ought to have approached
competent Civil Court as per the provisions of Section 8(2) of the
ROR Act.
7.1 He further contended that revisional authority-Joint Collector
while exercising the powers conferred under Section 9 of ROR Act,
after considering the contentions of the respective parties and
documentary evidence on record, rightly passed the impugned
order, dated 30.04.2005 by setting aside the order passed by
(2003) 4 SCC 557
AIR 1955 SC 352(Vol 42, CN 63)
appellate authority-respondent No.2 dated 21.07.2003. He also
contended that respondent No.2-RDO without properly considering
the documentary evidence on record allowed the appeals filed by the
petitioners by setting aside the revenue entries made in favour of
the unofficial respondents and also proceedings issued by Mandal
Revenue officer dated 24.09.1996 and cancelled the pattadar
passbooks and title deeds. He also contended that respondent No.2
in his orders dated 21.07.2003, on the one hand held that revenue
authorities cannot determine the title, on the other hand allowed the
appeal and the same is contrary to law. He further contended that
petitioners' vendor namely Ratnabhai applied for grampanchayat
permission claiming Survey No.9/1 in 1966. Hence, the petitioners
are not entitled to claim that they are having rights over the
property covered by Survey No.9/1/H.
7.2 Learned senior counsel further contended that survey No.9
consisting of Acs.501.01 guntas and pursuant to the orders passed
by the then Collector in the year 1962 an extent of Acs.245.14 fell to
the share of the Government and balance land fell to the share of
HEH the Nizam. The land fell to the share of the Government was
retained as Survey No.9/1 and allotted to various departments and
land fell to the share of the HEH the Nizam was allotted survey No.
9/1/A to 9/1/L. Petitioners are claiming rights through Ratnabhai.
She had purchased the land to an extent of Acs.23.17 guntas
through registered sale deed dated 24.03.1964 in Survey No.9/1
only. The unofficial respondents have no claim over survey No.9/1
and they are claiming rights in 9/1/H consisting of Acs.37.12
guntas which stands in the name of HEH the Nizam which is a part
of plot No.4 and the same was allotted to Hussain Khan and
Fasiuddin Khan. The unofficial respondents have entered into
agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973 to an extent of Acs.5.00 each
from Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan and made application for
regularization and the same was validated under Section 5(A) of the
ROR Act through order dated 24.09.1996 on payment of registration
fee. Accordingly, the unofficial respondents have paid stamp duty
and the said order has become final and Mandal Revenue Officer
issued 13-B and 13-C certificates and also pattadar passbooks and
title deeds in their favour in the year 2002 itself. He further
submits that the unofficial respondents' filed Revision Case
Nos.D5/6631/2003, D5/6632/2003 and D5/6633/2003 before the
Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District and the same were allowed, by
its order dated 30.04.2005. He further submits that the GHMC
without issuing notice, without following due process as
contemplated under the provisions of Section 326 of Municipal
Corporation Act and without acquiring the unofficial respondents'
land trying to construct park by dispossessing them from the
subject property, which is contrary to law and offend Article 300-A
of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the petitioners
are not entitled to claim any rights over the property covered by the
Survey No.9/1/H and they have to approach the competent civil
Court and establish their right, interest, title over the subject
property under Section 8(2) of the ROR Act.
7.3 He further contended that the parties filed simple suit for
perpetual injunction and basing on the reasons assigned in the said
order, the petitioners are not entitled to deny the rights of the
unofficial respondents and the nature of proceedings adjudicated by
the revenue authorities under the provisions of ROR Act are
different. He further contended that ground raised by the
petitioners that the provisions of the ROR Act is not applicable and
the Mandal Revenue officer is not having power or authority to
regularize the sale deed exercising the powers conferred under
Section 5(A) of the ROR Act on the ground that the subject property
is not an agricultural land as defined under Sub-Section (4) of
Section 2 of the Act is not true and correct on the ground that the
subject land was neither used nor converted from agricultural to
non-agricultural. Unless and until the same was converted from
agricultural to non-agricultural through process of law, the land
remains as agricultural land, hence respondent No.3 rightly passed
the impugned order dated 30.04.2005 and the then Mandal
Revenue officer had also rightly regularized the proceedings dated
24.09.1996 exercising the powers conferred under Section 5(A) of
the Act and issued Form 13(B) and Form No.13(C) on 18.01.2002
after duly receiving an amount of Rs.8,25,000/- towards registration
fee and the petitioners have not questioned the said order and the
said orders have become final and pattadar passbooks and title
deeds were issued in favour of the unofficial respondents. He also
contended that the Unique Builders through V.P Srinivas purchased
Acs.12.00 in the same survey No.9/1/H through the same Firman.
However, the petitioners have suppressed the said fact. Learned
Senior counsel further contended that there is no illegality or
irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by
respondent No.3 and the writ petition Nos. 11275 of 2005, 16662 of
2005 and 25029 of 2009 are liable to be dismissed.
7.4 In support of his contentions learned Senior counsel relied
upon the following judgments:
1. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. & Ors Vs.
Union of India 7.
2. R. Sathyanarayanan Vs. The State Bank of
India (W.P.No.11333 of 2017).
3. T.S.Basappa Vs.T.Nagappa & Another 8.
4. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and
others Vs. Telangana State Industrial
(1974) 2 SCC 630
(1955) 1 SCR 250
Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. And Others 9.
5. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. The State of
Telangana and Ors 10.
6. Principal Secretary, Government of
Karnataka & Another Vs. Ragini Narayan &
Another 11.
8. Sri V.V.Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.6118 of 2005 and 26767 of 2010 submits that he is
adopting the very same submissions made by Sri K.Ramakanth
Reddy, learned Senior counsel for unofficial respondents in
W.P.Nos.11275 of 2005 and other two writ petitions.
9. Sri M.Durga Prasad, learned Standing counsel appearing on
behalf of G.H.M.C. in W.P. No. 6118 of 2005 contended that the
petitioners in the said writ petition have not filed any iota of
evidence that by virtue of the agreement of sale dated 21.03.1973,
the subject property was delivered to them and they were in
possession. The subject property is not belonging to the writ
petitioners and as per the document/General Power of Attorney
dated 16.05.1997, the scheduled property mentioned in the writ
petition and GPA is not one and same and they are not tallying with
each other. He further contended that even before the alleged
2023 SCC OnLine TS 2980
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1209
AIR 2016 SC 4545
regularization proceedings issued under RoR Act in favour of the
petitioners in File No.441/MP2/HUDA/90 dated 05.12.1990, the
layout was approved in the name of Ratnabai W/o.Amritlal in
Sy.No.9/1/H part and Sy.No.11 part of Saroornagar. Pursuant to
the approved layout, the subject property to an extent of 3,561 sq.
yards was earmarked for park. Hence, the Petitioners in
W.P.No.6118 of 2005 are not entitled to claim the subject property
and they are not entitled any relief, much less the relief sought in
the writ petition basing on the alleged revenue entries.
10. Sri K.R.K Gargeya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2-Sarojini Nagar Welfare Association in W.P.No.6118
of 2005, submits that respondent No.2 - Association was registered
in the year 1995. He further submits that from 1994, the subject
land to an extent of 3,561 sq. yards was earmarked for park and it
was kept open and the same was got from the vendor of the
members of respondent No.2 Association and the same was
approved by HUDA vide its layout No.4441/1990 sanctioning the lay
out permission of 83 plots of the colony. He further submits that
respondent No.2 Association constructed one septic tank for
drainage for 83 houses in the north-east side in the open land and
also erected one transformer for supply of the electricity to the entire
colony and the colony is also constructed one room for office and
installed one borewell for supply of water to entire colony by way of
pumping through pipeline from sump to the houses and the same
was erected at the southern side of the open land and respondent
No.2 association is using the office room and conducting the
meetings regularly.
11. He further contended that the open land i.e., subject land
belonging to the vendor of the members of respondent No.2
Association namely Smt.Ratnabai and her grandson is residing in
the colony on the northern side of the park. She was a land lady to
an extent of Ac.9.32 gts. in Sy.No.11 and Ac.23.00 gts in
Sy.No.9/1/H. Respondent No.2 Association is in Sy.No.11 in
Ac.9.32 gts. including park. Since 1995, respondent No.2
Association celebrating national festivals and conducting traditional
festivals in park till today.
12. He further contended that in the year 1998, Mr.Vikaruddin Ali
Khan died. During his life time, he filed suit in O.S.No.323 of 1998
before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District,
against the vendor of respondent No.2 association, but he has not
established the possession of the land in Sy.No.9/1/H and the said
suit was dismissed on 23.02.2006. He further submits that Hon'ble
Division Bench in Public Interest Litigation W.P.No.15188 of 2006
dated 01.05.2007 issued directions with regard to the encroachment
of public places in municipal areas and also directed the
government authorities and municipal authorities to safeguard the
open spaces and take necessary steps by fencing and constructing
compound wall to avoid the encroachments. Since 1995,
respondent No.2 Association is in possession of the subject
property, the writ petitioners in W.P.No.6118 of 2005 are not
entitled the relief much the relief sought in the writ petition.
13. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record following points arises for consideration:
1. Whether the Mandal Revenue officer/respondent No.1 is
having power or authority to regularize the
document/agreement of sale i.e, dated 21.03.1973
executed by the Mohd.Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin
Khan in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the same
is valid under law?
2. Whether the respondent No.1 before issuing
regularization proceedings followed the mandatory
procedure prescribed under the provisions of ROR Act
and rules made thereunder?
3. Whether the revenue authorities or this Court is having
power or authority to decide the disputed questions of
fact between inter se parties in respect of subject
property especially when the petitioners are claiming
rights through Ratnabhai who in turn claiming the
rights through document dated 24.03.1964 executed by
claiming rights through document dated 21.03.1973
executed by Mohd Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan
and they are claiming the rights through Firman dated
30.05.1961.
4. Whether the impugned order passed by respondent No.3
is sustainable under law?
5. Whether the petitioners are entitled any relief sought in
the writ petition, if so what relief?
Point Nos.1 to 5:
14. As per the records, it reveals that the petitioners are claiming
rights over the subject property through Smt.Ratnabhai who had
purchased to an extent of Acs.23.17 guntas in Survey No.9/1
Saroornagar village, Ranga Reddy District from HEH the Nizam
through Registered sale deed dated 24.03.1964. Her vendor
executed the said sale deed pursuant to the permission granted by
the revenue authorities under Section 47 and 48 of the Hyderabad
Tenancy Agricultural lands Act, 1954. It also reveals that the
subject land to an extent of Acs.23.17 guntas surrounded by survey
No.11 and Survey No.9/1 subdivided into Survey No.9/1/H and the
same stands in the name of HEH Nizam. Ratnabhai sold the land to
various persons after obtaining permission from the Saroornagar
Grampanchayat through lay out sanction file bearing No.3045 of
1996. Members of the petitioners association in W.P.Nos.11275 of
2005 have purchased the house plots from Ratnabhai in 1996 and
since then they have been in the possession and enjoyment of the
subject property. The unofficial respondents are claiming right and
title over the property covered in Survey No.9/1/H consisting of
Acs.37.12 guntas which stands in the name of HEH Nizam. In the
said survey Number a part of plot No.4 was allotted to Hussain
Khan and Fasiuddin Khan of a large extent through Firman dated
30.05.1961 and they have entered into agreement of sale dated
21.03.1973 with unofficial respondents and the same was
regularized by the Mandal Revenue Officer exercising the powers
conferred under Section 5(A) of the ROR Act vide proceedings
No.B/840/95 dated 24.09.1996 and issued validation certificate in
Form 13-B and 13-C on 18.01.2002 after collecting registration
charges and since then they have been in possession.
15. It further reveals from the record that unofficial respondents
have filed suit in O.S.No.328 of 1994 on the file of Principle District
Munsif Hyderabad, East and North Ranga Reddy District seeking
perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with
the schedule property, along with the said suit they have filed
application in I.A.No.1000 of 1994 wherein the said Court granted
ex-parte ad-interim injunction, thereafter Ratnabhai and petitioners
in W.P.No.16662 of 2005 and 25029 of 2005 have filed application
I.A.No.2338 of 1994 seeking vacation of the ex-parte injunction and
said court after considering the contentions of the parties and after
due verification of the documentary evidence on record vacated the
interim injunction order by its order dated 02.01.1995. Aggrieved
by the same, unofficial respondents have preferred appeal CMA No.5
of 1995 before the II Additional Judge, Ranga Reddy District,
Hyderabad and the lower appellate Court dismissed the said appeal
by its order dated 09.08.1996. Questioning the same, unofficial
respondents have filed CRP No.924 of 1997 before erstwhile High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad and the same was
dismissed on 01.04.1997. Thereafter, the unofficial respondents
filed another suit in O.S.No.262 of 1997 against various plot owners
for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of scheduled property in
Survey No.9/1/H and also filed application I.A.No.493 of 1997
seeking temporary injunction and the said application was
dismissed on 18.03.1998.
16. The records further discloses that neither of the parties have
filed a comprehensive suit seeking declaration of title and the nature
of relief sought in suits filed by either of the parties are only simply
suits for perpetual injunction.
17. It also reveals from the record that questioning the entries
made in the revenue records in favour of unofficial respondents,
Smt. Ratnabai and petitioner's association in W.P.No.11275 of 2005
have filed appeals vide Appeal Nos.A2/997/98, A2/2820/989,
A2/1682/2002 under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, aggrieved by the
Memo issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar in File
No.Record/C/29/98, dated 21.03.1998 and for rectifying revenue
entries in the record of rights before respondent No.2 and the
appellate authority after taking into consideration of the contentions
raised by the respective parties framed seven(7) issues which reads
as follows:
1. Whether the subject land is coming under the
definition/meaning of agricultural land as defined in the
A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971.
2. Whether the Provisions of the section 5 (A) of the R.O.R. is
applicable to the lands under appeal.
3. Whether the appellants/appellant society and its vendors
has perfected their title to the subject lands.
4. Whether the respondents have valid documents over the
subject land and purchased the land from its Pattadar.
5. Whether giving of Pattadar Pass Books / Title Deeds to
the respondents justifiable or not.
6. Whether the original entries prior to 1995-96 can be
restored or not.
7. Whether the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed
Dated: 24-03- 64 executed by HEH Nizam in favour of
Smt. Ratanbai and physical possession of the appellant
are tallied or not.
18. Respondent No.2 after hearing both the parties and also after
due verification of the documentary evidence on record allowed the
appeals by setting aside the regularization proceedings under
Section 5(A) of the Act issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer in
favour of unofficial respondents dated 24.09.1996 and
consequential 13-B and 13-C certificate dated 18.01.2002 and also
cancelled pattadar passbooks, title deeds issued in their favour by
giving cogent reasons by its order dated 21.07.2003 holding that the
then Mandal Revenue officer, Saroonagar without verifying the
records and also provisions of ROR Act regularized the unregistered
document through order dated 24.09.1996 and also issued 13-B
and 13-C certificates on 18.01.2002 and the same are contrary to
the provisions of the ROR Act and Rules and also further held that
temporary injunction order granted in favour of unofficial
respondents in I.A.No.1000 of 1994 in O.S.No.328 of 1994 is
vacated and the said order has become final in CRP No.924 of 1997
and the unofficial respondents ought to have established their title
and possession before competent Civil Court. Aggrieved by the
above said order, the unofficial respondents filed revision petitions
vide Case Nos. D5/6631/2003, D5/6632/2003 and D5/6633/2003
before respondent No.3 under Section 9 of the ROR Act. The
revisional authority allowed the Revision petitions by setting aside
the order of respondent No.2 on 30.04.2005 holding that the
unofficial respondents are claiming right and title through registered
holder of the land i.e., HEH Nizam and the said HEH Nizam allotted
the same to unofficial respondents' vendor through Firman dated
30.05.1961 and the unofficial respondents claiming rights through
document dated 21.03.1973 and the same was regularized by
respondent No.1 under Section 5(A) of the Act.
19. It is very much relevant to place on record that revenue
authorities while exercising the powers conferred under the
provisions of ROR Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder are having
right only to the extent of mutation of revenue records and
corrections of revenue entries. As per the provisions of Section 5(A)
of the Act, the Mandal Revenue officer/Tahsildar is having power to
regularize certain alienations or other transfer of land.
20. It is very much relevant to extract the Section 5(A) of the Act.
Regularization of certain alienations or other transfers of
lands:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908
or any other law for the time being in force, where the
name of any person is recorded as an occupant in the
Record of Rights by virtue of an alienation or transfer
made or effected otherwise than by registered document,
the alienee or the transferee may, within such period as
may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer
for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer
is valid.
(2) On receipt of such application, the Mandal Revenue
Officer shall, after making such enquiry as may be
prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to the
deposit in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer an
amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty
that would have been payable had the alienation or
transfer been effected by a registered document to
accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act,
1908 as fixed by the registering officer on a reference
made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the basis
of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as
may be prescribed:
Provided that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall not
require the alienee or the transferee to deposit the amount
under this sub-section unless he is satisfied that the
alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling
on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976 the Andhra Pradesh
Scheduled areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers)
Act, 1977.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2)
shall be deemed to validate any alienation where such
alienation is in contravention of the provisions of the
Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural
Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled
Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Andhra
Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,
1977.
(4) The Mandal Revenue Officer on deposit of an amount
specifiedin sub-section (2), shall issue a certificate to the
alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienation or
transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate and
such certificate shall, not with evidence of such alienation
or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any
person claiming interest under him.
(5) The recording authority, shall on the production of the
certificate issued under sub-section (2) make any entry in
the pass book to the effect that the person whose name
has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the
property.
(6) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall have the power to
correct clerical errors, if any, in the Pass Book.
21. As per the above said provision, the Mandal Revenue Officer is
not having power to regularize the unregistered agreement of sale.
22. The Division Bench of combined High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in Konkana Ravinder Goud and others vs
Bhavanarishi Co-operative Housing Building Society, Hyderabad
and others held that the agreement of sale does not convey any
right, title or interest over the property and also cannot be
considered as a valid transfer/alienation of the property within the
provisions of Section 5-A of the ROR Act.
23. In Vanga Narsa Reddy v. Joint Collector District
Adilabad, this Court held that Revenue Authorities exercising the
powers conferred under the ROR Act, are not having any authority
or jurisdiction to decide title of the property, which should be
resolved by competent Civil Courts. It has been held by the Courts
in a catena of decisions that the revenue authorities are not
substitutes for the competent Civil Courts and they cannot decide
the complicated questions of title in the summary enquiry provided
under the ROR Act. Further held that, revisional jurisdiction should
only be invoked to prevent grave miscarriages of justice, not as a
routine matter.
24. In Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that the Principles of natural justice requires adherence to the
audi alteram partem rule, ensuring that no one is condemned
without being heard.
25. In Ameer-un-Nissa Begum and others( 6 supra) the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that the Constitution of India came into force on
26.01.1950 and after the integration of Hyderabad with the Indian
Union, the Nizam lost his absolute sovereign powers which he could
exercise previously. It was therefore, no longer possible for him to
issue a 'Firman' in terms of report of Sir George Spence. To obviate
this difficulty, recourse was had to legislation and in April 1950, an
Act was passed, known as Wali-Ud-Dowlah Act(Succession Act),
which purported to end the disputes regarding rights of succession
to the 'matrooka' or personal estate of the Nawab Wali-ud-Dowlah.
26. In the case on hand, the unofficial respondents filed
application invoking the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act before
respondent No.1 for regularization of the Agreement of sale dated
21.03.1979 and the same was regularized and issued validation
certificate through proceedings No.B/840/95 and also issued 13B
and 13C certificates on 18.01.2002 and also issued pattadar
passbooks and title deeds in their favour. Admittedly, the Mandal
Revenue Officer is not having jurisdiction to regularize the
unregistered agreement of sale especially without giving notice and
opportunity to the effected parties and without following mandatory
procedure prescribed under ROR Act and Rules made thereunder.
Respondent No.3-revisional authority without properly considering
the provisions of the Act allowed the revision petitions and passed
the impugned order.
27. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners are
claiming the rights over the property through Smt.Ratnabhai who
inturn claiming the rights through HEH Nizam under Registered
sale deed dated 24.03.1964. Whereas unofficial respondents are
claiming rights over the property through Document dated
21.03.1973 from Mohd.Hussain Khan and Fasiuddin Khan who
inturn claiming rights through Firman dated 30.05.1961 which was
executed by HEH Nizam. It is already stated supra that the revenue
authorities while adjudicating the proceedings under the provisions
of 'ROR Act' are not having any authority or jurisdiction to
adjudicate the disputed questions of facts and title between the
parties and similarly this Court while adjudicating the proceedings
under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is also not having
jurisdiction to adjudicate or decide the complicated disputed
questions of facts and title in a writ petition.
28. In K. Jaipal Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy
District 12 the Division Bench of this Court held that revenue
authorities are not having power or jurisdiction to decide the
complicated questions of title and possession.
29. In Shri Sohan Lal Vs. Union of India and Another 13 and
Thansighn Nathmal Vs.Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri 14 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the question of title cannot be
adjudicated in a writ petition.
30. It is already stated supra that respondent No.1-Mandal
Revenue officer, Ranga Reddy District while exercising the powers
2023 6 ALT 622
AIR 1957 SC 529
AIR 1964 SC 1419
under Section 5(A) of the Act regularized the unregistered agreement
of sale dated 21.03.1973, pursuant to the said regularization
proceedings, issued 13-B and 13C certificates and also issued
pattadar passbooks and title deed in favour of the unofficial
respondents especially without issuing notice and opportunity to the
affected parties as required under the provisions of ROR Act and
Rules made thereunder and respondent No.2 has rightly allowed the
appeals by setting aside the order of respondent No.1. Respondent
No.3 without properly considering the provisions of the ROR Act and
Rules passed the impugned order and the same is contrary to the
principle laid down in Konkana Ravinder Vs. Bhavanarushi
Cooperative society (1 supra) and the same is liable to be set
aside.
31. In so far as the contention of learned senior counsel for
unofficial respondents by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court i.e, Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. & Ors, R.
Sathyanarayanan, T.S. Basappa, and Visweswara Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, that writ petition filed by the petitioner in
W.P.No.11275 of 2005 is not maintainable under law on the ground
that petitioners have sought Writ of Mandamus instead of seeking
Writ of Certiorari is not tenable under law on the ground that
questioning the common order passed by the Revisional authority
dated 30.04.2005, three writ petitions were filed and in
W.P.Nos.16662 of 2005 the petitioners sought relief by way of writ of
certiorari and all the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together
and this Court is passing common order. The settled proposition of
law is that to render substantial justice to the parties, the
procedural and technical defects will not come in the way. The
nature of objections raised by the learned Senior counsel for
unofficial respondents is purely procedural and technical in nature
and the same are curable defects.
32. Learned senior counsel for unofficial respondents relying
upon the judgment of Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd.(10 supra)
contended that unless and until the agricultural land is converted
into non-agricultural land through due process of law, the
petitioners are not entitled to contend that the provisions of the
ROR Act are not applicable to the subject land.
33. In Principle Secretary, Government of Karnataka And Anr
(11 Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the sale deed
document registered on a subsequent date, operate from the date of
execution not from the date of registration under Section 47 of the
Registration Act, 1908.
34. The judgments in Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd.(10 supra) and
Principle Secretary, Government of Karnataka And Anr (11
Supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the unofficial
respondents are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case on the ground that the Mandal Revenue Officer regularized the
unregistered agreement of sale exercising the powers conferred
under Section 5(A) of the Act.
35. For the foregoing reasons, as well as the principle laid down in
the catena of judgments, the impugned order passed by respondent
No.3 dated 30.04.2005 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set
aside. Accordingly, point Nos.1 to 5 are answered. However, this
order will not preclude the parties to take appropriate steps to
ascertain their claim over the subject property by approaching the
competent Civil Court, if so they are aggrieved.
36. With the above said observations, W.P.Nos.11275 and 16662
of 2005 and 25029 of 2009 are disposed of accordingly.
37. By virtue of the orders passed in W.P.Nos.11275, 16662 of
2005 and 25029 of 2009, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6118 of 2005
and 26767 of 2010 are not entitled the relief sought in the writ
petitions. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
31st July, 2024
PSW
