Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1548 (TS)

Nalam Anil Kumar v. State of Telangana

2025-11-18

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in entertaining letter No.681/2019, of respondent No.4, as appeal in proceedings No.C/372/2019, under Telangana Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act , 1971 and cancelling the mutation orders vide proceedings dated 09.08.2019, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India. 2. Heard Sri A.Praneeth, learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the lands in Sy.Nos.27 and 28, measuring an extent of Acs.4 – 24 gts and Acs.16 – 10 gts respectively; Petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the lands in Sy.Nos.9, 10, 13, 19 and 20 measuring an extent of Ac.0 – 16 gts, Acs.3 – 24 gts, Acs.3 – 13 gts, Ac.1 – 22 gts and Ac.1 – 32 gts respectively; Petitioner No.3 is the absolute owner and possessor of lands in Sy.Nos.1, 67, 68 and 72 measuring an extent of Acs.2 – 07 gts, Acs.5 – 24 gts, Acs.2 – 32 gts and Acs.4 – 00 gts respectively, situated at Gunajala Village, Bheempur Mandal, Adilabad District, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dated 03.02.2017, 26.07.2018 and 26.04.2018 bearing document Nos.1742 of 2017, 14496 of 2018 and 14494 of 2018 respectively, from the original land owners Lata Bai, Sneha, Shantanu, Hariprasad, Kalandi, Nalini, Prabha Deshmukh through their registered GPA holder Praveen Kumar Padmawar. It is further averred that petitioners submitted representations dated 06.07.2018, 01.08.2018 and 01.08.2018 respectively, for mutation of their names in the revenue records to respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 sanctioned mutations vide proceeding Nos.B/1174/2018, B/1308/2018-5 and B/1308/2018-3, respectively, after due enquiry and by following the due procedure. 4. It is further averred that petitioners submitted representations dated 06.07.2018, 01.08.2018 and 01.08.2018 respectively, for mutation of their names in the revenue records to respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 sanctioned mutations vide proceeding Nos.B/1174/2018, B/1308/2018-5 and B/1308/2018-3, respectively, after due enquiry and by following the due procedure. 4. While the matter stood thus, petitioners received a notice dated 01.08.2019 from respondent No.3 to appear before him along with documentary evidence to give depositions in respect of Sy.Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13/2, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28/1, 67, 73, 75 and 79, situated at Gunjala village, Bheempur Mandal; that perusal of said notice discloses that respondent No.4 addressed a letter dated 19.06.2019 to respondent No.3 recommending to reject the pattas of the above said survey numbers as per the orders of the District Collector and Joint Collector, since the pattas were mutated through GPA and the respondent No.3 vide impugned proceedings dated 09.08.2019 cancelled the mutation proceedings of the petitioners and directed the respondent No.4 to restore the names of original pattadars in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 5. Learned Counsel for petitioners would submit that Tahsildar being independent quasi-judicial authority has to apply his own mind and adjudicate the case under The Telangana Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act , 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). In the present case, respondent No.4-Tahsildar addressed a letter dated 19.06.2019 to respondent No.3, as per the directions of District Collector and Joint Collector; that the respondent No.4 is not an aggrieved party, therefore, he has no authority and has no suo moto powers to address letter dated 19.06.2019 and respondent No.3 also committed error in entertaining the same as appeal without any jurisdiction contrary to Section 5(5) of the Act, as the appeal can be entertained only when the same is preferred by an aggrieved party within a period of 60 days under Section 5(3) of the Act. He further submitted that respondent No.3 has no power akin to the power vested with the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act, therefore, entertaining letter by respondent No.3 is without any jurisdiction and the Orders dated 19.06.2019 are illegal. 6. He further submitted that respondent No.3 has no power akin to the power vested with the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act, therefore, entertaining letter by respondent No.3 is without any jurisdiction and the Orders dated 19.06.2019 are illegal. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioners further submitted that petitioners have purchased lands through registered sale deeds and respondent No.4 has issued mutation proceedings and their have been mutated in the revenue records, pattadar passbooks have also been issued, therefore, the action of respondent No.4 in addressing letter to respondent No.3 for cancellation of mutation is illegal without jurisdiction and contrary to the Act. He finally prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 09.08.2019. 7. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the Judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Joint Collector, R.R.District, Hyderabad and others Vs. P.V.Narasimha Rao and others , 2011 (2) ALT 142 (D.B) and in Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Cuddapah and others , 2009 (1) ALD 248 . 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that petitioners purchased the subject lands through G.P.A holder and in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd., Vs. State of Haryana and another , wherein it was held that a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property and therefore, respondent No.3 has rightly passed the orders cancelling the mutation proceedings, as the said mutation proceedings were issued basing on the sale deeds executed by GPA holder, which did not confer title in favour of petitioners. He further submitted that villagers have approached the District Collector, Adilabad- respondent No.2, in the year 2019 and represented that GPA holder was selling lands to the petitioners basing on the GPA No.376 of 2017, dated 02.02.2017 and requested respondent No.2 to cancel the pattas issued in favour of petitioners. As per the instructions of respondent No.2, respondent No.4 addressed the letter dated 19.06.2019 to respondent No.3 to cancel the mutation proceedings issued in favour of petitioners. He further submitted that impugned proceedings were passed by duly issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, therefore, respondent No.3 has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned Order. 9. He further submitted that impugned proceedings were passed by duly issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, therefore, respondent No.3 has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned Order. 9. In the light of submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for petitioners as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, the only point that arises for consideration is whether respondent No.3 has followed due process while passing the impugned proceedings dated 09.08.2019 or it requires interference by this Court. 10. Perusal of the record discloses that impugned proceedings dated 09.08.2019 was passed by respondent No.3 on the ground that SA/GPA/WILL transactions do not confer any title and as the sale deeds in favour of petitioners were executed by G.P.A, the same are invalid and did not confer any title to the petitioners. Respondent No.3 while passing the impugned Order has referred to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp (supra). 11. It is appropriate to refer the purport and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above said Judgment before adverting to the merits of the case. In Suraj Lamp (supra), the issue that fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court was whether there can be transfer of rights or title on execution of an agreement of sale and power of attorney and Will. The Hon’ble Apex Court after considering various precedents and laws observed as under:- i) Any contract of sale does not itself create any interest or charge on the property as per Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act; ii) A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property; iii) A Will is a testament of the testator and it will come into effect after the death of the testator and so longs as the testator is alive, the will is not be worth the paper on which it is written, as the same can be revoked at any time by the testator during his life time. 12. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court by observing so, finally came to the conclusion that ‘SA/GPA/WILL’ transfers does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property, since ‘SA/GPA/WILL’ transfers are not transfers or sales and such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyance, therefore, no one can claim right or title basing on ‘SA/GPA/WILL’. 13. In the present case, the claim of the petitioners is not based on ‘SA/GPA/WILL’ and is based on registered sale deed Nos.1742 of 2017, 14496 of 2018 and 14494 of 2018, dated 03.02.2017, 26.07.2018 and 26.04.2018 respectively. Therefore, ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Perusal of the impugned Order clearly shows that respondent No.3 has wrongly interpreted the Suraj Lamp (supra) and has come to erroneous conclusion and committed error in cancelling the mutation sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. 14. Another issue that requires adjudication is whether Tahsildar can address a letter to RDO for cancellation of mutation proceedings. It is relevant to note that under the Act, only the Joint Collector is conferred with Suo moto and revisional powers under Section 9 of the Act and the Tahsildar has no Suo moto or revisional powers empowering him to address letter to the RDO for cancellation of mutation proceedings. Further, after passing mutation proceedings, the Tahsildar becomes as funcus ab initio and therefore, the letter dated 19.06.2019, addressed by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 recommending to reject the patta of petitioners is without any authority or jurisdiction. 15. In the light of above discussion, the impugned Order dated 09.08.2019, passed by respondent No.3 is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings No.C/372/2019, dated 09.08.2019, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.