Telangana High Court
B. Arjun, vs The Additional Collector Revenue, on 12 November, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
*THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3358 OF 2023
% 12-11-2023
# B.Arjun.
...Petitioner
vs.
$ The Additional Collector (Revenue),
Medak District, Medak and 24 others.
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy
^Counsel for Respondents: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3358 OF 2023
Between:
B.Arjun.
...Petitioner
vs.
The Additional Collector (Revenue),
Medak District, Medak and 24 others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 12.11.2024
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : -
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
3
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3358 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Orders of
the Additional Collector (Revenue), Medak vide Case
No.F3/132/2021/1, dated 04.02.2023.
2. The case of the petitioner herein is that one Manikabai
Rusthumjee W/o.Rusthumjee was the original owner and
possessor of the agricultural land measuring an extent of
Acs.19-26 gts in Sy.No.320 of Allapur Village, Toopran Mandal.
As she had no issues, she took her sister's daughter namely
Pochamma in adoption during the life time of her husband. The
said Manikabai Rusthumjee died on 20.08.1993 and Pochamma
also died prior to her leaving her son Arjun i.e., petitioner
herein. Petitioner was residing with Manikabai Rusthumjee and
was looking after her needs, as such she executed her last Will
on 10.01.1989, registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Gajwel, bequeathing her movable and immovable properties
including the land measuring an extent of Acs.19-31 gts in
Sy.No.320, situated at Allapur Village, in favour of the
petitioner.
3. Petitioner herein stated that the subject land was a dry
land, due to drought condition in those days, he was doing
some other works for his livelihood. In the year 2009, when he
approached the revenue authorities for mutation of his name in
respect of the said land, he was informed that there was an
appeal bearing No.9 of 2009, pending before the R.D.O, Siddipet
Division, filed by one Khusru Rusthumjee Debera and he
questioned the mutation proceedings in favour of Kanukunta
Lingaiah, whose name was recorded in the revenue records by
virtue of 50-B Certificate. Petitioner had filed implead petition in
Appeal No.9 of 2009 and the same was allowed. In the appeal he
stated that he succeeded to the said land through registered
Will deed vide document No.1 of 1989 and the certificate under
50-B will not confer title in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah and
thus the subsequent proceedings arose out of 50-B certificate
are illegal. The R.D.O, Siddipet, remanded the matter to the
Tahsildar, Toopran vide Order dated 01.02.2016, for enquiry on
the genuineness of the 50-B certificate. The office of the
Tahsildar, Toopran, issued endorsement CC.No.D/392/1998,
dated 27.06.1998 stating that the file No.A/459/1985 was not
available in the record room and a copy of the same was filed
before the Court.
4. The Tahsildar, Toopran Mandal had reopened the case
and the petitioner herein had filed a separate petition for
mutation of his name in revenue records and for issuance of
Pattadar Passbooks in pursuance of his Will deed dated
10.01.1989. However, the Tahsildar, Toopran dismissed the
case No.B/3228/2013, on 18.08.2018 on the ground that
petitioner had no locus standi to question the proceedings of
50-B certificate and it was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the
said Order, he preferred an appeal vide appeal
No.G/1206/2018, before the R.D.O, Toopran and mainly
contended that the issuance of 50-B certificate was in
contravention of Government instructions issued under
G.O.Ms.No.419 Rev. dated 10.03.1964 and G.O.Ms.No.560
Rev(G) dated 10.06.1969. The alleged proceedings
No.A/459/1985, dated 22.04.1987 was against the Judgment of
this Court vide S.A.Nos.121 and 412 of 1980, dated 04.02.1986
and are non-est in the eye of law and do not confer any legal
and valid flow of title in favour of the purchasers, who are
contesting the appeal.
5. The Tahsildar, Toopran in case No.B/3228/2013,
observed that Khusro Rusthumjee Debera approached the
R.D.O, Siddipet, after lapse of 24 years from the date of
proceedings of 50-B Certificate and petitioner had filed the
petition under Section 4 of the Telangana Rights in Land and
Pattadar Passbooks Act, after lapse of 28 years and thus they
are barred by limitation. Moreover, petitioner did not plead
possession over the land and thus petitions are not
maintainable and they cannot question the validity of 50-B
certificate issued in the year 1985 and they have no locus standi
to maintain the petitions and accordingly dismissed the
application on 18.08.2018. Aggrieved by the said Order, appeal
was preferred before the Additional Collector, Medak in July
2020 and the Additional Collector, Medak also dismissed the
appeal. Aggrieved by the said Order, preferred the present Civil
Revision Petition.
6. Manikabai Rusthumjee was the pattedar for the land
measuring an extent of Acs.19-31 gts in Sy.No.320, situated at
Allapur village of Toopran Mandal. On 19.03.1957, she
alienated the said land in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah
through five rupees worth Non-Judicial Stamp paper bearing
No.490867, for a consideration of Rs.600/- in the presence of
witnesses. He applied for validation before the Tahsildar, Gajwel
on 10.02.1965. It was referred to A3 Section and numbered as
A3/572/1965. The Tahsildar, Gajwel had issued notices in
Form-II and Form-III under rule 5 for validation of alienation.
The Manikabai Rusthumjee has also submitted a letter to the
Tahsildar, Gajwel, on 25.04.1967 stating that she has no claim
over the said land as it was sold to the concerned party long
back. On verification of Pahanies, the name of Kanukunta
Lingaiah was recorded as occupant way back from 1974. The
Mandal Revenue Officer, vide proceedings No.459 of 1985, dated
22.04.1987 in Form-IV, validated the alienation in favour of
Kanukunta Lingaiah.
7. In view of formation of Mandals the file was transferred to
Toopran Mandal. On 10.07.1985, the villagers of Allapur have
submitted a representation before the R.D.O, Siddipet, stating
that Manikabai Rusthumjee was a benami pattedar for the said
land and requested to delete her name and assign the same to
landless poor persons as Lavuni Patta and not to entertain the
application filed by Kanukunta Lingaiah. The said alienation of
Manikabai Rusthumjee in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah was
initially challenged by Khusro Rusthumjee Debera in appeal
No.D/9/2009, in which the petitioner herein was impleaded. By
the time when the Additional Collector, Medak called for
objections, the said Manikabai Rusthumjee died, as such
Hosharg Debara and Khusboo Debara, claiming to be the sons
of the vendor, filed objections stating that their mother never
sold the land in favour of the Kanukunta Lingaiah and never
executed un-registered sale deed on 19.03.1957 and requested
to dismiss the application, but the Tahsildar validated the same
vide proceedings No.A/459/1985 dated 22.04.1987, by duly
collecting stamp duty and registration fee vide Challan No.458
and 459 of 2018 and recorded the name of Kanukunta Lingaiah
as pattedar.
8. The petitioner herein stated that Kanukunta Lingaiah,
executed registered gift deed in favour of his sons and
grandsons and they were also arrayed as respondents and the
possession was with them.
9. Now, it is for this Court see whether the 50-B certificate
issued in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah is in accordance with
the original G.O's and in accordance with the citations before
this Court or not.
10. Section 50-B reads as follows:
50-B: Validation of certain alienations and other transfers
of agricultural lands;
i) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter,
where any alienation or other transfer of agricultural land
took place-
a) On or after 10.06.1950, but before the date of
coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 and where
possession of such land was given to the alienee or
transferee before such date of coming into force; and
b) on or after the coming into force of the Andhra
Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961,
but before the date of the commencement of the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Third Amendment) Act, 1969 and
where possession of such land was given to the
alienee or transferee before such commencement and
such alienation or transfer is not inconsistent with the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961, the alinee or
transferee may, within such period as may be
prescribed, apply to the Tahsildar for a certificate
declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid.
ii) On receipt of such application, the Tahsildar shall after
making such enquiry as may be prescribed and after
satisfying himself that the consideration, if any, payable to
the alienor or the transferor has been paid or has been
deposited within such time and in such manner as may be
prescribed, require the alienee or the transferee to deposit
in the office of the Tahsildar an amount equal to the
registration fees and the stamp duty that would have been
payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a
registered document in accordance with the provisions of
the Indian Registration Act, 1908. On the deposit of such
amount, the Tahsildar shall issue a certificate to the
alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienation or
transfer is valid and such certificate shall, notwithstanding
anything in the Indian Registration Act, 1908, be
conclusive evidence of such alienation or transfer as
against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming
interest under him."
11. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that
it was stated that Collector can exercise his power at any time,
but it implies within a reasonable time depending upon the
facts and circumstances of the case and various factors such as
a) effect on the rights of third parties due to passage of
considerable time, b) change of hands by subsequent bona fide
transfers, and c) orders attaining finality under other statutes
such as Land Ceiling Act, are also to be looked into.
12. The Additional Collector, Medak, in his Orders observed
that application for validation was filed in the year 1965 itself
before the cut-off date i.e., 31.03.1972. The Tahsildar, issued
notice for objections and issued 50-B certificate in favour of
Kanukunta Lingaiah on 22.04.1987. As the application was filed
before the cut-off date, it cannot be said that 50-B Certificate
issued in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah is invalid. It was also
observed that Manikabai Rusthumjee, herself in her letter
stated that she executed sale deed long back and she has no
claim over the suit land. The petitioner contended that in view
of deletion of Section 50-B from 1972 onwards, there is no
possibility of getting over the invalidity and the issuance of 50-B
in the year 1987 itself is not proper and repugnant to the
requirement of law. 31.03.1972 was the last date for validating
the unregistered sale deeds and Section 50-B of the Tenancy Act
is inoperative after 31.03.1972. Manikabai Rusthumjee
executed unregistered sale deed on 19.03.1957. An application
was given by Kanukunta Lingaiah for validation on 10.02.1965
and 50-B validation certificate was issued to him on
22.04.1987. The Additional Collector observed that application
was given within the cut-off date i.e., before 1972 and the
Tahsildar conducted due enquiry, as such there was delay in
issuance of certificate and thus it cannot be declared as invalid.
13. There was dispute regarding the death of Manikabai
Rusthumjee. Petitioner stated that Manikabai Rusthumjee
executed Will in his favour in the year 1989 and she died on
20.08.1993. It was also contended that as she has no issues,
she adopted her sister's daughter during the life time of her
husband and petitioner is her daughter's son. His mother died
prior to the death of Manikabai Rusthumjee, as such she
executed Will in his favour and he succeeded to the property,
but he kept quiet without mutating his name into the revenue
records till 2009 and simply stated that said lands were effected
with drought, he was eking out his livelihood by other means.
When he made an application for mutation, he came to know
that already appeal was filed by two persons, who are claiming
to be the sons of Manikabai Rusthumjee, against the sale deed
executed in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah and he got impleaded
in the said appeal. It was observed by the Additional Collector
that Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate validity of
Will and Adoption. 50-B certificate relates back to 1987.
Petitioner herein is having the knowledge of the same in the
year 2013 itself. Kanukunta Lingaiah and his legal heirs are in
continuous possession of the subject land from 1970 onwards,
but petitioner never took any steps for recovery of possession of
land and for cancellation of 50-B certificate for the reasons best
known to him. The cause title of the counter dated 29.01.1987,
shows that Manikabai Rusthumjee died and her legal
heirs/sons were brought on record and thus their contention is
that as on the date of execution of the Will, she was not alive
and the Will itself is fabricated. Purchaser of property
(K.Lingaiah) filed a petition through his Counsel on 10.09.1984
before Tahsildar, Gajwel, regarding the notice dated 04.08.1976,
issued for appearance. As per said petition, Manikabai
Rusthumjee was not alive by 1984 itself. Petitioner has not
filed the death certificate of the Manikabai Rusthumjee, when
the date of death was disputed by other side. So also, the other
two persons, who claims to be legal heirs/sons also not filed
death certificate to substantiate their version and thus the date
of death of Manikabai Rusthumjee is not established by
petitioner.
14. When Hosharg Debara and Khusboo Debara, claims to be
the sons of Manikabai Rusthumjee and objected the sale deed
dated 19.03.1957, she was not called for immediately and her
statement was not recorded. Another dispute is regarding the
fact that Manikabai Rusthumjee is issueless and thus whether
the petitioner or Hosharg Debara and Khusboo Debara are legal
heirs of Manikabai Rusthumjee, was not decided or gone into
detail by any authority. Though the petitioner stated that
Manikabai Rusthumjee adopted her sister's daughter, not filed
adoption deed, but simply relied upon the Will deed executed on
10.01.1989. Mere filing of the Will deed will not establish his
title and it is to be proved as per Section 68 of the Indian
Evidence Act and thus the Will deed cannot be looked into.
15. On behalf of the villagers, Sarpanch objected the issuance
of 50-B certificate in favour of Kanukunta Lingaiah on the
ground that no notice was served upon them. As they are not
concerned parties notice need not be served upon them.
16. Another point is that M.R.O, Toopran addressed a letter to
the District Collector and sought for instructions to dispose of
60 cases relating to 50-B certificate, but without any
instructions, he issued 50-B certificate in favour of Kanukunta
Lingaiah on 22.04.1987, as such it was not valid. Admittedly,
Tahsildar is competent to validate unregistered sale deeds on or
before 1972, if the possession is given to the purchaser and
application was given before the cut-off date. As Kanukunta
Lingaiah complied both the conditions, after issuing notice to
the concerned parties and on due verification, Tahsildar issued
certificate and thus the objection of the petitioner that no
instructions are received from the District Collector is not
tenable.
17. Additional Collector in his Order discussed all the issues
in detail and thus this Court finds no reason to interfere with
the said Order.
18. In the result, the present Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed, confirming the Order dated 04.02.2023 passed by
the Additional Collector (Revenue), Medak in Case
No.F3/132/2021/1. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 12.11.2024
tri
L.R copy to be marked: (Yes/No)
