Telangana High Court
Sri G. Subhash Reddy S/O. Late G.Ram ... vs The State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2024
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.P. Nos.28580 AND 28582 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER :
Since the issues involved and the parties (principals) in both the
writ petitions are same, with the consent of both sides, they are being
disposed of by this common order.
2. Initially, W.P. No.28580 of 2021 was filed by the GPA
Holder Mr. G. Subash Reddy and W.P. No.28582 of 2021 was filed by
the GPA Holder Mr. K. Ravinder Reddy on behalf of their Principals
(1) Mr. T. Rajsekhar Reddy, (2) T. Madhan Mohan Reddy,
(3) T. Laxmi Narsimha Reddy, and (4) Smt. V. Shamala.
3. Subsequently, separate applications in I.A. No.2 of 2021 were
filed by the GPA Holders, in the respective writ petitions, seeking to
implead (transpose) the writ petitioners (Principals) as respondent
Nos.8 to 11 as they were objectors in the impugned proceedings, and
the same were allowed by the order dated 18.11.2021. Further,
separate applications in I.A. No.3 of 2021 were filed by the GPA
Holders, in the respective writ petitions, seeking to substitute them
BVRJ
WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021
(GPAs) as writ petitioners which were also allowed by the order dated
13.12.2021.
4. Thus, the original writ petitioners - principals are transposed
as respondent Nos.8 to 11 in both the writ petitions and their GPA
Holders are substituted as writ petitioner.
5. In both these writ petitions, Memo No.E5/4423/2019 dated
15.09.2021 issued by respondent No.2 - the District Collector, Ranga
Reddy District is under challenge where by request of the petitioner in
W.P. No.28580 of 2021 for deleting the land admeasuring land
admeasuring Acs.0-23 guntas in Survey Nos.89 and Acs.10-17 guntas
in Survey No.90, total admeasuring Acs.11-00 guntas; and the
petitioner in W.P. No.28582 of 2021 for deleting the land admeasuring
Acs.9-05 guntas in Survey No.89; situated at Badangpet Village,
Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as
'subject lands'), from the Prohibitory Properties Register (PPR)
maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act 1908, in view
of the orders of this Court in C.R.P. No.1267 of 2008 dated 01.06.2016
W.P. No.10225 of 2020 and W.P. No.10224 of 2020 dated 14.07.2020
respectively, has been rejected.
BVRJ
WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021
6. In the earlier round of litigation, W.P. Nos.10225 of 2020 and
10224 of 2020 were filed by the principals through their respective
GPA Holders aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in not
deleting the subject lands from the PPR in spite of the judgment of this
Court in C.R.P. No.1267 of 2008 dated 01.06.2016; and, to declare
action of respondent No.7 - the Sub Registrar, L.B. Nagar, Medchal-
Malkajgiri District in not entertaining registrations in respect of the
subject lands; to declare action of respondent No.5 - the Tahsildar,
Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in not incorporating names
of the petitioners in the revenue records including Form-1B, Web Land
Register and in not issuing Pattadar Pass Books to the petitioners in
respect of the subject lands; as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation
of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and
consequently direct respondent No.2 to delete the subject lands from
the PPR and to direct respondent No.7 to receive, process and register
any document of alienation relating to the subject lands, if presented by
the petitioners for registration.
7. By the separate orders dated 14.07.2020, both the writ
petitions (W.P. Nos.10225 and 10224 of 2020) were disposed of by
this Court directing respondent No.2 to consider application of the
BVRJ
WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021
petitioners for deletion of the subject lands from the PPR maintained
under Section 22-A of the Registration Act 1908 taking into
consideration the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.1267 of
2008 dated 01.06.2016, whereby the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by
the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, was set aside upholding the
order in Case No.L/85/2004 dated 07.10.2005 passed by respondent
No.4 - the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy
District; further, it was observed that the Certificate issued under
Section 38E of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
1971 (for short 'Tenancy Act 1971') by respondent No.4 was
confirmed by this Court by the order dated 01.06.2016 in
C.R.P. No.1267 of 2008.
8. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14.07.2020 in
W.P. Nos.10225 and 10224 of 2020, applications of the petitioners
dated 23.07.2020 were entertained by respondent No.2.
9. It appears, respondent No.8 viz., Mr. T. Rajshekar Reddy
submitted written explanation / objections dated 28.08.2021 stating
that Mr. T. Ram Reddy, who is Principal No.1 in both the G.P.As.
dated 03.11.2006, expired on 03.08.2008; the effect of death of his
BVRJ
WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021
father was concealed by the petitioners; after death of Principal No.1,
the G.P.A. becomes invalid and unenforceable; all the co-owners did
not appoint the G.P.As.; physical possession of the subject lands was
not delivered to the purchasers as the entire sale consideration was not
paid to the owners. It was further contended by respondent No.8 that
GPA holders (writ petitioners) have used invalid G.P.A. and filed
representations and cases before this Court without their knowledge.
10. The petitioners (GPA Holders) contended before respondent
No.2 that mere death of one co-owner of the subject lands does not
result in automatic cancellation of G.P.A. If all the co-owners of the
subject lands did not join the GPA, it is a purely civil dispute between
the interested parties and the matter has to be decided by the competent
civil Court. The G.P.As. contain a clause that the executants have
received entire sale consideration and signed the same. Thus,
respondent No.8 cannot raise a plea contrary to the contents of the
G.P.As. In the impugned order, respondent No.2 noted the above
contentions of both the parties and further referred to the ceiling
proceedings in C.C. NO.203/1975 dated 07.11.1981 and made the
following observations:
BVRJ
WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021
"In this regard, the matter has been examined with
reference to the report of RDO, Kandukur Division and
written statements submitted by both the parties and
available material on file and it reveals that, the lands in
question were declared as ceiling surplus vide LRT orders
in CC No. 203/1975, Dated: 07-11-1981 and possession
was also taken over by the Government on 22.01.1982 and
the said orders were implemented in Revenue Records by
recording as Kharizkhata from the year 1986-87 onwards.
Subsequently, Sri.Teegala Ram Reddy was granted
Ownership Certificate for the land bearing Sy No. 89 (Ac.
9-25) and Sy No. 90 (Ac. 10-20 gts) situated at Badangpet
Village of Saroornagar Mandal vide RDO, RR East
Division orders in File No.L/85/2004, dt: 07.10.2005 which
was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in CRP No.
1267/2008, Dated: 01-06-2016 by setting aside the orders of
the JC, RR District, dt:31.12.2007 in File No.F2/5320/2006
in which the said 38- E Certificate granted was set aside.
Based on the said orders of the Hon'ble High Court,
dt:01.06.2016 in CRP No. 1267/2008, the LR of Late
Teegala Ram Reddy (38-E Certificate Holder) namely
Sri.T.Manik Prasad Reddy has filed an application before
this office requesting to direct the Tahsildar, Balapur
Mandal to grant succession in their names of all legal heirs
of Late T.Ram Reddy over the subject land. The same was
forwarded to the RDO, Kandukur Division vide this office
Lr.No.F1/457/2021, dt: 13.03.2020 calling for report and
same is under progress.
BVRJ
WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021
As such, it is clear that, there are dual claims by the
pattedars and GPA Holders against the convention by
taking contradictory views and interests, whereas the LRs
of Late Teegala Ram Reddy has filed a petition for grant of
succession over the subject land by implementation of 38-E
Certificate interms of orders of the Hon'ble High Court in
CRP No.1267/2008, dt: 01.06.2016 which is under progress
and not yet implemented. On the other hand, the GPA
Holders are requesting to remove the subject lands from
Prohibitory Properties list without implementation of 38-E
Certificate.
In view of the above, the request of the petitioner for
removal of subject Sy. Nos. from prohibitory properties list
cannot be considered and hereby rejected, since the claimed
lands are recorded as Government /Kharizkhata and claim
of the LRs of Late Teegala Ram Reddy (38-E Holder) for
grant of succession is pending. Thus, the petition
dt:23.07.2020 is considered incompliance of the Hon'ble
High Court orders, dt: 14.07.2020 in W.P.Nos.10224/2020
& 10225/2020 and disposed accordingly."
11. As evident from the record, there was a dispute regarding
ownership certificate granted to Mr. T. Ram Reddy (father of
respondent Nos.8 to 11) under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act 1971
by the proceedings of respondent No.4 in File No.L/85/2004 dated
07.10.2005. The subject lands were earlier declared as ceiling surplus
lands by the order in C.C. No.203 of 1975 dated 07.11.1981 by the
BVRJ
WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021
Land Reforms Tribunal cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur
Division, and subsequently possession was taken over by the
Government on 22.01.1982. The said orders were implemented in the
revenue records by recording as 'Kharizkhata' from the year 1986-87
onwards. Mr. T. Ram Reddy challenged determination of surplus
holding and consequently possession on the strength of 38E Certificate
and the dispute culminated into the order of this Court dated
01.06.2016 in C.R.P. No.1267 of 2008. There is no dispute
whatsoever that 38E Certificate issued to Mr. T. Ram Reddy has been
upheld by this Court by the order 01.06.2016 in C.R.P. No.1267 of
2008. Pursuant to the same, it appears, Mr. T. Manik Reddy, legal
representative of Mr. T. Ram Reddy, filed an application for
succession which was under process.
12. Even according to respondent No.2, there is no dispute that
38E Certificate issued to Mr. T. Ram Reddy has attained finality.
The claim before respondent No.2 was only to the extent of deletion of
the subject lands from the PPR and removing the entry 'Kharij Khata.'
The inter se dispute between the GPA Holders (writ petitioners) and
respondent Nos.8 to 11 (Principals cum Owners) was not germane and
relevant for deciding whether the subject lands are to be removed from
BVRJ
WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021
the PPR. It is neither the case of respondent Nos.8 to 11 nor any
finding given by respondent No.2 in the impugned order that the Kharij
Khata entry and inclusion of the subject lands in the PPR have to be
sustained. It is relevant to note that respondent Nos.8 to 11 only
objected to the validity of the G.P.As. They never contended that the
G.P.As. were cancelled. However, they stated that one of the
co-owners cum principal died and thereby the G.P.As. resulted in
automatic cancellation.
13. It is necessary to point out that the enquiry before
respondent No.2 in the impugned proceedings was no way related to
cancellation of the G.P.A. or inter se title dispute between the G.P.As.
and the Principals. The dispute was limited only to the extent of
deleting the subject lands from the PPR and removing the Kharizkhata
entry. Thus, when 38E Certificate issued to Mr. T. Ram Reddy has
attained finality and the subject lands are no more ceiling surplus by
virtue of the order in C.R.P. No.1267 of 2008 dated 01.06.2016, the
action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the request of the petitioners in
deleting the subject lands from the PPR on the ground that objectors
(Principals - Respondent Nos.8 to 11) made a rival claim is extraneous
and unsustainable.
BVRJ
WP Nos.28580 & 28582 of 2021
14. Therefore, both the writ petitions are allowed.
The impugned Memo No.E5/4423/2019 dated 15.09.2021 issued by
respondent No.2 - the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, is set
aside. Consequently, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to forthwith
remove the subject lands i.e., admeasuring Acs.0-23 guntas in Survey
Nos.89 and Acs.10-17 guntas in Survey No.90, total admeasuring
Acs.11-00 guntas relating to W.P. No.28580 of 2021; and Acs.9-05
guntas in Survey No.89 relating to W.P. No.28582 of 2021; situated at
Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from
the PPR; and delete the entry kharizkhata in respect thereof; and
respondent Nos.6 and 7 are directed to entertain registrations in respect
of the subject lands. No order as to costs.
15. It is made clear that the issue regarding validity of the
G.P.As. and title between the principals and the G.P.As. is not decided
by this Court and left open to the parties to adjudicate the same before
the civil Court, if they are so advised.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
in these writ petitions stand closed.
____________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
Date: March 27, 2024.
PV
