Dismissed

M/s. Object Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC21 Sept 2021WP/18077/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a District Special Tribunal order regarding land title disputes, the High Court dismissed the application. Relying on the original sale deeds, the Court found the Special Tribunal correctly determined the vendors lacked title, thus upholding the Tribunal's order restoring original entries.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach Civil Court for remedies.

M/s. Object Technology Solutions India Private Limited Vs… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

, AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIRST DAYOF SEPTEIVBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{A, ABHISHEK REDDY}

¶7

wRrT PETITION NO: 18077 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

l.4i s. Obiect Technoloqv Solutions^{lndiaPrivateL} imited Rep resented by^its Director,'A.Kishinder^{Rebdy, S/o. A.Samba Reddy'S} y.No. 30 (P ),^{35 (P), 38 (P),} Phonex lnfo City, SEZ^{behind Dell Campus'H} i-Tech City ll, Gachibowli, Serilingampally, HYderabad. ...PETITIONER

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Telanqana,^{Representedby its Principal Secretary,Revenue} Deoartment. S-ecretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶13

2 inJ oi.iri"l'special Tribunil,^{Mahabubnagar' representedby its District} Collector, tr/ahabub^{Nagar, tt4ahabub Nagar District.-.}

¶14

District Collector,^{Ir,4ahabubNagar, Mahabub Nagar District'}

¶15

3 District Collector,^{Ir,4ahabubNagar, Mahabub Nagar District'} 4 Thasildar, Moosapet,^{Ivlahabubnagar District,} 5 nevenue'oiuisonit^{Cjfficer,l,4ahab-ubnagarlt/ahabubnagar District} . 6 Palamoor Dairy Farm Private^{Limited, Represented by its ulrector Ayyagarl} v"i krta nZmikrishna,^{S/o. KanakaRaju:Gandhi Nagar, Hyderab.l#.rroorr}

¶16

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue writ or direction^{or order, more so in the nature of Writ of Certioraricalling} for the records in^{case No. D1t17212021 (File No. 8/3044/2019) dated15.06'2021} on the file of the District^{Special Tribunal, at Mahabubnagar and quashthe same as} illegal, arbitrary, high^{handed andViolatiVeof Provisions of TelanganaRecord of} Rights in Land and^{Pattadar PassbooksAcl, 2020, violativeof principlesof natural} justice, violative of Articles 14,21 '^{3OO-Aof Constitutionof lndia '}

¶17

IA NO:^'l OF²⁰²¹

¶18

Petition under Section^{151CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition'the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the orders^{of the case NO.D1t172l2o21(File No Bl3O44l2019daled} 15-06.202lonthefileoftheDistrictSpecialTribunal,atMahabubnagar,

¶19

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI G. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY}

¶20

Counsel for Respondent^{Nos.1 to 5: GP FORREVENUE}

¶21

Counsel for Respondent^{No. 6: SRI M' V' PRATAP KUMAR}

¶22

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶23

,.,

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.18077^{of 2021}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the^{petitioner, the learned} Government Pleader for Revenue for^{respondent Nos.1to 5, and} Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, the learned^{counselfor respondent No. 6.} With their consent, the Writ Petition^{is disposedof at the admission} stage.

¶28

This writ petition is filed seeking^a writ^{of certiorari calling for} the records in Case No.D1/172/2021^(Fi1e No.B/30a4/2019),^dated 15.06.2021., on the file of the respondent^No.2 -^{DistrictSpecial} T'ribunal, Mahabubnagar, and to quash the same.

¶29

The petitioner-comPany claims that it is the absolute^owner' and possessor of the subject land, admeasuring^{Ac.6.20guntasin} Survey No.459 of Komireddypally Village,^{Moosapet Mandal,} Mababubnagar District, by virtue of registered sale^deedsdated 37.0L.2074. According to the Petitioner, its^{name was also mutated in} the Revenue Records aide proceedings dated 29.05.2014. Challenging the said mutation, the respondent No.6 has filed^an application before the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Moosapet,^but, the said application was rejected. Aggrieved by the same,^the respondent No.6 has filed an appeal before the respondent^No.5 - Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar. The respondent No.5, while aliowing the appeal uide order clated 25.08.2018, cancelled the

¶30

irregular enLries in^{the name of the petitioner herein and directedthe} respondent No.4 to conduct^{a fresh enquiry.Pursuantto the said} order, the respondent^{No.4 has takenup the proceedingsafreshand} issued notices to a1l the effected Persons.^{In the meanwhile, the} Government oide G.O.Ms.No.4,^{Revenue(Assignment-I)} Department, dated 72.0L.2021,^{has constitutedSpecialTribunal at} District level to deal with^{ROR Appeal cases as per Section 16(1) of} the Record of Right in^{Land and PattadarPass Books Act,2020'} Accordingly, the case^{was hansferred to the SpecialTribunal and it} was taken up as a Revision^{Case. The Special Tribunal has initially} dismissed the Revision.^{Thereafter, the matter was reopened and it} was numbered as Case No.D1'/172/2021^{(File No'B/3044/2019)'The} Speciai Tribunal t:ide lhe^{impugned order dated 15'06'2021 has} allowed the Revision^{Petition setting aside the entries madein} respect of the subject^{land and directedthe respondentNo 4 to} restore the original entries^{against the subject landin the nameof the} original pattadar.^{Hence,this rvrit petition.}

¶31

Learned.counsei for the^{petitionerhas arguedthat the Special} Tribunal does not have^{any jurisdiction to declare the sale deed} executed in favour^{of the petitioneras null and void, and it is only} the competent Civil^{Court whichcan declare the sale deedas nu11} and void after considering^{the evidencelet in by the parties ln view} of the same, the^{impugnedorder is one without jurisdiction'} Therefore, he^{prayedto set aside the impugnedorder'}

¶32

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel^{appearing for the respondent} No.6 has vehemently argued that^{the Special Tribunal, duly taking} into consideration the certified^copies of^{the liIrk documents} produced by the Sub-Registrar, and^{havingfounc that there is} variation between the link^{documentsproducedby the Sub-} Regisrrar and the documents submitted^{by the petitiorer,has rightly} passed the impugned order. That the link^{documents,based on} which the petitioner is claiming its title, do not^{<:ontain Survey} No 459/A/AA, and therefore, the vendors^{of the petitioner,who do} not have any right over the said Survey^{Number, cannot execute the} sale deed in favour of the petitioner by including^Survey No.459/A/AA. Learned counsel has stated that^{when the original} vendors of the petitioner do not have any semblance^{of right, tltle or} interest over the land in Survey No.a59/A/AA, they cannot^execute any document in respect of Survey No.a59/A/AA^{to the petitioner} Furthermore, mere execution of a document in favour of^the petitioner by including Survey No. 59/A/AA^also will^{not confer} any right, title or interest to the petitioner and^{defeat the rightsof the} actual owner.

¶34

When the matter came up for admission,^{on 12.08.2021,this} Court has passeci an interim order clirecting the^{official respondents} not to change the entries based on the impugned crder^{passed by} the Special Tribunal, and directed the learned Government^Pleader for Revenue to produce the record pertaining to the subject^land

¶35

¶36

Today, when the matter is taken up hearing, the^learned Government Pleader has produced the record^pertaining to^the subject land in File No.B/3044/79 (CaseNo.Dl/172/2C21).

¶37

A perusal of the record, more particularly, the certified copies of the sale deeds bearing Nos.12550/2006 and 12551./2006, submitted by the Sub-Registrar, shows that the^vendors of^the petitioner did not purchase the land in^{Survey No.459/A/AA.} Therefore, execution of the sale deed by them in favour^{of the} petitioner by including Survey No.459/A/AA will^{not conferany} dght, title or interest to the petitioner.

¶38

9, In view of the above, the impugned order^{dated '15.06.2021} passed by the Special Tribunal does^{not sufferfrom any infirmities} and is in consonance with the settled^{principlesof law that no} person can pass on a better title than^{what he has, and therefore, this} Court does not find any reason to^{interferewith the same.}

¶39

The writ petition is, accordingly,^{dismissed.However,the} petitioner is at liberty to avail the^remedies, if^{any, beforethe} comPetent Civil Court'

¶40

.'/-T'KRI'HNA^KUMAR i ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY/I N//

¶41

SECTION^OFFICER

¶42

to'',. 2. Two on" CC CCs to to Sri^GP G'Kalyan ChakravarthyAdvoca.te^{F"' H;;ifi;' l'i'g..h dou't iot the} IoPUC]^{stateof Telansana} lourl :. b;;66id^{s,iv. v pi"'i''Jki'ii'Advocate(oPUC)}

¶43

Two CD^CoPies

¶44

One^SPareCoPY

MBC

HIGH COURT^/

DATED: 2110912021

g STAi€
{
tE<br>IJ,.) 01oclz0?l !))
). *
r\ 'it '.,/

¶50

ORDER

¶51

WP.No,18077 of 2021

¶52

DISMISING Of THE WRIT^PETITION

¶53

w to*

¶54

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶55

M/s. Object Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Object Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khaja Mahmooduddin Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others

Hasan Ali Nizami Vs The State of Telangana

Nayaki Seetharamulu, And 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And 9 Others

Mandapally , Mangalli Ashok Vs Bharati Hollikeri

Mrs.Rozina Viran Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Gelli Jayaram Yadav Vs Bharathi Hollikeri