Debbad Pushpavati vs Rock Hills Realty Private Limited
2024 Latest Caselaw 2997 Tel

Telangana High Court

Debbad Pushpavati vs Rock Hills Realty Private Limited on 31 July, 2024

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                        AND
       THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
                           Writ Appeal No.888 of 2024
JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel

appears for Mr. B.Bharath Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants.

Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned

Government Pleader for Revenue appears for respondents

No.2 to 5.

2. Heard on the question of admission.

3. This intra court appeal is directed against order

dated 02.05.2024, passed by a learned Single Judge in writ

petition filed by respondent No.1 herein viz.,

W.P.No.30193 of 2023, by which order dated 06.10.2023

passed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at ::2::

Kongara Kalan (respondent No.3), granting succession

certificate in favour of the appellants, has been set aside

and liberty has been granted to the appellants to approach

the competent civil court to challenge the sale deed

dated 19.10.2022 executed in favour of the writ petitioner.

In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants,

relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.

4. Respondent No.1 claims to have purchased vide

registered sale deed dated 19.10.2022, land admeasuring

Acs.40.08 guntas in Survey Nos.301 (Part), 302, 303 and

304 (Part) situated at Budvel Village, Rajendranagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (briefly 'the subject land'

hereinafter), which initially belonged to one Debbad

Narayana, Debbad Vishweshwar Rao, Debbad Srinandan

Rao, Sriram Chandrashekar and Tadkamalle Narasimha

Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'the original owners'). The ::3::

aforesaid original owners entered into an agreement of

sale, on 19.03.1994, in respect of land admeasuring

Acs.127.29 guntas forming part of Survey Nos.301 (Part),

302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308 and 309 situated at

Budvel Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District with one Smt. K.Vijayalakshmi, Smt. K.Sujatha

Reddy, Smt. Veeramreddy Anjamma, Smt. Kamireddy

Geetha Reddy, Smt. Mudi Laithamma and

Smt. Vaddireddy Ramadevi. The agreement holders also

agreed to exclude an extent of Acs.12.00 guntas out of the

aforesaid land for roads and passages.

5. In terms of the aforesaid agreement of sale

dated 19.03.1994, purchasers formed into two

independent branches whereunder Acs.40.08 guntas fell to

the share of Smt. K.Sujatha Reddy and Smt.K.Geetha

Reddy (hereinafter referred to as Branch-I), who are stated ::4::

to be vendors of the writ petitioner. The remaining land

fell to the share of Smt. Karnati Vijayalakshmi,

Smt. Veeramreddy Anjamma, Smt. Mudi Lalithamma and

Smt. Vaddireddy Ramadevi (hereinafter referred to as

Branch-II).

6. The members of Branch-I have executed General

Power of Attorney, on 30.04.1994, in favour of Smt.

K.Sujatha Reddy in respect of Acs.65.29 guntas and the

members of Branch-II have executed General Power of

Attorney, on 28.03.1995, in favour of Smt. Karnati

Vijayalakshmi in respect of Acs.50.00 guntas.

7. Subsequently, Smt. K.Sujatha Reddy and

Smt. K.Geetha Reddy (Branch-I), representing the original

owners, have entered into agreements of sale, on

26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997, in respect of lands

admeasuring Acs.38.15 guntas and Ac.1.33 guntas ::5::

respectively with M/s. Hyderabad Potteries Private

Limited. However, according to the writ petitioner, as

M/s. Hyderabad Potteries did not fulfill the terms and

conditions of the agreements of sale, the sale deeds could

not be executed in its favour. In respect of the remaining

extent of Acs.75.21 guntas of land, which fell to the share

of Branch-II, the same was alienated by Branch-II vide

various sale deeds executed in favour of several persons.

8. M/s. Hyderabad Potteries Limited filed a suit for

specific performance of agreements of sale

dated 26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997 against the original

owners and holders of the agreements of sale viz.,

O.S.No.88 of 2002 before the II Additional District

Judge's Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'). The aforesaid

suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree ::6::

dated 12.11.2010. However, on appeal by

M/s. Hyderabad Potteries Limited, the said judgment was

set aside vide judgment dated 23.04.2021 in A.S.No.998 of

2010. The vendors of the writ petitioner thereupon filed

Civil Appeal No.5822-5824 of 2022 before the Supreme

Court. The Supreme Court, by order dated 25.08.2022,

allowed the Civil Appeal and confirmed the order

dated 12.11.2010, passed by the trial court dismissing the

suit for specific performance of agreements of sale.

9. During the pendency of A.S.No.998 of 2010, the

appellate Court had vacated interim order

dated 01.03.2011, by which the vendors of the writ

petitioner were permitted to alienate the property.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, S.L.P.(civil).

No.2916-2917 of 2020 was preferred before the Supreme ::7::

Court, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide

order dated 03.02.2020.

10. Subsequently, the vendors of the writ petitioner

approached the registering authorities for the purpose of

executing sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner but

they were informed that unless the revenue records are

updated indicating the Principals of vendors of the writ

petitioner as land owners/pattadars, sale deeds cannot be

registered. Thereupon, the vendors of the writ petitioner

filed W.P.No.13334 of 2020, which was disposed of by a

learned Single Judge, by order dated 28.08.2020, directing

the Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar to receive, process,

register and release the document presented by the

petitioners therein without reference to the remarks that

civil cases are pending. Pursuant to the aforesaid order

dated 28.08.2020, the Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar, ::8::

addressed letter dated 03.11.2020 to vendors of the writ

petitioner asking them to submit the required documents

and answer the objection petition filed by the Managing

Director of one Siddam Shetty Infra Projects Private

Limited (earlier known as M/s. Hyderabad Potteries

Private Limited). The vendors of the writ petitioner,

therefore, executed an agreement of sale dated 05.12.2017

in favour of the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the writ

petitioner presented a sale deed for registration before the

Sub-Registrar. However, he refused to register the same

on the ground that the subject land is an agricultural land

and Sub-Registrar is not empowered to register a

transaction in respect of agricultural land. Being

aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Sub-Registrar, the

vendors of the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.37306 of 2022,

in which a direction was sought to the registering authority

to receive, process, register and release the sale deed ::9::

presented by them. Learned Single Judge passed an

interim order dated 27.09.2022 directing the registering

authority to register the sale deed. However, it was

directed that by virtue of registration of sale deed, no

equities in favour of the petitioners therein shall be created

and the registration of sale deed shall be subject to

outcome of the writ petition. Thereupon, the registering

authority has registered the sale deed dated 19.10.2022.

On the strength of the aforesaid sale deed, the writ

petitioner claims title in respect of the subject land

admeasuring Acs.40.08 guntas. Respondents No.5 to 9

claiming themselves to be legal heirs of Debbad

family/original owners, filed an application under

Section 6 of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass

Books Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act') seeking succession.

The writ petitioner thereupon submitted a

representation/objection petition dated 06.06.2023 to the ::10::

District Collector, not to pass any final order on the

application submitted by respondents No.5 to 9 without

issuing any notice to the writ petitioner. The writ

petitioner has also filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.14639

of 2023, in which a learned Single Judge passed interim

order dated 13.06.2023 directing the official respondents

to consider the representation/objections

dated 06.06.2023, submitted by the writ petitioner before

conducting an enquiry on the application submitted by

respondents No.5 to 9 under Section 6 of the Act. The

District Collector, by order dated 06.10.2023 inter alia held

that the sale deed executed in favour of the writ petitioner

is void and inoperative as the same was executed by

General Power of Attorney after the death of the

principal. It was further held that Sub-Registrar had no

authority to register the sale deed as the Tahsildar is the

competent authority to register the sale deed in respect of ::11::

the subject land, which is an agricultural land. The District

Collector, therefore, by order dated 06.10.2023, allowed

the application filed by respondents No.5 to 9 under

Section 6 of the Act.

11. Thereupon, the writ petitioner challenged the

aforesaid order in W.P.No.30193 of 2023 and the learned

Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 02.05.2024

inter alia held that the question of title cannot be

adjudicated by a Collector in a proceeding under Section 6

of the Act. It was further held that in a proceeding under

Section 6 of the Act, the District Collector has virtually

decided the title of respondents No.5 to 9 in respect of the

subject land. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has set

aside the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the District

Collector and granted liberty to respondents No.5 to 9 i.e.,

the appellants herein to approach the competent civil ::12::

Court to challenge the sale deed dated 19.10.2022

executed in favour of the writ petitioner. In the aforesaid

factual background, this intra court appeal has been filed.

12. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted

that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated

that prima facie, the sale deed dated 19.10.2022 executed in

favour of the writ petitioner was a fraudulent document

and vendors of the writ petitioner had no right to transfer

title in respect of the subject land to the writ petitioner as

the principal had died and thereafter, the power of

attorney had executed the sale deed. It is further

submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have

appreciated that Sub-Registrar had no authority to execute

the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner as the subject

land is an agricultural land. In any case, the learned Single

Judge ought to have appreciated that the validity of sale ::13::

deed dated 19.10.2022 executed in favour of the writ

petitioner is pending consideration in W.P.No.37306

of 2022. Learned Senior Counsel has taken us through the

order passed by the District Collector and had submitted

that the District Collector has only recorded the

observations and not the findings with regard to validity of

the sale deed dated 19.10.2022. It is further submitted that

in case a statutory right is violated, the jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can

be invoked. It is urged that since the sale deed

dated 19.10.2022 is null and void, it is not necessary for

the appellants to challenge the validity of the aforesaid sale

deed. It is contended that the impugned order be set aside

and the appeal be allowed.

::14::

13. We have considered the submissions made by

learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and have

perused the record.

14. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note

of Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act is extracted

below for the facility of reference:

6. Effecting Change in Record of Rights when acquired the right over the land through succession, survivorship, inheritance.

(1) Any person or persons, who acquire rights over land through succession, survivorship, inheritance and seeking to effect change in Record of Rights, after arriving at consensus among all the legal heirs on the manner of division of the land among themselves, shall make an application, enclosing the joint agreement specifying individual shares, to the Tahsildar through the website prescribed for this purpose, for allotting available date and time as per the ::15::

convenience of the persons to appear before the Tahsildar.

(2) When persons of a family seek change of Record of Rights, all the members of the family after arriving at consensus with regard to the manner of partition of the land among themselves shall make an application, enclosing the joint agreement specifying individual shares, to the Tahsildar through the website prescribed for this purpose, for allotting available date and time as per the convenience of the persons to appear before the Tahsildar.

(3) The Tahsildar shall allot the date and time, intimate the persons and maintain such particulars in register in prescribed format. (4) The persons mentioned in sub-section (1) and (2), along with the existing Pattadar Pass Book-cum-Title Deed that are in the name of deceased person or in the name of such family member, as the case may be, on the date and time allotted to them shall attend the office of the Tahsildar.

::16::

(5) The Tahsildar shall on the basis of joint agreement of all the legal heirs or all the family members, as the case may be, shall effect the changes accordingly in Record of Rights instantly, after payment of mutation charges as prescribed.

(6) The Tahsildar shall issue a new Pattadar Pass Book-cum-Title Deed in case any of the successors or the family members, as the case may be, when they do not hold a Pattadar Pass Book-cum-Title Deed, or a duly updated in the existing Pattadar Pass Book-cum-Title Deeds instantly. The Tahsildar shall also furnish extract of changes made in Record of Rights to all of them.

(7) All the persons in possession of Pattadar Pass Book- cum-Title Deed shall furnish the details of family members in the manner prescribed to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar shall make entries of the family members in Pattadar Pass Book-cum-Title Deeds.

::17::

15. Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is

evident that a person, who acquires right through

succession, survivorship or inheritance, can have right to

seek a change in record of rights only after having

consensus among all the legal heirs. The provisions of

Section 6 can be invoked only after partition of the joint

family properties in accordance with the Hindu Succession

Act, 1956. The Tahsildar, on the basis of a joint

agreement executed by all legal heirs, is required to effect

the changes in the record of rights. In other words,

Section 6 of the Act does not confer any adjudicatory

function on a Tahsildar.

16. The Tahsildar, under the provisions of the Act, and

in particular under Section 6 thereof, does not have any

authority to examine the validity of a sale deed. In the

instant case, the District Collector, while passing the ::18::

impugned order dated 06.10.2023, has examined the

validity of the sale deed executed in favour of the writ

petitioner, which is evident from the following relevant

extract of the aforesaid order:

"It is a well settled principle of law that when the Principal dies the GPA becomes inoperative and void, as held by this Hon'ble High Court in C.R.P.No.595 of 1989:

1993(2) ALT 425 (SB): AIR 1954 SC 316. As such, the execution of registered Sale deed dated 19.10.2022 after the death of the original Principals is void, invalid and inoperative as such K.Sujatha Reddy and Geeta Reddy have no sanctity of right to convey the land in any manner whatsoever as they are having neither the title nor a valid GPA. And infact the said GPAs were already declared as inoperative by the Hon'ble Court vide Judgment in O.S.No.43 of 2004 dated 11.08.2006. Even presuming for a moment, the GPAs are treated as valid and operative documents, in such case also the ::19::

registration of document executed in favour of Rock Hills Reality is fraud and illegal document, as the sale deed executed by K.Sujatha Reddy and K.Geeta Reddy, whereas the Registered GPAs are in favour of Karnati Vijayalaxmi and K.Sujatha Reddy.

That the Sub Registrar was well aware of the contents of Judgments in O.S.No.43 of 2004 dated 11.08.2006 wherein declared the GPAs are inoperative and after the death of Principals of GPAs, their LRs brought on record in O.S.No.88 of 2002, A.S.No.998 of 2010 and in Supreme Court Civil Appeals No.5822 of 2022. As the contents of the above said judgment were conveyed in the registered Sale Deed.

....

The Hon'ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in W.P.No.30002 of 2021 while disposing the Prayer made by M/s. RV and TNR Infra LLP at Hyderabad for execution of sale deed without referring to the said Memo No.G3/3247/2018 dated 01.05.2019 held on 27.10.2022 and directed the ::20::

petitioner to comply with the instructions contained in the said Memo by making an online application under module TM31 seeking conversion of land and after getting conversion to file for registration. This is now a settled provision of law on registration of land which the Sub Registrar, Rajendranagar has failed to comply with the provisions of law and also superceded the instructions of his higher authorities vide Memo No.G3/3247/2018 dated 01.05.2019.

That the land in question is agricultural land as on today. The Pahanies and Dharani Portal clearly disclose that it is an agricultural lands. The Dharani Portal clearly shows the name of Debbad Narayana as the pattedar of the land. The land is not converted into non- agricultural land and without there being conversion the sale deed could not have been registered by the SRO without conversion of the land into non-agricultural land and contrary to the New RoR Act No.9 of 2020 which only authorizes registration of agricultural lands by Tahsildar. Thus, the ::21::

sale deed in question are registered by the SRO, Rajendranagar is illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act as well as New RoR Act No.9 of 2020. In this regard, the Government issued a G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 28.10.2020 designating the concerned Tahsildars as Joint Registrars. Inspite of it, the Sub Registrar executed the Registered Sale Deed in respect of the scheduled property (agricultural lands)."

17. Thus, it is evident that the District Collector has

travelled beyond the scope of Section 6 of the Act. The

question whether the sale deed was executed in pursuance

of an agreement of sale for a valid consideration and

whether the principal had died before execution of the sale

deed by the General Power of Attorney are the questions

of fact, which have to be examined by the competent

court. Therefore, the District Collector ought not to have

expressed his opinion with regard to validity of the sale ::22::

deed dated 19.10.2022 executed in favour of the writ

petitioner as the validity of the same is pending

consideration in W.P.No.37306 of 2022.

18. For the aforementioned reasons, we agree with the

conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the

question of title cannot be decided in a proceeding under

Section 6 of the Act.

19. However, it is clarified that this Court has not

expressed any opinion with regard to validity of the sale

deed dated 19.10.2022 executed in favour of the writ

petitioner as the aforesaid issue has to be decided by the

competent court.

20. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Writ

Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed. No costs.

::23::

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

stand closed.

__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 31.07.2024 LUR