Telangana High Court
Potla Venkata Prasad, Khammam District vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad And 4 ... on 26 March, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
WRIT PETITION No.3256 of 2016
Potla Venkata Prasad, S/o Chinna Gopaiah,
Aged 53 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Vallabhi Village, Mudigonda Mandal,
Khammam District.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary (Revenue),
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 26.03.2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_____________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
2 JSR,J
W.P.No.3256_2016
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No.3256 of 2016
% Dated 26.03.2024
# Potla Venkata Prasad, S/o Chinna Gopaiah,
Aged 53 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Vallabhi Village, Mudigonda Mandal,
Khammam District.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary (Revenue),
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr.Kowturi Pavan Kumar
^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 39 : G.P. for Revenue
Sri G.Ravi Chandra Sekhar
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
3 JSR,J
W.P.No.3256_2016
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.3256 of 2016
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
"to issue Writ or Direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the
Order issued by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.E3/2806/15 dated 20.01.2016 as
illegal, arbitrary, without authority apart from violative of principles of natural
justice and consequently set aside the order."
2. Heard Mr.Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing
on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri G.Ravi Chandra Sekhar,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 6.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the
owner and possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.20 gts
in Sy.No.274/2, situated at Pedda Mandava Village, Mudigonda Mandal,
Karimnagar District and the same was acquired through agreement of
sale dated 27.09.2010, executed by respondent No.5, by receiving
valuable sale consideration and since then he has been in possession and
enjoyment of the said property. He further submits that the Village
Revenue Officer after following procedure incorporated the name of the
4 JSR,J
W.P.No.3256_2016
petitioner in possession column i.e., Column No.13 (Pahani of the year
1422F (2012-2013). He also submits that the revenue authorities on
inspection, recorded the name of the petitioner in possession column to
an extent of Ac.2.05 gts and remaining extent of land admeasuring
Ac.0.15 gts in the name of Thotakuri Hanumanta Rao and latest pahani
dated 31.01.2016 clearly shows the possession of the petitioner in
respect of the subject property.
3.1. While things stood thus, respondent No.5 filed a suit vide
O.S.No.102 of 2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Khammam, against the petitioner and Mr.Thotakuri Hanumantha Rao,
seeking declaration of title, perpetual injunction and also sought decree
against defendant Nos.3 and 4 therein, they are Village Revenue Officer,
Peddamandava Village and Tahsildar, Mudigonda Mandal for correction
of entries in the revenue records by deleting the name of petitioner as
well as Mr.Thotakuri Hanumantha Rao and incorporate his name in the
revenue records. When the said suit is pending in respect of very same
subject property including an extent of Ac.0.15 gts in Sy.No.274/2
respondent Nos.4 and 5 have approached respondent No.2 and submitted
representation on 26.10.2015 alleging that they are pattedars and
5 JSR,J
W.P.No.3256_2016
enjoyers of the land to an extent of Ac.2.20 gts in Sy.No.274/2 and the
Village Revenue Officer without issuing notice entered the name of the
petitioner in the revenue records and requested respondent No.2 to take
appropriate steps by duly conducting enquiry.
3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that
respondent No.2 treated the said representation as an appeal under
Section 5(B) of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana) Rights in Land and Pattedar
Passbooks Act, 1971 (herein after called as "Act" for brevity), though he
is not having authority and jurisdiction to treat the said representation as
statutory appeal. He further contended that respondent No.2 without
properly considering the contentions of the petitioner passed the
impugned order dated 20.01.2016, directing respondent No.3 to restore
the name of the original pattedars and enjoyers in respect of occupant's
column of the Village pahanies. Learned counsel further contended that
respondent No.2 is not having authority and jurisdiction to decide the
title between the parties while adjudicating the proceedings under the
Act and the impugned order dated 20.01.2016 is contrary to the
provisions of the Act as well as law. In support of his contentions, he
6 JSR,J
W.P.No.3256_2016
relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.142 of 2009, dated 13.10.2023.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for unofficial
respondents submits that respondent No.5 is the absolute owner and
possessor of the subject property and basing on the alleged agreement of
sale dated 27.09.2010, Village Revenue Officer incorporated the name of
the petitioner in Pahani of the year 1422F (2012-2013), without issuing
notice and opportunity to the petitioner especially the Village Revenue
Officer is not having any authority or jurisdiction to incorporate the
name of the petitioner in the revenue records.
4.1 He further contended that as soon as after came to know about
the said illegality, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have approached respondent
No.2 and submitted representation requesting him to conduct enquiry
and take appropriate action against the concerned Village Revenue
Officer and also for rectification of entry in pahani and respondent No.2
after considering the contentions of the respective parties and also after
due verification of records passed the impugned order dated 20.01.2016.
7 JSR,J
W.P.No.3256_2016
4.2 Learned counsel further contended that basing on the alleged
agreement of sale dated 27.09.2010, petitioner is not entitled to claim
title over the subject property. However, fairly submitted that
comprehensive suit vide O.S.No.102 of 2015 filed by respondent No.5 is
pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam and the judgment
and decree which is going to be passed in the said suit is binding upon
the revenue authorities.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it clearly
reveals that petitioner is claiming the rights over the subject property
basing upon the agreement of sale dated 27.09.2010, said to have been
executed by respondent No.5. Basing on the same, Village Revenue
Officer incorporated the name of the petitioner in possession column i.e.,
Column No.13 of Pahani of the year 1422F (2012-2013). Admittedly,
Village Revenue Officer without issuing any notice to the effected party
straight away incorporated the name of the petitioner in the pahani and
the same is gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. It further reveals from the record that respondent No.5 filed
comprehensive suit vide O.S.No.102 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil
8 JSR,J
W.P.No.3256_2016
Judge, Khammam against the petitioner and one Mr.Thotakuri
Hanumantha Rao, seeking declaration of title, and perpetual injunction.
In the said suit, respondent No.5 impleaded the Village Revenue Officer,
Peddamandava Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District as well
as Tahsildar, Mudigonda Mandal as party defendant Nos.3 and 4 and
sought decree against them for correction of entries in the revenue
records by duly deleting the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 therein and
incorporate the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records. When
the said suit is pending, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have approached
respondent No.2 and submitted representation dated 26.01.2015,
requesting him to rectify the entry made by the Village Revenue Officer
in the Pahani of the year 1422F (2012-2013) in possession column
basing on the agreement of sale dated 27.09.2010. Respondent No.2 after
issuing notice to the petitioner as well as to unofficial respondent Nos.4
and 5, after conducting enquiry and also after verifying the records
passed the impugned order dated 20.01.2016, holding that the Village
Revenue Officer incorporated the name of the petitioner in pahani basing
on the agreement of sale, without issuing any notice to the effected
parties i.e., unofficial respondents and directed respondent No.3 to
9 JSR,J
W.P.No.3256_2016
restore the names of the original pattedars and enjoyers in respect of
occupant's column of the Village pahanies.
7. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that respondent No.2 is not having authority or jurisdiction to pass the
impugned order while exercising the powers conferred under Section
5(B) of the ROR Act is concerned, it is very much relevant to place on
record that the Joint Collector is having authority and jurisdiction to call
for and examine the record of any recording authority, Mandal Revenue
officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in
respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself
as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision
taken, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 9 of ROR
Act. In the case on hand, respondent No.2 mentioned the wrong
provision as Section 5(B) of the Act instead of mentioning the provisions
of Section 9 of the ROR Act.
08. In P. Venkatram Reddy Vs. Senior Divisonal Manager, LIC of
India and Anr 1, this Court after considering the principle laid down in
B.Mallikarjun Reddy Vs. G.V.Subba Reddy(2007 (3) ALD 525) and
2007 (3) A.P.L.J. 93(HC)
10 JSR,J
W.P.No.3256_2016
Pasupuleti Subba Rao Vs.Nandavarapu Anjaneyulu(2003 (3) ALT 816)
held that mere quoting of wrong provision of law always need not end in
the dismissal of the application if, otherwise, the application be allowed
in the light of facts and circumstances of a particular given case. Hence,
the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
respondent No.2 is not having jurisdiction to pass the impugned order
while exercising the power under Section 5(B) of the Act is not tenable
under law.
9. In so far as other contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that respondent No.2 is not having jurisdiction to decide
the title between the parties while adjudicating the proceedings under
ROR Act, is also not tenable under law on the sole ground that
respondent No.2 has not decided the title between the parties while
passing the impugned order, he only observed that the Village Revenue
Officer incorporated the name of petitioner in possession column of the
pahani basing on the agreement of sale without following procedure.
Hence, the principal laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.142 of 2009, dated 13.10.2023 is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the case.
11 JSR,J
W.P.No.3256_2016
10. It is relevant to place on record that in Allwyn Housing Colony
Welfare Association vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 2,
the Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that no order adverse to a party
should be passed without hearing him. In the case on hand, Village
Revenue Officer incorporated the name of petitioner in possession
column of the pahani basing on the agreement of sale without issuing
any notice to the effected parties and the same is contrary to the above
principle.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court do not find any ground in
the writ petition, to interfere with the impugned order passed by
respondent No.2, dated 20.01.2016, exercising the powers conferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and same is liable to be
dismissed. However, it is made clear that revenue entries, maintenance
or correction of record of rights is subject to the outcome of O.S.No.102
of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam and the parties are
entitled to work out their remedies as per the provisions of Section 7 of
Telangana Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
2009 (9) SCC 489
12 JSR,J
W.P.No.3256_2016
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Date: 26.03.2024
LR copy to be marked
B/o
vsl
