Writ petition challenging Special Tribunal order dismissing review application without recording reasons or considering petitioners' submissions. Court set aside order and directed fresh enquiry.
Set aside order dated 29.06.2021; direct Respondent No.2 to conduct fresh enquiry and pass orders following court directions within three weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special original J urisdiction)
TUESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION N O: 16615 OF 2021
Between
AND
...RESPONOENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia praying that in the circumstances statedin theaffidavit filed therewith, iheHigh Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order ordirection more particularly one in the natureof Writ of Certiorari calling for therecords pertaining to orders dt.29/06/2021 in New Case No. F2lspl.f ribunallO276l2021passed by respondentno.2 and quashthe same
lA NO:'l OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleasedto suspend operation of orders dl29l06l2o21 in New Case No. F2lSpl.Tribu n allO276l2021passedby respondent no.2,pending disposalof WP.No. /2021
lA NO: 2 oF 2021
Between:
Varikuppala Yellamma,W/o. Yellaiah, aged 65 years,R/o.Tirumahgiri(V) of Tirumalagiri sagar Mandal' Nalgonda District
.. ... .petitione, RespondentNo.7
And
Petitton u der Section 1,51Cpg praying rhat in the circurrstances stated ln the af',dav t frled in sJooo.r o, rhe-perrrror ,;" "H;;'c;r;,; ly oe ,rreased lo v.rcare 2021 Ihe ',rrer rn lhe.r. o.de. inter . st dated 27 oflustice07 2021 ,,.rntuo L',',i'r.'ri"""';:;6, 11 w T \o 10u t5 of
Counsel for the ,etitioners: SRt BOMM|NENt VTVEKANAND. REp. SRI J.VENKATESHWAR REDDY
counsel for the lespondent Nos. 1 to 6 : Gp FoR REVENUE
FE[ltilt'the lespondentNo.7 : M/s vARtKUppALA vELLAMMA, (pARry -tN-
The Court made the following: OROER
}IONOT It.\I}L[- SRT .ILSI'I(]I- B. 'I.IAYSEN IIIIDI)'
\ RIl Pl--l I-l IO\ \o.16(il5 OI" 2ll2l
0IIDEIt:
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders in New Case No.F2lSpl.Tribunal/027612021 dated 29.06.2021 passed by respondent No.2 - tlie Special Tribunal Nalgonda cum Collector & District Magistrate, Nalgonda.
and their( ounsel Mr. Nagaraju appearcd and the rnalter. \'as adjourned o 16.06.202 l. Late r. the nlatt!.r u,as ad jountcd to 19.06.201 I on u,hicl.r da1, thc pctitioncls alorr!r. rvith thc.ir. Aclvocnrc Mr. Yadal iri. attachecl to the ottlce o1' their Ad.,,ocate IVlr. Nagaraju, i ppeared before respondent No.2. Their. counsel argLred the matter belbre respondent No.2 with a request to revierv the orders date 1 07.02.2021 as per the directions of this Court in W.p. (PIL) No.2 ) of 202t dated 18.03.2021.
(i) I he petitioners submits that respondent No.2 erroneously dismissed the review petition by the order. dated 29.06.2021 *'itl.rout gi ,,ing opportunity ol personal hear.ing ro the petitioncrs. lhouch th: datc of hearir.rg rvas t'ixed as 05.05.2()]1. rl.rcre \'rls no hearing arJ the nlatter was ad.journed ro 16.06.101 1, on u,hich da1. the petitir ners appeared personally through their counsel rvho submitted written submissions to respondent No.2. Horvever. respondert No.7 herein viz., Mrs. Varikuppala yellarnmadid not appear at rhe time of hearing as she came late i.e.. after the matter was adjorLrned. She appeared in the case on 29.06.202i before responder t No.2.
J
(ii) Pctitioner No.l clairnsto be absoltrte owner' title holder ancl possessorol'an extcnt oi '\c'0-l0 gLrntas'pr'titioller tr-o lfbr an extent o1'Ac.l-00'and petitioner No 3 lor an cxtent ol Ac 0-20 guntas in SurveyNo.307situatedat Tirurnalagiri(Sagar)Village and Mandal,NalgondaDistrict'PetitionerNo'lalongwith Bandi Vengal Reddyhad purchased an extent of Ac'l-00each in Survey No.307 undera saada sale deed dated02'02j991 fromSmt' Irigidindla Yellamma.Respondent No'7 is the daughterof IrigidindlaYellammaand Irigidindla Sailu' The petitioners acquired thesame for a valid considerationof Rs'8'000/- and respondentNo.7 is a witness to that transaction'The then Village RevenueOfficer,KarumulaNarsi Reddy was scribeof the said .saada saledeed. Pattadar Passbooksand title deeds bearing No.l I I142rvith Patta,KhataNo'77 rvas issued in favourol' petitioner No.1rvhilePassbookand title deed bearing No'121889 with patta/khataNo.634 was issued in lavour of Bandi Vengal Reddy.
(iii) PetitionerNo.1 purchasedan extent of Ac' 1-00 of land from BandiVengal Reddy under a saada saledeeddated
-l
02 01 199'1 rbr a consicrerzrrion or' Rs. 1 2.000i-. 'r hLrs. peririorrer, No. I becar ne absolute owner, title holder and possessor ol an extent of A cs.2-00 of land in Survey No.307. Out of the said two acres of lard, he soid Ac.l-00 of land to one Kasireddy Ganpath Reddy und,:r a registered sale deed. Subsequently, Mr. Kasireddy Ganpath R:ddy sold away the said one acre of land to petitioner No.2 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.490/20 l4 dated 03.0.:.2014. petitioner No.2 ilas issr.recl pattadar passbook and title de _,d bearin-e No.gl5725 n,ith Khata No.l()15 and he tvas also issLrt cl digital pattaclar passbook-curn-ritle cerriflcate No.'l-2829C13 1658 rvith Khata No.2397. Oul ol rlre rcmaining Ac. l-00 of Iand, petitioner No. I sold Ac.0_10 quntas to peritiorrer No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 15.07.2015 r,icle docr-rnterrr No.4640 o1 20 15. Mutarion proceedings wer.e issued in f,avour ol petitioner I o.3 vide proceedings No.B/g2 j62015 dated 26.02.2016 and also is: ued pattadar passbook and titre deed No. 1077g02 with Patta No.2 )5 and subsequently issued digital patladar passbook cum title c,:rtificate No.T2g29003020g. For the rernaining extent
)
(
of Ac.0-20 guntas of land, petitioner No.l was issued digital pattadar passbook cum title Certificate No.T28270030093.
(iv) It is submitted that respondent No.7 rvithout any lranner of right, title and interest over the subject land, submitted a letter datcd 18.0i.l0l 8 throLrgh il IVlerrber ol' Lcgislative Assentblv (MLA) to respondent No.2. Based on the said Ietter, rcspondcrrt No.3 in tuln cndorsed it to respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 r'ide letter No.B1/2 178/18 dated 20.06.2018 addressed to respondent No.6 directing him to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit a report. Respondent No.6 through the letter No.A/268/18 dated 12.05.2018 submitted a report with reference to the letter dated 27.04.2018 said to have been addressed by respondent No.7. The petitionels herein have submitted an application under the Right to Infbrrnation Act, but they wele not issued any such copy of the letter dated 27.04.10 I 8.
(v) The case ol respondent No.7 in the said application appcars to be that hel thther Mr. Shivalathri Gangaiah purchasecl att extent of Acs.2-00 ol land in Survey No.307 ll'onione
6
T. Laxmil:antha Rao through registered document No.4347 of 1994 and that rctitioner No.1 occupied the land of respondent No.7 based on rn illegal patta and sought cancellation of the pafta. The Tahsildar submitted an incorrect report though T. Laxmikanatha Rao is patr ldar upto 2006_07 and the lancl is under tank level. (r i).fhat respondenr No.5 _ the Reve_nuc Dir isionai Ollicer, Miryalgucil , Naigonda District again acldressecl a letter No.D/2 l7g I g dated 29.06.2llgcalling upon re.sponclenr No.6 - the -lahsiidar, rirurnalagiri (Sagar) Mandal, Naigon<Ia Distr.ict. to submit a dt hiled repofi pointing out that the earricr report dated 12.08.201g was not covering all the points. Respondenr No.6 vide letter No.B/ 16g1201g dated 0g.0g.201g submitted a detailed repor mendoning that petitioner No.l and Bandi Vengal Reddy are recorded pa;tadars and possessors from 19g4_g5 ontvards and subsequentll petitioners herein from 2Ol3_14/2016_)7. prior ro 1994, name tf Mr.. T. Sanjeeva Rao, son ol Mr. I.. Laxrnikantha Rao was mer tioned as pattadar and petitioners as possessors even it-r 1990-91 or rvards which is prior to thc.ir purchase .
1
(vii) It is submittedthat surprisingly,respondentNo'5took up applicationsubmittedby respondentNo'7 as appeal in File No.D/2178/18under Section 5(5) of the AndhraPradesh Record of Rights inLand and Pattadar PassbooksAct' Appeal underSection 5(5) of theRecordof RightsActcan be filed only within a period of sixty(60)days from the date of comtnunication of the order or fi'onr thedate ol knorvledge' Narneof respondcrrtNo'7 u'asnot tbund inlhe rer ctllterecordspIlol to recordilrg of the petitioners naltles, assucli. the questiot-rol notice to rcspondentNo'7 does not ariseprior to lllutatiorl. Respondetrt No'7 <Joesnot have any right' title or interestoverthe subject property. The appeal case ir.r File No.Dl/2178/18was dismissedby respondent No'5 whereina finding isgiven that respondentNo'7 admittedher thumb impressionand stated that she leased out the subject land' RespondentNo.5 clearly recordedthat Mr' KasireddyNarsiReddy scribed thedocument and his statement was recordedby the Tahsildarwherein itconfirrnedthat the petitionersare in possessionof the strb.iectland'Aggrievedby the same"respondent No.7 haspret-erred revisionin RP No F2l2127l2019betore
8
respondent No.4 under Section 9 of the Telangana Record of Rights in Iand and pattadar passbooks Act, lgTL Consequenr ro enactlxent rf Teiangana Record of Ri_ehts in Lanrl ancl parradar Passbociks . \ct, I97 l. case rvas tr.anslerred to respondent No.2 ancJ rcnurr.rbered as lr2iSpl. I-r.ibunal as 1761202 l.
(viii) It is the case of rhe petitioners rhar responde nr No.7 is not the dau5hter olshivarathri Gangaiah and she has not filed any document ir proof thereof. Respondent No.7 is claughter of one Indriginti Sailu. Respondent No.l was not recordecl as owner or possessor in the revenue records. Thus, issuance of notice to respondent No.7 at the time of l3_B certificate does not arise. The petitioners ar so submitred that they have perfectecl their title by adverse posst 55j6n as they had been in possession of.the sarne fbr nlore than thi ty years.
(ix) T re Special Tribunai passed or.ders dated 07.02.202 I settil't-q aside- thc ordcr passed [.1, rcsponclclt \t..-s in (.asc No.l)/2 17,,201 I darcd l-1.01.20i9 tu. het'eundcr rl ire,ctions \'et'c isuseci to restr cnclent No.5 to rssue e-pattadar pass ilook to the
9
petitioners herein.l-hc order dated 07.022021 rvaschallengedby the petitioners inW.P. No.7403of 202 I whichwas disposed o1'by the order dated 30.03.2021granting libeftyto appear beforethe Special Tribunalwithinten days from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of that order andsubmita request for personalhearing'The special Tribunalwas directedto conduct proceedingsas directed by the DivisionBench by the order dated18'03'2021in W'P' (PL) No.20 of 2021.The parlies were also given liberty to submit rvlitten subtnissions.
(x) It is the case ofthe petitioners tl'lat in spite of thc ordcr of this Cotrrtin W.P.No.7403ol 102 l. respondentNo'2 passed the impugrrecl orderdated 29.06.2021in cryptic mannerwithorrt assigning anycogent reasons. The docutr.rentsubmittedby the petitioners, the earlierproceedingsand writtensubmissionwere not even referred toand review petition is dismissed without considering theorder passedby this Court in W'P' No'7403 of 2021 and theorderof the DivisionBenchin W'P' (PIL) No'20of 2021date 18.03.2021.
l0
i. I.esponclent No.7 appearecl as partr in person. In thc counter Ill:d b,v responde,nt No.7, it is stated thar or.igirrall_v pattadar o: the land in Survey No.307 adnteastrring Acs.2_01 guntas sirur ted at Tiruntalgiri Sagar Village ancl Mandal, Nalgonda District wai one T. Laxmikantha Rao and the said pattadar sold the same to on: Konji Krishna, son of Govind who in tum sold the same to tl e father of respondent No.7. The legal heirs of Shivarathri Jangaiah did not sell the subject land to anyone by way of saada sa e deed or any other deed.
(i)'-he petitioners herein in collusion with the r.evenue aurhorities 10t transferred the subject land i,egalry in rheir favour through l3.B Cerriflcate vide Fire No.E/5925/r993. I)etitio,er No. I is br.t ther ol Nagendla Venkat Reclcl' *,lro r'as ViIllgc Revenue O fl cer, Tirurnalgiri t ho cr.catcci \vronq L.ntr.ie s ilt the r!'\ citLle r.cc rrcls. ,\ggr.ic,,,ed b1 rhe illegal ucrion ol. r.esponclurt No.6. re-spo; rdent No.7 filed appeal belbre respondent No,5 t,ide Appeal Cast No.D/217g12017 which was dismissed by the order dated 23.01 2019. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.7 preferred re..ision vide R.p. No.F2/2227/2019 before respondent
No,2 alongwith relevantlecord in support ol l.rer case' Atler hearing allthe parties,older dated0'7 02 '2021waspassed setting asicle the or.cierdated23.01 .20 I 9 in caseNo.D/2I 78/20I 7 passed by lespondentNo.5 and dilected to issue c-PatadarPassbookto respondent No.7.The older of the SpecialTribunal was upheld in the reviewpetitionfiled by the petitioners herein vide ordersdated 29.06.2021inCase No.F21222712019'Aggrieved by the same' the present writpetition has been filed and by misrepresentation' obtained the orderof interim suspension'
I
t-:
6.- he learned counsel fbr the petitioners submitted that thc order pass, ,d by the tr.ibunal is contrary to the directions passed bv this Court n Wp(pIL) No.20 of 2021 and directions issued by the leamed si rgle Judge by the order dated 30.03.2021 in W.p. No.7403 o,2021.
13
of2O2l, It is madeclear that enquiry so conducted in the revision petition shatt be afresh enquirywithout referenceto the orders dated 07 .02.2021 and29.06 202I . The revision should be takenup bl respondent No.2as if itis a fl'esli revision and pass orders thelcon bi, issuingnoticc to all patiesand giving opporlr-rnity ol hearing follorving thedirectionsissued by this Court in W'P' No.7403 of 2021dated 30.03.2021. '[his exerciseshall be con.rpleted within aperiod of three (3) weeksfrom the date of receipt ofa copyofthisorder.
No order as to costs'
As a sequel thereto,miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in the writ petitionstand closed.
Sd/-V'KAVITHA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY//
SECTIONOFFICER
\r*
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/02 2022
ORDER
,/"'-" - '""c c''.'<br>... i
./i -_,
(i 17 MiB zo22 .
\P,, /
.* ,,-
".-l . -..--.-." ,. --
WP.No.1661> of 2021
DISPOSIN( OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT(:OSTS.
\3
'1ou*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of Special Tribunal dismissing review application without assigning cogent reasons and without considering petitioners' submissions violates writ directions.
Whether the impugned order of Special Tribunal in arbitrary manner without recording reasons and reasons liable to be set aside.
Nagendla Krishna Reddy
Nagendla Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
Depavath Srinu
State of Telangana
Special Tribunal, Nalgonda
Varikuppala Yellamma
B. Vijaysen Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
