Telangana High Court
Banaiah, vs The Joint Collector, on 8 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition No.12011 of 2013
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"to call for records relating to order in Appeal bearing
No.D4/TA/4/89, dated 09.03.1992 of respondent No.1 and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to restore possession of
land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.10-00 gts., to the petitioners."
2. The facts of the case in brief are that one Smt.Durgamma was
protected tenant of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.17-09 gts., in
Sy.No.238 situated at Indervelli Village of Adilabad District.
Accordingly ownership rights under Section 38-E of A.P.(T.A.) Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 were conferred on L.Rs of the said
Durgamma i.e., Godala Pochiga vide proceedings of respondent No.2
in G/5915/74 and the same was confirmed by respondent No.1 in
Appeal by order dated 29.05.1976. It appears that respondent No.4
has filed compromise memo before District Revenue Officer, Adilabad
but the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the land lord
Smt.Subba bai filed C.R.P.No.934/1976 before this Court which was
dismissed on 14.09.1979. Petitioners' further case is that by virtue of
the said order, the ownership rights were confirmed on Mr.Gadala
Pochiga and the matter has attained finality.
NVSK, J
3. It is further submitted that though the ownership rights were
conferred on the protected tenant, the said land was found to be in
occupation of landlord Smt.Subba bai, therefore, a show cause notice
was issued to the said land lord under Rule (1) of Amended Act 2 of
1979 by the Tahsildar, Indervelli on 01.08.1980. Aggrieved by the
same, the land lord has filed W.P.No.4266 of 1980 before this Court
and this Court vide order dated 04.04.1986 dismissed the said writ
petition and granted liberty to the land lord for raising all objections
before Mandal Revenue Officer. After considering the objections raised
by the land lord, the Mandal Revenue Officer i.e., respondent No.3 by
order dated 12.05.1989 ordered eviction and directed to handover the
possession to the L.R.s of Late Gadala Pochiga under Section 38-E(2)
of Amended Act 2 of 1979. During the pendency of the proceedings,
Gadala Pochiga died and his daughter Smt.Budi was brought on
record. Accordingly, Smt.Budi was inducted into possession of the
land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.17-09 gts., on 12.05.1989 in the
presence of panchas and panchanama was recorded to that effect.
4. Aggrieved by the order of respondent No.3 dated 12.05.1989,
the land owner Smt.Subba bai and her son had filed an appeal before
respondent No.1 on 22.05.1989 and simultaneously filed W.P.No.7088
of 1989 before this Court wherein this Court vide order dated
24.05.1989 in W.P.M.P.No.9276 of 1989 granted an order of interim
NVSK, J
stay. On 22.06.1989, an order of interim stay was also granted in the
appeal filed before respondent No.1. Subsequently, the land owner
had withdrawn the said Writ Petition in W.P.No.7088 of 1989 on
23.12.1991. Thereafter, the matter came up before respondent No.1
and the appellant and respondent therein agreed for compromise and
in terms of the said compromise memo, the appeal came to be
disposed of by order dated 09.03.1992. Questioning the said order the
present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated
09.03.1992 seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to
restore possession of land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.10-00 gts., to
the petitioners.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that they being legal heirs of
Smt.Budi W/o.Rajanna, are in actual possession of the subject land in
view of the possession handed over to Gadala Pochiga on 12.05.1989
itself. It is their further case that Smt.Budi during her lifetime has
never informed the petitioners that she has compromised the matter
with Mr.Ganpath Rao i.e., respondent No.4 and only during the month
of July, 2011, when the said Ganpath Rao tried to interfere with the
possession of the petitioners, the petitioners were informed that the
matter was compromised during the lifetime of petitioners' mother
viz., Smt.Budi. Thereafter, petitioners have verified the revenue
records and came to know about the alleged compromise and applied
NVSK, J
for certified copies of the order of respondent No.1 on 18.04.2012
which were furnished on 26.06.2012. It is further submitted that the
ownership rights under Section 38(E) of the Act conferred on the
Gadala Pochiga became final and respondent No.1 ought to have
verified the compromise stated to have been agreed by Smt.Budi as
there is no mention of presence of Smt.Budi before respondent No.1 at
the time of recording of the compromise. Therefore, the thumb
impression of Smt.Budi might have been forged by respondent No.4.
6. Petitioners further case is that the compromise has been
tampered by changing the extent of land allotted i.e., Ac.10-00 gts., to
respondent No.4 and Ac.7-09 gts., to Smt.Budi which was originally
typed as Ac.10-00 gts., to Smt.Budi and Ac.7-09 gts., to respondent
No.4. Therefore, it is alleged that the compromise has been recorded
by respondent No.4 in collusion with respondent No.1 and that the
said compromise was brought into existence by playing fraud on the
mother of the petitioners in collusion with respondent No.1 and it is
not binding on the petitioners and the alleged compromise is liable to
be set aside, as it is contrary to Section 38(E) of the Andhra Pradesh
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It is further submitted though
the alleged compromise has been recorded by respondent No.1 on
09.03.1992, however, the same has not been acted upon as the
petitioners are in continuous possession.
NVSK, J
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 i.e., the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Indervelli, Adilabad District by stating that
Smt.Subba Bai w/o. Tukaram was the pattedar of agricultural land to
an extent of Ac.17-09 gts., dry in Sy.No.238 at Indervelli-B village of
Adilabad District and Smt.Durgamma was the protected tenant. It is
further submitted that after issuing notices and conducting necessary
enquiry and after issuance of provisional list as required under Rule
4(1) of A.P.(T.A.) Protected tenants (Transfer of Ownership of lands)
Rules, 1973 and after publication of final list under Rule 4(3) of the
above Rules, the ownership certificate of the said land was granted to
Gadala Pochiga who is legal representative of Smt.Durgamma on
16.02.1975. It is further submitted that the appeal filed by the
pattadar Smt.Subba Bai before the Joint Collector, Adilabad was
dismissed vide order dated 20.05.1979 and the Civil Revision Petition
filed against the said order was also dismissed by this Court on
14.09.1977.
8. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that the said
land was found to be in occupation of landlord viz., Smt.Subba Bai
even after the ownership rights conferred on Gadala Pochiga have
attained finality due to dismissal of appeal and writ petition filed by
the landlord Smt.Subba Bai. Therefore, an eviction notice was issued
by the Tahsildar, Utnoor under Rule 1 of the Amended Act 2 of 1979
NVSK, J
in Reference No.B3/2514/80 dated 01.08.1980 to the landlord.
Aggrieved by the said notice, the landlord filed W.P.No.4266 of 1980
before this Court and the same was dismissed on 14.04.1986 by
giving liberty to the land owner to raise all objections including the
one which she raised in the writ petition by submitting her
explanation to show cause notice, within four weeks from the date of
the order. After considering the explanation of the landlord,
respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 12.05.1989 ordered eviction
of landlord Smt.Subba Bai from the subject land and restoration of
possession of the same from legal heirs of Gadala Pochiga under
Section 38(2) of Act, 2 of 1979 and in compliance thereof the
possession of the land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.17-09 gts.,
situated at Indervelli-B village was given to Smt.Durgamma L.R. of
G.Pochiga on 12.05.1989 in the presence of panchas recording
panchanama by the Mandal Revenue Inspector of Indervelli.
9. Aggrieved by the orders dated 12.05.1989 of respondent No.3,
the landlady Smt.Subba Bai and her son Ganpath Rao have filed an
appeal before respondent No.1 on 22.05.1989 and the landlady also
filed W.P.No.7088 of 1989 before this Court and this Court in
W.P.M.P.No.9276 of 1989 in W.P.No.7088 of 1989 has granted an
order of interim stay. Respondent No.1 also granted an interim stay by
his order dated 22.06.1989 in Case No.D4/T4/4/89. Thereafter, the
NVSK, J
landlady had withdrawn the said W.P.No.7088 of 1989 on 23.12.1991.
It is further submitted that when the appeal was pending trial before
respondent No.1, the landlady Smt.Subba Bai and original protected
tenant Smt.Gadala Durgamma expired and their legal representatives
Ganpath Rao S/o. Smt.Subba Bai and Smt.Budi D/o.Late Gadala
Pochiga were brought on record and they have filed a compromise
petition having settled the issue by sharing the subject land Ac.10-00
gts., in favour of Ganpath Rao and Ac.7-09 gts., in favour of Smt.Budi.
It is further submitted that possession of land was given on
12.05.1989 itself under proper panchanama to Smt.Durgamma and
her name was entered in pahani for the year 1990-91 as pattedar to
the total extent of Ac.17-09 gts., and thus the order passed by
respondent No.2 by issuing ownership certificate under Section 38-E
of the Act were implemented and the name of Smt.Durgamma
continued as pattedar till the year 2008-09. Learned Government
Pleader for respondent No.3 would submit that the version of the
petitioners regarding the compromise memo filed before respondent
No.1 on 31.01.1992 and its genuineness needs no consideration at
this distant point of time.
10. It is further submitted that certificate issued under Section
38-E of A.P.(T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 shall be
conclusive proof of the protected tenant becoming owner with effect
NVSK, J
from the date of ownership certificate issued and therefore, the name
of the legal representative of protected tenant was implemented as
pattadar in revenue records also. The compromise was recorded by
respondent No.1 as agreed by both the parties and thereafter, the
appeal was disposed of. It is also submitted that if at all Smt.Budi was
not satisfied with the orders in appeal, she should have taken
appropriate steps during her life time but the same has not been done
in view of the amicable settlement between both the parties i.e.,
landlord and protected tenant to apportion the land amongst them.
11. It is also submitted that on verification of pahanies for the
years 1992-93 to 2007-08, Smt.G.Durgamma w/o. Pochaiah is
recorded as pattedar and cultivator of total extent of Ac.17-09 gts.,
Sy.No.238 of Indervelli-B Village. In the pahani 2008-09, extent of
Ac.17-09 gts., (i)Ganpath Rao S/o.Tukaram (ii) Champath Rao
S/o.Tukaram and (iii)Rajanna are recorded as cultivators to the extent
of Ac.5-00 gts., Ac.5-00 gts., and Ac.7-09 gts., respectively. It is
further submitted that petitioners have not availed any remedial
measures as available to them under the relevant laws and resorted to
file a writ petition before this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the
writ petition may be dismissed.
12. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent
No.5 who is being impleaded and brought on record as legal heir of
NVSK, J
the deceased respondent No.4 as per order of this Court dated
23.04.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2017 and respondent Nos.7 and 8 are uncle
and cousin brother of respondent No.5 herein. The averments made in
counter affidavit of respondent No.3 were reiterated in the counter
affidavit filed by respondent No.5 and accordingly prayed to dismiss
the writ petition.
13. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners reiterating
the averments made in the writ affidavit. It is submitted that
respondents has no authority to record compromise deed dated
31.01.1992 and the said compromise recorded under Order XXIII Rule
3 of C.P.C. was tampered and at paragraph 4 of the said compromise,
there is an overwriting.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.5,
7 and 8 submits that unofficial respondents names were recorded in
the revenue records and loans were also taken and that only two
names of the petitioners are recorded and one of the petitioners' name
is not recorded anywhere in the revenue records and only parties to
compromise must challenge the compromise deed dated 09.03.1992
and not the legal heirs. It is further submitted that a panchanama
dated 01.02.1992 was conducted and recorded by respondent No.1.
NVSK, J
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
though the compromise was recorded in 1992, the same is not
implemented in the revenue records till the year 2011-12 and also
panchanama is a fabricated document and there is no signature of
official respondents and as such the same cannot be looked into.
16. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 adopts
arguments of respondent No.5. It is further submitted that an extent
of Ac.10-00 gts., was recorded in the name of respondent No.4 and an
extent of Ac.7-09 gts was recorded in the name of Smt.Budi w/o.
Rajanna in terms of the compromise recorded before the Joint
Collector, Adilabad dated 09.03.1992. The said compromise dated
09.03.1992 is now challenged at a belated stage of 21 years.
17. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the
record.
18. In the order dated 09.03.1992, which is filed under Section
90 of A.P.(T.A) Tenancy Act, 1950, the Joint Collector, Adilabad
recorded that a writ petition was filed by the appellants therein in
W.P.No.7088 of 1999, however, the said writ petition was dismissed as
withdrawn. The case came up for final hearing on 31.01.1992 and the
respective parties have filed compromise petition and have settled the
issue. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 drawn attention of this
NVSK, J
Court to compromise deed filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P.C.,
dated 31.01.1992 and would particularly refer to paragraph 4 of the
said compromise which reads as under:
"4. That, out of Sy.No.238 of Indervelli (B), the
respondent Budi agreed to part Ac.17-09 gts., in favour of
Ganpath Rao and Ganpath Rao herein also agreed to
take Ac.17-09 gts., from the above land acres parting
Ac.7-09 gts., to Budi."
19. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 draws attention of this
Court to pattadar passbook issued in favour of respondent Nos.5, 7
and 8 wherein respondent No.5 was allotted with Ac.5-00 gts., at
Sy.No.238/B; respondent No.7 was allotted with Ac.5-00 gts., at
Sy.No.238/A and respondent No.8 was allotted with Ac.5-00 gts., at
Sy.No.238/AA. It is also to be noted that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 name
was recorded in pahani for the year 2011-12 wherein Ac.3-24 gts.,
and Ac.3-25 gts., was allotted to each of the petitioners. At that point
of time, petitioners have not taken any steps in questioning the same,
however, are now claiming Ac.17-10 gts., in Sy.No.237. Petitioners all
through did not question the compromise which was entered by their
predecessor Smt.Budi and at this belated stage are questioning the
compromise decree dated 09.03.1992. Even otherwise, if the
compromise recorded was found faulty, the parties therein ought to
have taken immediate steps in challenging the said compromise.
NVSK, J
20. In a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that compromise decree can only be challenged when the same
was obtained on fraud basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various
judgments also held that compromise decree can only be challenged
before the concerned Court which passed the decree in an application
under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC. One such recent judgement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.439 of 2022 dated
09.02.2022 and the relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as
follows:
"13. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, the present appeals succeed. The
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
allowing the appeal and quashing and setting aside the
order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District passed on 02.05.2019 in I.A. No. 108 of
2019 in O.S. No.537 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set
aside. The order passed by the Trial Court dated
02.05.2019 in I.A. No.108 of 2019 in O.S. No. 537 of
2018 rejecting the plaint is hereby restored. However, it
is observed that we have not expressed anything on
merits on validity of the Compromise Decree and the
same shall have to be decided and considered by the
Court which passed the decree in an application
under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC, which as observed
hereinabove has been filed by the original plaintiff and
the said application be decided and disposed of by the
concerned Court in accordance with law and on its own
merits and the contentions/defences which may be
available to the respective parties on the validity of the
Compromise Decree are kept open to be considered by
the concerned Court in accordance with law and on its
own merits."
21. It is also striking to note that petitioners have not filed any
document in their favour in this writ petition and the submission
NVSK, J
made on behalf of petitioners are contrary to records and Court
orders. As such the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable. More
so, the compromise decree cannot be challenged at this belated stage
after 21 years that too when the petitioners themselves are aware that
their extent was recorded as Ac.3-24 gts., and Ac.3-25 gts., in the
revenue records.
22. Therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with
the order dated 09.03.1992 passed by respondent No.1 i.e., Joint
Collector, Adilabad District. Accordingly, writ petition is devoid of
merits, fails, and stands dismissed.
23. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 08.04.2025
mrm
