Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 105 (TS)

Ramaraj Sitarama Rao v. State of Telangana

2022-02-28

B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

body2022
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent No. 2 in old Case No. F2/4768/2018 dated 09.06.2021 wherein the revision filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 to 23 in respect of lands in Sy. No. 18 (Acs. 9.31 guntas), Sy. No. 20 (Acs. 9.22 guntas), Sy. No. 21 (Acs. 2.20 guntas), Sy. No. 25 (Acs. 21.05 guntas), Sy. No. 174 (Acs. 2.23 guntas), Sy. No. 175 (Ac. 1.25 guntas) and Sy. No. 176 (Ac. 0.29 guntas) totally admeasuring Acs. 48.35 guntas situated at Naseempet Village, Atmakur (S) Mandal, Suryapet District, was dismissed. 2. Petitioner stated that the impugned order was passed without application of mind and recording any reasons and without adverting to documents/submissions of the petitioner and thereby violating the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 2020 (for short ‘the Act of 2020’) and Section 5(A) of the Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act of 1971’) and Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that his maternal grandmother, namely, Smt. Guduru Radhamma W/o Sitarama Rao Guduru, was the exclusive owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. 48.35 guntas in Sy. Nos. 18, 20, 21, 25, 174, 175 and 176 situated at Naseempet Village, Atmakur (S) Mandal, Suryapet District (subject property). The said land was bequeathed in favour of her daughter i.e. petitioner’s mother as ‘Pasupu Kunkuma’ vide registered will deed executed on 15.06.1967. The property was mutated in the name of the mother of the petitioner, namely, Ramaraju Jankamma, by the respondent No. 4 vide proceedings File No. A/721/827 during the year 1987. The mother of the petitioner was issued pattadar passbooks. Petitioner’s mother bequeathed the property to the petitioner vide will deed and also executed a GPA in favour of the petitioner vide registered document dated 17.08.1987. The mother of the petitioner expired on 10.03.1991. Upon death of his mother, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the subject property. 4. The petitioner requested the respondent No. 4 to carry out mutation and change of entries of the subject property in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the original will deed submitted by the petitioner. Upon death of his mother, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the subject property. 4. The petitioner requested the respondent No. 4 to carry out mutation and change of entries of the subject property in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the original will deed submitted by the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 passed mutation order dated 21.05.1991 effecting mutation in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 issued pattedar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner on 16.07.2004 bearing Khata No. 39. The said information was confirmed in Form 1-B. 5. It is stated that the petitioner is a Government employee in Agriculture Department in Khammam District and he was not in a position to look after the day-to-day affairs of the subject property. He entrusted the management of the subject property to one Alameni Tirupathaiah, who leased the said land to various persons including the respondent Nos. 5 to 23 and collected lease amount and remitted the same to the petitioner. Upon the death of the said agent, the petitioner visited the village and directed the respondent Nos. 5 to 23 to vacate the land. Initially, the respondent Nos. 5 to 23 requested the petitioner to wait for completion of harvest. However, they did not vacate the land or paid the lease amount and they became trespassers of the subject land. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Suryapet, complaining illegal trespass, creation of false, fictitious documents by the respondent Nos. 5 to 23. In the meantime, the petitioner lost pattedar passbook and title deed and lodged a complaint with the I Town Police Station, Suryapet. 6. The petitioner applied for duplicate pattedar passbook in the office of the respondent No. 4. As there was inaction by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 31454 of 2015 and this Court by order dated 29.09.2015 directed the respondent No. 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner for issuance of pattedar passbooks and title deed and pass orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Inspite of clear direction from this Court, the respondent No. 4 did not issue pattedar passbook and title deeds. Inspite of clear direction from this Court, the respondent No. 4 did not issue pattedar passbook and title deeds. It is stated that due to personal reasons, the petitioner wanted to sell the subject property and in that regard, gave a paper publication on 19.02.2015 expressing his intention to sell the subject property. To the shock and dismay of the petitioner, legal notices were issued by the unofficial respondents claiming that they are owners of the subject property. Initially the petitioner filed a petition before the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for cancellation of pattedar passbook and title deeds issued to the respondent Nos. 5 to 23. Thereafter, revision was filed before the respondent No. 2. 7. Upon enactment of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 2020, the Special Tribunal took up the case of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an affidavit alongwith relevant material. The respondent Nos. 5 to 23 did not file any counter but merely submitted certain documents before the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 passed a non-speaking order without any application of mind, by merely referring to the fact that the respondent Nos. 5 to 23, by virtue of Sada sale deeds and physical possession, were issued pattedar passbook and title deeds. Since their names are reflected in the Dharani Portal on account of which e-pattedar passbooks have been issued to the respondent Nos. 5 to 23, no interference is warranted and dismissed the revision petition. 8. Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that several relevant documents including mutation proceedings, pattedar passbook and titled deeds, Form 1-B extract, pahanies etc. were filed alongwith the order of the High Court dated 29.09.2015 in W.P. No. 31454 of 2015. Surprisingly, the respondent No. 2 neither adverted to any of the documents filed by the petitioner nor discussed the same nor reached any finding with regard to the said documents. The Special Tribunal has also not examined as to whether the Sada sale deeds entered into by the respondent Nos. 5 to 23 were regularized by the respondent No. 4 by following the procedure under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971; whether certificate in that regard has been issued by the respondent No. 4 and whether change of entries with regard to the said land in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 to 23 were regularized by the respondent No. 4 by following the procedure under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971; whether certificate in that regard has been issued by the respondent No. 4 and whether change of entries with regard to the said land in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 to 23 were done upon production of the said certificate by the respondent Nos. 5 to 23, as required under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971 read with Rule 22 of the Act of 1971. It is submitted that prior to the orders of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 20 of 2021 dated 18.03.2021, the respondent No. 2 passed orders, which were identical to the impugned order. None of the documents of the petitioner were examined in the order dated 01.02.2021 and the same order has been passed under the impugned proceedings dated 09.06.2021 again observing that the pattedar passbooks were issued to the unofficial respondents and their names appeared in the Dharani Portal. 9. Notice was ordered by this Court on 06.12.2021, while permitting the petitioner to take out personal notice to the respondent Nos. 6 to 23. It appears from the record that personal notices have been taken out by the petitioner and service is effected on the respondent Nos. 6 to 23. Proof of memo of service was filed on 23.12.2021. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 to 23. 10. Heard Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. 11. From Pages 1 to 3 in the impugned order, the second respondent - Special Tribunal referred to the background facts of the case, the claim of the petitioner and the order of the High Court dated 18.03.2021 in W.P. (PIL) No. 20 of 2021. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 09.06.2021 is as under: 1. It is observed that the respondent Nos. 4 to 23 are having physical possession and enjoyment over the scheduled land. 2. The respondent Nos. 4 to 23 got the passbooks by way of validating their unregistered sale deeds and mutated their names in revenue records also. 3. The names of respondent Nos. 4 to 23 were implemented in Dharani Portal and issued e-PPBs also. 4. 4 to 23 are having physical possession and enjoyment over the scheduled land. 2. The respondent Nos. 4 to 23 got the passbooks by way of validating their unregistered sale deeds and mutated their names in revenue records also. 3. The names of respondent Nos. 4 to 23 were implemented in Dharani Portal and issued e-PPBs also. 4. The Special Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the orders of Tahsildar Atmakur (S). 12. On comparing the earlier order of the Special Tribunal dated 01.02.2021, the substance appears to be one and the same. The order dated 01.02.2021 comprises of one paragraph. However, in the impugned order dated 09.06.2021, the contents of the said one para, are split into four points. The Special Tribunal has merely adjusted the sentences here and there so as to give a colour that a new order is passed. However, on close scrutiny of the two orders, the substratum of both the orders is one and the same. 13. The possession over the land is not the only factor, which needs to be looked into by the Special Tribunal. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of the unofficial respondents that they were issued pattedar passbooks on the strength of regularization of unregistered sale deeds is very much essential to be decided. Merely it is pointed out that the unregistered sale deeds were validated. The validation proceedings under Section 5-A and certificate under Section 13-B of the Act of 1971 have not been referred to. The mutation proceedings based on which the pattedar passbooks have been issued have also not been referred to. It appears that the validation proceedings and mutation proceedings were not part of the record before the respondent No. 2/Special Tribunal. As rightly pointed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the pattedar passbooks and title deeds cannot be issued unless unregistered sale deed of the unofficial respondents were regularized in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971 read with Rule 22 of the Rules. But without considering all such important aspects, a cryptic order is passed. The Point Nos. 1 to 4, in the impugned order, can by no means be construed as reasons. They are just points noted or observed by the Special Tribunal. 14. But without considering all such important aspects, a cryptic order is passed. The Point Nos. 1 to 4, in the impugned order, can by no means be construed as reasons. They are just points noted or observed by the Special Tribunal. 14. The Special Tribunal/respondent No. 2 is constituted under the provisions of the Act of 2020. Under Section 16 of the Act of 2020 all pending appeals and revisions under the provisions of the Act of 1971 stood transferred to the Special Tribunals. The Special Tribunals, have powers vested in the Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as per Section 13 of the Act 2020. The disputes relating to succession, mutation, issuance of pattedar passbooks/title deeds, correction of revenue record etc. are decided by the Special Tribunals. The adjudication in these disputes, though not final, would, however, have bearing on the right of enjoyment of concerned parties over the agricultural lands. In adjudicating the said disputes, the Special Tribunals exercise quasi-judicial powers. What constitutes a quasi-judicial authority is aptly laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association, (2012) 10 SCC 353 . It is held in Para 18 as follows: “18........Where there is a lis between two contesting parties and a statutory authority is required to decide such dispute between them. Such an authority may be called as a quasi-judicial authority i.e. a situation where: (a) a statutory authority is empowered under a statute to do any act; (b) the order of such authority would adversely affect the subject; and (c) although there is no lis or two contending parties, and the contest is between the authority and the subject and (d) the statutory authority is required to act judicially under the statute, the decision of the said authority is a quasi-judicial decision. An authority may be described as a quasi-judicial authority when it possesses certain attributes or trapping of a “Court” but not all.” 15. It has been held in a catena of decisions that a quasi-judicial authority has to record reasons in support of its decision and it is one of the attributes of principles of natural justice. In Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. It has been held in a catena of decisions that a quasi-judicial authority has to record reasons in support of its decision and it is one of the attributes of principles of natural justice. In Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 981 , the Supreme Court held as under: “6......It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N.M. Desai vs. Testeels Ltd. (C.A. No. 245 of 2970, dated 17.12.1975). In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. K.S. Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC 716 , the Supreme Court held as under: “21. Thus it is settled law that the reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It also excludes the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. The order when it affects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative fair play requires recording of germane and assurance that the authority concerned conspicuously applied its mind to the facts on record....” In Charan Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital, 2001 (1) ALD 6 (SC) : (2000) 7 SCC 668 , the Supreme Court held as under: “11.....The authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is one of the postulates of such a body that it should arrive at a conclusion based on reason. The necessity to provide reasons, however, brief in support of its conclusion by such a forum, is too obvious to be reiterated and needs no emphasising. Obligation to give reasons not only introduces clarity but it also excludes, or at any rate minimizes, the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons...” 16. As noted above, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order without giving any reasons by repeating the same contents in the order dated 01.02.2021. Obligation to give reasons not only introduces clarity but it also excludes, or at any rate minimizes, the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons...” 16. As noted above, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order without giving any reasons by repeating the same contents in the order dated 01.02.2021. The same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and runs contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1971 and Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 17. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 20 of 2021 dated 18.03.2021 passed the following order: “1. An additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents in terms of the previous order furnishing the data relating to the 32 Districts in the State, reflecting the number of cases transferred to the Special Tribunals, the cases disposed of as on 02.03.2021, the cases where parties/Advocates were present to address arguments and the cases in which orders were passed based on record without hearing the parties. 2. A perusal of the said data placed at Annexure-33 reveals that a total of 16,296 cases were transferred to the Special Tribunals, out of which barring 2 cases, all the 16,294 cases were disposed of as on 02.03.2021. Only in 1851 cases, parties/Advocates were present to address arguments before the Special Tribunals in 32 Districts. It is stated that orders have been passed in 4,189 cases, based on records, without hearing the parties. 3. The aforesaid data clearly shows that principles of natural justice have been violated by the State inasmuch as the parties have been deprived of an opportunity of hearing before the Special Tribunals. The object of expeditious disposal of long pending matters relating to several revenue disputes, may be laudable, but the hurry and the scurry shown by the State, is not understandable. All that was required was for the Special Tribunals that had received the matters on transfer from the concerned Revenue Courts was to fix actual dates of hearing in the said matters and put the parties concerned to notice to enable them to appear on particular dates for addressing arguments. All that was required was for the Special Tribunals that had received the matters on transfer from the concerned Revenue Courts was to fix actual dates of hearing in the said matters and put the parties concerned to notice to enable them to appear on particular dates for addressing arguments. We are afraid that in view of the fact that in just 10% cases parties/Advocates were present before the Special Tribunals, the orders passed by the said Tribunals would become questionable primarily on the ground of violating principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. 4. It is therefore deemed appropriate to direct that in all cases that have been transferred from the Revenue Courts to the Special Tribunals, notwithstanding any orders that may have been passed by the Special Tribunals, the respondents shall issue public notices calling upon parties to appear before the Special Tribunals in each district on a fixed date and time to enable them to make their submissions. Wherever a request for a personal hearing is received from parties, the orders passed by the Special Tribunals shall be deemed to the quashed and set aside. Fresh orders shall be passed by the Special Tribunals after granting a reasonable opportunity to the parties of being heard either in person or through their Advocates. They shall also be afforded a chance to file written submissions, if not already filed. Only thereafter shall fresh orders be passed by the Special Tribunals. Adequate and wide spread publicity of this order shall be given by the State within three weeks to apprise all concerned parties of the same. 5. Needless to state that wherever it is found that after being put to notice, the parties are deliberately dilating and/or delaying the proceedings, the Special Tribunals shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. 6. List on 24.06.2021, for the respondents/State to file a fresh affidavit furnishing similar data, as was directed earlier, alongwith the relevant breakup for the perusal of this Court. The Division Bench passed the following order on 22.11.2021: “Learned Counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated before this Court that in the light of the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government, the present writ petition (public interest litigation) deserves to be disposed of. The Division Bench passed the following order on 22.11.2021: “Learned Counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated before this Court that in the light of the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government, the present writ petition (public interest litigation) deserves to be disposed of. The writ petition (public interest litigation) in accordingly disposed of, as the respondents have already complied with the order passed by this Court. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.” 18. Inspite of the aforesaid orders of the Division Bench, this Court had been seeing on day-to-day basis that orders are being passed by the Special Tribunals without recording any reasons. This Court cannot lay down exhaustive guidelines as to the procedure to be followed by the Special Tribunals for passing orders in appeals and revision heard by it, as the fact situation might vary from case to case. However, having regard to the practical experience that the Special Tribunals indiscriminately had been passing orders without recording reasons and in many cases same orders, which were passed earlier are passed after request was made for rehearing of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to give a broad outline of procedure to be followed by the Special Tribunals for disposing of the appeals and revisions. The guidelines are framed taking into consideration the fact situation and the issues involved in the present case: (i) Facts of the case (claim of the petitioner/respondent). (ii) Whether there is delay in filing appeal/revision. (iii) Whether pattedar passbooks and title deeds are issued by following procedure prescribed under law. (iv) Whether mutation proceedings/regularization proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act of 1971 have been issued in favour of the unofficial respondents. (v) Whether petitioner is entitled for any other relied or not. 19. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 09.06.2021. The respondent No. 2/Special Tribunal is directed to pass orders on merits by giving detailed reasons and by following the guidelines framed in para supra. 20. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.