Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 447 (TS)

T. Veerabhadraiah v. State of Telangana

2023-06-16

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Sri Y.Randheer, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.8 and 9. 2. The subject matter of this Writ Petition is the land admeasuring Acs.3.11 gts., situated in Sy.Nos.39, 39/A, 39/3, 79/A, 79/AA, and 79/A2 of Palvancha Revenue Village, Palvancha Mandal, Khammam District, presently in Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana State. 3. It is the case of the petitioner herein that his father was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land and his name was mutated in the Revenue records and on his demise in the year 1970, the subject land was succeeded by the petitioner being the sole successor-in-interest. As he was residing elsewhere, the subject land is being cultivated by his relatives namely Devabakthuni Venkateswara Rao and Devabakthuni Vedavathi and they have been accounting for the yield of the crop every year to the petitioner. It is the further case that in the month of May, 2008, the petitioner approached the Bank Authorities for the purpose of availing the loan and on their insistence, the petitioner made an attempt to obtain copies of the Pahanies and then realized that the names of Devabakthuni Venkateswara Rao and respondent No.9 have been mutated in the Revenue records as pattadar and possessor since the years 1989-1990 onwards, though they do not have any right and title over the subject land. It is also the case of the petitioner that neither his father during his lifetime nor the petitioner herein sold the subject land in favour of the said two persons at any point of time, but they got their names mutated in the Revenue records by playing fraud and by fabrication of records. Thus, contending the same, the petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 5(5) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971') on 21/1/2009, before respondent No.5 herein seeking rectification of the entries in the Pahanies and for removing the names of the said two persons and to enter the name of the petitioner in the pattadar column. The said appeal was rejected by respondent No.5 by an order in ROR appeal No.B/517/2009, dtd. 25/5/2013, on the ground of limitation and relegated the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance. The said appeal was rejected by respondent No.5 by an order in ROR appeal No.B/517/2009, dtd. 25/5/2013, on the ground of limitation and relegated the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein instead of taking steps against the said order, dtd. 25/5/2013, submitted a representation, dtd. 18/6/2015 i.e., almost after a lapse of two years before respondent No.2 herein seeking cancellation of the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the said two persons. The said representation was rejected by respondent No.2 by issuing Memo Rc.No.E3/2348/15, dtd. 31/3/2016, informing the petitioner that the petitioner has to take steps against the order dtd. 25/5/2013 passed by respondent No.5 by filing a Revision Petition under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1971. Thereafter, on 19/4/2016 the petitioner filed a Revision Petition under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1971, against the order, dtd. 25/5/2013, passed by respondent No.5. The said Revision Petition was disposed of by an order, dtd. 29/9/2016, on various grounds including the ground of delay and relegated the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of grievance over the title. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner. 4. Respondent Nos.8 and 9 are the persons who are making a rival claim over the subject land. Respondent No.8 is wife of the said late Devabakthuni Venkateswara Rao. It is the case of respondent Nos.8 and 9 that the subject land was purchased by their respective fathers during their lifetime from the father of the petitioner herein under a Sada Sale Deed and the said sale was subsequently regularized under Sec. 5A of the Act, 1971 and a certificate under Sec. 13B of the Act, 1971, was issued in their favour and thereafter, on the demise of their respective fathers, respondent No.9 and another succeeded to the subject land. It is also the case of respondent Nos.8 and 9 that the names of their predecessor-in-title were entered in the Revenue records right from 1960's and they were also issued pattadar pass books and on their demise, on being succeeded to the said land, the names of respondent Nos.8 and 9 were entered in the Revenue records and they were also issued pattadar pass books in their names in respect of the subject land. Thus, it is contended by respondent Nos.8 and 9 that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject land and the petitioner has no right, title or possession over the subject land. 5. Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that admittedly the father of the petitioner herein was the pattadar and possessor of the subject land and there is no registered document under which the title over the subject land was transferred to respondent Nos.8 and 9 at any point of time and in the absence of any registered document, any action on the part of the Revenue authorities in changing the entries in the Revenue records is not permissible, that too, without putting the petitioner or his father on notice. He further placed strong reliance on the report, dtd. 2/1/2016, said to have been submitted by respondent No.7 to respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that the subject land was regularized in favour of respondent No.9 and the husband of respondent No.8 herein by issuing a certificate in Form 13B, but stated that the record pertaining to such proceedings is not traced out in his office. Thus, he contended that in the absence of any record being available in the office of respondent No.7, no value can be attached to the certificate issued in Form 13B in favour of the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.8 and 9 and the entries made in the Revenue records in favour of respondent Nos.8 and 9 are bound to be declared as fraudulent and result of fabrication of records. He also contended that the simple Sale Deed was never produced before the Revenue authorities. He also placed strong reliance on the judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Meghmala and others v. G.Narasimha Reddy and others, (2010) 8 SCC 383 .S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 .nd Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal & Ors., AIR 2008 AP 15 . 6. He also placed strong reliance on the judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Meghmala and others v. G.Narasimha Reddy and others, (2010) 8 SCC 383 .S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 .nd Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal & Ors., AIR 2008 AP 15 . 6. On the other hand, Sri Y.Ranadheer, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.8 and 9, contended that the sale of the subject land made in favour of the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.8 and 9 was regularized under Sec. 5A of the Act, 1971 and in proof of the same, certificate in Form 13B was also issued and thereafter, the names of the predecessor-in-title were entered in the Revenue records and they were issued pattadar pass books and on their demise, the names of respondent Nos.8 and 9 herein have been mutated in the Revenue records and they were also issued digital pattadar pass books in their names in respect of the subject property. He further contended that the regularization proceedings issued under Sec. 5A and the consequential certificate in Form 13B have become final and in the absence of any challenge to the said proceedings, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the Writ Petition. He also contended that there is an abnormal delay in filing appeal before respondent No.5 and also while filing Revision before respondent No.2 herein and the appeal and the Revision filed by the petitioner were rightly rejected by the said authorities relegating the petitioner to competent Civil Court. Thus, he supported the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 5. He also placed reliance on the precedent reported in the cases of B. Pushpamma and Ors. v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Ors., 2005 (1) ALT 240 (S.B.).and Noharlal Verma v. District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur, (2008) 14 SCC 445 . 7. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 8. From the material on record and the arguments advanced on either side, it is evident that admittedly the names of the husband of respondent No.8 and respondent No.9 were entered in the Revenue records from the year 1989 onwards. 7. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 8. From the material on record and the arguments advanced on either side, it is evident that admittedly the names of the husband of respondent No.8 and respondent No.9 were entered in the Revenue records from the year 1989 onwards. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner succeeded to the subject property in the year 1970 on the demise of his father. It is not his case that his name was entered in the Revenue records after the demise of his father. After claiming to have succeeding to the subject property in the year 1970, it is only in the month of May, 2008, the petitioner approached the Revenue authorities for the purpose of obtaining copies of the Pahanies allegedly for the purpose of availing the Bank Loan. Thus, for almost 38 years, the petitioner has not taken any steps for mutation of his name in the Revenue records. It is not his case that his name was entered earlier and by deleting his name, the names of the third parties were entered in the Revenue records. The petitioner is aware of the defense set up by respondent Nos.8 and 9 by placing reliance on the certificate issued in Form 13B under the provisions of the Act, 1971. The petitioner himself filed copies of such certificates along with the Writ Petition. The said Form 13B certificates were dtd. 17/3/1994 and 8/6/1995. But, till date, the petitioner has not taken any steps against the said regularization proceedings issued in favour of the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.8 and 9. 9. Sec. 5A of the Act, 1971, is a special provision that was introduced to regularize the sale transactions that have taken place by way of simple Sale Deeds and to regularize the same, after following the due procedure provided under law. In terms of Sec. 5A of the Act, 1971, any regularization of simple Sale Deed under the said provision validates the simple sales and has the effect of conveying the title in favour of the purchaser. In terms of Sec. 5A of the Act, 1971, any regularization of simple Sale Deed under the said provision validates the simple sales and has the effect of conveying the title in favour of the purchaser. In spite of knowing the basis of the claim of respondent Nos.8 and 9, the petitioner has not taken any steps to question the said proceedings issued under Sec. 5A of the Act, 1971, either by filing a statutory appeal or by challenging the same before this Court. As long as the said regularization proceedings and the certificates issued in Form 13B stand, the petitioner herein cannot raise any objection against the entries that are made in the Revenue records in the names of respondent Nos.8 and 9 and the consequential issuance of pattadar pass books in their names in respect of the subject land. Admittedly, there is no challenge to the said regularization proceedings as on date. Whether the proceedings are validly issued or the same were issued by following the due process of law etc., are all matters that can be agitated and considered when there was a challenge to the said proceedings. In the absence of any such challenge, the validity or otherwise of such proceedings cannot be gone into in a collateral proceedings like the present Writ Petition. On this ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Be that as it may, as is evident from the copy of the appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.5, the names of respondent No.9 and the husband of respondent No.8 were appearing in the Revenue records since the year 1989 onwards. Against the said entries, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.5 only on 21/1/2009 i.e., after a lapse of almost 20 years. The said appeal was dismissed by respondent No.5 on the ground of limitation. The petitioner herein having lost the appeal before respondent No.5 on 25/5/2013, for the reasons best known availed the remedy of Revision only on 19/4/2016 i.e., after a lapse of 3 years. In terms of Sec. 9 of the Act, 1971, no reason is coming forth for such delay of 3 years in filing the Revision Petition. The petitioner herein having lost the appeal before respondent No.5 on 25/5/2013, for the reasons best known availed the remedy of Revision only on 19/4/2016 i.e., after a lapse of 3 years. In terms of Sec. 9 of the Act, 1971, no reason is coming forth for such delay of 3 years in filing the Revision Petition. No doubt, the petitioner claims to have submitted a representation before respondent No.2 on 18/6/2015 and while rejecting the said representation, the petitioner was advised to avail the remedy of Revision under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1971 through Memo, dtd. 31/3/2016. Even though the representation was filed before respondent No.2 herein after a lapse of more than 2 years since the date of rejection of the appeal by respondent No.5, respondent No.2 through the impugned order refused to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.5 firstly, on the ground that the names of the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.8 and 9 have been recorded in the enjoyer column since the year 1980 and the petitioner seeks to challenge such entries made long back after a lapse of few decades and also on the ground of issuance of certificates in Form 13B in favour of the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.8 and 9. Thus, in view of the fact that the names of respondent Nos.8 and 9 and their predecessor-in-title have been recorded in the Revenue records for decades together, respondent No.2 refused to exercise his power under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1971 and concurred with the reasoning given by respondent No.5. 11. In the case of Noharlal Verma (5 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the affect of Sec. 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, held as under:- "Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under:- "3. Bar of limitation.-(1) Subject to the provisions contained in Ss. 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence." (emphasis supplied) Bare reading of the aforesaid provision leaves no room for doubt that if a suit is instituted, appeal is preferred or application is made after the prescribed period, it has to be dismissed even though no such plea has been raised or defence has been set up. In other words, even in absence of such plea by the defendant, respondent or opponent, the Court or Authority must dismiss such suit, appeal or application, if it is satisfied that the suit, appeal or application is barred by limitation." 12. In the case of B. Pushpamma (4 supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court while dealing with similar fact situation held as under:- "A reference may also be made to Sec. 8(2) of the Act, which stipulates that if any person is aggrieved as to any right by an entry made in any record of rights, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title for declaration under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is not denied that in the proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Officer initiated by late Anjaiah, the fourth respondent raised dispute claiming exclusive right to the property in question. In such an event, Sec. 8(2) of the Act would be attracted and as correctly observed by the Joint Collector, such questions cannot be decided in a summary enquiry under the provisions of the Act." 13. This Court having seriously considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and after having taken note of the facts and circumstances, as noted hereinabove, does not see any reason to find fault with the reasoning given by respondent No.2 in the impugned order. 14. Yet another reason for not interfering with the impugned order is that, the petitioner did not make any assertion of he being in possession of the subject land at any point of time since the year 1970 either in the appeal filed before respondent No.5 or in the Revision filed before respondent No.2 or in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition. There is no averment claiming possession over the subject land. At any rate by simply seeking rectification of entries in the Revenue records, the petitioner would not be in a position to get back the possession over the subject land. Even assuming that the petitioner succeeds in the present proceedings, he has to approach the competent Civil Court seeking recovery of possession from respondent Nos.8 and 9. In this case, the respondents have set up title in themselves having acquired the same from the father of the petitioner herein. Even assuming that the petitioner succeeds in the present proceedings, he has to approach the competent Civil Court seeking recovery of possession from respondent Nos.8 and 9. In this case, the respondents have set up title in themselves having acquired the same from the father of the petitioner herein. Therefore, even if the relief as sought for is granted in the present Writ Petition, no useful purpose would be served and for this reason, in addition to the reasons already given by respondent No.2 and this Court, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present Writ Petition. 15. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that simple Sale Deed was never produced before the Revenue authorities is concerned, the same totally imaginary and not based on facts. Admittedly the record pertaining to the Regularization proceeding is not traceable and the petitioner has not participated in the said proceedings. Hence, there is no scope for the petitioner to know whether simple Sale Deed was produced or not. Coming to the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal & Ors (3 supra), it is a case where a Full Bench of this Court held that a personal notice in addition to a general notice issued in Form VIII is mandatory to the persons whose names are appearing in the Revenue records before effecting any changes in the Revenue records. Such an action can be examined by this Court, if there is a proper challenge to the regularization proceedings issued under Sec. 5A of the Act, 1971. As already observed hereinabove, there is no such challenge. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that his name appeared in the Revenue record at any point of time. Hence, the case of Chinnam Pandurangam (3 supra) has no application to the facts of the case on hand. 16. The other cases in Meghmala (1 supra) and S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (2 supra), there was a fraud played and established. But, in the instant case, there is not even a substantial allegation of fraud made by the petitioner against the entries that are made in respect of the subject lands in favour of respondent Nos.8 and 9 or their predecessor-in-title. Therefore, the said judgments are also of no aid to advance the case of the petitioner. But, in the instant case, there is not even a substantial allegation of fraud made by the petitioner against the entries that are made in respect of the subject lands in favour of respondent Nos.8 and 9 or their predecessor-in-title. Therefore, the said judgments are also of no aid to advance the case of the petitioner. 17. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps to assert his right and claim over the subject land by approaching a competent Civil Court and in case, if the petitioner approaches the competent Civil Court and initiates appropriate proceedings, the same shall be decided on their own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.