Remanded

The Commissioner / Director of Collegiate Education, v. Smt. K. Naga Rani

Telangana HC13 Mar 2012WA/273/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's order granting relief to respondents in a land title dispute. Instead of finalizing the title, the Court remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a fresh hearing with notice to all interested parties, citing violations of natural justice in the original regularization process.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 04.06.1992 and order dated 01.10.2001 set aside; matter remanded to Mandal Revenue Officer for fresh consideration after notice to interested parties within three months.

The Commissioner / Director of Collegiate Education, Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No.273 OF 2011

¶3

24^th August, 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bathula Ramchander … Appellant And

¶6

Dr. M.V. Sudhakar & others … Respondents

¶7

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶9

WRIT APPEAL No.273 OF 2011

¶10

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice)

¶11

Aggrieved by the order dated 21^st February, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13132 of 2002, allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners – respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, this appeal is preferred by respondent No.1 – appellant herein.

¶12

2) The writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioners – respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein challenging the proceedings dated 4.6.1992 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and the order dated 1.10.2001 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. By proceedings dated 4.6.1992, the Mandal Revenue Officer regularized the unregistered sale deed dated 19.12.1987 said to have been executed in favour of the appellant herein by the father of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the husband of respondent No.3 herein in respect of Ac.2.19 guntas of land in Survey No.1033 of Shameerpet Village, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶13

3) Pursuant to the order of Mandal Revenue Officer dated 04.06.1992, the name of the appellant was incorporated in the revenue records in the pattedar and occupant column in the pahani for the years 1991-92 onwards. Respondents 1 to 3 (writ petitioners), claiming that they were not aware of the order of the MRO dated 04.06.1992, referred to above and of the entry made in the pahani by incorporating the name of the appellant, approached the Joint Collector by filing a revision under Section 9 of the Act. The said revision under Section 9 of the Act was considered and dismissed by

¶14

the Joint Collector under his order dated 01.10.2001 holding that the name of the appellant appeared as occupant since 1981-82 in the pahanies and later as (Khariddar) purchaser from 1991 onwards. The Joint Collector also found that the father of respondents 1 to 3, late Veeralakshmaiah, who had executed the unregistered sale deed dated 19.12.1987 in favour of the appellant, was alive till 1998, after the MRO regularized the said sale in favour of the appellant under order dated 04.06.1992. The Joint Collector, therefore, found that the entry of the appellant’s name in the pahani from 1991-92 onwards, as purchaser, was not required to be altered and consequently, dismissed the revision.

¶15

4) Questioning the said order of the Joint Collector as well as that of the MRO dated 04.06.1992, respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the present writ petition before this Court. Under the impugned order, the learned single Judge has allowed the said writ petition. Hence, the appeal by the appellant/purchaser.

¶16

5) In the revision filed before the Joint Collector, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein contended that they were ignorant of the regularization proceedings dated 4.6.1992 on the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer, and when they came to know about the incorporation of the name of the appellant herein as pattadar from 1990-91 onwards, they applied for a copy of the same and filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act. The revision was rejected by the Joint Collector on the ground that the names of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein were not on record as pattadars or possessors and, therefore, the question of issuing notice to them did not arise before the said regularization.

¶17

6) The Hon’ble Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3. It was observed in the impugned order passed in the writ petition that regularization of the sale deed under Section 5-

¶18

A of the Act without issuing notice to respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein is clearly opposed to the requirements of Rule 22(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 (for short ‘1989 Rules’). The Hon’ble Single Judge referred to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Konkana Ravinder Goud v. Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society, Hyderabad^[1] and observed that the regularization proceedings dated 4.6.1992 are in violation of the statutory procedure and the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.

¶19

7) The Hon’ble Single Judge further observed that though the regularization proceedings were not subjected to challenge before the revisionary authority and are directly assailed in the writ petition, once it is established on facts that the same were in violation of the statute and also the rule of audi alteram partem, the petitioners need not be relegated to the statutory remedy and the Court would be justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

8) In the appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge is not sustainable in law. Having noticed that the regularization proceedings were not under challenge and having found that the said proceedings were passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, the Hon’ble Single Judge ought to have relegated the matter to the primary authority, as the property rights of the appellant are scuttled by the impugned order. The learned counsel has submitted that no appeal has been filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein against the regularization proceedings.

¶21

9) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge.

¶22

10) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under challenge. The only ground on which the Hon’ble Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 is that the regularization proceedings dated 4.6.1992 were passed in violation of the statutory procedure and the principles of natural justice and, therefore, cannot be sustained. The Hon’ble Single Judge observed that the Court need not relegate the petitioners to the statutory remedy once it is established that the regularization proceedings were in violation of the statute and also the rule of audi alteram partem and proceeded to allow the writ petition by setting aside the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer as also the Joint Collector and further directing to cause necessary modification in the revenue records.

¶23

11) As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no appeal was filed against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, it is to be noted that Section 5-B of the Act, which provides for appeal against an order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Section 5-A(4), was introduced by A.P. Act 9 of 1994 with effect from 31.10.1993. An appeal against the said order was not available prior to introduction of Section 5-B of the Act. In the present case, the regularization proceedings were dated 4.6.1992. Therefore, no appeal could have been filed or entertained against the said proceedings.

¶24

12) Further, Rule 22(3) of the 1989 Rules clearly provides that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue a notice to the alienor or transferor in Form No.XI and also a notice in Form No.XII to all other persons believed to be interested in the land on receipt of an application under Section 5-A(2). In this case, admittedly, no notice was issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the legal heirs of Veera Laxmaiah.

¶25

Whereas, the appellant herein, in his counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, contended that he has been in possession of the property since 1981-82. It was also contended that the said Veera Laxmaiah executed the unregistered document in favour of the appellant herein and after his demise, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are making a false claim. 13) During the hearing before us, while the appellant claimed that the father of respondents 1 to 3 was alive for six years (up to 1998) after the order of regularization (passed by the MRO in 1992), respondent Nos. 1 to 3/writ petitioners assert that the said assumption is factually incorrect and further claim that no notice was ever issued either to their father or to them when the MRO passed orders under Section 5-A of the Act. As noticed in para 11 above, a remedy of appeal against the orders of MRO was not available on the date of passing of the said order and it became available only after insertion of Section 5-B of the Act. Though the writ petitioners were aggrieved by the said order of MRO, the appellate forum to question that order was not available. We are, therefore, of the view that the said disputed questions and the legality of the claim of the appellant seeking regularization in his favour under Section 5-A of the Act are required to be considered by the MRO, Shameerpet Mandal, fourth respondent afresh, after notice and after hearing respondent Nos.1 to 3. 14) In that view of the matter and in order to protect the interest of both sides and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we set aside the order of the fourth respondent dated 04.06.1992 in File No.B/134291 as well as the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District dated 01.10.2001 in File No.D5/8856/98 and remit the application of the appellant in File No.B/1342/91 to the fourth respondent for reconsideration afresh after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to respondent Nos.1 to 3 and all other persons

¶26

interested in the lands in question and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. We direct that the aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the fourth respondent within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and until then, status quo as on this day shall be maintained by parties, in all respects. 15) The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶27

___________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶28

24^th August, 2012.

¶29

________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J.

¶30

ARS

¶31

[1] 2003 (6) ALT 1

The Commissioner / Director of Collegiate Education, v. Smt. K. Naga Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner / Director of Collegiate Education, v. Smt. K. Naga Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Eswaraiah, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal

Andhra Pradesh Public Servie Commission, Vs T.V. Chalapathi Rao

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs S. Pratap

Ayesha Begum, Vs The District Educational Officer

K.Jitender Reddy, Vs The Superintending Engineer, Operation

S.Durgaiah, S/o Venkata Swamy, Vs The Superintending Engineer