Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 612 (TS)

Bavandla Narsimha v. State of Telangana

2024-08-29

K.LAKSHMAN

body2024
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy Malyala, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. N. Kodandarama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking writ of certiorari to call for records from the office of respondent No. 2 in Revision Petition Case No. ST/D1/291/2021 Case No. D1/82/2014, wherein and whereby respondent No. 2-Special Tribunal allowed the petition vide impugned order dated 29.06.2021 restoring the name of respondent No. 5 over the land in Survey No. 85/A and 85/AA to an extent of Acs. 5.27 guntas, situated at Marepally Village of Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District and to set aside the same. 3. The case of the petitioners is as under: (i) Originally the land bearing Survey No. 85, admeasuring Acs. 9.33 guntas belongs to Mr. Paspula Narsaiah. On his death, the said land was mutated in the name of Mr. Pasupula Ramaiah @ Ramulu in Khasra Pahani. Subsequently, in Chesala pahani for the years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58, the said land was divided between Mr. Pasupula Ramaiah and Mr. Pasupula Kondaiah at Acs. 4.36 guntas and Acs. 4.37 guntas and accordingly mutated pattas on their names respectively. (ii) Later on the death of the said Mr. Kondaiah, succession was issued on the names of Mr. Wadde Narsimha, Mr. Wadde Venkataiah and Mr. Wadde Krishnaiah, who are sons of Mr. Wadde Mallaiah, as grandsons, vide proceedings No. 1/18/1996, dated 04.06.1996 allotting Acs. 1.25 guntas each in Survey Nos. 85/A and 85/AA and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Respondent No. 5, his late mother, Mrs. Wadde Ramulamma and his brother, Mr. Wadde Laxmaiah, who said to have died issueless, succeeded their share of land through his father, Mr. Wadde Chennaiah to an extent Acs. 1.25 guntas making total of Acs. 4.37 guntas. On the death of mother and brother, respondent No. 5 succeeded the total land of Acs. 4.36 guntas. (iii) Respondent No. 5 sold his share of land to Cadala Srisailam and Mr. Dulla Ramaiah vide registered sale deed bearing document Nos. 4215 and 4216 of 2006 for an extent of Acs. 4.04 guntas, wherein the western boundary was shown as land of Mr. Wadde Venkataiah, respondent No. 7 herein, who is none other than one of the Vendors of petitioner No. 1. Dulla Ramaiah vide registered sale deed bearing document Nos. 4215 and 4216 of 2006 for an extent of Acs. 4.04 guntas, wherein the western boundary was shown as land of Mr. Wadde Venkataiah, respondent No. 7 herein, who is none other than one of the Vendors of petitioner No. 1. Thus, respondent No. 5 indirectly admitted and accepted that the Vendors of petitioner No. 1 i.e. respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, sons of Mr. Wadde Mallaiah, are the shareholders of respondent No. 5, though he pleaded in his appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Nagarkurnool that they are no way concerned to his family and left the Village and settled at Marchal Village of Kalwakurthy Mandal in the year 2006 itself. Like-wise, the other shareholders, respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 sold their entire land to petitioner No. 1 vide registered sale deed bearing document No. 793 of 2007, dated 06.02.2007. Since then, the respective pattadars are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands having been implemented their respective sale deeds without any dispute vide proceedings No. A/27/2007, dated 28.03.2007, issued pattadar passbook and title deed. (iv) While the things stood thus, respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal questioning the implementation of respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in ROR in proceedings No. 1/18/1996 of Tahsildar, Thimmajipet dated 04.06.1996 before the RDO, Nagarkurnool, vide file No. K/ROR/80/2007 on the ground that respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are not at all concern to the family of respondent No. 5 and they got mutated their names in ROR using the surname illegally, that too without any notice to him. The said appeal was allowed without any notice to petitioner No. 1 by setting aside the order and remanded the matter back for denovo enquiry to respondent No. 4 on 03.05.2007. On the basis of remand order, respondent No. 4 without any denovo enquiry, restored the name of respondent No. 5 vide proceedings File No. A/226/2008, dated 11.06.2008. (v) Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal against respondent No. 5 before the RDO, Nagarkurnool in file No. K/ROR/1790/2012. On the basis of remand order, respondent No. 4 without any denovo enquiry, restored the name of respondent No. 5 vide proceedings File No. A/226/2008, dated 11.06.2008. (v) Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal against respondent No. 5 before the RDO, Nagarkurnool in file No. K/ROR/1790/2012. The RDO after hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire record, allowed the appeal of petitioner No. 1 and set aside the entries of respondent No. 5 vide proceedings dated 07.08.2014 and accordingly respondent No. 4 restored the name of petitioner No. 1 in respect of subject lands vide proceedings dated 19.09.2014. (vi) Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 5 filed a revision before Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in file No. D1/82/2014 and on bifurcation and reformation of District, new number was assigned as file No. D1/82/2014 and transferred to the Joint Collector, Nagarkurnool District. Meanwhile, petitioner No. 1 sold the subject land to petitioner No. 2 vide registered sale deed bearing document No. 1636 of 2016, dated 12.02.2016 and tried to implead in the said revision. But, the Joint Collector, without impleading her, allowed the said revision on 29.11.2019 and remanded the matter to respondent No. 4 for denovo enquiry and pass fresh orders. After remand, petitioner No. 2 filed impleading petition and the same was allowed. (vii) After promulgation of ROR Act, 2020, a Special Tribunal was constituted. Therefore, the said matter was transferred to respondent No. 2-Special Tribunal which assigned a new Case No. ST/D1/291/2021 and the Special Tribunal allowed the said revision vide orders dated 29.06.2021 restoring the name of respondent No. 5 by deleting her name. Thus, the said order is illegal and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Respondent No. 5 filed counter denying the claim of the petitioners by contending as follows: (i) He is in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Acs. 5.27 guntas in Survey Nos. 85/A and 85/AA having acquired the same from his ancestors. (ii) Originally, Mr. Wadde Ramaiah was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs. 9.31 guntas in Survey No. 85. After his demise, his son, Mr. Wadde Chennaiah had become absolute owner and possessor of the same. The said Chennaiah also died leaving behind his wife, Mrs. Ramulamma, respondent No. 5 herein and Mr. Laxmaiah succeeded the said property. Subsequently, Mrs. Ramulamma and Mr. 9.31 guntas in Survey No. 85. After his demise, his son, Mr. Wadde Chennaiah had become absolute owner and possessor of the same. The said Chennaiah also died leaving behind his wife, Mrs. Ramulamma, respondent No. 5 herein and Mr. Laxmaiah succeeded the said property. Subsequently, Mrs. Ramulamma and Mr. Laxmaiah were also died leaving behind respondent No. 5 herein to succeed the entire property. (iii) The said property in Survey No. 85 was bifurcated into two (02) survey numbers i.e. 85/A and 85/AA. Acs. 4.36 guntas of land fell in Survey No. 85/A, while Acs. 4.35 guntas of land fell in Survey No. 85/AA. Out of the said land, respondent No. 5 had sold the extent of Acs. 4.04 guntas out of Acs. 4.36 guntas in Survey No. 85/A and kept the remaining land of Acs. 5.27 guntas in both the survey numbers. (iv) Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 preferred a false claim of half share in the said extent of Acs. 9.31 guntas before respondent No. 4 in the year 1996 by taking advantage of surname and by producing a false simple deed dated 10.03.1971. Respondent No. 4 without issuing any notice in File No. ROR/I/18/96, mutating the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 along with him, his mother and his brother. (v) Aggrieved by the said orders, dated 04.06.1996, respondent No. 5 had preferred an appeal No. K/ROR/80/2007 before respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3, vide orders dated 03.05.2007 allowed the said appeal by setting aside the orders dated 04.06.1996 and remanded back for fresh consideration. (vi) Respondent No. 4 after verifying the records including ROR Form No. 1 had passed orders dated 11.06.2008 in File No. A/226/2008 in favour of respondent No. 5 herein by deleting the name of petitioner No. 1. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner No. 1 had preferred an appeal No. K/RIR/1790/2012 before respondent No. 4, who without conducting proper enquiry had again deleted the name of respondent No. 5 and restored the name of petitioner No. 1 vide his order dated 19.09.2014. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 5 had filed a revision in File No. D1/82/2014-D1/2014 before the Joint Collector, Nagarkurnool. (vii) Despite receipt of notice, petitioner No. 1 did not choose to appear before him. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 5 had filed a revision in File No. D1/82/2014-D1/2014 before the Joint Collector, Nagarkurnool. (vii) Despite receipt of notice, petitioner No. 1 did not choose to appear before him. Basing on the documents filed by respondent No. 5 coupled with evidence let in by him, the Joint Collector passed orders dated 29.11.2019 setting aside the order dated 19.09.2014 and directed to conduct denovo enquiry. The appellate Authority only set aside the orders of respondent No. 4, but not directed to delete the name of respondent No. 5 and incorporate the name of petitioner No. 1. (viii) In view of the above, it is clear that respondent No. 5 is entitled to restore his name in revenue records in respect of subject property i.e. Acs. 5.27 guntas in Survey Nos. 85/A and 85/AA, situated at Marepally Village, Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. (ix) Petitioner No. 2 has no authority to purchase part of subject property from petitioner No. 1 during pendency of the above proceedings before the Revenue Authorities. Moreover, the claim of petitioner No. 1 is vexatious and failed to prove his acquisition from respondent Nos. 6 to 8. (x) During pendency of the said appeal and subsistence of the status quo orders before the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, petitioner No. 1 alienated part of subject property in the year 2016 to petitioner No. 2. Therefore, the said transaction is non-est in the eye of law. After passing orders by the Joint Collector, petitioner No. 2 had filed a claim petition contending that she had purchased part of subject property from petitioner No. 1 under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1636/2016 dated 12.02.2016. In fact, petitioner No. 1 has no right or authority over the subject property. The petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands by suppressing the true and material facts with a mala fide intention to harass him for wrongful gains. (xi) With the aforesaid contentions, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that according to petitioner No. 1, the land admeasuring Acs. 9.33 guntas in Survey No. 85, situated at Marepally Village of Thimmajipet Mandal belongs to Mr. Paspula Narsaiah. On his death, the said land was mutated in the name of Mr. Pasupula Ramaiah @ Ramulu. The same was divided between Mr. Pasupula Ramaiah and Mr. Pasupula Kondaiah equally. 9.33 guntas in Survey No. 85, situated at Marepally Village of Thimmajipet Mandal belongs to Mr. Paspula Narsaiah. On his death, the said land was mutated in the name of Mr. Pasupula Ramaiah @ Ramulu. The same was divided between Mr. Pasupula Ramaiah and Mr. Pasupula Kondaiah equally. Their names were also mutated in revenue records. After the death of Mr. Pasupula Kondaiah, succession was issued on the names of Mr. Wadde Narsimha, Mr. Wadde Venkataiah and Mr. Wadde Krishnaiah, sons of Mr. Wadde Mallaiah, as grandsons, vide proceedings, dated 04.06.1996 allotting Acs. 1.25 guntas each in Survey Nos. 85/A and 85/AA. Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds were also issued. Respondent No. 5, his mother-Mrs. Wadde Ramulamma and his brother-Mr. Wadde Laxmaiah succeeded their share of land through his father-Mr. Wadde Chennaiah to an extent Acs. 1.25 guntas each. After the death of mother and brother, respondent No. 5 succeeded the total land of Acs. 4.36 guntas. 6. Respondent No. 5 sold his share of land to Mr. Cadala Srisailam and Mr. Dulla Ramaiah under registered sale deed bearing document Nos. 4215 and 4216 of 2006 to an extent of Acs. 4.04 guntas. The western boundary was shown as the land of Mr. Wadde Venkataiah-respondent No. 7 herein, who is none other than one of the Vendors of petitioner No. 1. The other shareholders, respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 sold their entire land to petitioner No. 1 vide registered sale deed bearing document No. 793 of 2007, dated 06.02.2007. Their names were also mutated in revenue records vide proceedings, dated 28.03.2007. 7. Whereas, according to respondent No. 5, originally, Mr. Wadde Ramaiah was the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. 9.31 guntas in Survey No. 85 of Marepally Village. After his demise, his son-Mr. Wadde Chennaiah had become the absolute owner of the same. The said Chennaiah also died leaving behind his wife-Mrs. Ramulamma, respondent No. 5 herein and Mr. Laxmaiah succeeded the said property. Mrs. Ramulamma and Mr. Laxmaiah also died leaving behind respondent No. 5 herein and, thus, respondent No. 5 succeeded the entire property. The subject property was divided into two (02) survey numbers i.e. 85/A and 85/AA. Acs. 4.36 guntas of land fell in Survey No. 85/A, while Acs. 4.35 guntas of land fell in Survey No. 85/AA. Out of the said land, respondent No. 5 sold an extent of Acs. The subject property was divided into two (02) survey numbers i.e. 85/A and 85/AA. Acs. 4.36 guntas of land fell in Survey No. 85/A, while Acs. 4.35 guntas of land fell in Survey No. 85/AA. Out of the said land, respondent No. 5 sold an extent of Acs. 4.04 guntas out of Acs. 3.36 guntas in Survey No. 85/A and kept remaining extent of Acs. 5.27 guntas in both Survey Nos.85/A and 85/AA. Thus, both of them are claiming right over the subject property under registered sale deeds. They are complicated questions of fact. There is reference to a simple partition deed dated 10.03.1971. During pendency of the appeal and subsistence of status quo order before the Joint Collector, Nagarkurnool in Revision Case No. D1/82/2014, petitioner No. 1 alienated part of the subject property in favour of petitioner No. 2 in the year 2016 by way of executing a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1636 of 2016, dated 12.02.2016. Petitioner No. 1 is claiming right over the subject property under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 793 of 2007, dated 06.02.2007 executed by Mr. Wadde Narsimha, Mr. Wadde Venkataiah and Mr. Wadde Krishnaiah during pendency of appeal in File No. K/ROR/80/2007 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool. Petitioner No. 1 purchased the land vide sale deed bearing document No. 793 of 2007, dated 06.02.2007 from Mr. Wadde Narsimha, Mr. Wadde Venkataiah and Mr. Wadde Krishnaiah, on the strength of mutation of their names in revenue records, but such mutation proceedings were set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool vide order dated 03.05.2007 in ROR Appeal K/ROR/80/2007. On consideration of the said aspects only, Special Tribunal allowed the revision in favour of respondent No. 5 and restored the name of respondent No. 5 in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 5.27 guntas in Survey Nos. 85/A and 85/AA of Marepally Village, Thimmajipet Mandal. 8. As discussed above, there are certain serious complicated questions of fact which Revenue Authorities cannot decide. The validity of said simple partition deed dated 10.03.1971 and the title of the Vendors of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 5 cannot be decided by the Revenue Authorities. The contention of petitioner No. 1 is that respondent No. 5 taking advantage of surname of respondent Nos. The validity of said simple partition deed dated 10.03.1971 and the title of the Vendors of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 5 cannot be decided by the Revenue Authorities. The contention of petitioner No. 1 is that respondent No. 5 taking advantage of surname of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and the petitioner is one and the same and that the parties have purchased the property during pendency of proceedings before the Revenue Authorities challenged the proceedings mutating the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 8. The Revenue Authorities cannot decide the said aspects under ROR Act, 1971 and ROR Act, 2020 and the same can be considered by Civil Court only. Respondent No. 2-Special Tribunal allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 5 directing to restore his name in respect of the subject property. There is no error in it. The petitioners failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.