Sri K. Ravinder Reddy S/O. Late K. ... vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1328 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sri K. Ravinder Reddy S/O. Late K. ... 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