Telangana High Court
Sri Akanti Mallesha, vs The Joint Collectori R.R District on 1 October, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
+ WRIT APPEAL No. 1006 OF 2013
% Dated 01.10.2024
# Sri Akanti Mallesha S/o. Rajappa, aged
about 49 years, occupation: Business,
Saraswathinagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad,
now presently residing at Door No.16-1-
27/BC/1, Jayanagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad.
....Appellant
VERSUS
$ The Joint Collector (I), Rangareddy District,
office at Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad and
others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Appellant : Sri Mohd. Subhan Pasha
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Katram Muralidhar Reddy
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
2
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1006 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J.Sreenivas Rao)
This intra court appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders dated
25.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in
allowing the Writ Petition No.20416 of 2008 filed by the
respondent No.4 by setting aside the order passed by the
respondent No.1-Joint Collector (I), Ranga Reddy District, dated
06.09.2008.
2. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel,
representing, Sri Mohd. Subhan Pasha, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Katram Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri
P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, representing, Sri
G.Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.4.
3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
3.1 In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant,
relevant facts need to be mentioned, which are as follows:
The appellant is claiming that he is owner of the agriculture
land to an extent of Ac.3-30 guntas in Sy.No.589/3, Ac.0-03
guntas in Sy.No.590/2, and Ac.0-02 guntas in Sy.No.591/2, total
extent comes to Ac.3.35 guntas, situated at Nadergul Village,
Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the same was
purchased through registered sale deeds bearing document
Nos.2094 dated 25.02.1980 and 2095 of 1980 dated 25.02.1980
respectively and his name was mutated in the revenue records.
Respondent No.4, basing on the simple sale deed dated
05.12.1980 got regularization proceedings under the provisions of
Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, (hereinafter called as 'ROR Act')
from respondent No.3 vide proceedings No.A/1075/92, dated
07.02.1994 behind back of the appellant, in respect of the above
said property. Immediately the appellant filed appeal under
Section 5-B of the ROR Act, before respondent No.2 questioning
the above said proceedings. However, respondent No.2 without
properly considering the same, dismissed the appeal on the
ground of limitation by its order dated 23.07.2007. Questioning
the same, appellant filed revision petition before respondent No.1
under Section 9 of the ROR Act and revisional authority by setting
aside the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed both the
parties to approach the Civil Court to prove their title by its order
dated 06.09.2008. Aggrieved by the above said order dated
06.09.2008 passed by respondent No.1, respondent No.4 has filed
Writ Petition No.20416 of 2008. Learned Single Judge allowed the
writ petition by setting aside the order of respondent No.1 dated
06.09.2008. Thus, the appellant filed the present writ appeal.
4. Contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant:
4.1 Learned Senior Counsel contended that appellant had
purchased the subject property through registered sale deed
documents bearing Nos.2094 and 2095 of 1980, dated 25.02.1980
respectively, and since then he has been in possession and
enjoyment of the same and his name was continuing in the
revenue records and the appellant mortgaged the said property
with A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, as a collateral
security. Respondent No.4 basing on the simple sale deed dated
05.12.1980, submitted application before respondent No.3
seeking regularization. Respondent No.3 without following the
mandatory procedure prescribed under the ROR Act, Andhra
Pradesh/Telangnan Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books
Rules, 1989 (hereinafter called as 'Rules') validated the transfer of
the lands in favour of respondent No.4, though she has not been
in possession of the subject property and respondent No.3 is not
having authority, power or jurisdiction to regularize the simple
sale deed exercising the powers conferred under the ROR Act.
4.2 He vehemently contended that respondent No.4 is not in
possession of the subject property, as on the date of making
application seeking regularization of the simple sale deed dated
05.12.1980 and she has not produced any record and the
appellant's name is only continued in the revenue records.
Hence, respondent No.3 is not having authority or power to
regularize the simple sale deed dated 05.12.1980 under the ROR
Act.
4.3 He also contended that the appellant mortgaged the subject
property with Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank
Limited, as a collateral security and once the said mortgage is in
existence, question of alienation of the subject property in favour
of respondent No.4 does not arise.
4.4 Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the
appellant is disputing the alleged simple sale deed dated
05.12.1980 and in such circumstances, respondent No.4 ought to
have approached the competent Civil Court and established her
claim. When the disputed questions of facts and title are
involved, the revenue authorities are not having authority or
jurisdiction to decide the same. Hence, respondent No.1 rightly
set aside the order of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and directed the
parties to approach the Civil Court by its order dated 06.09.2008.
Learned Single Judge without properly considering the material
on record and provisions of the ROR Act and Rules, allowed the
writ petition by setting aside the well considered order of the
respondent No.1.
5. Contentions of learned Senior Counsel for respondent
No.4:
5.1 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the appellant
executed simple sale deed in favour of respondent No.4 in respect
of the subject property by receiving the entire sale consideration
on 05.12.1980 and delivered the physical possession of the same
and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the
subject property.
5.2 He further contended that as per the provisions of the ROR
Act, respondent No.4 has made an application seeking validation
of the simple sale deed dated 05.12.1980 under the provisions of
Section 5-A of the ROR Act. Respondent No.3 after following the
due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the ROR
Act and Rules made thereunder, initiated the proceedings and the
appellant appeared before respondent No.3 and he had given
statement that he has no objection for validation of the above said
document in favour of respondent No.4 and respondent No.3
issued rightly validated the simple sale deed after collecting
stamp duty and registration charges, issued the 13-B and 13-C
certificates on 07.02.1994. Pursuant to the same, the name of
respondent No.4 was mutated in the revenue records and
pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in her favour.
5.3 He further contended that respondent No.4 has discharged
the loan amount to A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited.
The appellant filed appeal before respondent No.2 after lapse of
more than 11 years questioning the validation proceedings issued
by respondent No.3, without giving any reasons for the said delay.
The appellate authority-respondent No.2 rightly dismissed the
appeal. Revisional authority-respondent No.1 without verifying
the records and without considering the contentions of the
respondent No.4 has set aside the orders of respondent Nos.2 and
3. Learned Single Judge after considering the contentions of the
respective parties and after due verification of the material
evidence on record, allowed the writ petition by giving cogent
reasons by its order dated 25.02.2011 and there are no grounds
in the writ appeal to interfere with the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge.
Analysis:
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that it is an undisputed fact that the appellant is
owner of the subject property to an extent of Ac.3-30 guntas in
Sy.No.589/3, Ac.0-03 guntas in Sy.No.590/2, and Ac.0-02 guntas
in Sy.No.591/2, total extent comes to Ac.3.35 guntas, situated at
Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
Respondent No.4 is claiming rights over the subject property
through simple sale deed dated 05.12.1980 which is said to have
been executed by the appellant. It further reveals that respondent
No.4 has submitted application before respondent No.3 seeking
validation/regularization of the simple sale deed dated 05.12.1980
invoking the provisions of Section 5-A of the ROR Act.
7. It is relevant to extract Section 5-A of the ROR Act and Rule
22 of Rules, which reads as follows:
5A. Regularisation of certain alienations or other
transfers of lands.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908
or any other law for the time being in force, [where a
person is an occupant] by virtue of an alienation or
transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered
document, the alienee or the transferee may, within such
period as may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal
Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such
alienation or transfer is valid.
(2) On receipt of such application, the Mandal
Revenue Officer shall after making such enquiry as may
be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to
deposit in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer 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 Registration Act,
1908 as fixed by the registering officer on a reference
made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the basis
of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as
may be prescribed:
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2) shall be deemed to validate any alienation
where such alienation is in contravention of the
provisions of the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (Act 1 of 1973) the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (Central
Act 33 of 1976) the Telangana Scheduled Areas Land
Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation 1 of 1959) and the
Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,
1977 (Act 9 of 1977).
(4) The Mandal Revenue Officer on deposit of an
amount specified in sub-section (2), shall issue a
certificate to the alienee or the transferee declaring that
the alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of
certificate and such certificate shall, notwithstanding
anything in the Registration Act, 1908 be evidence of
such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or
transferor or any person claiming interest under him.
(5) The recording authority, shall on the production of
the certificate issued under sub-section (2) make an entry
in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name
has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the
property.
22 "Regularization of certain alienation or
transfers of land:
(1) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue a general
Notification in Form No. IX, calling for applications from
the persons who are recorded as occupants in
Adangal/Pahani Patrika or in Record of Rights prepared
earlier by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or
effected otherwise than by registered document for
declaring such alienation as valid.
(2) The alieenee or transferee shall file application in
Form-X on or before 31.03.2008 on the notification
issued under sub-rule(1), to the Mandal Revenue Officer:
(3) On receipt of the application under sub-section (2)
of Section 5-A of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer
shall issue notice to the alienor or transferor in Form No.
XI specifying therein the date on which and the time at
which he proposes to enquire into the application. He
shall also cause to issue a notice in Form No. XII to all
other persons believed to be interested in the land
specifying therein, date, time and place at which he
proposes to enquire into the application. Only
unregistered documents shall be considered under
Section 5-A of the Act.
(4) On the day so appointed or any other day to which
enquiry may be adjourned by him, the Mandal Revenue
Officer shall after hearing the parties and on examining
their documents and witnesses, if any, and after taking
such further evidence as he may consider necessary to
satisfy himself that the alienation or transfer is not in
contravention of any of the provisions of the Act referred
to in Rule 9(i)(a)(iv) complete the enquiry.
(5) (i)After completion of the enquiry under sub-rule
(4) above, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall require the
alienee or the transferee under Section 5(A) of the Act, to
deposit through a challan in the treasury an amount
equal to the registration fees and 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 as fixed by
the registering officer on a reference made to him by the
Mandal Revenue Officer in Form No. XIII-A, on the basis
of the value of the property arrived, within the time fixed
by the Mandal Revenue Officer, not exceeding one month
from the date of the communication and receipt of the
order:
(6) The Recording Authority shall on production of the
certificate issued under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of
the Act make an entry in the Record of Rights in Forms 1
and 1B to the effect that the person whose name has
been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the
property from the date of the issue of the said certificate.
The Recording Authority and the Mandal Revenue Officer
shall make necessary entries in the Record of Rights in
land in Forms 1 and 1B under proper attestation and
referencing to files of the Mandal Revenue Officer.
(7) Thereafter a [title deed and pass book] shall be
issued to the occupant in the category of owner-
pattadar."
8. Respondent No.3, while exercising the powers conferred
under the above said provisions, had initiated the proceedings
and issued notice to the both the parties and the appellant had
appeared before respondent No.3 and had given statement on
02.02.1994 stating that he has no objection for validation of the
simple sale deed and he had already received the entire sale
consideration and delivered the possession of the said land. The
above said statement reads as follows:
"Statement of Sri A.Mallesha S/o A.Rajappa, aged
about 38 years, occ: business R/o Nalla Kunta,
Hyderabad States on oath that I am the pattedar of
S.No.589/3 measuring Ac.3.30 guntas and 590/2
0.03 and 591/2, 0.02 situated at Nadergul Village. I
have sold the said land to Smt. Madhavaram
Sujathamma W/o Gopal Rao in the year 1980. I
handed over the possession to the purchaser. Now
the purchaser is in possession of the land. I have
received sale consideration executed a sada sale
paper. I have no objection if the said survey numbers
are transferred in the name of the purchaser.
Read over to the deponent admitted to be correct.
Sd/-xxx
Recorded by me
Sd/- 2.2.94"
9. Thereafter, respondent No.3, had issued regularization
proceedings vide Proc. No.A/1075/92 dated 03.02.1994 directing
respondent No.4 to pay Rs.4,250/- towards stamp duty and
registration charges. It appears from the records that respondent
No.4 has paid the said amount and respondent No.3 had issued
Form 13-B & 13-C certificates, in her favour. Pursuant to the
same, the name of respondent No.4 was mutated in the revenue
records and pattadar passbook and title deed were issued to her
in respect of subject property.
10. Aggrieved by the above said validation proceedings of
respondent No.3, the appellant filed appeal before respondent
No.2 invoking the provisions of Section 5-B of the ROR Act after
lapse of more than 11 years. Respondent No.2 dismissed the
appeal vide proceedings No.A2/3590/2005, dated 23.07.2007 and
passed the following order:
"A perusal of the lower court record revealed
that the notice was issued by the then MRO,
Saroornagar in Form-11 and served on the
appellant duly obtaining his signature. During the
course of enquiry in connection with regularization
of the unregistered sale deed executed by the
appellant, the statement of the appellant was
recorded by the MRO on 2-2-1994 and the
appellant has also appended his signature in the
said statement saying that he had no objection for
transfer of property in the name of the respondent
No.2. Therefore, the contention of the appellant
stating that he was not given any notice is not
correct and that it is not based on record. Above
all the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by
limitation as it has not been filed within the time
stipulated under section 5-B of the Act. Under
these circumstances the appeal is not maintainable
and accordingly it is dismissed."
11. Questioning the same, appellant has filed Revision under
Section 9 of the ROR Act before respondent No.1. Respondent
No.1 allowed the revision petition on the ground that as per the
judgments, when the lands are mortgaged, if any sale deed is
executed by any party, the said sale is illegal and when there is a
title dispute and the execution of private sale deeds are in
question, respondent Nos.2 and 3 should not have passed orders
and both the parties are directed to approach the Civil Court to
prove their title, especially respondent No.1 has not mentioned
any judgment in the said order.
12. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition
No.20416 of 2008 and the learned Single Judge after considering
the contentions of the respective parties and after going through
the material available on record and also by considering the
provisions of the ROR Act and Rules including law, allowed the
writ petition by giving cogent reasons in respect of each of the
contentions raised by the parties.
13. It is pertinent to mention that the specific claim of
respondent No.4 that pursuant to the simple sale deed dated
05.12.1980, the appellant delivered the physical possession of the
subject property and since then she has been in possession and
enjoyment of the same and she constructed a poultry shed in the
said lands under the name and style of 'Venkataramana Poultry
Farms' duly obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat and
the appellant himself has given a statement before respondent
No.3 that he sold the subject land in favour of respondent No.4 in
the year 1980 by receiving entire sale consideration and also
delivered the possession of the property and he is not having any
objection to transfer the said land in her name. Hence, the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the
respondent No.4 has not produced any evidence that she is in
possession of the subject property, on the other hand, appellant's
name is continued in the revenue records and respondent No.3 is
not having authority or power issue the validation proceedings
under Section 5-A of the ROR Act in favour of respondent No.4, is
not tenable under law.
14. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
that once the subject property is under mortgage, any subsequent
sale transaction is not valid under law, is not tenable on the
ground that the specific claim of respondent No.4 is that the
appellant has not informed about the creation of simple mortgage
in favour of A.P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited and
subsequently respondent No.4 discharged the said mortgage in
respect of the said property.
15. It is also pertinent to mention that as per the provisions of
the ROR Act and Rules, the purchaser who is claiming rights over
the property through simple sale deed, is not entitled to seek
mutation of his/her name in revenue records and also issuance of
pattadar pass book and title deed, unless and until the said
document is validated/regularized under the Act. In the case on
hand, subsequent to validating the simple sale deed dated
05.12.1980 by respondent No.3 including issuance of Form-13-B
and 13-C certificates dated 07.02.1994, the name of respondent
No.4 was mutated in the revenue records and issued pattadar
pass book and title deed in her favour.
16. It is already stated supra that learned Single Judge after
considering the contentions of the respective parties and also the
provisions of the ROR Act and Rules made thereunder and also
law, has rightly allowed the writ petition, by setting aside the
order passed by respondent No.1 and upholding the
validation/regularization of the simple sale deed dated 05.12.1980
in favour of respondent No.4, which was confirmed by the
respondent No.2 vide order dated 23.07.2007.
CONCLUSION
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to
differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
18. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
_______________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 01.10.2024
PGP
L.R. Copy to be marked.
