Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1779 (TS)

Vangari Vithal v. State of Telangana

2025-12-10

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 27-06-2021 passed by the Respondent No.3 in Old Case No.B/3057/2014, New Case No.F2/Sp1.Tribuna1/0937/2021 is unconstitutional, unlawful, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice and to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 27-06-2021 passed by the Respondent No.3 in Old Case No.B/3057/2014, New Case No.F2/Spl.Tribuna1/0937/2021 consequently to direct the Respondent No.3 to set aside the Proceedings dated 26-12-1998 vide No.J/22390/1998 with Amendment Register for the year 2006-07 of Marriguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District, issued by the Respondent No.5 and pass...” 2. Heard Sri C.Appaiah Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s paternal grandfather Sri Vangara Gopaiah and one Sri Mandadi Buchaiah, both have purchased the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.5.36 guntas in Sy.Nos.29, 30, 31 and 32, situated at Marriguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District from Sri Koppulu Jagannadha Rao. The subject land was partitioned and each of them got to an extent of Acs.2.38 guntas. The eastern part of land was allotted to Sri M.Buchaiah and western part of land was allotted to Sri Vangari Gopaiah as per the survey and Khasra numbers wise Sri Vangari Gopaiah and Sri M.Buchaiah by respondent No.5 during the year 1954-55. 4. The names of Sri Vangari Gopaiah and Sri M.Buchaiah were recorded in all the pahanies from 1958-59 to 1974-75 as pattedars and cultivators. But in the year 1975 the then Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms), Nalgonda had issued two 38-E Certificates vide File No.E/241/1975, to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas in favour of (1) Smt. Kamalamma (2) Sri Buchaiah against the name of Sri V.Gopaiah and in favour of Sri Mandadi Somaiah against the name of Smt. Mandadi Buchaiah, but both the certificate holders under Section 38-E had not claimed physical possession as per 38-E certificate issued by the RDO (LR) and Sri Mandadi Buchaiah and his brother are continuously holding the land as per Revenue Pahanies. The then RDO (LR), Nalgonda for the reasons best known to him had brought into existence the impugned certificate issued under Section 38-E, which has no legs to stand. 5. Smt. Kamalamma’s name was deleted from the pahani for the year 1979-80 from the Pattadar column, to this effect the Tahsildar, Nalgonda has informed to the petitioner vide Memo No.B/18021/2014, dated 27-10-2014. Subsequently, the name of Sri Mandadi Buchaiah was also deleted from the Pattadar column of pahani for the year 1992-93 against the name of Sri Vangari Gopaiah in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1-10 Guntas (in Sy.No.29A, extent Ac.0-30 Guntas, in Sy.No.30A, extent Ac.0-03 Guntas and in Sy.No.31, extent Ac.0-08 Guntas and in Sy.No.32A, extent Ac.0-09 Guntas) and Sri Mandadi Buchamma, who is no way concerned, was entered in the pahani for the year 1992-93 without mentioning reference of valid transferable registered Sale Deed or proceedings in favour of Sri Mandadi Buchamma. Hence, entering the name of Buchamma is vitiated with irregularity and does not stand for the judicial scrutiny and it is false and fabricated document. 6. On 29-05-1986, the petitioner has executed an Agreement of Sale in favour of Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy (ancestor of Respondent Nos.15 to 17) as advised by his paternal uncles and received Rs.42,000/- towards Sale advance of his 1/3rd share land allotted by his paternal grandfather Sri Vangara Gopaiah as per apportionment and the Civil Court decree vide O.S.No.805 of 1978, dated 29-01- 1979 on the file of the learned District Munsiff Court, Nalgonda. Thereafter the petitioner’s Vendee Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy has filed affidavit dated 24-07-1987 before the RDO, Nalgonda for issuing information regarding the details of 38-E Certificate in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.29 to 32 of Marriguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. 7. Taking undue advantage of 38-E Certificates issued in respect of the subject land in favour of (1) Kamalamma (2) Buchaiah, the petitioner’s agreement holder Mandadi Sathi Reddy, has created fake, fraudulent Sada Bainama dated 18-02-1984 as if the subject land is owned by Sri Mandadi Buchamma, who in-turn said to have sold the same to Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy. 7. Taking undue advantage of 38-E Certificates issued in respect of the subject land in favour of (1) Kamalamma (2) Buchaiah, the petitioner’s agreement holder Mandadi Sathi Reddy, has created fake, fraudulent Sada Bainama dated 18-02-1984 as if the subject land is owned by Sri Mandadi Buchamma, who in-turn said to have sold the same to Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy. Basing on the said fabricated un-registered sale deed dated 18-02-1984, and influenced the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Nalgonda Mandal and succeeded to obtain 13-B Certificate on his name vide Proceedings No.J/22390/1998, dated 26-12-1998 i.e., after a lapse of 14 years of impugned fabricated and fictitious sale deed dated 18-02-1984 from respondent No.5. The said action was without jurisdiction and it was an infringement of legal rights of petitioner. 8. Upon knowing about the impugned proceeding dated 26-12-1998 Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy also made attempts to trespass into the petitioner’s grandfather patta land in part of Sy.Nos.29A, 30A, 31A and 32A, to an extent of Ac.1.07 guntas. Immediately, the petitioner filed the statutory appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda seeking to set aside the 13-B proceedings dated 26-12-1998 issued by respondent No.5 in favour of Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy. 9. After knowing about the fraudulent Sada Sale dead dated 18-02-1984, the petitioner got terminated the Agreement of Sale dated 29-05-1986 by paying Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) as per the Award passed in LAC.No.226/2019, dated 06-06-2019 by the Lok Adalath, Nalgonda and the said award became final. Therefore, there was no existing Agreement of Sale dated 29- 05-1986 pertaining to 1/3rd share that is Ac.0-34 Guntas in part of Sy.Nos.29A to 32A situated at Marriguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. 10. Respondent No.4 has taken up the appeal on file vide Appeal No.B/4057/2014 and issued notices intimating the date of hearing, but neither Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy nor Sri Mandadi Buchamma responded to the notices. While so, the Government of Telangana State issued G.O.Ms.No.4, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 12-01-2021 by constituting the Special Tribunals in every District for disposal of all cases pending before the revenue authorities. Pursuant to the said orders, the appeal filed by the petitioner was referred to respondent No.3. While so, the Government of Telangana State issued G.O.Ms.No.4, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 12-01-2021 by constituting the Special Tribunals in every District for disposal of all cases pending before the revenue authorities. Pursuant to the said orders, the appeal filed by the petitioner was referred to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 for the reasons best known, deleted the name of Sri Manda Sathi Reddy, from the appeal and issued notices to the unconcerned persons by clubbing the another appeal relating to the land of Sri Mandadi Mallamma and her sons who inherited the land owned by Sri Mandadi Buchaiah. But the fact remains that the main person who created the fabricated, fictitious Sada Bainama dated 18-02-1984 and obtained 13-B certificate vide Proceedings No.J/22390/1998, dated 26-12-1998 basing on the said fabricated documents and who is the main and necessary party for proper adjudication of the case was eliminated, though the notices were received by the other persons who are no way concerned to the subject property. 11. Respondent No.3 without adjudging the appeal preferred by the petitioner in spite of the petitioner’s plea that Late Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy has not appeared before the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda, indiscriminately has passed the order "on the perusal of the records available in the file the subject land transferred to Respondents in the year 1975 i.e., 40 years ago, hence this appeal is bar by limitation due to time lapse. Hence this appeal is dismissed" vide order dated 08-01-2021 and subsequently the Tribunal has also dismissed the Review vide its order dated 01-02-2021 observing "in the result, the Review Petition is dismissed and the earlier orders passed by the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda in Case No.B/3057/2010 (New Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/0937/2021" The said orders of the Tribunal have no legal bearing on the relevant appeal as per the order of passed by this Court in W.P.(PIL) No.20/2021. In view of the said order the orders of the Tribunal dated 08- 01-2021 and 27-06-2021 have no enforceability and bearing as per the orders of this Court. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 12. The petitioner suffered with “Focal Patchy ground glass capacity in right lung parenchyma-CORADS-3” during the period of Covid-19 therefore, he could not file the writ petition within the prescribed time. Hence, seeks this Court to exempt under purview of Limitation Act. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 12. The petitioner suffered with “Focal Patchy ground glass capacity in right lung parenchyma-CORADS-3” during the period of Covid-19 therefore, he could not file the writ petition within the prescribed time. Hence, seeks this Court to exempt under purview of Limitation Act. In this regard the Hon’ble Apex Court’s in the matter of Sakuru vs. Tanaji, AIR 1985 SC 1279 held that “the provision of limitation Act, 1963 apply only to proceedings in “Courts” and not to appeals or applications before bodies other than Courts such as quasi-judicial Tribunals or executive authorities, notwithstanding the fact that such bodies or authorities may be vested with certain specified powers conferred on Courts under the Code of Civil or Criminal Procedure.” 13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the petitioner without seeking the delay of condonation has filed the appeal before the RDO, which is perverse and the RDO rightly and appropriately has dismissed the case of the petitioner, where it is found to be barred by limitation. 14. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, it is noticed that the Special Tribunal neither issued notices to the petitioner nor has given any opportunity of hearing, which is perverse and against to the procedure contemplated under law. The respondent-authorities ought to have granted opportunity to the petitioner on the aspect of limitation. In the identical circumstances, this Court, in the matter of B. Thrilokendara Reddy vs. State of Telangana and others, 2023 (2) ALD 642 (TS) upon thorough examination of the facts before it, has rightly and appropriately remitted the matter back to the Special Tribunal. 15. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 27.06.2021 in proceedings in Old Case No.B/3057/2014, New Case No.F2/SPl.Tribunal/0937/2021 and the matter is remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer-respondent No.4 as per the provisions under Section 15(1) of the Telangana Bhu Bharathi Act, 2025, who shall, in turn, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned parties as by procedure established by law and upon examination of the records, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. 16. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.