Telangana High Court
Tahsildar vs Sri Kishna Agarwal on 19 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.377 of 2022
ORDER:
Challenging the order dated 02.09.2021 passed in
E.P.No.12 of 2015 in O.S.No.13 of 2005 by the learned V
Additional District Jduge, Kothagudem, the present Civil
Revision Petition is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Decree Holder
entered into a sale agreement with the Judgment Debtor on
21.06.2004 for Ac.2-22 gts of dry land in Sy.No.405
(Old)/405/12 (New), Paloncha Revenue Village, but the JDR
failed to execute the registered sale deed despite receiving the
balance sale consideration. The DHR filed O.S.No.13 of 2005
before the Principal District Court, Khammam, for specific
performance, and on 31.08.2010, the Court decreed in favor of
the DHR, directing the JDR to execute the sale deed, failing
which it could be executed through Court process. Since the
Judgment Debtor did not comply, the Decree Holder initiated
E.P.No.12 of 2015 for execution, and during the proceedings, the
SKS,J
Court directed the Tahsildar, Paloncha, to register the sale deed.
However, the Tahsildar objected, claiming the land was
Government-assigned and its transfer violated the A.P. Assigned
Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The DHR countered,
stating the land was assigned to Narayanapeta Eswaramma
under the political sufferers quota per G.O.Ms.No.1743 on
02.08.1959, which permitted unrestricted sale, and that the
1974 sale deed was legally valid, with subsequent purchasers
receiving pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Citing the ruling of
this Court in A.Venkatesan & Others v. Government of A.P. 1,
the trial court held that the Tahsildar had no authority to reject
the registration, as the Government had not reclaimed the land,
and directed him to register the sale deed in favor of the DHR.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration
appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri P. Rama
Krishna Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
2004 (2) ALD 422
SKS,J
4. Learned Government Pleader for the petitioner submits
that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to established
legal principles and documentary evidence, making it liable to be
set aside. The impugned order was passed in an application
under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC in E.P.No. 12 of 2015, wherein
the trial Court erroneously decided the title of the E.P. schedule
property based solely on a letter submitted by the petitioner on
08.07.2021. He further submitted that the petitioner was not
given an opportunity to participate in the inquiry and present
documentary evidence, which is only permissible under an
application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. The trial
Court also erred in deciding the title of the E.P. schedule
property in an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC,
which is not the proper procedure for determining ownership and
that the trial Court failed to follow due process, deciding the title
of the property without conducting a trial.
5. Learned Government Pleader for the petitioner contended
that the trial Court did not consider the petitioner's argument
that Sy.No.405 of Paloncha Revenue Village is classified as
Government Poramboke land, with a total extent of Ac. 639.05
SKS,J
gts as per revenue records from 1954-55 to 1987-88. A
supplementary Sethwar was issued in the year 1987,
incorporating the names of assignees into the revenue records
from 1988-89 onwards, rendering the registered sale deed
No.68/1974, dated 04.04.1974, in favor of Ganesh Goud, invalid.
The trial Court also failed to consider the documents of the
petitioner proving that the subject land was assigned to
Narayanapeta Eswaramma, with a supplementary Sethwar
issued in the year 1987 by the Assistant Director of Revenue
Survey Settlement (Ryotwary) and Land Records Department,
Khammam. The said land was illegally transferred through
registered sale deeds in violation of the A.P. Assigned Lands
(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, rendering such registration
null and void. Therefore, the E.P. schedule land cannot be
registered in favor of the DHR.
6. Learned Government Pleader further contended that while
the trial Court acknowledged that the government assigned
Ac.5.04 gts of land to Narayanapeta Eswaramma in the year
1987 under the political sufferers' quota, it failed to consider that
the DHR claims title based on a sale deed dated 02.04.1974,
SKS,J
which predates the assignment. The trial Court also erred in
holding that the Tahsildar, Paloncha, had no authority to reject
the registration of the E.P. schedule land, despite admitting that
it was assigned in the year 1987 and subsequently transferred
through a sale deed in the year 1974. The learned counsel
contends that the payment of Rs.5,81,950/- towards stamp duty,
registration fee, and transfer duty, along with the filing of N.J.
Stamps worth Rs.1,000/-, does not confer any legal right or title
upon the respondents or their vendors. Directing the Tahsildar
to register the E.P. schedule land in favor of the DHR based on
such payments is unlawful. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set
aside the impugned order.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that there are no infirmities in the order of the trial
Court and the trial Court has rightly rejected the objection of the
Tahsildar and passed the order, as such, he prayed the Court to
dismiss the civil revision petition.
8. Upon carefully considering the submissions made by both
the learned counsel and thoroughly reviewing the material
SKS,J
available on record, it is noted that the primary issue in this case
pertains to the listing of the disputed land under Section 22A of
the Prohibition of Land Transfers Act. According to the revision
petitioner, the land in question has been categorized under
Section 22A, which prohibits its transfer. Despite this, the
Tahsildar proceeded to register the property in favor of third
parties, which raises concerns regarding the legality of such
transactions.
9. It is an undisputed fact that the land in Sy.No.405 is
government land and was assigned to Narayanapeta
Eswaramma. The Tahsildar, however, argues that the land was
assigned in 1987, and prior to that, a registered sale deed had
already been executed by Narayanapeta Eswaramma. The trial
Court did not examine this aspect, and therefore, no findings
were recorded on the validity of the sale deed or its impact on the
land assignment.
10. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the powers of the
executing Court are limited to the execution of decrees and do
not extend to determining questions of title. The executing Court
SKS,J
cannot decide issues related to the original ownership or
acquisition of the property in an execution petition. Therefore,
any argument regarding how and when Narayanapeta
Eswaramma acquired the property is not relevant to the present
proceedings, making such contentions legally untenable.
11. The crucial issue in this case revolves around whether the
property in question is listed under Section 22A. If the property
is included in the prohibited list, the appropriate legal recourse
for the concerned parties is to approach the District Collector,
who has the authority to review and issue necessary directions to
the Tahsildar regarding the registration of such land. In the
present case, however, there is no dispute regarding the
assignment of the land to Eshwaramma as a political sufferer, to
an extent of Ac.5.04 guntas. The Government of Andhra Pradesh
issued G.O.Ms.No.1743 dated 02.08.1959, stating that political
sufferers are permitted to sell the land assigned to them without
any conditions. There are clear instructions in the said G.O. for
selling the property, and Eshwaramma already sold the property
in the year 1974. The purchasers became pattadars and were
issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds by the Revenue
SKS,J
Department. Furthermore, there is no document filed by the
Tahsildar to indicate that the said land was taken back by the
Government. Therefore, the E.P. schedule property is not
Government land. As a result, the Registering Authority is
required to register the land. There is no illegality in the order of
the trial court, there are no merits in the revision petition, and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 19.03.2025
SAI
