Allowed

E.J. David v. Veera Reddy

Telangana HC15 Dec 2020CC/712/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revenue authorities rejected mutation and directed eviction by declaring privately claimed land government property. The Court allowed the revision, set aside their orders, and directed registration, passbooks and benefit recommendations. It also allowed contempt cases, sentenced three officials, temporarily suspended imprisonment and directed disciplinary action.

What did the court decide?

Revenue orders set aside; registration and release of documents, E-pattadar passbooks, title deeds and benefit recommendations directed; costs granted; contempt punishment and disciplinary action orde

E.J. David Vs Veera Reddy — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEI\4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶4

l.A. NOS. 1 . 2, 3. 4 AND s OF 2020 IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 978 OF 2020 AND c.R.P. NO. 978 0F 2020 AND c.c. No. 1681 0F 2019 AND c.c. No. 712 0F 2020

¶5

cRP NO. 978 0F 2020

¶6

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved the order dated 26-06-2020 in Case No. F3 / 2685 I 2019 on the file of the Court of the Additional Collector, Sangareddy Division at Sangareddy District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

E.J. DAVID, Son of Late E.J. John, Aged about 60 years, Occupation. Business, Resident of H.No 1-2-491 Gl, Christian Colony, Mahboobnagar, [,4ahboobnagar District, Telangana State.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ Appellant in lA Nos.^''l to 5 of 2020 and CRP

¶10

AND

¶11

The Additional Collector , Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy District, Telangana State.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy District, Telangana State.

¶13

The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana State.

¶14

The District Registrar, Sangareddy District at Sanga Reddy, Telangana State.

¶15

The Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Sangareddy District at Sanga Reddy, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS in all Petitions

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order of the Respondent No.3 made in Endorsement No.A1419212019 dated 2210312019 along with the

¶18

consequential confirming Order of the Respondent No.2 made in Case No.A3/2823/2019 dated 0411112019 as well as the Order of the Respondent No.1 made in Case No.F3/2685/20'19 dated 2610612020.

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 herein to forthwith register and release the docunrent No. P 746 and P 747 which were originally presented on 12-07 -2017 before the Respondent No. 4 and carryout the necessary steps in Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,2020.

¶21

( Prayer is amended as per C.O. Dated 16-1 1-2020 in l.A, No. 4 of 2020 )

¶22

lA NO: 3 OF 2020

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couft may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to forthwith issue E-Pattadar Passbooks and Title deeds to the Petitioner herein by making recommendations for availin the benefits under Rythu Bandhu Scheme and Pradhan l\4anthri Kisan Yojna .

¶24

ll\ NO: 4 OF 2020

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances srated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner herein to amend the prayer in lA No.2 of 2020 in CRP No. 978 of 2020 ln the interim this Hon'ble Court may be pieased to direct the Respondent No.3 herern to forthwith register and release the document No. P746 and P747 which were originally presented oa 12-07-2017 before the Respondent No.4 and carryout the necessary steps in Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 2020 and pa ss

¶26

ll\ NO: 5 OF 2020

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tc receive Additional documents and title deeds of the Petitioner herein .

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner in l.A. Nos.1 to 5 of 2020 and CRP :SRl K. S.

¶29

MURTHY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents in all : GP FOR ARBITRATION (TG)

¶31

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1681 OF 2 019

¶32

(Contempt Case U/s 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobel,ing the Order of the l-Iigh Court dated 27-ll-2017 in W.P. M.P, No. 49482 of 2017 in WP No. 39913 of20t1)

¶33

Between:

¶34

E.J. DAVID, Son of Late E,J. John, Aged about 60 years, OccupationBusiness, Resident of H.No. 1-2-- 491 01, Christian Colony, l\r1a h boo bnaga r, IVahboobnagar District, Telanga na State.

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

K. SARASWATHI Tahsildar/ Mandal Revenue Officer. l(andi Mandal (Previously Sangaredy lVandal), Sangareddy Distrlct, Telangana State

¶38

S. SREENU, Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy District, Telangana State.

¶39

RAMADEVI, Tahsildar/ l,4andal Revenue Officer, Kandi [t4andal (Previously Sangaredy trzlandal), Sangareddy District, Telangana State (Present IMRO)

¶40

LAKSHMA REDDY, Joint Sub-Registra,'1, Sangareddy District,

¶41

Telangana State. ...CONTEMNORS/ Respondents

¶42

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶43

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.'1 to 3 issue the pattedar passbooks and title deeds to the^petitioner in respect of the subject land^.

¶44

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶45

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to forthwith release the pending document no.P746 and P747 ol 2017 daled 12.07.201 7 without insisting for the Pattedar Passbooks and Title Deeds of the Petitioner.

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. S. MURTHY

¶47

Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (TG)

¶48

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 712OF 2020

¶49

(Contenrpt Casc L'/s l0 to ll ol Contcmpt of Courts Act to punish the Rcspondcnts herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court datcd 21-ll-2017 in W.P. M.P. No. 49482 of 2017 in WP No. 39913 of20l7 )

¶50

Between:

¶51

E.J. DAVID, Son of Late E.J, John, Aged about 60 years, OccupationBusiness, Resident of H.No.1-2-49lG1, Christian Colony, Mahboobnagar, lvlah boobnagar District, Telangana State

¶52

...PETITIONER

¶53

AND

¶54

VEERA REDDY, Additional Collector, Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy District, Tela ngana State

¶55

K. SARASWATHI, Tahsildar/ l\4andal Revenue Officer, Kandi lvlandal (Previously Sangaredy lt/andal), Sangareddy District, Telangana State.

¶56

S. SREENU, Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy Division, Sanga reddy District, Telangana State.

¶57

4 RAJVADEVI, Tahsildar/ li.4andal Revenue Officer, Kandi lt4andal (Previously Sangaredy lt/andal), Sangareddy District, Telangana State (Present lvlRO).

¶58

...CONTEMNORS/ Respondents

¶59

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶60

Petition under Section 151 OPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No,1 to 3 to issue the Pattedar Passbooks and Title Deeds to the Petitioner in respect of the subject land.

¶61

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶62

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to file this Additional affidavit pending disposal of the above contempt application.

¶63

Counsel fr:r the Petitioner:SFll K. S, MURTHY

¶64

Counsel for the Respondent:i: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (TG)

¶65

The Court made thc fbllo,,r,zing Common Order:

¶66

¶67

MSR,J crp,978 202o&barch

¶68

.t}IE HONOURABLE SIII .IUS'I'ICE NI.S. RA}IACII.\NI)RA RAO

¶69

Interlocoturv Application Nos.l" 2. 3. 4 and 5 of 2020

¶70

¶71

Civil Revision Petition No.978 of 2020:

¶72

And

¶73

Civil Revision Petition No.978 of 2020

¶74

And

¶75

Contempt Case No.l68l of 2019

¶76

And

¶77

Contempt Case No.7l2 of 2020

¶78

CO}I}TON ORDER:

¶79

Since the issue raised in the Civil Revision Petition and the two Contempt Cases 168l of 2019 and 112 of 2020 relates to the same land claimed by the same person who filed these cases, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

¶80

C.R.P.No.978 of 202 0

¶81

C.R.P.No.978 of 2020 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India chaltenging the orders dt.26.06.2020 in Case No.F3/2685/2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Sangareddy Division at Sangareddy (1" respondent) under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 197 I^(lbr short 'the Act') confiming the order dt.04.l I .2019 in File No.A'3/2823/2019 passed by the Revenue Divisional Olllcer, Sangareddy District (2"'t respondent) under Section 5(5) of the said Act dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order

¶82

MSR.J crp 978 2020&batch

¶83

passed by the llahsildar, K.andi Mandal, Sangareddy District in File No..A/4 I 92120 1 9 dt.22.03.20 I L

¶84

The claim cf the^petitioner

¶85

Tl.re petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.5.01 gt. in Sy.Nos.990 and 1052 sitr"rated at Kandi Chimnapur Village (Dharmasagar) of Sangareddy Mandal and District under registered sale deed No. I 9847/20 I 3 dt.08. 1 1 .201 3 fror:r one Ancha Srinivasa Rao.

¶86

The said Ancha Srinivasa Rao had purchased Ac.18.03 gts. at Kandi - Chimar.rpur Village (Dharma Sagar'), Sangareddy Mandal of r:rstwhik: Medak District under tr,vo registered sale deeds bealing Document Nos.l4064/2007 and 1406512007 dt.05.07.2007 from 13.Suman Babu and R.Satish Yadav. Pattadar passbook and title deed had been issued to Ancha lSrinivzrsa Rao by the Revenue Authorities jibr the said 1ant7 vide proceedings of the Tahsildar, Sangareddy in l3i I 0/300/07- 1 dt. 1 3.09.2007.

¶87

These lands were part of an extent of Ac.63.05 gts. originally owned by Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his family members whose rrame is reflected in the Pahani of 1967-68.

¶88

(5. Panduranga Rao Desihmukh approached the Joint Collector on 06.08.2007 to direct the concernerd Assistant Director of Suruey and l-and Records, Sangareddy to conduct sutr,ey of the Dharma Sagar

¶89

MSR.J crp_-978 2020&barch

¶90

¶91

land which is situated in Kandi - Chimnapur Village and assign new survey number for it.

¶92

7 . When Joint Collector did not take action, Panduranga Rao Deshmukh filed W.P.No.25662 of 2007 in the High Court which disposed of the said Writ Petition on 03.12.2007 permitting the petitioner to n.rake fresh representation befbre the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Sangareddy; and if such representation is made, the latter was directed to measLlre the land and submit a report to the Joint Collector without undue delay.

¶93

Panduranga Rao Deshmukh flled C.C.No.90 of 2008 in the High CoLrrt alleging inaction by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records and it was disposed ol on 30.04.20 l0 directing the respondents to demarcate the land sold by the petitioner of extent Ac.35.03 gts.in favour of Ancha Srinivasa Rao, Prasanna Lakshmi and Krishnaveni and assign appropriate survey numbers in respect of the land retained by the petitioner therein and sold by him out o1'the extent of Ac.63.09 gts. at Kandi Chirnnapur Village;

¶94

Thereafter, another C.C.No.484 ol 20ll was tlled by the said Panduranga Rao Deshrnukh alleging non-compliance of the order passed on 30.04.2010 in C.C.No.90 of 2008 which was disposed of on 09.09.2011 directing the respondent in the Contempt Case to furnish to the petitioner as well as to purchasers from him new survey numbers after assigning them to each part and parcel of "Billa

¶95

N,lSII,J crp 978_2020&batch

¶96

¶97

Dakhala" land to the extent of Ac.35.03^gts. along with sketch^within two (2) weeks from the date of filing of such application.

¶98

Thereatler, the Tahsildar, Sangareddy mandal issued proceedirrgs dt. 16.02.201 3 assigning new survey numbers for the extent of ,4c"3,5.03 gts. situated at Kandj Chimnapur Village and recorded in Revenue Records and pattadar passbooks/title deeds.

¶99

These are undisputed tacts.

¶100

Petitioner's ApplicStion for mutation

¶101

12, The petitioner had applied in the prescribed format in Form 64, under tlre Act tbr mutation of the Ac.5.0l gt. of land purchased by him on 02.03.2015.

¶102

No acticLn was tal<en try the Tahsildar, Kandi Nlandal, Sangareddy District on the:;aid application

¶103

W.P.No.5473 of 2017

¶104

Petitioner' filecl W.P.No.5473 ol 201"1 in this Court to declare such inaction as illegal and to direct the Revenue Authorities to issue ritle deed and pattadar passbook in his favour.

¶105

On 1 i .02.2019, this Courl disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District to take appropriate action on the petitioner's application within four (4) 'weeks.

¶106

MSR.J crp 978_2020&batch

¶107

¶108

The order dt.22.03.2019 of thc Primarv Authoritv/Tahsildar

¶109

Therealler, the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sansareddv Distlict issued Endorsement No.A 1419212019^{(lt.22.03.2019} rejecting the petitioner's application for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbook opining that:

¶110

¶111

(i) the land purchased by the petitioner unsurveyed land, described as "Billa dakhala" lar.rd in Revenue records and there are no basic records such as Village Map, Tippan, Wasool Baqui, Sethwar etc. and these lands were not accounted for in lhe Khasra pahani ol 1954-55:

¶112

(ii) that name of one Panduranga Rao Deshmukh was writter.r in the pahani for the year 1967-68 without mentioning as to how he acquired rights over these lands; that the said^person claimed that the land was a^jagir and later as lnarn land^given by the Nizarn of Hyderabad through a Muntakhab No.3354/1304 Fasli (1894), that he rvas lnamdar, but did not produce any Muntakhab; tl.rat he had no relationship with the land; that he stated in Proceedings under the^{A.P.Land Retbrms (Ceilingon} Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 that he does not have any interest and rights over these lancls and asked lbr deletion of these lancls fiorn computation under him and his tu,o brothers' fhmily holdings; that he claimed title to Ac.63.05 gts. and also possession thereof and got his name recorded as pattedar in pahanies by managing the lower level officials; he then sold

¶113

MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch

¶114

¶115

Ac. 18.03 gts. to the petitioner's vendor Ancha Srinivasa Rao and also otl.rer extent to some third parties; that a clarification was given by the Cornrlr issioner, Survey Settlement and a supplerrentary sothwilr was issued t,ide Orders No.Alll293l20l0 ai;signing ncw survev numbers, but nowhere it is nrentjoned as plivate land;

¶116

(iii) that Government vicle Memo No.2331/.lA(l)/20 l0 dt.09.09.2010 had issued directions to the Collector, Medak District to issue instructions to the Registrar concemed not to register the subject lands and to protect them from encroachment; but the Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy suppressed this instruction and allorved registration; that the subject land has to be treated as^(loverrLment land in all aspects; that no one is in physical possession orrer the land and it is fallow; and

¶117

(iu) that the land was declared under the Ceiling Act, 1973 and rights over these lands cannot be granted to anybody.

¶118

'I!419!9r $t.Q4.tr 1.2019 of the Firsl Appcllate Authoritvi Revenue Divisional Qfficcr

¶119

Petitioner questioned the silme by filing Appeal under Section

¶120

:5(5) of the Act befole the l{evenur: Divisional Otficer, Sangareddy.

¶121

The said Appeal was also rejected stating as under:

¶122

(i) Petitioner was never in possessior.r of the subject land and his name was deleted in all the Revenue records;

¶123

:: l0::

¶124

MSR,J crp-978 2020&batch

¶125

(ii) It is not his ancestral propefty and no rights vest in him for claiming it;

¶126

(iii) At present the land has tallen vacanr and nobody is in possession over the land;

¶127

(iv) Sri Panduranga Rao Deshmukh claiming Ac.63.05 gts. of land appears to have manipulated the lo.,ver level olficials and got his name included in the Pahani of 1967-68 without mentioning as to how he is related to the said lands;

¶128

(u) The Revenue records and orders of Land Reforms Tribunal and his own statement revealed that he was never in possession over the lands; but he started selling the lands without mentioning the survey numbers; and that he had no right to sell the land as he did not have valid title;

¶129

(vi) the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad vicle letter No.Nl/7696/08 dt.27.I L2010 issued directions to treat "Billa Dakhala" Iancls as Government lands and it is established beyond doubt that they are Government lands and possession of the said lands by the occupants does not confer any right to them over the said lands unless proper assignment is made to them under relevant provision of law;

¶130

::ll;:

¶131

MSR,J cry 978 2020&batch

¶132

(vii) that the subject matter land is existing abutting to the National High Way No.9 near Kandi village of Kandi Mandal and at about an extent of 600 acres of land has been allotted for LI.T. Hyderabad at Kandi and the construction ol buildings of the Institution is in progress. Consequent of sanction of the LLT. lhe subject matter lancis have gained considerable significance and the value of the lands has alsro gone up to an un-expected level owing to which many people are trying to grab away the valuable Government lands in one way or the other. As such there is r:very need to enquire tholoughly into the nature of the land and take appropriate action for protecting the Government land in the interest of the Government;

¶133

(viii) Itlegal transactions done by Sri Panduranga Rao Deshrnukh, his brothers and successors have been cancelled by the Tahsildar, Kandi.

¶134

He accepted the correctnesrs o1'the order dt.22.03.2019 passed b1, the 1'ahsildai, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District and refused to interlbre with it.

¶135

'Ile order dt.26.06.1020 of thc Rcvisi!rnal Authoritv/Additional Collector 19. Cl.rallenging tl.re order dt.04. 11.2019 passed by the Revenue Divisional Oficer, Sangareddy in Case NO.Fl/332l2019, petitioner

¶136

::72:: MSR.J crp 97S 2020&barch

¶137

filed Revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,, l97l befbre the Additional Collector, Sangareddy District. lt was numbered as Case No.F3/2685/20 l9 and was disnrissed on 26.06.2020.

¶138

The Additional Collector also held:

¶139

(i) that Kandi - Chimnapur Village is an unsurueyed village and the total extent ol unsurveyed land is Ac.242.36 gts. which is referred to as "Bilta Dakhala" land in Revenue records for which there is no Sethwar, Wasool Baqui, Tippan, Village Map etc. and it would not also be mentioned in the Kashra Pahani; this land was illegally occupied by several Iocal villagers rvithout any rights whatsoever; since they are unsurveyed lands, their possession/occupation cannot be recorded anywhere;

¶140

(ii) Panduranga Rao Deshrnukh got his name 'nvritten in the Pahanies for the years 1967-68 lor the first time without mentioning how he is related to these lands; he claimed that it was an Inam grant given by the Nizam through a Muntakhab No.3354/1304 Fasli, but the said Muntakhab had not seen the light ofthe day till today;

¶141

(iii) In Pahanies, this land is shown as Dasthagardhan lands,

¶142

(iu) Panduranga Rao Deshmukh stated in land ceiling proceedings that he had nothing to do with these lands and they should not have been computed to his holdingt

¶143

:: l3:: MSR,J cry 978_2020&batch

¶144

(r,) l-he lancl is described as Shikarn land (tank tred) and cannot be treated ar; land fbr computing the holding of a declarant under the I-and Ceiling law;

¶145

(vi) He has sold 35 acres to Ancha Srinivasa Rao and two others out of Ac.63,05 gts. without having any title and the petitioner is clain.ring that he had pr.rrcl.rased Ac.5.01 gt. From Ancha Sninivasa Rao;

¶146

(vii) The Tahsildar had lssued orders in File No.C/123 1212005-2 dt.13.12.2005 rnutating the narres of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his 2 brothers for Ac.63.00 verifying all lacts but did not mention surucy number; that he mentioned Billa Dakhala in tl.re colur.r.rn dealing with survey number; it is not known how he granted mutation without verifying their title;

¶147

(viii) Subsequently another Tahsrldar mutated Ac.35.03 gts. in favour of purchasers from Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his son Deepak Deshmukh vicle proceedings No.B/10300/2007-1 dt.13.09.2007 and he also did not mention survev number and mentioned only Billa Dakliala; and continued the fraud which occun'ed initially in 2005.

¶148

(i*) Pursuant to the clarification given by Commissioner, Suruey Settlement, Survey Deparlment, all the lanris of Chimnapur Village FI/o Kandi were surueyed and a supplernentary Sethwar has becrn issued vide ordr:r's No.A1/129312010 d1.21.05.2011

¶149

:: l4::

¶150

MSR.J crp 973 2020&batch

¶151

creating (197) survey numbers showing all the survey numbers as "Government Bilaclakila" Survey numbers including the subject matter lands of the petitioner herein. The basis for these survey numbers is the enjoyment of the land by the occupants/farmers. In the Supplementary Sethwar the names of Pandurangarao and his brothers did not figure as they were not in possession of any portion of the said un-surveyed land including the subject matter lands herein.

¶152

lle thcn lilLrnd firult r.r,ith the orcler dt. 13.12.2005 in File No.Cll23l2l2005-2 passed by the then MRO, Sangareddy and the subsequent order dt. 13.09.2007 in File No.B/10300/2007-l ol the Tahsildar. Sangareddy and ultimately concluded that the legal title of petitioner's vendor is defective. that petitioner's vendor had no legal title over the said land, that vendor of the petitioner had pleaded in various Revenue Tribunal and the High Court that he had no interest or title over the subject land and^got it^deleted from his holdings; so he is setting aside order dt.13.12.2005^{in File} No.C11231212005-2 passed by the then MRO, Sangareddy^{and the} subsequent order dt. 13.09.2007 in File No.B/I0300/2007-l of^the Tahsildar, Sangareddy; and directing the Tahsildar, Kandi to delete the names of third parties fl'om tlte Revenue Records^fbr the extent of Ac.63.05 gts. and record the same as Government lands and also to evict encroachers, if any, in the said lands and take it into Government custodl' rvith immediate effect.

¶153

..t<'. MSR.J crp 978 2020&batch

¶154

Thc prcsent Rc'ision undcr Article 227 ol the Constitutiqn of India

¶155

Challenging the order dt.26.06.2020 in Case No.F3l2685/2019 of the Revisional Authority/Additional Collector, Sangareddy, the present Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constiturion of India.

¶156

Thc Hish Court is con fc rrcd DO wer of suDerintcndence ovcr quasi iudicial authoritites such as respondents 1-3

¶157

2'2. The Tahsildar , Kandi Marrdal (Respondent no.3) is the primary authority under Section 4 of the Act to whom persons acquiring title to land have to approach the Mandal Revenue Officer ( now redesignated as Tahsilclar) to initiate the process of rnutation; the Rcveuue Divisional of llcer, Sanga Reddy Division (respondent no.2) is the appellate authority under Section 5(5) o1' the Act to be aprproachecl il- thc primary authority has lefused to do mutation sought by an applicant undcr Sec.4; and the Additional Collector, Sanga Reddy ( l" respondent) is the Revisional authority designated under Sec.9 of the Act to revise the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer under sec.5(5) ofthe Act.

¶158

Way back in 1972, a 3 Judge bench of the Supreme Cout held in Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit', that quasi^judicial authorities, like the respondents l-3, are subject to the supen,isory iurisdiction^{undcr Art.227of the (lonstitution of India. It declared}

¶159

"11. Unlcr,4rticlc )2i'o/ thr: Constitutiotl,^tha IlielLCourt is vesta-d u'ilh llt<, ttott t'r ol ,s wrcri nlatderlce oyer lhc courls and

¶160

( 197-l) I SCC 44rr

¶161

:: l6::

¶162

N4 SI{,J crp 97ti 2020&batch

¶163

tributals in the State. Actitls os u ouasi-iu icial authoritv under tlte Orissa Hindu Relisious Endov ments Act. the appellant vas o . Accordingly the decisions of the High Court u,ere biruling on him. He coLtltl not get away from them by adducing ./actuqlly trong and iIlegitimate reasons.^" (enphasis suppIicd)

¶164

Scopc of^porver of the Hish Court undcr Art.227 of th e Constitution of lndia

¶165

With regard to the scope ol' power of the High Court under Aft.227 of the Constitution of lndia, the Supreme Court had held in 1973 in K.K. Chari v. R.M. Seshadri2 that a quasi^judicial authority cannot wrongly decide a^{jurisdictional} fhct and conf-er^jurisdiction on itself, and in such a situation the High couft can exercise it's power and interlere with it's order. It held:

¶166

"A qtrcLsi-judiciol tribunal dcting ,t ithin juri-stliction mav decide rightllt or may decide u rongl.t,. ll it clacidcs wronglv there are provisions in the Act itse{ -for appaal, rcision an(l ultimolely even revision by the High Courl uncler llrc provisions oJ'Section 1 1 5 CPC or even under Article 227 of the Constitution. Of cotrrse, I nona urisdittional l- ucli tribunal with a limited iurisdictiott tannot conlbr iurisdiclion^on i1;^s ![.^{" (em p hasis sup p I i e d)}

¶167

In Estralla Rubber '. Dass Estate^(P) l.td3. the Supreme Court summarized the manner of exercise ol^power by a^High Court undet Arr.227 of the Constitution of India in the lbllorving^passage:

¶168

"6.^{The scope and ambitof exercise of poner uruljurisdictionb.va} l!igh Court under Article 227 o/ the Conslilution ol lndia is exomined and explained in a number of decisions ol this Court. The exercise oJ

¶169

'(rq73)^{r scc?6r} t lzootl s scc et

¶170

MSR,J crp 978_2020&batch

¶171

i:17:i

¶172

pou,cr unc/cr;hi.s drticle in|olvcs a dLtly on lhe Hish Court to kecn in/brior co urts and tribunal.\ v'ithn lltc bounds of their outhority and to see thTt lht'y tlo lhc duly expcr:;tcd or rcauired of them i a lesol Itlqultcr.^{Thc lligh (:ourlis tlot vested vt'ith aq) unlimited prerogdtiye} to corrc(:t all l;btds ol'hartlship ot' \trong dccisions nra:.de within the limits o/ 1hr: .iurisdiction ol tlte subonlinatc coLtrts or tribunals. E.xercisc of lhis r;ot;er ond inter/'arine with the orders of lhe couris or tribunuls is r'!stricted to cases ()/ scrious dcreliction of dtrv and .llasqltl ialsjljplt^{q:[:[!!ubtlental} lincip^{les of ldv,o} &AM-!p4_npe!__J19!_j6a'fere , a srave^injus uncorrectetl. lt is olso vt'ell settled tltat the lTigh Court while acting under this article connol exercistt its povar as an appellate colli or subs/ilutc its ov.n.judgmenl in placr: o/ that qf the sltbordinale coLtrt to correcl on r:rror, v,hich is nol appurcnt on tlte.face of the record. The I ligh Q9t1111ctrn ,se t oside ot' isno4:' the lirulings o.1_lhESJ)_lL4 j1 i1/!J:j!2!1 c()url or tt ilttrtLtl, ll'thcrc is no cvidcnte ol ull t0 iusti/,i or thc finclinc is so tllLt3.ls!- jl!!L!g tllgtrnbl<:1sersgn c41ypg;!!17_91211191!12..,i4!1_1i cottclu-; iott v,hic'h tltc courl or lributnl has come lo.^" (emphasis suppliecl)

¶173

So the Art..227 conl-ers a dutr, on tlie High Court to keep inlerior courts and tribunals within the bour.rds of their aulrhoritv and to see that thel,do the duty expected or required of them in a legal llanner

¶174

In Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kurnar Singha, it was emphasized that "errors ofjurisdiction" can be corrected under Aft.27 of the Constitution of lndia by a High Court. The Supr-eme Court held:

¶175

"t3. Ibs_lJtjldidgll under /lrticlc 227^qf the^{(:onstitutio_!1} ntov be raslrictive in the sen,se rlnr ir is ro lr into,\cd onlr to corrcct arrors of iuristlictiou. Bul v,hen a court a.sks itself a v:tonp qucstiotl or opproachcs lhc qucslion itt an improper nnturc r. c\t_!!_iLi:!9lllg to o.fincl ing 2jL[ocJ!Ji]n-;a U:fr!!!ag_o:[

¶176

' 1:roor,1 : sccr : t2

¶177

::1ti::

¶178

IVI S R.J crp 978_2020&batch

¶179

fact cannot be said to bc one randcrcct uith^{jurislic'tion} attd it lo arre ti n (tt the hands Courl under Article 227 of the Constitution .^" (emphasis supplied)

¶180

Consideration of th c instant casc

¶181

In the instant case, the respondents l-3 , in exelcise of powers conf'effed under the Act have declared that petitioner's vendor has no title to the subject land and ought to be evicted therefi'om along with other third parties.

¶182

Normally, such concurrent lindings of thct by a hierarchy of quasi-judicial authorities under an Act, as in the instant case, are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of limited supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High court over them by Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

¶183

But, according to counsel for the petitioner, there are serious jurisdictional errors in the orders passed by respontlents 1-3; that no jurisdiction conferred on the respondents I to 3 under the Act to clecide questions of title to land u'hose mutation^is sought; that they have also no^jurisdiction to direct et'it'ti<ttr of^persons in occupation of the land; and they have also acted in blutcutr t'iolution ol interim order dt. 01.11.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.49482 ol 2017 in W.P.No.399l3 of 2017 in tavour of the petitioner and another directing the respondents in the Revision apafi from the State of I'elangana not to interlbre with the peacetul possession and enjoyment by himself and his copetitioner of the above land pending lurlher orders. (CC No.l68l of

¶184

MSR.J cry 978 202o&balch

¶185

:; l9::

¶186

2019 and 712 ot'?-020 were filed by petitioner for willful disobedience olthis orclcl by tlie respondents l-3).

¶187

30.^'l'hese ale serious allegations about usurpation ofjurisdiction by the respondents I to 3 which thc,y do not possess under the Act, and also of acting in willful disobedience of an interim order dt. 0 I . t L20 I 7 in W.P.M.P.N ct.49482 of 2017 in W.P.No.39913 of 2017 passed by this High Court, which ce(ainly require examination by tlris Court in this Revision filed under Aft.227 of the Constitution of India.

¶188

As can be seen from the facts set out above, in the orders dt.26.06.2020 in Case No.F3/2685/2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Sangareddy Division at Sangareddy (1't respondent), the orders dt.04.1 1.2019 in Case No.Fl/33212019 of the Revenue Divisional Offlcer, Sangarerldy (2u" respondent) and order dt.23.03.2019 of the Tahsitdar, Kandi Mandal (3'd respondent), they clecided that the subject property i.e Ac.5.0 I gts. in Sy.Nos.990 and 1052 situaled at Kandi - Chimnapur Village of Sangareddy Mandal and District is Government propefiy, that petitioner's vendor had not title to it and l.re could not have sold it to the petitioner under registered sale deed No. I 9847/20 I3 dt.08. 1 1.2013; and the Additional Collector even clirected the Tahsildar, Kandi (3'd respondent) to evict petitioner and other encroachers and take them into Government custody with immediate effect.

¶189

MSR,J cry-g78 2020&batch

¶190

:,:20::.

¶191

\'hether title to DroDertv can be decided br':ruthorities under the Act?

¶192

32, I shall first consider whether any power is confened on the respondents 1-3 under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 to decide questions ol' title to propefty fbr which application fbr mutation has been nrade under the Act.

¶193

The Act rvas enacted in thc erst*'hile con-rposite State ot' Andhra Pradesh to consolidate and amencl the larv relatins to the Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books and later, post bifurcation of the said composite State into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State ol Andhra Pradesh rv.e.f.2.6.2014, got renamed as the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 . In terms of the provisions of the said Act, the record of rights in respect of the lands are required to be^prepared and updated.

¶194

Section 3-A contains a non-abstante clause.

¶195

Section 4 says that acquisition ol^rights in^{land are} to^be intirnated to the Tahsildar.

¶196

It states:

¶197

"4. Acquisition of rights to be intimated:

¶198

(l) Any person acquiring by succession, sun'ivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of o court or othen|ise any right as, owner, pattadar ofa land and any^person acquiring^any right as occupant ofa land by an.y other method shall intinate in writing his acquisttion oJ such right, to thc l'ahsildar within thirty days .from the date q/ such ocquisitiort. The Vilhge

¶199

..)1..

¶200

MSR,J cA_978 202o&batch

¶201

llevenue Ollicer on noting the acquisition of rights in his jurisdiction shall intimate lhe I'ahsildar within one (1) day as prescribctl. T'hc Tahsildar shall give or send a a'ritlen acknowlcdgcnent of thc rcccipt of such intimation to the perso making it:

¶202

Providt,d that u.here lhe person acquiring the righl is a ntinor or othcnrisc clisquolified, his guardian his guardian or olhcr pcrson.s having charge of his property sltall intimate the .fact^{of such ucquisition to the T'ahsildar.}

¶203

(2 )Not\t'ilhstnnding anything conlaincd in the Registration AcL 1908, cvcr.y rcgi,stering o/Jicer appointed under the Act and rcgisloring a document rclaling to a transaction in land, such a-" sale, ntorlgagc, gi/i, lcase or otlrcr*-ise slnll intimate the Mandal Ilevenue O/ficcr of the Mardal manuaLly or electronically in w'hich the propcrlv is situale o.f such transaction, as prescribed.

¶204

Dxplanation-l: l'he right ntenlioned above shall inchtde a nlorlgagc tilhoul posscssion and a right deterntinetl by civii courl.

¶205

Explanation- ll:A pcrson in v'hosc .fin our a mortgage is discharged or cxtingui.slted, or a lease is determined, acquires a right r^'ilhin the mcaning of this sc'ctiot1.^"

¶206

Section 5 ( l) deals with aniendment and updating of record 01'

¶207

rights. It states

¶208

" Sc<.5⁽ l ). Ott rcccipt of itltintotion o/ thc ./act ol acquisition of ant, right r<'/t'ri <,tl to in sc(tion 1. tltc Mandal lleyenue O/ficerlshall dt'lartniru, s to whclhcr. and il'so in v,hat nmnncr, the record o/ rishts na.,- b<: amcnclcd in cons't:que:ncc thereqf and shall carrv out lh( um('ndnlant in tlrc record ol rights in accordance with such dclarmiturlion:

¶209

Provided thut no order re.fusing to make an amendment in accordance w,ilh the inlimaliotl shall be passed unless the person making suclt intimation has been given an opportunity of making his reprcsenlalion in that behalf.

¶210

,.)) .,

¶211

MSR,J crp_978-2020&batch

¶212

(2) Where the Mandul lleyanuc Ol/icer has raason ro belieye that un acquisition of any right of a dcscription to t'hith srction 4 applics Itas k*en ploce oncl ol thich un intimatiort has not bacn ntotle to him undcr lhol seclion ond *lrcrc lte consiclers tlnt un^qncutlnent hos to ba e/fbcted in the record ol rights, the Mandal llct,cnuc Ol/icer shall corry out the soicl amenclnrcnt in the record of rights.

¶213

(3) Ihe Mandal Reyernrc Ofiicer shall, ba/brc carr.ving out dnv amendment in the recorcl ol rights under sub-section (l) or subsection (2) isslte a notica in.n'riting to all person.s rlutse nomes ure entered in the recorcl of rights and whr.t ore interested in or alJbcted by the amendment and to an.y other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment ancl the notice a,foresaid shall also be published in such manner as nray bc prescribed. The Mandal Revenue Olficer shall consider ever.y objcction made in that beha( and after making such enqlri,t as may be prescribetl pass such order in relation thereto as he deems Jit.

¶214

(4) Every order passed under this section shall bc contnrunicatecl to the persons concernecl.

¶215

(5) Against et'er.v order ol the rec'ording authorit.t citlrcr making an amcnclncnt in the recortl ol rights or r<'lu.sittg to noke srch anrentlment, an appeol shull lie to the Rcvcnue Divisionol Ol/icer or such authorit.v as mav be prascrihetll, v"ilhin a^p<,riod o/ sist.v du.vs .from^{the dateql communicationof the soitl orclcrarul the decision o/} tha appellate adhoriry theraon shall, subject to the provisions o;f section 9, be.final.

¶216

The Tahsildar shall furve the pover lo correct clerical errors, il' any, on the request of the Pattadar or any person interested in the land in the Pass Books as prescribed.'

¶217

Section 6 states:

¶218

" Evcry entry in lhe record oJ rights shall bc prcsumecl to be true until the contrary is protctl or until il is otlt(nrisc onencled in accordance with the provi-sions ofthis Act."

¶219

MSR,J crp_978_2020&batch

¶220

¶221

Section 6-A provides for recording of entries in pass books and

¶222

issuance ofpass books reads thus:

¶223

" 6-A (l ) Et'erv Ovner, Partttdar, of an.v land shall apply.for the issue of a pass book to tlt<, Mandal Retenuc, Officcr on pq/ment of such fee as may be prescribed.^'l'lut onncr-paltadar shall uppl.t, ./br the issue oJ'a title deeci in addilion lo a passbook:

¶224

Providcl tlnt un occupant of atr inant ltnd is also eligiblc to applv /itr^{the issut,o/ a 35[pas.sbookilkl titlc dcedl as an occupat} :

¶225

Prtn,ide d.furllrcr' lhat v,htre no upl icatiott is nadc under this subscclion tlrc Mandal Ret,enuc^()l.ficcr mtr.y suo-motu or mandatorib, mltlolc end contplele lhe pro<:r:ss vtithin a period o/'-fiftcen da.ysj i-ssue a Pas.s Book a/ier.follou'ing the procedure prescribed under sub-sectk)n⁽²⁾ and collect thc.fbc prescribed therefor.

¶226

(2.)⁽⁾ⁿ nruking such application, the Mandal Revenue O./ficer shall causc an cnquirv to be mctde in such munner as may be prescribcd and shall isstrc a title deed and.pas.s book in accordance with the Record o/'Rights with such particulars and in such.form as may be prescribed:

¶227

Providecl that no such litle dced and pass book shall be issucd b1' the Mandal Reycntte Oflicer unlt:ss lhe Record qf Rights have heen brouglrt ultto date.

¶228

(3) The cntries in llle title dcei and pas.s book may be correctea' cithar suo-ntoltt or on afi applicalion made lo the Mandal Revenue O.flit'cr in tha narmer prcscrihcd.

¶229

(4,)^{'l'he(iorcrntnent} may prest:ribc by nies the mannezr in witich llrc tilla dcc,d utd pass book nra.v bc tsstrcd lo all ov'ncrs, patladars and to sur:h otlrcr pcrson in acr:r>rtlanca u.ith the record of rights.

¶230

(5) 7'hc titlc decd issued atdcr sub-section (l) and duly certificd by the Jllandal Rcvenue O-t'ficcr <tr sttch other autlrcrity as nraybc prescribcd, slnll be the title decd in respecl of an owner pattadar ctnd it shall havc the same eviclenliary value with regard to the title .for^{tlrc purpose of creationof eqtilable mortgageunderthe}

¶231

..4/.. ..L.1..

¶232

N,IS R.J crp 978 2020&balch

¶233

profisio,ls o/ the T runslbr o/ Propcrt.y .1ct, 1882 as a ttocument rcgisterecl in rrccordance with the prot,isions ol the lle.gistration At't, 1908 has, untler the lay.

¶234

Section 6-8 requires a pass book holder presenting a document of title deed befbre a registering of ficer to get entries made in his title deed and pass book olany transaction done by him

¶235

" Section 6-8.

¶236

(1) Noiuithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, every pass book holcler^presenting a docltment ol title deed before tt registering ollicer appointecl uncler the saicl Acl, on ctr afier coming into.fbrce o./'the Andhra Prudesh Rccord o/'llights in Land trnd Pottadar Pass Books^(Amentlment) Act, 1994 relating to a transaction in lantl, such os purchase or sale, mortgcrgc, gifi, lease or othemise shtll get the necessor.v entries in respect of such transaction racorded in lhe title deed and^pass book bv such registering o//icer.

¶237

(2) Etery pass book holder ocquiring a right by succession, sunit'orship, inherilance, parliliotl, Goyernnent^patto, court decree, or otheru'ise shall get necessor)' enlrics in^{respccloJ'such} right recorded in the tille deed and in the^pass book b1,^the Mandal Ret enue Officer.^"

¶238

Section 8 is very important and it states:

¶239

"8.(l) No suit shall lie against the Government or any olJicer q/ Government in respect o.f a claim to hat,e an^entr1, madc or itt relation to an entry made in any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amencled.

¶240

(2) !/ any person is aggrieved as lo aw right o./ which he is in possession by an enlry made in any record o/ rights hc mn)'institutc a suit against any person den.r,ing or inlcrestetl to^{tlen-v his} title^to such right .lbr declorotion o.f ltis right utuler C'hopt?r-l'l o/^the

¶241

."r<'. MSR.J crp_978_2020&batch

¶242

Spcci/ic llcli<,/ Act, 1963 and tht: cutrv in the record of righls shall be amendatl in accordancc uilh ttnv suclt declaration."

¶243

Section ll of the Act provides for rule making power. In terms of the provisit)ns of the said Act, rules known as A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short'the Rules') have been framed.

¶244

Rule 4 prescribes the procedure for preparation of Record of Rights and updating of the records o1'rights

¶245

Ilule 5 provides the procedure to be adopted by the Recording authority afier issuance of notillcation by the Cornrnissioner to rnake the Recold o1-liights update in the nratter

¶246

Rule 6 provides tbr making an cnquiry in the village. Rule 8 enables the rccrtrding authority to sunlmon the attendance of any person tbr purpose of examining hirn in connection with the enquiry. The recolding authority may rcquire any person to produce any clocument believed to be in his possession, enter upon, inspect and measure or causc to be measure<i anv land

¶247

Rule 9 provides for passing of the order by the recording ar"rthority.^-[]re said rule to thc cxtent relevant for the purpose ol this case reads as lollow,s

¶248

" Rule 9( l)(u): A/ie r dua utntple tiort of enquir.v, referred to in rule o[ thc rccording aullnritl'shull puss orders in respect o.[-

¶249

(i.) ull tust,s rcquiring changt o/ registry necessitated by the tlcalh ol rcgi:;tercd ltoltler i.e., sLucessiott blt hcirship, i1'succassiorr

¶250

MSR.J crp 978 _2020&batch

¶251

¶252

is not disouted. Il/ith regard to the entr.y o/ the nomes oJ the heirs, lhc names oJ all the heirs entitled to shares in the property.should be registered.

¶253

(ii) all cases requiring change of registry necessitated by sale, gift etc., through registered documents, i-f tllere is no dispute. ln all cases of absolute transfer of title, the Registry of a holding should be altered to correspond wilh the transfer of its ov'nership. Where the registered holder is not a party to a registered transaclion, the registered holder should be enquirecl. The parties involvecl in a translbr should be connected b1t a complete chair oJ' registered documents. Unregistered documenls ore nol aclmissible os etidence in this enquir.v lo proye the ov'ncrship or lillc of thair property. Where the chuin is nol complele, no translbr ol registry shall be done. Such cases shall bc re.fbrred to the Mandal llet,cttuc O/Jiccr.fbr disposal aJicr confirmation^{r.,f the Record} o/^Rights Jbr the village.

¶254

/iril.r'"r,r-r,t

¶255

(ir) No ordar shall be passed .lbr the change ol registry' or splitting o/^joint pattos, unless the recording outhoritf^is satislied that the change oJ Registry or splitting oJ'joint^patta is not in contrayention ofany ofthe^provisions of'

¶256

(1)The A.P. Land Relbrms (Ceiling on Agriculnn"al Holdings) Act, 1973.

¶257

(2) The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

¶258

(3) The A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of TransJbrs) Act, 1977.

¶259

(4) The tl.P. (AA) Inans (Abolition and Conversiott ittto Ryotwari) Act.

¶260

(5)'fhe A.l'. (7'A1 Abolitiott ol lnams Act, 1955

¶261

(6) The A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Trans.t'br Regulotions, 1959, Regulation I oJ l959.

¶262

..)1 , . MSR.J crp_g78 202o&batch

¶263

(7)^'thc A.I>. Mahals (Abolition and Conve'rsion into l?.t,otv ari) ReguIation I969.

¶264

(8) I'hc -1.1'. Muttas (Abolition and Conversion futo Ryotwari) llegukrtion, 1969.

¶265

(9) The Andhra Pradesh Schedulcd Areas Rltotwari Settlement Regulation, 1970.^"

¶266

Having noticed the important provisions of the Act. we may note that usually only 'undisput<:r/' transactions oftransfer of title are to be dealt with under the provisions of the Act, though there is some limitr:d scope r:1'encluiry providecl under the Act for the quasi judicial autholities like respondents 1 to 3 exercising powers under the Act.

¶267

,17. In Nagar Palika Vs. Jagat Singhs, the Supren.re Court also held:

¶268

"ln ctnl cosc, un order ol nluloliotl D1 the name of the tcspondcn! itt the n:vcnue re<:ortls cantrct be a source of title. In thc case t'f Nirntan Singh v. Lal Rudra Partab Narain Singh!, in rcspect of'mulalion of names in reyenuc records, il was said:

¶269

"Thet are nothing of the kind a.s has been pointed out times innumerabb b, the Judicial Committcc. They are nuch more in lhc nature of ./iscal inquiries instituted in the interest of the State .for^{thepurposeof ascertainingwhich of the severalclaimants} for lhe occupation of certain derutninalions o.f immovable property may be pul into occupation of it *'tth greater conJidence that the rct,cnue.{or it v'ill ba paid.

¶270

l! is liltlc lc.s.s tltan o trtt|cs,tv ol iudicial oroceedins to resard lltc ttt'o orders o/ the [ixtra C'ontntissiotrcr of Bnhraiclt and Mr L. Fe'r Cotrtnti.s.t.i l1 utli 11 i'o rc an itttlividual ronl an or inlere.\l he_cla.!lJl! in intntot'lfilc nrorscrt!.^'(emphasis supplied)

¶271

! ( 1995) 3 scc 426

¶272

..r4..

¶273

MSII.J crp.-g7[i 2020&batch

¶274

Though the State ol Telangana had enacted the Telangana Rights in Land & Pattadar Passbooks Act,2020 by repealing the Telangana Rights in Land& Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, and the new enactment of2020 was brought into force from 29-10-2020, the new Act of 2020 has not been given retrospective af'fbct and so it does not invalidate the orders passed by respondents I to 3 r.rnder the 197 I Act. So the provisions of the new Act of 2020 need not be taken into account while considering the correctness of the orders passed by respondents I to 3 which are challenged in this Revision which had been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 10.09.2020 itself, much belore the coming into force of the new Act.

¶275

Since essentially the Act details lvith aspect o1'mutation in revenue records, and such mutation orders, as per settled law, cannot be a source of title (see District Collector a nd others Vs. Harikishan Agarwal and others6), the Act cannot be interpreted as conferring powers on the quasi^judicial authorities like respondents I to 3 exercising powers under the Act to decide questions of title to the land.

¶276

In Kutchi l-al llameshrlar Ashram Trust llvam Anna Kshetra'I'rust v. Collcctor, Ilaridwari. thc Suprerr-re^('or.rrt held that administrative authorities like Collectors have no^jurisdiction to decide questions oltitle. It declared:

¶277

u :oo r (o) nI-r :sz (os) '(2ol?)^l6 scc^4r8

¶278

NlS]{.J crp 978 2020&batch

¶279

: :29: :

¶280

"24.'l'hc basic^{issttc wli<:hhttsto lte atldressedin the light o{ the} abo'.,a principles is vrhather thc Collector hod iurisdiction to decida^cr Ltcslion o titlc b as s Ll111l t1 to hintsel the orl er t1 to ./brurn.^{Theorder of tha Collet:toriruJicatesthal lhe issueas to whether} tha propL'rtlt w-ould vesl in the State Gorernment as a result of aJailure of heirs v.'ithin the ntecrLing of Scctiort 29 was a seriously disputed issue turning upon an adjudication of conJlicting claims. In the process of determining the issLtc purportedly under Section 29, the Collector has adjudicated upon various Jitctual mallers including (i) whether the propert! was purchased in 1955 by Mohan Lal with the .fttnds^{providedLtySwamyUdhat'Das:(ii) the legality of theregistered} v,ill stated to lnve been executed by thc Swan1, on 22-10-1956; (iii) the itlcntitt, of'tlte person wlut executed the deed of acceptaru.-e duted 23-3-1958 in comparisort w,itlt the person in whose name the patta had been acquired in 1955; (iv) whellrcr Mohan Lal died prior to tlrc erecLttiotl of the decd of trust ort 11-]1-1957: and (v) whether a prc.tumltlion in rcgard kt thc dcath of Mohan Lal would arise upon his rLot being hc:ard of allegcdl.y /or seren ,-ears. The Collector ha.s proceedt'd to adjudicate on thcs'c, umong other, -fachtal i.ssues. Section 29, it nut.v be rnted, embodi.c:; a principlc but does not proviCe a procedural maclto nis m .f'or ad.l udica t io upon disputed ques tiotls. Tha canvts of the conborersy bc/bre the Court i.s an abundant indication of ntalters v,hich were scriousl), in dispute. The contention of the Sitate thal the pr.operty v,ould devolt,e upon it as a result of Mohan Lctl bcing presumetl rc be dead ond having left behind no legal heir is seriously in questiotl. $UelLS_US!9!__S9Ula ttot nne Uen aal thc Collector by assuninp ro himself a iurisdiclion vthich is nol conferred uDon hint by lctw.^"

¶281

The principle thal tlte lan* tloes not readily accepl a clainr to escheat a d that the onus rc.sts heo,,,tl., on lhe person who asserls thtrt an intlivi.dual has diad intcstate, laal:ing v6 legal heir, qualified to succ?ed ta lh() properl.t,, is.fbundcd on cr sottnd rotionLtle. Esclrcal is a tloc[t'ine whi<.-lt rcccgtti:;t's tlrc Stdc us o parannunt solcreigf it] tltom propartv rould t ast onl,v' upott a clcur and cs/ubli,shecl casc :sf a Jailtu'e^{of ht:irs. Thi.sprincipl<:ls busedon thc orm that in a societt} got,cntcd b.v the Rulc o/ [,au, lhc cot 'l w,ill ttol prcsunte thot priytttc titles are rn,crridtlen in /at'ottr of the State, in the absence of a c'lear

¶282

MSR.J cry_978-2020&batch

¶283

::30::

¶284

c(tse beinq made out on the bosis of^{q povcrning} staluto/y^pt o|isiofi. To alloy,^{qduitlistratitleqw.lprylils} ol the Skne-includins the

¶285

Collector. as in the Dresent cdse lo oclirulicatc upon mutters ol title involvins civil disoutes v'ould be destructiw oI tlrc Rtrle o/ Lau,. Tlte Collector is an otlicer o.f the Stote. He can exercise only such^powers as lhe law specificallv conlbrs upon ltim to enter u^pon Driwtlc tlisttules. In controst, ct ci,il court has the^{juriscliction} to odjuclicale upon ull motters inyolying civil cli.sputes etcept v,lrcrc the^jurisdiction ol the court is token away, either expressl.t or by necessur.l implicution, b.y .\lotute. ln holdinp that the Collcclor ucted villrcut iuriscliction in the /)/i^{, /jt^(ir.\C, i! i. ot /t( ( ('..(/r'r Irtr lhe C.'ourl [o lo 0s lhr us lo yalidate the title vt hich is claimer! hv llrc Delitiotrcr to lhe nroDerlr'. Thc Colrrt is ot called upon to dctide vhethar the posses.sion claimetl by lhe Trlrst o/ over.fort.y-.lit'e .yaurs is bacliul b1 t crcliblc title.^'l'he essential^point is thal sucl@ been arrosatetl to himscl/ .fbllou,^{recrnu'se to the ordinar.v civil} .iurisdiction^{of o court q/} competent^jurisdiction under Section 9 ol the Code ql Cit,il Procedure, I 908.^" (emphasis stroolied)

¶286

Recently in Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Limited vs. R. Perumalswamy and Ors8,, the Supreme Courl considered provisions of the Tamilnadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 which are almost ir pari moteria with the provisions of the lelangana Act and held:

¶287

" l9. Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 und the Tamil Naclu Patta Pass Book Rules 1987, the Tahsilclar is not emp9y9l3!L to adiudic0te uDo n a'title dispute'. A combinetl reuli ng o/ Section 14 and Rule 4(4) indicates that vhere there exists a dispute hilh respect to ou'nership oJ a land be teen porties v'ilh respecl lo e pollo entr)], the correct procedure to ba atlopted is lo approach o civil court having competent^{jurisdiction.} The entry records vill be updated on

¶288

t M,qltJlsc/o56zlzozo

¶289

MSR.J crp 978 2020&batch

¶290

;:31 ::

¶291

the basis o.[ thc decree qf the civil court upon ad.j udictrt i o n.^{" (c} mplns is suppl it'd)

¶292

A Division Ilench of this Court presided OVCI by Justice G.Raghuram held in Govt, of A.P. v. Malik Sultanae as under

¶293

5 4. ... ... rcd,lttctrn Gencral has catesoricallv ursed lhat the ortlers ted l5-04-2002. 06-05-2004. 3l-07-2004, or the imousncd ntento dated 2l-05-2005 ) /low from onv authority rretl to ad trdicalc on co litl laims o th le 11 hand antl thc lc a I lrc i rs/s ucc'css o rs -in-inte to t1 on the olher, wilh respecl lo the schcdul( oroDerty ol Acs. 1634.35 l.s in Kolirt r Lh t1 ili W.P. No. 29063 of 2009 nor rhe cowtsel {or tlte non-oflicial rcsnondents itt thc^(I ca ls y, brouphl lo our nolicc proyisions ol 0nt, lasi.s ld lion^(o ct, aulltut ilt, or iurisdicliort on tltt tlioy<,nntartl. llrc l'rinci al Sccrctary or thc Sncciol Chief Secretart, utes bctt ct,n thc ,9tdlc and lhe cont itn t lointtutls t.r illt rt.s

¶294

-15. Judicial^{porcr is an inteper} ol^{sotarci gt1 po\er vlticltinherasin} /Itt',;trttcriot'^(\trrt.1,s untlct tttrt^{(--.onsIiIuIionaI} Drc.\ctlls^(Article s 32, l3l to 142; ,,lrticlcs 2)5 to 228; Articles 230 ro 231). Thc on 1o dic yil rullt tc 0 tnnlirrcd o courts infcrior to supcrior courts by Acls ol lhc aDptoprialc lcpislaltres,^(crercising lcgislative^{pow'er qua} lhe enumeratecl lcpislatit'e fields) i.e., Arlicla 246 read inter alia v,ith Entr.y 95 of'thc Union List; Entryt 65 of thc State List: or Entry 46 oJ' the Concurrent Lisl, in the Seventh Schedule lo the Constituliotl. Extrrnples of sttch lcsislativc conferment of iudicial Dow'ers and outhot i/1, arc lha Code ol Criruinal Proc:cdur<t, 1973 ond Callerl Civil Proct,durc 1908. There arc olher enactments v,hich co nfer .lurisdiction^{on courts or othcrtribLmals.Illustrations oJ such} conJbrment are thc Administrativc Tribunals Act, 1985, whereunder powcr to adjudicate is conferred on Administrative Ti'ibunals qutr Articlc 323,'l; jurisdiction to decide disputes is also conferred on

¶295

'^2013(2) AI-D 177 = I",lanu/AP/0927/20^I 2^(DIl)

¶296

..1r..

¶297

MSI{,J cip 978 2020&batch

¶298

other Tribunals under sct'eral e actments such as tlrc lnclustrial Disputes Act, the Income Tox Act, the Stamp Act, Urban and Agrictrlnral Lands Ceiling Legislatiort and Soles 7-ox enactment.s o;f' several states, Section 9 of the Civil Proced ure Cotl,e confbrs wide iuriscliction on courts to adiudicate all disnutes o/ a ciyil noture et t lhose s cal I e le lation

¶299

In the case on hand, despite the inconsistent and ofien incohcrent positions^(evident lrom the ortlers dated l5-04-2002, A6-05-2004, 3 1-07-2004 and 2 I -05-2005), thc Stcttc hc clo etllv urlopttrl thc bellngs t0 the State and not to the hefrs ol'Nusrat Juns l. In lha circuntslanccs ttrtcl abscnl nny st:ccifit:^pov,er conferred on onf er.cLttive o thoritv or pe ct to odiutlicate dispules betv'ecn the Stala on lhe onc lnnd antl the n the c heclule r0 e t'l on lh( other we ur tla utlnri 0r urisdictiott itt tlt Government or other Stote ectors Atrtblic olliciuls), to udiudiqate the comoeting claims. On this ahalyses and in the absence of anv let!islativelv exolicated exclusion of the iurisdicti on of the Civil Court and the confbrment ol cortcurrent or exclnsive adiudicatory iurisdiction on^a nv authoritlt, fbrun^{or tribunal, other than the} Civil Court, neither the State nor o l State actor^{ltasat4:power} or authority to cletermine wlrcther the schedule DroDertv belonss^to the State or to the^privote cluinants thereto. Other^{issues presenlel} bv the cluintunts/writ oetitioners are euualh' tontesled and contestable und fall lbr adiudication.

¶300

LVe therefbre conclude that the set'eral^{inslrunl?nts;dutccl} l5-01' 2002, 06-05-2A01, 31-07-2001 and 2l-05-2005^{(inttrtugnctl)} huve^no clelerminatit'e trqleclory vhulsoetcr and ur,: n(ilhcr .'o slilttliIe, tlcclarotory or^(lapra( etor.), o.l on1'rights in thc^{stltr:clulc prcperl.'.} either in .t'avour ol llle Slale or in .f tl our of tlx: clainanls^(trrit petitioners).

¶301

The^juclgment under oppeol directs the Govcr menl lo raconsider the issue after notice to the pelilioners. Wtat power, otrthorit.\ or jurisdiction the Execulive branch o.f the G(^)erttment is required to

¶302

MSR,J crp 978_2020&batch

¶303

::33::

¶304

cxercisc, to adjtttlicatc upon contpctitlg claims of itself and^{o.f the} privelc clnitnanls to lhc sc'lrcdul<'l)rol)crl.r, is hov'ct'er nol delineated in lhc judgmtnt unclcr appcal.

¶305

Ottt tnolt.scs hcrcin ltt'f on it'ul.s trs to con( luale lhat 110 o)t:e I autlutri/t, o, iurisd ictiort, titlt<,r iurli<:iol or Guasi-iudicial ir conlt,rred ort th( Slet( C;o,(nttt(,nt, or on any ol/icer of the Stote, rltctlrcr concurrcnt tl ith or to th(' cxcltrsion of the indisputablv availablc Dovt<:r. aulltorilt and ittrisdiction ol'the civil court under Saction 9 L'l)C to clctcrnittc^yhctlrcr thc schedule Droperty belongs lo the State: lo thc conDetins clainonts, includins the writ pelilioners; or ils possession is rcquired by lay, 16 be restored to thc claimonts. duly considerins nleos raslrdins the bar of limitotio period. "

¶306

These decisions are all binding on this Couft.

¶307

Therefbre I hold that respondents I to 3 could not har.'e held that petitioner's vendor had not title to it and that they Government lands. Such a tinding is wholly without^{jurisdiction.}

¶308

55.^'fhe learned Government l:'leader lor Arbitration appearing lor respondents I to 3 did not dispute the tact that no^jurisdiction has been conlelred on respondents I to -i to decide as to whether the subject land belongs to the State or to the petitioner/his vendors or predecessors-i n-title.

¶309

A rnore serious issue in the case is whether the respondents I to 3 as employees of the State can unilaterally decide the issue of title to lhe subject propefty in tavor of thr: State at all.

¶310

::34::

¶311

MSR.J crp 978_2020&barch

¶312

There can be no dispute that ilemployees of the State decide such issues relating to title to property in favor ol the State, there would be breach of principles of natural jLrstice as r.vell because the issue of bias arises in such cases.

¶313

That is why ilthe State intends to set up inclependent claim to the propemy claimed by the petitioner, it ought to approach the Civil court and prove it's title and it's ernployees like the respondents I to 3 cannot usurp the^jurisdiction of'the Civil coun and decide the said issue. In fact this is what is provided in Sec.8 of the Act too.

¶314

Whether the authorities under the Act have iurisdiction to evict thc pctitioner or othcr third oartics.

¶315

In the impugned order dt.25.06.2020, the l'' respondent held in paraZl as under:

¶316

"... ... Ifeel it^jusl and necessary to sct aside llrc orders o.f the Tahsildar, Sangarcdd.v vide Proc. No.C/12312/2005-2, Dated: 13.02.2005 and l)roc'. No.R/10300/2007^l, Dated;13.09.2007. Accordinglv, I ortlar to sct usidt thc ubole proceedings and dircctcd rhc^'lhhsilclar, Kondi to tleleta tha names of the third parties.front the revenue rac'ords.fbr an cxlent o/ Ac. 63-05 Gts ancl recorcl thc same as Govcrnntant lctnds and the Tahsildar, Kandi is crlso diractcd to eyicl thc encrodchers if' any in the said lands and take it into Got'ernmenl cltstody b'itll immediate ef.fect.^"

¶317

As stated above, the Act was passed to maintain record of rights by the Revenue Department when there is acquisition of title by new parties.

¶318

MSR.J crp 978_2020&batch

¶319

::35::

¶320

J'he Govemment Pleader for Arbitration appearing for respondents t to 3 did not dispute that the Act contains no provision for eviclion of encroachers like the petitioner.

¶321

It appears that '"vithout issuing even a notice to third parties such as Panduranga Rao Deshmukh, his son and his brother's son in whose favour Tahsildar, Sangareddy had issued mutation proceedings vide Proc. No.C/123 1212005-2. Dated:13.02.2005 and to Ancha Srinivasa Rao (vendor of the petitioner) in whose favour Tahsildar, Sangareddy had issued mutation proceedings vide Proc. No.B/ I 0300/2007- I , Dated: I 3.09.2007, the said orders have also been cancelled by the l '' respondent and they are directed to be evicted and the land was directed to be taken into the custody of the Govemnrent.

¶322

Normally a person in possession can only be evrcted and deprived ol'his lrroperly by fbllou,ing due process of'law. This is what Art.300-A of the Constitution of India provides for.

¶323

1'hough under the^'l'elangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905 summary eviction is possible, the Supreme Couft has held in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs.^'fummala Krishna Rao and anotherr0 that the summaly remedy of eviction provided by Section 6 of the said Act can be resofted to by the Government only against persons who are in unauthorized occupation of any land which is the property of the Governmenl; btrt if there is a bonafide dispute regarding the title of the Governntent to the proper), tlxe Government 'n^{AtRIg82 sc t081}

¶324

::36:: MSR.J crp_g78 202o&barch

¶325

cannol take a unilaleral clecisiott in it.s ott'tt.fin'our tlrut thc propertt belongs to it and on that basis take recourse to the summary remedv provided b), Section 6.

¶326

So even the said remedy under the I'elangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is unavailable to the respondents

¶327

I shall point out hereatter how there is a bonaflde dispute regarding title raised by the petitioner and the State cannot take a unilateral decision without recourse to a Civil Court to evict the petitioner when mutation was made by the then Tahsildar in favour of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his family members in respect of Ac.63.09 Gts in the Dharma Sagar Billa Dakhala land way back on 13.12.2005, lifteen years prior to the impugned order of the l" respondent.

¶328

Considcration of the oroccc<lings un(lcr thc l.lntl^(-cilin l,a*' in rcspcct of Pandur:rngarao Dcshnru h and his lirntilr trtcnrbcrs.

¶329

As can be seen tl'o nr the orclers^passed by rcspondent nos.l to 3, all of them have stated that the narne ol Pandut'angarao Deshmukh was recorded in the Pahani tbr the^year 1967-68 without mentioning as to ho',v he acquired rights over these lands.

¶330

Under Section 4 of the A.P. Land Refbrm^(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 ( fbr short'the Land Refbrms Act'), a "family unit" consisting of not more than 5 tnembers can hold an extent of land equal to one standard holding.

¶331

MSR.J crp-978 _2020&batch

¶332

::Ji::

¶333

Depending on the nature of the land and its location and availability of irrigation source, one Standard Holding which a family unit can retain can go up to 75 acres"

¶334

Pandurangarao Deshmukh had filed a declaration under the said law in C.C.N<I.2476 lS / 75, and his rnajor son Deepak had filed declaration under tile said law in C.C.No.2473 lSt 75, Brothers of Pandurangarao by narle Vasanth l{ao and Yeswanth Rao also filed declarations in Cl.C.nos.2475lSl 75 and2474 lsl 75.

¶335

On 31.05.1989, the Additional Revenue Officer (Land Itetbrms) Sangareddy held that Panclurangarao Deshmukh and his son Deeprak are together entitled to hold 2 Standard l{oldings and that Pandurangarao Deshmukh's excess holding is 3.1721 standard holding, which he was liable to surrender to the State under Section l0 of the Act.^'Ihis order rvas also confirmed 1 Appeal llt L.R.A.No.21 of 1989 by the l-and Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Medak

¶336

Challenging this, he arul his family members had filed C.R.P.Nos.40l7, 4018 and 4019 ol 1993 in the High Court of A.P contending that lrom his holding lands in 9lnam villages, lands for 'which certificates under Sectiorr 38-E ol the A.P. (T'elangana Area) 'fenancy and Agricultural Holdings Act, 1950 were issued to protccted tenants and lands in possession of cerlain third panies ought t.o be deleted liom his excess holding

¶337

::38::

¶338

MSIT,J crp 978 2020&barch

¶339

On 27.12.1995, the said C.R.P.s were allowed and rhe matrer was remitted back to the primary tribLrnal under the Act tbr recon siclerat ion and fiesh enquiry to Iook into tl-re above contentions of- Pandurangarao Deshrnukh and his tamily members

¶340

After remand, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Medak at Sangareddy passed a fresh order on 27.08.1996 in respect of Pandurangarao Deshmukh, his son Deepak and his brothers, Yeshwanth Rao and Vasanth Rao and accepted their plea and declared that they do not hold any surplus land.

¶341

But it clicl not disturb the earlier.finding that he utcl his son are entitled to hold land ecluivalent to 2 Standard Holdings.

¶342

7 6. The learned Covernment Pleader lbr Arbitration does not dispute these f'acts. He also does not dispute that since Pandurangarao Deshmukh and his son have been allowed to retain 2 Standard Holdings, what were those lands which they were allowed to retain is not noted anylvhere by any of the respondents in the impugned orders.

¶343

This aspect is critical because the respondent nos.1 to 3 would know these details and the petitioner, who purchased the land in question long afterwards, would not be in a position to get this information.

¶344

It is quite possible that the Billa Dakhala land^{(Dharmasagar)} at Kandi Chimnapur Village of extent Acs.63.05 gts. is included in the Standard Holding ofPandurangarao Deshmukh and his son.

¶345

NISR..' crp 97E 202o&batch

¶346

: r39::

¶347

79, The Tahsildar^(3'd respondent) in his order dt.22.03.2019 incorectly stated that Pandurarrgarao Desl.rmukh declared that he won't have any interest and rights over these lands, that he declared some other lands and sought deletion ofthese lands from his Standard I{olding. There is no basis fbr this assurnption and a reading of the olders passed in the litigation under the Land Reform Act does not suppoft this fincling.

¶348

He aleo stated that Pandurangarao Deshmukh had given an affidavit betbre the R.D.O. Sangareddy on 05.1L1976 stating that he had no objection to issue Occupancy Right Certificates to poor occupants and that he filed declaration stating that he has no interest over the unsurveyed lands ol Dharmasagar in Kandi Village. No such document is produced or filed by the respondents.

¶349

A perusal of the order dt.27.08.1986 of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Medak at Sangareddy (the order of the Primary Tribunal under the Land Refonns Acl after its renumd by the High Courl in C.R.P.Nos.4017,4018 and 4019 of 1993) shows that the Occupancy Right Cert.ificates were issued in respect of land in other villages and that only !'or souc land in Kandi Chinrnapur Village they had been issued. This land is comprised in Survey Nos.322, 323,324,325 and 326 of Kandi Village ol'extent Acs.25.72 cents.

¶350

MSR.J crp 978 2020&barch

¶351

.10

¶352

The Dharmasagar land of Acs.63.09 gts. in Kandi Chimnapur Village is admittedly unsurt,e.t ed land and had no suryey nulnSsrs, according to respondent nos. I to 3.

¶353

Therefore, what is sought fbr deletion by Pandurangarao Deshmukh and his family members is not the Dharmasagar land of Acs.63.09 gts. in Kandi Chimnapur Village. but other land in the said village which had already been given survey numbers.

¶354

This is a blatant error comr.nitteci by the Tahsildar^(i"r respondent) in his order dt.22.03.2019 ancl is repeatecl parrot-like by the Revenue Divisional Olficer, Sangareddy in his order dt.04. ll.20l9 (in page no. l3 thereof) and by the Additional Collector ( l" respondent) in his order dt.26.06.2020 (in para (ii) at page no. l0).

¶355

It is not open to respondent nos. I to 3 to imagine tacts contrary to record and with a prejudiced mind corne to wrong conclusions that this land does not belong to Panduranga^{Rao Deshmukh and his} family and hold that by managing lower level otflcials, he^got his name recorded in the Pahanies as pattedar.

¶356

This finding is based on no evidence and is perverse as rvell

¶357

Othcr^points:

¶358

A.Findins that Occupano lligh t Certificntcs lcrc issuctl in l97tl to the land clainred by Panduranga Rao Deshm ukh and latcr canccllccl. is not^bascd on anv cvidcnce.

¶359

The Tahsildar^(3"r responclent) in his order dt.22.03.2019 also recorded that a final patta certificate was granted in fhvour of 49

¶360

::.ll:: MSR.J crp 978 .2020&batch

¶361

persons covering an extent of' Acs. 177.39 gts. by the R.D.O., Sangaredcly on 16.06.1978 and that it was sr:t aside by the .loint Collector, Sangareddy <>n 25.07 .20 l'7 .

¶362

The Billa Dakhala land in Dharmasagar of Kandi Chimnapur Village, according to I'ahsildar( 3''r respondent), in his order at page no.12 is Acs.242.36 gts.

¶363

The land shown to be in thc possession of Panduranga Rao Deshrnukh in the Pahani of' 1967-68 is admittedly Acs.63.09 gts.

¶364

Thereftrre, it is possible that Acs. 177.39 gts. is a separate parcel of'land having rrothing to do.,vith Acs.6l.09 gts. admitted to be in the possession of Panduranga Rao Deshrnukh since 1967-68, since both ;xtents togethc:r would be less than Acs.242.36 gts.

¶365

But, the r:espondent nos.I to 3 presumed, without any record that Occupancy' Right Certificates were issued to Acs.63.09 gts. claimed by Panduranga Rao Deshrnukh and his family, that this is part of'Acs.177.39 gts. fol rvhich 49 persons wer-e issued such Occupancy Right Cert ificates, and so it is Ciovernment land and the petitioner or his predecessor's ln title have no right, title or interest in the said land.

¶366

This finding is also based on no evidence and perverse as well.

¶367

Il. Nlunthaliah *'*s filed hv t!qpp!jl!9ncr" in thc C.R.l'.

¶368

I nray also point out that the petitioner has filed copy ofthe Munthakab No.l354/1304 Fasli (1894) before this Court on the basis

¶369

..,t1..

¶370

MSR,J crp 978 2020&batch

¶371

of which succession was ordered on 27.01.1959 by the Atiyath Board, but the respondents have simply stated tliat petitioner did not produce it and it had not been flled earlier.

¶372

C, The evidence in the Revenue Records about^possession of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and alienees from him lrom 1971-72 onwards

¶373

82, The petitioner has also filed Pahanies o1' 1971-72, 1974-75 and 1975-76 of Kandi Village in respect of Ac.75.00 of Dhanna Sagar lands showing in Column I 1 the name of Panduranga Rao Deshrrukh as kathadar. He has also llled Pahani of 1979-80 where he is shorvn as the owner of Ac.64.38 Gts, Pahani fbr 1984-85 showing him as pattadar of Ac.61.20 Gts and Pahani of 1996-91 shorving him as pattadar of Ac.65.36 Gts.

¶374

He has also filed Pahani of 2004-05 and 2005-06 showing Panduranga Rao Deshmukh as the pattadar and possessor of Ac.63.09 Gts.

¶375

his 84. These pahanies are prima facie title of occupation/possession of the Ac.63.09^gts as Orvner.

¶376

D. Su ccession rvas sanctioned and Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds rvcrc issued to Panduransa Rao Deshmukh and his familv me nrbers and alienecs Irom him

¶377

Vide proceeding No.C/123 12105-2, dt.13.12.2005, the then Mandal Revenue Of'ficer, Sangareddy sanctioned mutatiton to Panduranga Rao Deshmukh, his son Deepak and brother's son Uday - each fbr an extent of Acs.2l.03 gts., totaling Acs.63.09 gts. in respect of the Dharmasagar Billa Dhakala land in Kandi Chimnapur Village.

¶378

I\ISR..I crp- 97f 2020&batch

¶379

: i.13::

¶380

On the basis of the said orcler. pattadar^pass books were^issued to the son of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh by name Deepak Deshmukh 1br an cxtent o1' Ac.21.03 Gts of Billa Dakhala land^(Dhanna Sagar) and to Uday Deshmukh, the brother's son of Panduranga Rao Deshmukh for a similar extent have been filed by the petitioner. Similar pattadar pass book was also issued to Panduranga Rao Deshmukh himself in respect of Ac.21.03 Gts according to the petltroner.

¶381

These proceedings No.C/123 12105-2 dt. 13.12.2005 of the then Mandal Revenue Offlcer, Sanga Reddy are now set aside by the 1" respondent without issuing any notice to the legal heirs of the above persons or other alienees from them.

¶382

[,. Pattadal Pass Book rr:rs issued to X>ctitioncr's Yendor

¶383

8tl. Paltadar pass book was also issued to Ancha Srinivasa Rao fbr Ac.18.03 Gts ot'Billa Dakhala land afler he purchased the same from Panduranga Ilao Deshmukh and his family members and after proceedings No.B/10300/2007-l were issued by the then Tahsildar, Sanga Reddy (which is now set aside by the l" respondent in the irnpugned older again withor.rt notice to him and to his legal representatives lal ienees)

¶384

I rnay point out here that under Sub-Rute (6) of Rule 26 of the A.P. Rights in L,and and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, ,l989, title cieed or

¶385

::44::

¶386

MSR.J cry 978 -2020&barch

¶387

passbook would be given only to those persons '"vho are in ac.tuctl possession of the land.

¶388

Therefore, it cannot be said that Panduranga Rao Deshmukh and his family members were not in possession at any point oltime of the Billa Dakhala lands as is now held by the respondents in the impugned orders.

¶389

This finding is contrary to record and pen,erse.

¶390

li. Allotnrcnt ol ncrv survcv nunrbers

¶391

92.^'l'he respondents clo not dispute that the Tahsildar, Sanga Reddy Mandal had issued proceedings B.1108212001 dt. 16.02.2013 assigning Survey numbers to the Billa Dakhala land of extent Ac.35.03 Gts in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.25662 of 2007 and C.C.No.624 of 2012.

¶392

In the said proceeding, it is shown that Ancha Srinivasa Rao, vendor of the petitioner, is allotted khata number 1695 in respect of Ac.8.05 Cts in Sy.No.990 and Ac.l.0l Gt. in Sy.No. 1052 and other survey numbers also - amounting to Ac.18.03 Gts which he had purchased from Panduranga Rao Deshmr.rkh and his farnily members.

¶393

The Pahanies of Faslies 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424⁽²⁰¹⁰ to 2014) show that the pattadar of land in Sy.No.990 is Ancha Srinivasa Rao and is also in possession thereof.

¶394

N,lSR.J crp_g78 2020&batch

¶395

: :;15: :

¶396

This state of affairs is presunied to continue under Section 114 (d) of the l,lvidence Act, 1872; and if the State clairns to have obtained possession of Acs.63.09 gts. including the land purchased by the pr:titloner lionr A.ncha S[inivasa Rao. it must prove by what means and process / procedure it secured such possession. But no such evidence is lorthcominq.

¶397

Though all the respondents l-3 relied on Letter No.Nl/7696108 dt.27.1 1.2010 Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. Hyderabad directing to treat 'Billa Dhakala land' as 'Government land, any proceeding said to have been issued by any olficer of Government including the said oftlcer cannot convert primu facie private land as Government land lry a stroke of pen without any decision of a C'ivil CloLrrt.

¶398

The l" ne,spondent also discovered for the first time during the course ol the pendency of the Rc-vision that the subject land claimed by the petitionel is Shikarn (Tank Bed), fbr which there is no Revenue Record ref'erred kr or disclosed. In fact, neither the primary authority in his order dt.22.03.2019 nor the Appellate Authority in his order dt.04.l I .20 l9 had given any such fincling.

¶399

In rny opinion, such cooked-up reasons without any lactual basis cannot invalidate the claim ol petitioner. So this finding is also perverse, based on no evidence and is unsustainable.

¶400

:;46ti

¶401

MSR,J crp_978 2020&barch

¶402

As held in Kutchi Lal Ranreshrvar Ashram^'Irust Evam

¶403

Anna Kshetra Trust (7 supra), in holding that the respondent nos. I to 3 acted without^jurisdiction in the present case, it is not necessary for this Court to go as f-ar as to validate the title rvhich is claimed by the petitioner to the proper-ty. This Court is also not called upon to decide r,vhether the possession claimed by the petitioner and his predecessors including Panduranga Rao Deshmukh frorn 1967-68 for 53 years is backed by a credible title.

¶404

The essential point is that such an adjudicatory function could not have been arrogated to themselves by the respondent nos.l to 3. Adjudication on titles must happen by recourse to the ordinary civil courts of competent^jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and not through employees of the State like the respondent nos.l to 3.

¶405

I hold that the petitioner and his predecessors were tn possession and enjoyment of this land and the State cannot interfere with the possession and enjoyment of'the petitioner without lbllowing the above procedure.

¶406

l0l. In my opinior-r, there has bccn a t'lagrant violation of f'undamental principles of law and^justice by respondent nos. I to 3, and if this Court does not interfere, a grave injustice would remain uncorected.

¶407

MSR.J crp 978 2020&batch

¶408

:i17.i

¶409

I also find that the findingr; ol fact are based on no evidence at all and they are perverse and no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the respondent nos. I to 3 have come to.

¶410

Theretbre: this is a 1lt case to interf'ere with the orders dt.26.06.2020 in Case No.F3/2685i2019 passed by the Additional Collcctor, Sangareddy Division at Sangareddy (1'' respondent) under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 197 I (fbr shorl'the Act') contirming the order dt.04.11.2019 in File No.A3/282312019 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy District (2nd respondent) under Section 5(5) of the said Act dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the l'ahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District in File No.Al4192l20l9 dt.22.03.2019 by exercising the powers conferred on this court under Art.227 of the Clonstitution of India.

¶411

I.A.No. I of 2020 was frled by petitioner to suspend the above orders. Since the CRP has been now allowed. no orders are necessan/ in this IA.

¶412

IA No.2 ol 2020 has been filed by petitioner to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to forthwith register and release Doc.No.P 746 andP.747 which had been presented by petitioner on12.7.2017 before District Registrar, Sanga Reddy (4'r' respondent) without insisting upon Pattadar passbooks and title deeds of the petitioner.

¶413

MSR.J crp 978_202o&barch

¶414

::48::

¶415

IA.No.4 of 2020 rvas Illed by petitioner to amencl the prayer in IA No.2 of 2020 by substituting respondent no.3 in the place of respondents 4 and 5 in view ol the Telangana l{ights in land and Pattadar pass books Act, 2020 anrending the larv rclating to record of rights which came into fbrce on 29.10.2020 (alter tiling of this Revision) conl'erring power on the 3'{ respondent to undertake registration of documents dealing with alienation of agricultural lands.

¶416

I.A.No.4 of 2020 is allowed and the prayer in IA.No.2 ol 2020 is amended as prayed for and the said IA.No.2 ol 2020 is also allou,ed.

¶417

IA.No.3 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner to direct the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kandi Mandal, Sanga l(eddy Mandal (3'd respondent) to fbrthwith issue E pattadar Pass books and title deeds to the petitioner and also rtake recommendation to enable the petitioner to avail benetits under the Rythu Bandhu Scheme and Pradhan Mantri Kisan Yojana. The said IA is also allowed.

¶418

I.A.No.5 of 2020 is filed to receive certain additional documents. The said IA is allowed

¶419

Accordingly,

¶420

(i) The CRP No.978 of 2020 is allowed rvith costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by respondent nosl to 3 to petitioner;

¶421

MSR,I crp_978 202o&batch

¶422

:i{9::

¶423

(ii) the orders dt.26.06 .2020 in Case No.F3/268512019 passed by the Additional Collector, Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy District (1" respondent), the order dt.04.l1.2019 in File No.A3/2823/2019 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangaredciy t)istrict (2"'r respondent) and order passed by the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District in File No.A/4192/2011) dt.22.03.2019, are all set aside;

¶424

(iii) the Mandal Revenue OI'ficer, Kandi mandal, Sanga Reddy District (3'd rer;pondent), the ar.rthority now cornpetent to register agricultural properlies shatl fbrthwith registel and release Doc.No.P.746 and l'.74'7 which had been presented by petitioner on 12J.2017 befor:e District Registrar, Sanga Reddy (4'h respondent) without insisting upon Pattadar passbooks and title deeds of the petitioner; and IA.No.2 of 2Q20 is allowed.

¶425

(iv) the Mandal Revenue OlIicer, Kandi Mandal, Sanga Reddy District (3'd respondent) is direchd to forthwith issue E pattadar Pass books and title decds tc, thc petiti(lner and also make recomnrendation ro enable the trrelitioner to avail beneflts under the Rythu Bandhu Scherne and l)radhan Mantri Kisan Yojana; and IA.No.3 of 2020 is allowed;

¶426

(r') I.A.No.5 o12020 is allowed;

¶427

(vi) No orders are required in IA.No.1 of 2020.

¶428

MSR,J crp 978 2020&batch

¶429

::50::

¶430

CC No.l68l of20l9 and CC No.7l2 of2020

¶431

Interim order on 01.11.2017 in \r.P. .P.No.49482 of 2017 in W.P.No.39913 of 2017

¶432

I I 1. Admittedly, this Court had passed an interim order on 01.11.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.49482 of 2017 in W.P.No.39913 of 2017 in favour of the petitioner and another directing the respondents in the Revision apart from the State of Telangana not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by himself and his co-petitioner of the above land pending further orders.

¶433

The premise on which the said interim order was granted by this Court was that the petitioner was in^possession of the subject land.

¶434

on 113. The impugned order passed by the l" respondent 26.06.2020 directing eviction of the petitioner and other third parties is a willful disobedience of the order dt.0l.l1.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.49482 of 2017 in W.P.No.399ll of 20 l7 in so far as the petitioner is concerned, which is still subsisting.

¶435

Respondents 2 and 3 have also mentioned that the^petitioner is not in possession of the subject land and his^predecessors in title, Ancha Sreenivasa Rao or Pandurangarao Deshmukh, are not in possession of the land at any point of time. These frndings have been held to be not based on evidence and contrary to record in CRP.No.978 of 2020.

¶436

MSR,J cry 978_2020&batch

¶437

::51 t:

¶438

Petitioner contends that the respondent No.s 1to 3 had attempted to overreach the above ordels; and while C.C.Nos.168 I of 2019 is filed to punish the respondents 2,3 and 4 in the CRP, CC.No.7l2 of^'2020 is tlled to punish respondent No.1 in the CRP under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wiltful disobedience of the order dt.0 I . 1 L201 7 in W.P.M.P.No.49482 of 2017 in W.P.No.399l3 of 2017.

¶439

The Government Pleader for Arbitration and the Special Govemment Pleader attached to the office of the Advocate General, appearing for respondents admit that no application had been moved by the respondents to vacate the order dt.0 I . 1 1 .201 7 in W.P.M.P.No.49482 of 2017 in W"P.No.39913 of 2017 .

¶440

l17. Each of the respondents I to 3 have mentioned in the respective orders passed by them that petitioner and his predecessor were never in possession of the subject land and that it is Govemment land

¶441

In the order passed by the l'' respondent, in para 12, he had even noted thc order dt.01.11 2017 in W.P.No.39913 ol 2017. 'I'herefore, the l" respondent is aware of the interim order passed by this Court in favour of petitioner.

¶442

None o1' the respondents I to 3 can sit in Appeal over the interirn order passed by this Court, give findings contrary to it, presume that it is incorrect, and attempt to violate it by passing the impugned order

¶443

..<r.. MSR,J crp_g78_2020&batch

¶444

In Baradakanta Misra (l supra), the Supreme Court declared that quasi judicial authorities are subject to superintendence ol the High Court and any order or decision of the High Court is binding on them, that the respondents I -3 cannot get aw,ay .f ront the said order o;f' the High Court by adducing facnrallv wrong and illegitimate reasons.

¶445

As long as the said interim order of this Court subsists, the respondents I -3 must obey it. They cannot decide lor thernselves that it is not a correct order and disobey it.

¶446

ln Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries G)^{Ltdtt the SupremeCourldeclaredthat even if thereis an objection} as to^jurisdiction of a Court which passed an interim order is raised, the interim order granted by it has to be obeyed and cannot be disobeyed. It declared :

¶447

"The correct principle, there.fbre, is the ona recognised and reiterated in Section 9-A - to i|it, where an objection to^jurisdiction oJ a civil court is raised to entertain a suit ancl to pass ony inlerim orclers therein, the Court should decide the question qfjurisdiction in the /irst instance but that does not mean lhat^pending the decision on the ction, Ihe Court has no iuris n rc^pass inlerim orders as mav be called for in the cts and circumslances of the case. ;1 mere objection to^jurisdiction does not instantly disable the court from passing any inlerim orders. It can yet pass appropriate orders. Al the same time, it should also decide the question of^jurisdiction at the earliest possible time. The interim orders so nassed are orders within iurisaiction^wnen iurisdiction^to enterlain^the suit.^These interim^{orders ttndoubtedly} come to an end with the decision that this Court had no^{jurisdiction.} It is open to the court to modify these orders while holding that it has no

¶448

" lteel'1:^{scc eal}

¶449

MSR,J crp 978 2020&batch

¶450

::53::

¶451

jurisdiction lo try the suit. lndeed, in certain situations, it would be its duty lo modify suclt orders or make appropriate directions. For cxdmple, tahz a case, where a parly has been dispossessed from^the suit property b1t appointing a receiver or otherwise; in ,such a cdse, the Court should, while holding that it has no^jurisdiction to enterlain the suit, put back tlrc party in the posilion he was on the date of suit. Bul this power or obligation has nothing to do v,ith the proposition that while in orce e orders have to be dt t1 nish cyetl A cr lhe rcstiotl o urisdi lion is IA itlsl I nlaintill n ot'tdcct lhe^t'iolution i.s c mmittc bc rc thedeC$ton ofth Courl on lhe U ueslion of iLtrisdiction.^" (emphasis supplied)

¶452

This was reiterated in Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay ll,nvironmental Action Grbupt2 in the following terms:

¶453

" l6. h is a settlcd legal proposition that evcn if an order is void. it requires to be so declared by a competent forum and it is not loi ct enl pp!11jq1t he ordcr is void. ln State of Kerala v. M,K, Kunhiksnnan Na biar Ianjeri Manikoth Naduvil, Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla u llind Rubher Industt'ies (P) Ltd., M. Meenakshi v. Metadin Agarwal snd Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup, this Court he ld that \lntlnt ,,t rtrLltr t! t,tlr,l^,tr' vtitl, cottttot be dctcrmined by the parties. I'-or sellitl s lside such an order. evat ifvoi . lhe oarlv has to ar;proach the apD rorsrialc lbrunt

¶454

ln State o.f Punjab v, Gurdev Singh this Court held that^gy oarh, aesricved bv the invaliditv ol an order has to aooroach the coLu't for relief of dcclaration lhat Iheo der aslinst hint is inoperatirc and therefore, not bindinp upen him. Ilhile deciding thc said casc, this Court placed rczliance upon the^judgment in Sn ith v. East Elloe RDC, wherein Lord Radcliffe observed:^(AC pp. 769-70)

¶455

"... An order, even if not matle in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequcnces. It bears no brand of invalidity [on] its foreheacl. Unless the necessary proceedings dre token at law to

¶456

'2^{(2ott) 3 scc lr3}

¶457

MSR,J crp 978_2020&batch

¶458

: :54::

¶459

eslablish the cause oJ invalidity and to get it quashed or otherv'ise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders.^"

¶460

In Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba, this Court took a similar view observing that once an order is declared non est by the court only then the judgment oJ'nullity would operate erga omnes i.e. for^{and againsteveryone concerned. Sttch adeclarationis} permissible if the court comes to the conclusion that the author of the order lacl<s inherent^{jurisdiction/competence} and thereJbre, it comes to the conclusion that the order sulJbrs from patent and latent invalidity.

¶461

Thus, from the above it emerges thlt even if the order/notification ts void/voidable, the^party apsrievecl by the same rannnt rlorirlo thnt tho.n;d nriev/nn ti is nol^{h; ni inottnon} iI It has to aporoach the coltrt fnr seekins such declartttion. The order may be hypothetically a nullity and even if its invalidity is challenged before the court in a given circumstance, lhe courl may reJuse to quash the same on various grounds including the standing ol the petitioner or on the ground of deloy or on the doclrine of v,ait'er or any other legal reason. The order may be toid.fbr one^purpose or.fbr one person, it may not be so Jbr anolher purpose or anollrcr person. "

¶462

Therefore, I am ofthe opinion that when the State ofTelangana and the 2nd respondent are parties to the interim order dt.27. I^I .2017 in WPMP.No.49482 of 2017 in WP.No.399l3 of 2017 protecting the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and another in respect of the land of Acs.5.01 gts. in Survey No.990 and 1052 of Kandi Chimnapur Vil1age, respondent nos.1 and 3, are equally bound by the same and they cannot hold that he has no title or possession and attempt to violate the said order and dispossess him.

¶463

MSR,J crp_9'18_2020&batch

¶464

::55::

¶465

I hold that the respondent No.l in CC.No.712 of 2020, and respondents 2 and 3 in CC.No.l681 of 2019 are guilty of willful disobedience of the interim order dt.27.11.2011 in WPMP.No.49482 of 2017 in WP.No.399l3 of 2017 by giving findings in their respective ordels that petitioner or his vendor or predecessor of title were never in possession of the subject land and to evict hirn as if he ts an encroacher.

¶466

Accordingly, respondent No. I in CC.No.7l2 of 2020, and respondents 2 ancl 3 in CC.No. 168 I of 2019 are sentenced to suffer two months simple imprisonment and a flne of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer one more month of simple lmpnsonment

¶467

L27. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.300i- per day towards subsistence allowance of each of the above respondents.

¶468

The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the above r:espondents is suspended for a peliod of 6 weeks.

¶469

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Deparlment of the State of 'felangana is directed to initiate disciplinary action against them for disregarding the provisions of the Act and the orders passed by this Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶470

::56::

¶471

,\1)11.,' crp,9?8_2020&batcll

¶472