Telangana High Court
Shanishetty Krishna Murthy, vs The Tahsildar on 10 January, 2025
1
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
COMMON ORDER:
As both these writ petitions are filed challenging the
common order passed by the Tahsildar, Machareddy
Mandal, Machareddy Village, Nizamabad District
No.B/9765/2009 dated 06.09.2010, they are being
disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned
Counsel for the unofficial respondent, in both the writ
petitions.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioner in W.P.No.24891 of 2010 is owner of land
admeasuring Ac.2.10 gts in Sy.No.256 situated in
Machareddy Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District,
through the registered gift-cum-settlement deed
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
dated 31.03.1980 executed by his father and after taking
possession, he has constructed a rice mill namely 'Sri
Venkateswara Rice Mill' in the said land in the year, 1980
after obtaining permission from the Grampanchayat,
Machireddy, on 15.04.1980 and also obtained licence
bearing No.S4/635/80 dated 19.08.1981 for installation of
machinery and since then, he has been using the entire
land for the purpose of rice mill, house sheds and servant
quarter etc., and there are no agricultural operations in the
said land.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the respondent No.2 issued show cause notice vide
letter No.B/9765/2009 dated 30.06.2010 under
Section 5(3) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks
Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971') stating that the
unofficial respondent has submitted a representation
claiming that she has got the said property under partition
Decree passed in O.S.No.202 of 1990 on the file of the
Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla dated 20.03.1997. The petitioner
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
has submitted his explanation stating that the land in
question is not agricultural land and it is a patta land and
after mutation, pattadar passbooks were also issued in his
favour and the land is being used for rice mill. The
respondent No.2 without considering the explanation and
without hearing the petitioner has passed the impugned
order on 06.09.2010 directing the respondent No.3 to take
possession of land from the petitioner.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits
that as on the date of filing of the suit, the property was
transferred to third parties and the unofficial respondent
has no interest to claim over the said property and the
decree dated 20.03.1997 passed in O.S.No.202 of 1990
cannot be implemented under Rule 27(4) of the ROR Rules.
He further submits that the proceedings under the Act are
not maintainable since the land ceased to be an agricultural
land as it was converted into non-agricultural purpose by
constructing a rice mill. He further submits that for
recovery of possession, the revenue authorities have no
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
jurisdiction and the impugned order was passed in violation
of principles of natural justice and contrary to the
provisions of the Act, 1971 and requested to allow the writ
petition.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioner in W.P.No.24905 of 2010 is owner of land
admeasuring Ac.2.04 gts in Sy.No.268/6 situated in
Machareddy Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District having
purchased the same from one Mr. Buggarapu Laxmaiah and
pattadar passbook and title deeds were also issued in his
favour on 15.12.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner has
entered into agreement of sale-cum-General Power of
Attorney dated 22.01.2010 with one Sri Challa Narasimha
Reddy vide document bearing No.105/2010 and the land
was converted into plots and sold to various persons under
registered sale deeds and in Sy.Nos.268/1 to 6, several
transactions have taken place by transferring the plots
ranging from 200 to 400 sq. yards to various purchasers
and the same are reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate.
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits
that basing on the representation of the unofficial
respondent for mutation of land on the basis of the Decree
passed in O.S.No.202 of 1990 on the file of the Junior Civil
Judge, Sircilla, dated 20.03.1997, the respondent No.1 has
issued notice dated 30.06.2010 to the petitioner under
Section 5(3) of the Act and the petitioner has submitted his
explanation on 20.08.2010, but the respondent No.1
without considering his explanation and without hearing
the petitioner has passed the impugned order on
06.09.2010 for taking possession of the subject land.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the land claimed by the unofficial respondent was
divided by her family members long back. The family
members of the father of the unofficial respondent i.e,
Lakkireddy Gopal Reddy, Sankar Reddy and Buchi Raji
Reddy have sold the land held by them under sale deeds
which were inherited by them from Sri Laxmi Narasimha
Reddy and as such, the legal heirs of said Gopal Reddy and
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
wife of Laxmi Narasimha Reddy cannot claim any land in
Sy.No.268 without challenging the said transactions and
without impleading the purchasers in the partitition suit
and as such, the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.202 of
1990 dated 20.03.1997 is not binding on the petitioner as
he is not a party to the suit. He submits that the unofficial
respondent being daughter of Gopal Reddy cannot have any
share over the property on the date of filing of the suit itself.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to direct the
respondent No.2 to take possession from the petitioner.
The unofficial respondent has to approach the competent
Civil Court for recovery of possession. He submits that the
impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice without hearing the petitioner and contrary
to the provisions of the Act and requested to allow the writ
petition.
10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue,
based on the counter averments, submits that as per the
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.202 of 1990 on the
file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla dated 20.03.1997, the
lands to an extent of Ac.1-25 gts in Sy.No.256, Ac.0.30 gts
in Sy.No.265 and Ac.2.02 gts in Sy.No.268 were allotted to
the unofficial respondent.
11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
further submits that as the unofficial respondent filed
petitions before the respondent No.1 under Section 4 of the
Act for implementation of the decree in O.S.No.202 of 1990
dated 20.03.1997, the revenue authorities, after obtaining
legal opinion, have issued notices to the petitioners and
after considering their explanations, the Tahsildar has
passed the impugned order and therefore, he requested to
dismiss the writ petitions.
12. Learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent in
both the writ petitions, based on the counter averments,
submits that after passing of the final decree in O.S.No.202
of 1990 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla
dated 20.03.1997, the unofficial respondent has filed
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
E.P.No.40 of 1997, wherein warrant of possession was
ordered on 11.02.1998 to deliver possession of lands to an
extent of Ac.1.25 gts in Sy.No.256, Ac.0-30 gts in Sy.No.265
and Ac.2.02 gts in Sy.No.268 of Machareddy Village and
under a cover of panchanama, the said properties were
delivered to her. Though the petitioners are not parties to
the said suit, during the course of Advocate Commissioner's
visit for division of the property or at the time of delivery of
properties under a cover of panchanama, they have not
raised any objection. He further submits that the lands
covered by the petitioners are different from the lands
delivered to the unofficial respondent under a cover of
panchanama. He further submits that the revenue
authorities have implemented the decree passed by the Civil
Court and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order
impugned, they have remedy of appeal before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, within 60 days as
contemplated under Section 5(5) of the Act and revision
under Section 9 of the Act and there is no illegality in the
impugned order and requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
13. After considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both sides and perusal of the material on record,
this Court is of the considered view that in both the writ
petitions, the petitioners are challenging the common order
passed by the Tahsildar in directing the Mandal Revenue
Inspector and the Village Revenue Officer, Machareddy to
take over possession of the subject properties belonging to
the petitioners in view of the Judgment and Decree passed
by the Junior Civil Judge, Siricilla in O.S.No.202 of 1990
dated 20.03.1997. The case of the petitioners is that they
are not parties to the partition suit in O.S.No.202 of 1990
on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Siricilla. Before
institution of the said suit, the petitioners have purchased
the properties from the family members of the unofficial
respondent and others and the nature of the land was
changed from agriculture to non-agriculture.
14. The petitioner in W.P.No.24891 of 2010 has converted
the land from agriculture to non-agriculture and also
constructed a rice mill after obtaining necessary permission
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
from the competent authority and also constructed sheds in
the land belongs to him. The petitioner in W.P.No.24905 of
2010 has purchased the land through the registered
documents and after purchase, he has converted the said
land from agriculture to non-agriculture as house plots and
sold the same to the third parties before institution of suit
in O.S.No.202 of 1990 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,
Sircilla.
15. The Tahsildar has passed the impugned order basing
on the application filed by the unofficial respondent and the
legal opinion of the Government pleader, Nizamabad. In
fact, the nature of land was changed from agriculture to
non-agriculture as per the documents filed by the writ
petitioners along with material papers.
16. In the counter filed by the Tahsildar in W.P.No.24891
of 2010, no where it is mentioned about filing of Execution
Petition by the unofficial respondent for implementation of
the Decree in O.S.No.202 of 1990 on the file of the Junior
Civil Judge, Sircilla, dated 20.03.1997 and for recovery of
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
possession of the subject property. Whereas in the counter
filed by the Tahsildar in W.P.No.24905 of 2010, it was
stated that the unofficial respondent has filed E.P. and as
per the direction in the said E.P., the property was already
handed over to the unofficial respondent under a cover of
panchanama in the presence of the Village Administrative
Officer, Machareddy on 07.03.1998.
17. In the counter filed by the unofficial respondent in
W.P.No.24891 of 2010, it was mentioned about filing of
Execution Petition and the property was delivered to her
under a cover of panchanama. Whereas in the counter filed
by her in W.P.No.24905 of 2010, no where it was mentioned
about the E.P.proceedings. It creates doubt about the E.P.
proceedings and the respondents have failed to file any
document to show that the unofficial respondent has taken
over the possession of properties in both the writ petitions.
Once the property was taken over by the unofficial
respondent under cover of panchanama on 07.03.1998, the
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
question of passing of impugned order for taking over
possession by the revenue authorities does not arise.
18. The contention of the respondents that without
availing the alternative remedy of appeal or revision, the
petitioners have approached this Court and the writ petition
is not maintainable. The said contention is not acceptable
and the writ petition is maintainable as the impugned order
was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and
without power and jurisdiction.
19. Moreover, in ROR proceedings, the Tahsildar has
authority to mutate the Revenue records, but not to direct
the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer
to take over possession of property belonging to the private
parties. If the unofficial respondent has any right over the
property basing on the Judgment and Decree in a partition
suit in O.S.No.202 of 1990, she can agitate her right for
recovery of possession by filing appropriate petition before
the competent Civil Court, but the Tahsildar has no power
and jurisdiction to order for eviction of the petitioners from
SK,J
W.P.Nos.24891 and 24905 of 2010
the subject properties. In view of the same, the Tahsildar
has passed the impugned order without any power and
jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside.
20. In view of the above findings, both the Writ Petitions
are allowed by setting aside the order passed by the
Tahsildar in No.B/9765/2009 dated 06.09.2010. However,
this order does not preclude the unofficial respondent to
approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of her
grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in these
writ petitions, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SARATH, J
Date:10.01.2025
sj
