Smt. Kotagiri Dhana Laxmi, vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh,
2024 Latest Caselaw 1338 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt. Kotagiri Dhana Laxmi, vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 March, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

                 WRIT PETITION No.24046 of 2004

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

"... to issue an order, or direction or writ, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any of the appropriate writ or direction calling for the records on the file of the First Respondent in Case No.F2/ROR/11/2003 dated 05.07.2004 and quash the same insofar as the 'In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the dispute is of civil nature. Therefore, both parties are advised to approach Civil court on this issue", as illegal and consequently direct the respondents Nos.1 to 3 herein to enter the names of the petitioners herein in the Pattadar Passbook and Title deeds by deleting the name of the Respondent No.4 ..."

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. Petitioner No.1 is claiming that she is absolute owner and

possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.10 gts. in

Sy.No.689, Ac.2.10 gts in Sy.No.690 and Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.691

and petitioner No.2 is claiming that he is absolute owner and

possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.14 gts. in

Sy.No.690, total extent of Ac.5.14 gts., situated at Aitipamula village

of Nakrekal Mandal, and the same was purchased from the original

owners through registered sale deeds vide document bearing

Nos.6782 and 6783 dated 17.11.1982 respectively and since then

they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property

without any interference. They further stated that they constructed

a Dal Mill in an extent of Ac.0.14 gts. under the name and style of JSR, J

M/s.Gopalakrishna Dal Mill after obtaining necessary permissions

from the concerned authorities and petitioners are doing business

and they have not properly supervised the above said land. Taking

advantage of the same, husband of respondent No.4, who is the

patwar of the village, manipulated the records and obtained Form

No.13-B certificate under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights

in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act (for short, 'the Act') in favour of

respondent No.4.

2.2. Immediately after came to know about the same, petitioners

have filed appeal before respondent No.2 under Section 5-B of the

Act stating that respondent No.3 without issuing notice and without

following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act as well

as the Rules made thereunder issued 13-B certificate in favour of

respondent No.4 behind the back of petitioners. They further stated

that respondent No.2, without properly considering the same and

without verifying the records, allowed the appeal in part to the

extent of Ac.0.14 gts. covered by Dal Mill, and rejected the claim in

respect of remaining extent of land Ac.5.00 by its order dated

12.04.1999 vide proceedings No.G/3294/1998 dated 12.04.1999.

Aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed revision petition vide

file No.F2/ROR/11/2003 before respondent No.1 under Section 9 of

the Act. The Revisional Authority also simply confirmed the order of

the appellate authority and held that the dispute is a civil nature, JSR, J

therefore, both the parties are advised to approach the civil Court,

by its order dated 05.07.2004. Questioning the above said order,

petitioners filed the present writ petition.

3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed counter affidavit contending that

respondent No.4 purchased various extents of land, total Ac.5.14

gts., in Sy.Nos.689, 690 and 691, from petitioners through

unregistered sale deed in the year 1986 and since then she has been

in possession and enjoyment of the said property. After introduction

of Section 5-A of the Act, respondent No.4 has made application for

seeking regularization of un-registered sale deed and the same was

regularized and 13-B certificate was issued in her favour on

19.09.1992 by respondent No.3. After lapse of more than six years,

petitioners have filed appeal under Section 5-B of the Act, though

the said appeal is not maintainable before respondent No.2 on the

ground that the regularization proceedings were issued prior to

introduction of 5-B of the Act i.e., on 31.10.1993. Respondent No.1

rightly dismissed the revision petition confirming the order of

respondent No.2 and there is no illegality and irregularity in the

impugned orders.

4. Heard Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel, representing

Sri S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri

V.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent JSR, J

Nos.4 to 6 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing

on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners

have not alienated the subject land to an extent of Ac.5.14 gts. in

Sy.Nos.689, 690 and 691 in favour of respondent No.4 nor executed

the alleged unregistered sale deed. He further contended that

husband of respondent No.4, who worked as Patwari, manipulated

the records and obtained alleged 13-B certificate from respondent

No.3, dated 19.09.1992 in the name of his wife/respondent No.4.

He also contended that respondent No.3, without issuing notice and

without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act

as well as the Rules made thereunder, issued 13-B certificate behind

back of the petitioners and the same is gross violation of principles

of natural justice.

5.1. He further contended that petitioners have made application

under Right to Information Act to furnish the documents basing on

which 13-B certificate was issued in favour of respondent No.4.

Accordingly, respondent No.3 office issued memo dated 23.08.2014

stating that the above said file is not available. Soon after came to

know about issuance of 13-B certificate, petitioners have filed

statutory appeal before respondent No.2. He also contended that

respondent No.4 has not produced the alleged unregistered sale

deed before any authority including before this Court, as the same is JSR, J

fabricated and created one and basing on the said alleged document,

respondent No.4 is not entitled to claim any rights and interest over

the subject property. He further contended that the appellate

authority without properly considering the contentions of the

petitioners, allowed the appeal in part only to an extent of Ac.0.14

gts. land covered by Dal Mill and insofar as remaining extent of

land, dismissed the appeal by its order dated 12.04.1999. Aggrieved

by the same, petitioners filed revision petition under Section 9 of the

Act by raising several grounds. However, revisional authority

without giving any reasons simply confirmed the order of the

appellate authority, by its order dated 05.07.2004.

5.2. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the appellate

authority as well as revisional authority, without considering the

grounds raised by the petitioners and without verifying the record,

passed the orders. He further contended that respondent No.4 has

not raised any objection about maintainability of the appeal filed

under Section 5-B of the Act by petitioners before appellate

authority or before revisional authority and at this stage, she is not

entitled to raise such objection. He further contended that

petitioners' substantial rights are involved in the subject property

and the appellate authority simply mentioned in the order that

respondent No.3 issued notices to petitioners before issuance of 13-

B proceedings, though petitioners have not received notices. The JSR, J

impugned order passed by respondent No.1, confirming the order of

respondent No.2, is contrary to law.

5.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following

judgments.

1. Sawarni (smt) v. Inder Kaur (smt) and others 1

2. Chinnam Pnadurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and others 2

3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and anr. V. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. And another 3

4. T.Santosh Kumar and another v. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and others 4

5. Smt. Korem Lakshmi and others v. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others 5

6. Telangana United teachers Federation, Adilabad District Unit rep. by its General Secretary, Bere Devanna, Adilabad v. State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others 6

7. Salim D.Agboatwala and others v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and others 7

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 submits

that respondent No.4 had purchased the subject property from

(1996) 6 SCC 223

2007 (6) ALD 348 (FB)

AIR 2013 SC 1241

2014 (4) ALD 738

2024 (2) ALT 133 (S.B.)

2024 (2) ALT 45 (S.B.)

(2021) 17 SCC 100 JSR, J

petitioners through un-registered sale deed in the year 1986 and

since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject

property. After introduction of the provision of Section 5-A of the

Act, respondent No.4 has made an application for seeking

regularization of un-registered sale deed and respondent No.3, after

following the due procedure, issued 13-B certificate dated

19.09.1992 and pursuant to the same, her name was mutated in the

revenue records and pattadar pass book and title deed were issued

in her favour and she availed agricultural loan from the Cooperative

Bank and obtained electricity service connection and doing

agricultural activities in the said property and also raised lemon

garden by investing huge amount. After lapse of more than six

years, petitioners filed appeal before respondent No.2 invoking the

provision of Section 5-B of the Act, though the same is not

maintainable under law, as the said provision substituted by way of

amendment of the Act 1994 with effect from 31.10.1993 and the

same is prospective nature only and prior to introduction of

Section 5-B of the Act, there is no remedy of appeal is provided

under the Act. Hence, the appeal filed by petitioners before

respondent No.2 is not maintainable under law.

6.1. He further contended that neither the revenue officials nor

this Court is having jurisdiction to adjudicate whether un-registered

sale deed executed by petitioners in the year 1986 is genuine or not JSR, J

and to establish the same, the petitioners have to approach the

competent Civil Court. The Appellate Authority as well as revisional

authority rightly passed the orders and there is no illegality and

irregularity in the said orders exercising the jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following

judgments:

1. M.B.Ratnam and others v. Revenue Divisonal Officer, Ranga Reddy District and others 8

2. Kiran Singh and others v. Chaman Paswan and others 9

3. Chief General Manager (IPC), Madhya Pradesh Power Trading Company Limited v. Narmada Equipments Private Limited 10

4. Chief Justice of A.P. and another v. L.V.A. Dikshitulu and others etc. 11

5. Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation and another v. Encon Builders (I) (P) Ltd 12

6. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another etc., v. D.Narsing Rao etc., and others etc., Chairman, Joint Action Committee of Employees, Teachers and Workers, A.P. v. D.Narsing Rao and others .etc., 13

2003 (1) ALD 826 (DB)

AIR 1954 SC 340

(2021) 14 SCC 548

AIR 1979 SC 193

(2003) 7 SCC 418

Air 2015 sc 1021 JSR, J

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and after perusal of the material available on

record, it reveals that petitioners are owners and possessors of

agricultural land to an extent of Ac.5.14 gts. covered by Sy.No.689,

690 and 691 and they have purchased the said property through

registered sale deeds vide document Nos.6782 and 6783 dated

17.11.1982 and they have also constructed Dal Mill in an extent of

Ac.0.14 gts. in the name of M/s.Gopalakrishna Dal Mill. Whereas,

respondent No.4 is claiming the rights over the subject property

basing upon the unregistered sale deed said to have been executed

by petitioners in the year 1986 and also basing upon 13-B certificate

issued by respondent No.3 dated 19.09.1992. Pursuant to the

above said proceedings, respondent No.4's name was mutated in the

revenue records and pattadar pass book and title deed were issued

in her favour. Questioning 13-B certificate issued by respondent

No.3, petitioners have filed appeal invoking the provision of Section

5-B of the Act before respondent No.2.

8. It is relevant to place on record that Section 5-B of the Act

substituted by way of Amended Act of 1994 and the same is given

effect from 31.10.1993. Prior to insertion of the said provision, the

remedy of appeal was not provided questioning the order passed

under Section 5-A of the Act, and the said provision is only

prospective nature, but not retrospective. However, appellate JSR, J

authority adjudicated the appeal on merits and allowed the appeal

in part holding that out of Ac.5.14 gts, in an extent of Ac.0.14 gts.,

petitioners have constructed Dal Mill and in such circumstances,

respondent No.3 ought not to have issued 13-B certificate under the

Act to an extent of Ac. 0.14 gts., and insofar as remaining extent of

land Ac.5.00 is concerned, the claim of petitioners was rejected, by

its order dated 05.07.2004. Questioning the said order, petitioners

filed revision before respondent No.1 and the revisional authority

dismissed the revision petition confirming the order of the appellate

authority and further held that the dispute raised by the parties is

in civil nature, as such, the parties are advised to approach the

competent Civil Court by its order dated 05.07.2004.

9(i). In Sawarni (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

mutations in revenue records do not determine ownership rights,

and title. Courts must thoroughly consider all evidence and legal

aspects in property disputes.

9(ii). In Chinnam Pandurangam (2 supra), this Court held that

while carrying out amendment in records of rights, requirement of

issuance of notice to all persons interested is required under the

ROR Act.

9(iii) In The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and

Investment Corp. and Anr (3 supra) held that the party is not JSR, J

entitled to take divergent stands and the same amounts to

approbate and reprobate. Furthermore, the court emphasized that

writ petitions cannot be entertained merely because they are lawful,

as there must be an exhaustion of statutory or alternative remedies

available under the law.

9(iv) In T. Santhosh kumar and Anr (4 supra), this Court held

that without availing the remedy of appeal, the party can invoke the

jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act.

9(v). In Smt. Korem Lakshmi and others (5 supra), this Court

held that relief can be molded although there may be no specific

prayer, if the Court thinks that to meet the requirements and to do

complete justice in the matter, the relief can be molded by the

Court.

9(vi). In Telangana United teachers Federation, Adilabad District

Unit rep. by its General Secretary, Bere Devanna, Adilabad (6

supra) this Court held that respondent No.3 has passed the cryptic

order without assigning any reasons and confirmed the non-existing

order passed by respondent No.4. Hence, this Court is invoking the

extraordinary powers conferred under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India moulding the relief to render substantial

justice to parties.

JSR, J

9(vii) In Salim D.Agboatwala and others (7 supra), the Hon'ble

Apex Court held that that limitation is a mixed question of fact and

law. It emphasizes that if a party, like the appellant-plaintiff, can

establish that they only became aware of certain proceedings or

documents after inspection of records, and if they can prove that

such proceedings were collusive, fraudulent, or null and void, and

then the issue of limitation cannot be used against them. The

principle asserts that a party who was unaware of certain

proceedings before a quasi-judicial authority and only approaches

the Court upon gaining knowledge of those proceedings should not

be subjected to limitation constraints. In essence, limitation cannot

be invoked against a party who had no prior notice of the

proceedings in question.

10. The above said judgments are not applicable to the present

facts and circumstances of the case, on the sole ground that the

appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 5-B of the Act before

respondent No.2 is not maintainable under law and both the parties

have raised several disputed questions of facts relating to title and

possession and those aspects has to be adjudicated by the

Competent Civil Court only.

JSR, J

11. It is very much relevant to place on record that in K. Jaipal

Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District 14, the Division

Bench of this Court by considering the judgments of the Hon'ble

Apex Court as well as this Court held that revenue authorities have

no power or jurisdiction to decide the complicated questions of title

and possession. In the case on hand, the revisional authority, while

dismissing the revision petition, rightly observed that the dispute

between the parties is civil in nature and directed them to approach

competent Civil Court.

12. In Ratnam (8 supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of erstwhile

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by considering the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts

specifically held that the right of appeal is only a creature of the

Statute. Once it is created, it becomes a vested right. But, there is

no automatic right of appeal unless it is provided for by the Statute

itself. It is further held that the ROR Act did not provide any right of

appeal or revision against the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue

Officer under Section 5-A of the Act. Hence, the appeal filed by the

appellants therein before the appellate authority invoking provision

of Section 5-B of the Act is without jurisdiction.

13. In the case on hand respondent No.3 had issued 13-B

certificate in favour of respondent No.4, dated 19.09.1992. As on

2023 (6) ALT 622 JSR, J

that date or as on the date of initiation of the proceedings, there is

no remedy of appeal is provided under Section 5-B of the Act against

the order passed under Section 5-A of the Act. Section 5-B of the

Act was inserted by virtue of Amending Act of 1994 with effect from

31.10.1993. Hence, by virtue of the principle laid down in M.B

Ratnam (8 Supra) the appeal filed by the petitioners before

respondent No.2 is not maintainable under law.

14. The contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioners

that respondent No.4 has not raised objection with regard to

jurisdiction and maintainability of the appeal under section 5-B of

the Act, either before appellate authority or revisional authority, and

she is estopped to raise such objections in the writ petition, is not

tenable under law on the ground that jurisdiction aspects can be

raised in subsequent stages including in collateral proceedings.

15. It is relevant to place on record that in Kiran Singh (9 supra)

and Chief General Manager (IPC) (10 supra), the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that the jurisdictional aspect can gone into at any stage

including execution proceedings and even in collateral proceedings.

16. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for

petitioners that alleged unregistered sale deed is created and

fabricated one and basing upon the same only respondent No.3

issued 13-B certificate in favour respondent No.4 and she is not JSR, J

entitled to claim any rights over the subject property are disputed

questions of facts and this Court is not inclined to go into the same

and the petitioners have to approach the competent Civil Court to

establish their claim.

17. Viewed from any angle, this Court do not find any grounds to

interfere with the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 dated

05.07.2004 confirming the order of respondent No.2 dated

12.04.1999 to exercise the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

18. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the

petitioners are granted liberty to approach the competent Civil Court

to establish their rights over the subject property. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date:28 .03.2024 mar