Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 117 (TS)

G. Ashok Reddy v. State of Telangana

2022-03-02

A.ABHISHEK REDDY

body2022
ORDER : 1. Questioning the order dated 24.06.2021 passed in Case No. F2/481/2021 whereby the Special Tribunal has dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 29.01.2021 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the subject land admeasuring Acs. 8-22 guntas in survey No. 513/A situated at Redlarepaka Village, Valigonda Mandal, Nalgonda District and various other lands belonging to the joint family of the father of the petitioner viz. Guduru Malla Reddy were subjected to enquiry under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and eventually the father of the petitioner viz. Guduru Malla Reddy was declared as non-surplus holder vide proceedings No. 3841/75/BNG dated 10.02.2014. Said Malla Reddy died on 13.02.2010 leaving behind him, the petitioner herein, the mother of the petitioner Smt. G. Yashoda Devi and elder brother of Malla Reddy i.e. G. Santosh Reddy, as his legal heirs. Since then, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject lands as pattadars and owners of the same. While so, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein have approached respondent No. 5 by way of an application seeking mutation in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 8-22 guntas in Survey No. 513/A situated at Redlarepaka Village, Valigonda Mandal, Nalgonda District wherein a notice was issued to the mother of the petitioner. However, without considering the objections raised by the mother of the petitioner and without issuing notice to other legal heirs of late Sri. Malla Reddy i.e. petitioner herein and Sri. G. Santhosh Reddy, respondent No. 5 has issued 13-B Certificate vide proceedings No. B/4022/2015 dated 25.01.2016. As against the same, petitioner and his mother have filed Appeal No. D/1754/2016 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir. Subsequently, the said appeal was transferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Choutuppal, on the point of jurisdiction and renumbered as Appeal No. B/473/2016. After the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for short ‘the Act No. 9 of 2020’) came into force w.e.f. 29.10.2020, the appeal was transferred to the Special Tribunal constituted under the Act No. 9 of 2020. The Special Tribunal initially passed order dated 29.01.2021 in Case No. F2/481/2021 dismissing the appeal. After the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for short ‘the Act No. 9 of 2020’) came into force w.e.f. 29.10.2020, the appeal was transferred to the Special Tribunal constituted under the Act No. 9 of 2020. The Special Tribunal initially passed order dated 29.01.2021 in Case No. F2/481/2021 dismissing the appeal. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 20 of 2021, petitioner has filed a Review Petition and the same was also dismissed by the Special Tribunal vide order dated 24.06.2021. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Respondent No. 7 filed a counter affidavit mainly stating that late Sri. Guduru Malla Reddy was the original pattadar of the land in survey Nos. 513 and 514 to an extent of Acs. 18-22 guntas and Acs. 17-37 guntas totally admeasuring Acs. 36-19 guntas situated at Redlarepaka Village, Valigonda Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District. Said Guduru Malla Reddy sold the said lands to the father of unofficial respondents herein through unregistered sale deed dated 18.06.1975 after receiving the entire sale consideration, being the Kartha of the joint family. Since the date of purchase, they are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Subsequent to the purchase, the land in Survey No. 513 was orally partitioned between these unofficial respondents and their father, out of which land admeasuring Acs. 14-20 guntas was allotted to these respondents and the remaining land of Acs. 4-02 guntas covered by ceiling declaration of late Sri. Guduru Malla Reddy vide C.C. No. 3841/75/BG dated 10.02.2004, was retained by the father of these respondents towards his share. When Guduru Malla Reddy started interfering with the possession of these respondents, they filed O.S. No. 106 of 1985 before the District Munisiff, Ramannapet, seeking declaration of title and for perpetual injunction and the said suit was decreed on 11.02.1987 in favour of these respondents. Even though the said decree has become final, patta was not transferred in the name of these respondents. Initially, these respondents approached the then Mandal Revenue Officer on 14.11.2000 seeking mutation of the land to an extent of Acs. 14-20 guntas. The said application was kept pending on the ground of pendency of CCLA proceedings. Even though the said decree has become final, patta was not transferred in the name of these respondents. Initially, these respondents approached the then Mandal Revenue Officer on 14.11.2000 seeking mutation of the land to an extent of Acs. 14-20 guntas. The said application was kept pending on the ground of pendency of CCLA proceedings. After conclusion of proceedings before the LRAT, these respondents have again approached respondent No. 5 and filed an application dated 24.11.2015 seeking mutation of the subject land. Then, these respondents came to know that the land to an extent of Acs. 10-00 guntas was mutated in the name of Guduru Yadi Reddy vide 13-B Certificate No. E/1732/2006 dated 29.09.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the father of these respondents filed an appeal before respondent No. 4, who allowed the appeal vide order dated 15.03.2018 and the remaining land of Acs. 8-22 guntas was mutated in the name of these respondents after collecting requisite stamp duty vide proceedings No. B/4022/2015 dated 13.01.2016 after conducting a detailed enquiry. It is further stated that statutory notice under Section 5 (3) of the Act was served on the mother of the petitioner, being the Kartha of the family, and her objections were considered and rejected by the authorities. Further, the father of the writ petitioner in the written statement submitted by him in O.S. No. 106 of 1985 has admitted the sale transaction in favour of father of these respondents. The Special Tribunal after considering all the above facts has passed the impugned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. Heard Sri. Naresh Reddy Chinnola, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Takuru Swetcha, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Special Tribunal has acted beyond jurisdiction and without any verification of the original record has passed the impugned order. That even though the order of the Special Tribunal shows that two members have heard the matter, but as a matter of fact, the matter was heard only by the Additional Collector (Revenue) and not the District Collector. Learned counsel has further contended that the primary authority without taking into consideration the objections filed by the mother of the petitioner, has passed the order, which was impugned before the Special Tribunal. Learned counsel has further contended that the primary authority without taking into consideration the objections filed by the mother of the petitioner, has passed the order, which was impugned before the Special Tribunal. The primary authority without taking into consideration the fact that the judgment and decree dated 20.08.1985 passed in O.S. No. 106 of 1985 cannot be implemented after a lapse of more than 20 years, has issued the proceedings and mutated the name of the unofficial respondents in the revenue records. That both the primary authority as well as the Special Tribunal have not followed the procedure contemplated under the law and without understanding the true purport of the provisions of the ROR Act have passed the impugned order and therefore seeks indulgence of the Court to set aside the same. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 6 and 7 have supported the order passed by the Special Tribunal as well as the primary authority. Learned counsel has stated that the father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 has purchased the subject property along with others through an un-registered sale deed way back in the year 1975 and they were put in possession and enjoying the same. When the father of the petitioner started interfering with the possession of the unofficial respondents, they were constrained to file a suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and rectification of the revenue record. That in the said suit, notice was served on the father of the petitioner, he was represented by a counsel and a written statement was also filed admitting the sale and also prayed the Court to decree the suit filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein. Therefore, there are no merits in the present writ petition, which warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Perused the record. 8. A perusal of the record shows that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned seeking mutation of their name based on the judgment and decree dated 11.02.1987 passed in O.S. No. 106 of 1985 by the District Munsif at Ramannapet. As seen from the record, father of the petitioner was a party to the suit and he was represented by an Advocate. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree, dated 11.02.1987. As seen from the record, father of the petitioner was a party to the suit and he was represented by an Advocate. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree, dated 11.02.1987. It is pertinent to note that the father of the petitioner who was a party defendant not only choose not to file any appeal against the said judgment and decree, dated 11.02.1987, but as a matter, he filed a written statement in the said suit admitting the sale transaction of the subject property to the unofficial respondents herein. The relevant portion of the written statement filed by the father of the petitioner in O.S. No. 106 of 1985 is extracted below: “2. That the contents of the paras 2 to 5 of the plaint are admitted by this defendant. It is admitted that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and exclusive possessors of the suit land out of Sy. No. 513 measuring Ac. 14-20 gts. situated at Redlarepaka village of Voligonda Mandalam, Nalgonda District along with a well located in the suit Survey number. This defendant admits that the plaintiffs are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands including the well located therein by paying the land revenue to the government for more than 12 years. It is admitted that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule lands from this defendant under an agreement of sale for a valuation consideration about 12 years back and this defendant had also delivered the possession of the suit lands to the plaintiff immediately after receiving the entire amount of sale consideration about 12 years back.” 9. Based on the above admissions averments in the written statement, the suit in O.S. No. 106 of 1985 was decreed on 11.02.1987. Further, the unofficial respondents herein have stated in their counter affidavit that the delay for filing the application before the Tahsildar concerned for mutating their names was due to the pendency of the land ceiling cases before the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-RDO in C.C. No. 3841/75/BNG. The said case was disposed of by the Tribunal on 10.02.2004. As against the same, the Government has preferred an appeal vide LRA No. 1/2005 and the said appeal was dismissed on 17.03.2011 by LRAT-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. Thereafter the petitioners have filed an application on 24.11.2015 before respondent No. 5 seeking mutation. The said case was disposed of by the Tribunal on 10.02.2004. As against the same, the Government has preferred an appeal vide LRA No. 1/2005 and the said appeal was dismissed on 17.03.2011 by LRAT-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. Thereafter the petitioners have filed an application on 24.11.2015 before respondent No. 5 seeking mutation. It is to be noted that the question of limitation for filing the application before the Tahsildar concerned does not arise in the present case as the suit is one for declaration and perpetual injunction. Moreover, the father of the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Tribunal wherein based on the admissions made by the father of the petitioner, certain observations were made by the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the said observations is as under: “That the declarant filed a copy of decree in O.S. No. 106/85 dated 11.2.1987 on the file of the District Munsiff Ramannapet in respect of S. No. 513 Ac. 14.20 in which the said court decreed the property in favour of Sri. M. Venkat Reddy and others. The said decree can not be acted during the pendency of land reforms proceedings and the same is colluded to defect the interest of the Government. In view of the above discussions the Issue No. II with regards to exclude the land in S. No. 514 is answered in favour of the declarant and negatived in respect of S. No. 513 as the said land is included to the holding of the declarant.” 10. Under Section 8 of the ROR Act, the primary authorities are bound to implement the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court and make the necessary changes. Under Section 8 of the ROR Act, the primary authorities are bound to implement the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court and make the necessary changes. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to point out that the authorities have not followed the procedure contemplated under the Act, that the objections filed by the mother of the petitioner were not taken into consideration by the primary authority, that the Special Tribunal while deciding the matter did not consider the various grounds taken by the petitioner nor dealt with by the Special Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to go into the same as the record reveals that the unofficial respondents are in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject land since 1975, that there is a judgment and decree in their favour, the father of the petitioner was a party defendant to the said suit and a clear admission was made by the father of the petitioner in the said suit that the subject lands are in physical possession and enjoyment of the unofficial respondents for more than 50 years. The petitioner, who is claiming through his father, cannot be on a better footing than that of his father. Once the father of the petitioner himself admitted the sale transaction, participated in the suit and allowed the judgment and decree passed against him to become final and further admitted about the pendency of the court decree before the LRAT, the question of the petitioner denying any interest, right or title in the said property does not arise. 11. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. 12. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.