Telangana High Court

K.Manohar vs The State Of Telangana on 17 June, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

           WRIT PETITION No.22390 of 2020

ORDER:

Heard Sri K.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel

representing the learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and

Registration and learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the

material on record.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners jointly purchased the

agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.34

guntas in Sy.No.117 situated at Sulthanpally Village,

Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District from Sri

Yelkacherla Narsimha Reddy through Registered Sale Deed

No.7313 of 2006 dated 29.05.2006 and after purchasing the

same, the petitioners has submitted an application in Form

VI-A to the respondent No.4 for mutation of their names in

Revenue Records. As the respondent No.4 has not taken any

steps, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.17049 of 2008

before this Court for mutation of their names in revenue

records. At that time, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar has ::2:: SK, J WP_22390_2020

produced a memo dated 18.10.2006, stating that the

subject lands are Government lands and basing on the

same, this Court by orders dated 08.08.2008 has dismissed

the said writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to

challenge the said memo dated 18.10.2006 issued by the

respondent No.4 therein under the provisions of the

Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,

1971. Challenging the said memo, the petitioners filed an

appeal No.C/4963/2008, dated 06.10.2008 under section

5(5) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass

Books Act, 1971 before the respondent No.3 and the

respondent No.3vide orders dated 03.11.2012, set aside the

said memo dated 18.10.2006 and remanded back the matter

to the respondent No.4 to take up enquiry afresh into the

claim of the petitioners.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

submits that in spite of receipt of the orders from the

respondent No.3, the respondent No.4 without disposing the

said application has sent a list of properties under Section

22-A of Registration Act to the respondent No.5 declaring

that the Sy.No.117 is an assigned land at Sl.No.16 of said

notification prohibiting the registration of the subject land.

                                      ::3::                                SK, J
                                                                 WP_22390_2020


Aggrieved     by     the     same,     the    petitioner   has      filed

W.P.No.28363 of 2013 before this Court and by an order

dated 11.11.2013, this Court disposed of the said writ

petition by declaring the notification issued under Section

22-A of the Registration Act in so far as the inclusion of the

subject lands in the prohibitory list as illegal and directed

the Recording Authority to mutate and issue the pattadar

pass books and title deeds to the petitioners. As no appeal

has been preferred by the respondents therein, the said

order has attained its finality. He further submits that as

the respondent No.4 has failed to implement the orders

dated 11.11.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioners filed

C.C.No.1856 of 2014 seeking to punish the respondents

therein for disobedience of the orders of this Court. After

receipt of the notice in the said contempt petition, the

respondent No.4 has passed an order by rejecting the

mutation application of the petitioners stating that the

subject lands are Government lands. Thereafter, when this

Court has issued a notice to the Tahsildar for his

appearance, the Tahsildar has passed orders in

Procs.No.B/1/2013, dated 27.01.2015 by mutating the

names of the petitioners and issued Pattadar Pass Books ::4:: SK, J WP_22390_2020

and title deeds to them and this Court has closed the

aforesaid contempt case by order dated 30.01.2015.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

further submits that the respondent No.4 herein had once

again refused to issue the Pattadar Pass Books stating that

the subject lands are Government lands and sent the same

to respondent No.2 for clarification. Thereafter, the

petitioners has submitted a representation dated

21.12.2019 to the respondent No.2 requesting him to delete

the subject lands from prohibitory properties list and direct

the respondent No.4 to issue new pattadar passbooks to the

petitioners. The respondent No.2 without considering the

same has passed orders vide No.E1/2600/2019, dated

12.10.2020, stating that the request of the applicants i.e.,

the petitioners herein for de-notifying the land from

Prohibitory Properties List under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act cannot be considered as the subject land is

classified as 'Billa Dhakala' which is vested with

Government.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the said action of respondent No.2 refusing to ::5:: SK, J WP_22390_2020

de-notify the subject lands as 'Billa Dhakala' is itself illegal,

highhandedness and it amounts to further contempt of the

orders of this Court in W.P.No.28363 of 2013 dated

11.11.2013 and requested to allow the writ petition by

setting aside the impugned orders passed by respondent

No.2 dated 12.10.2020.

6. In support of his arguments, Learned Senior

Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon of the Judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Ramachandra Rao

Vs S.Nagabhushana Rao and Others 1.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Revenue, basing on the counter affidavit filed by respondent

No.4, submits that as per the Khasra Pahani for the year

1954-55, the land admeasuring Ac.5.34 guntas in

Sy.No.117 situated at Sulthanapally Village, Shamshabad

Mandal, Rangareddy District, is recorded as "Biladakla" in

Col.No.8 i.e., Government land and in Col.No.19, it is

recorded as "Namasivaya, Sulthanapally" and in Col.No.20,

it is recorded as "Bandobast Ijafa Biladakla Ainadi itti

number Navasivayaku patta kavale" and as such, the

subject land belongs to the Government and no private

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1460 ::6:: SK, J WP_22390_2020

person has title over the said land. she further submits that

in pursuance of the orders dated 11.11.2013 passed by this

Court in W.P.No.28363 of 2013 and in C.C.No.1856 of 2014,

the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, has issued mutation

proceedings vide Progs.No.B/1/2013, dated 27.01.2015, in

favour of the petitioners and as the subject land is recorded

as "Biladakila", the then Tahsildar, should not have granted

the mutation in favour of the petitioners but should have

rejected the same while disposing their petition as per the

direction of this Court. Therefore, the said orders of the then

Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal has to be reviewed and

cancelled, for which action is being taken accordingly to set

aside the said proceedings and therefore the petitioners are

not entitled for deletion of the land from 22-A Prohibitory

properties. The sale deed executed by the vendor of the

Petitioner is not valid and also null and void.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further

submits that the petitioners has obtained the mutation

proceedings by misrepresenting the facts before the revenue

officials, which is against the law and as such the impugned

proceedings dated 12.10.2020, issued by the respondent

No.2 by rejecting the application for de-notifying the subject ::7:: SK, J WP_22390_2020

land from the Prohibitory Properties List is as per law and

requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

9. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the

considered view that the petitioners have purchased the

subject property through Registered Sale Deed No.7313 of

2006 dated 29.05.2006 from one Sri Yelkacherla Narasimha

Reddy. Before purchasing the said property, the father of the

vendor of the petitioners has filed a suit in O.S.No.121 of

1976, on the file of the District Munsif West & South,

Hyderabad District against the Government for declaration

of title over various lands vide order dated 08.10.1980, the

same was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the father

of the vendor of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the

Government had filed an appeal in A.S.No.101 of 1981 on

the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad, wherein the Appellate Court after perusing the

entire documentary and oral evidence on record vide its

Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.1982, has modified the

decree of the trial Court as the title of the plaintiff in

Sy.No.62 is upheld and the rest of the Judgment and decree

dated 08.10.1980 was confirmed, which has also attained

its finality. Thereafter, the name of the vendor of the ::8:: SK, J WP_22390_2020

petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and was also

issued with the pattadar pass books and title deeds vide

proceeding No.A/545/2005, dated 30.05.2005. After the

petitioners purchasing the subject property from their

vendor and at the time of mutation of name in the revenue

records, the respondents have issued the proceedings

stating that the subject property belongs to the Government.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.28363 of

2013, before this Court, wherein after hearing both sides

and taking into consideration of the alleged contentions, this

Court vide order dated 11.11.2013 has disposed of the writ

petition and the operative portion of the said order reads as

follows.

"From the respective pleadings, it is evident that against the order of respondent No.4 refusing mutation, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.3, who by his order, dated 03.11.2012, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to respondent No.4 for fresh enquiry and passing of a fresh order. Thereafter, respondent No.5 has issued notification on 09.07.2013 under Section 22-A of the Act including the subject land in the prohibitory list for registration. The petitioners specifically pleaded that one Y.Bal Reddy, father of their vendor filed O.S.No.121 of 1976 in the Court of the District Munsif, West and South, Hyderabad, against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein for declaration of his title and possession in respect of land admeasuring Acs.9.36 guntas in survey Nos.62 and 117 of Sulthanpally Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, which included the subject land, for which the present writ petition is filed and that the said suit was decreed, by judgment ::9:: SK, J WP_22390_2020

and decree, dated 08.10.1980. The petitioners further pleaded that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed A.S.No.101 of 1981 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the said judgment and decree, dated 08.10.1980, and that the appeal was dismissed, by the judgment and decree, dated 30.09.1981. The petitioners also pleaded that the said judgments have become final. In support of this plea, the petitioners filed copies of the judgments and decrees of both the Courts. The counter-affidavit is silent on the said aspect and accordingly, the said plea remained uncontroverted. From the judgments filed by the petitioners, this Court is satisfied that the title of the father of the petitioners' vendor was upheld by the competent civil Court and the said judgments have attained finality. Therefore, the impugned notification to the extent of inclusion of the land admeasuring Acs.5.34 guntas claimed by the petitioners has nо validity in the eye of law and the same is declared as such."

10. After disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, the

respondents have mutated the names of the petitioners in

the revenue records. When the petitioners submitted an

application seeking for issuance of new pattadar pass books

and title deeds, the respondent No.2 again issued impugned

proceeding No.E1/2600/2019 dated 12.10.2020, by

refusing to de-notify the lands of the petitioners from

Prohibitory Properties List under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act, 1908, as the subject land is classified as

'Billa Dhakala' which is vested with Government and the

said action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and

contrary to the orders dated 11.11.2013 passed by this

Court in W.P.No.28363 of 2013.

                                  ::10::                                  SK, J
                                                                WP_22390_2020

11. As seen from the material available on record, the

respondents herein have contended the same plea in the

earlier proceedings, wherein this Court has rejected the said

plea of the respondents and disposed of the aforesaid writ

petition. Thereafter, the respondents without filing an

appeal against the orders of the aforesaid writ petition and

filed counter stating that the petitioners had obtained the

orders and the mutation proceedings by misleading this

Court and by misrepresenting the facts to the revenue

authorities, which cannot be accepted by this Court and

further the non implementation of the orders passed by this

Court on 11.11.2013 in W.P.No.28363 of 2013 amounts to

Contempt of Court. Therefore, the respondents are not

allowed to rely on the same contention/plea which was

earlier rejected by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.

12. The Judgment relied by the Senior Counsel for

the petitioners in S.Ramachandra Rao Vs

S.Nagabhushana Rao and Others (supra) would squarely

apply to the instant case and the relevant portion is

extracted hereunder:

"31. For what has been noticed and discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it remains hardly a matter of doubt that the doctrine of res judicata is ::11:: SK, J WP_22390_2020

fundamental to every well regulated system of jurisprudence, for being founded on the consideration of public policy that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct and that no person should be vexed twice with the same kind of litigation. This doctrine of res judicata is attracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Moreover, a binding decision cannot lightly be ignored and even an erroneous decision remains binding on the parties to the same litigation and concerning the same issue, if rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Such a binding decision cannot be ignored even on the principle of per incuriam because that principle applies to the precedents and not to the doctrine of res judicata."

In the instant case also, the respondents have taken

the same stand which was not accepted by this Court in the

earlier writ petition.

13. The respondents herein in their counter affidavit

are relying on the contention which was earlier rejected by

this Court in W.P.No.28363 of 2013, therefore, the counter

affidavit filed by the respondents herein cannot be taken

into account as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

aforesaid Judgment. In view of the same, this Court is of the

opinion that the impugned orders vide No.E1/2600/2019,

dated 12.10.2020, passed by the respondent No.2 are liable

to be set aside.