Dismissed

Hirekar Satyanarayana, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Apr 2022WP/21963/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders resuming allotted land landless poor purchasers. The court held that the petitioners were pendente lite purchasers under lis pendens and had no clean hands, as their claims did not arise from the orders quashing the vendee's holdings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Hirekar Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSENREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETI TION^{NO:219 63 0F 2016}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Hirekar Satvan arcYana,,^{s/o. tr,4ohanLal,Ag} ed: 40^{years,occ: agriculture,} nio. fr.r"ro.C:a-28/1,^{Ashok Street, Nizamabad'} 35^years, occ:^{agriculture,R/o.}

¶9

2 Gaticnerta^{Raghavulu,'sio Yadagiri,Aged:} H.No,2-2-44,^{N-arsagoud Street. Nizamabad'} ...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of^{Telangana,, representedby. its PrincipalSecretary'Revenue} in..ionment) Depairtment,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶12

z. ifre J"oint Collect6r,,^{Nizamabad,Telangana state'} 3. iii; nerinue^{oivlsibnalofficer,,Nizamabad'.Telanoana State'} 4. The Tahasirdar,,^{Navijttiuri,iul, i,rii"rini! oistrie't,Telangana state.} _ --. 5. Biili"i;;;;^{cari6aonai-slo. Katike ChinnaGangaram' Aged: 50 vears' occ:} " 6,.ilii,".i n7o. dooprniirrv village, Nizamabad l/andal & District' o. Biii'c;;s;;ur,,^{ild t<itix,i chirina Gansaram,Ased: 48 vears' occ:} - Ur.inJ.t] nlo. i\avipet village & lr'4andal, Nizamabad Dist' 7. Billi Satvanaravana,,^{l7o. xitixe Chinna Gangaram'Aged: 45 years' occ:} ' 6,ili."i"l nyo.'Navi[et village & Mandal, Nizamabad Dist' a. eitii'Cu"dt'li,,-slo.^{XitkeChinni cangaram, Aged:42 years, occ: business,} - do. f'lirlpel village & Mandal, Nizamabad Dist' s. Bili c;ish,, a/o:Kaiik;Chin'nJ^{Ganga'am' Aged: 39 vears' occ: business'} - R/;. Navipei village & Mandal, Nizamabad Dist

¶13

ro biri r-rlii5,ni,,^{slo". xrtiiiJ Cninn,cjng"ram, Aged :36 vears' occ: student'} - nlo. r.rrrip"t vitlage & Mandal, Nizamabad Dist.

¶14

...RESpoNDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article^{226 of lhe Constitution of lndiapraying that in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybe pleasedtoiSsueaWrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof WritofMandamusdeclaringtheordersinProceedingsNo.A3/1099/2006dated: 17.05.2006^{passed by the 3rd Respondent and the order in Proceedings} No.E1t2424l2O1O^{dl: O4.o2.2014passedby the 2nd Respondent and orders in} Case No.A/779l2015^{dated: 24.04'2015issued by the 4th Respondent for} resumptionofpatta.ofthelandinfavouroftheRespondentsNo.5tol0asillegal, arbitrary, and^{against principlesof Natural Justice, and consequentlyset aside the} same, and also^{direct the Respondents No 2 to 4 to resumethe landin}

¶16

Sy.No.+2/A,ofDariyapurvillage,Navipett\ilandal'NizamabadDistricttotheextent ofAc.0-05guntastothelstPetitionerandAc.o.lOguntastothe2ndPetitioner andalsotoissuePattadarPaSsbooksandtitledeedstothePetitionerNo.land2

¶17

l.A. NO:^{2oF 2016WPMP. NO26994 0F 2016}

¶18

Petition und^{er Section 151 CPC PraYingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto} suspendtheordersinCaseNo.A/779/2015daled:24.O4.2015issuedbythe4th RespondentforresumptionofpattaofthelandinfavouroftheRespondentsNo.5 to 10,^{pending disposalof the abovewrit petition}

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(wvMP.^{NO: 3322OF2016):}

¶20

Between:

¶21

BilliGanqadhar,,s/o.KatikeChinnaGangaram,Aged:50y-ears'occ: 6tj!i"",iil] rn"l^{ooop"npjrtvvillage, Nizamabad Mandal& District}

¶22

Bliii'C;;;"r"r,, si.j.^{xatit ,j Chinna Gangaram Aged : 48 vears' occ:} o'r.jli"',iil] ru".^{NJuipet village& tvlandalNizamabad.Dist} 6liii'3;i;;;;;vinililo^{Kitikechinna GansaramAsed 45 vears occ:} 6ti!ii"r'.1 ny".'rtlJvipet^{village & Mandal, Nizamabad Dist}

¶23

Elii b;;il:/;:KStilie^{Cni;i 6ansaram'Ased 42 vears'occ: business'} FUo. Navipet^{village & Mandal, Nizamabad urst}

¶24

E 'aiilI cl;Jfi, Jlolkitik" cninha cangaram, Aged : 39 vears' occ: business nyo. f'livipei^{uillage & Mandal,Nizamabad Dist'}

¶25

o. b'ini iijlJ5li,,^{.to,". Gtir" cr.l,nni-cunguram,Aged: 36 years. occ:student,} nyJ. Nlvipet^{village& Ivlandal, NizamabadDiilor.*r,*rrroNDENr} No. s ro 10

¶26

AND

¶27

Hirekar Satvan atayana,,^{s/o. Mohan Lal, Aged:40 years,occ: agriculture,} nlo. H.f.ro.C:a-28/1^{. Ashok Street, Nizamabad} ^-

¶28

b"riit'n"rr,^{ri"snurrru,, slol'Vuo'rjin,Aged: 35 vears' occ: agriculture' R/o'} [.r.ro.2-i-+a,^{NirsagoudStreet,Nizamaoro:..*rrro"oENTSMRIr} pEraoNERS

¶29

3 The State of^{Telangana,, represented by its PrincipalSecretary'Revenue} (Assionment) Department, Secretariat' Hyderabao'

¶30

4 tr,iilti"i^{-c"it"ctb r,, Nizamabad, Telanga na.State'} E iii; H;;;il -Diuiiibnrt otri""r', Nizam-abad, Telansana state t) +# i;; ;;ift i, i;; ;;ift i, ;;ift i,^{n iui p"t iui p"t p"trr,la no it, N iza m abad no it, N iza m abad it, N iza m abad N iza m abad iza m abad m abad abadDl:$it} bIi'3i$?S,13J83* o.*"

¶31

t) +# i;; ;;ift i, i;; ;;ift i, ;;ift i,^{n iui p"t iui p"t p"trr,la no it, N iza m abad no it, N iza m abad it, N iza m abad N iza m abad iza m abad m abad abadDl:$it} bIi'3i$?S,13J83* o.*" PetitionunderSectionlslCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto vacate the^{interimorderdaled 12'07'2016 passedin WPMPNo 26994of 2016 in} wPNo.2'lg63of20l6andalsodismissthemainwritpetitionintheinterestof justice

¶32

Counsel^{for the Petitioners: SRI P' GlRl KRISHNA}

¶33

Counsel^{for Respondent Nos'1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶34

Counsel for^{Respondent Nos' 5 to 10: SRI DAMODARRAO}

¶35

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶36

HONOURAI}LE SRI JLISTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21963 OF 2016

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This writ petition is flled seeking writ of mandamus declaring the orders in proceedings No..A3/1099/2006 dateci 17.05.2006 passed by respondent No.3 - the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizarnabad, Telangana State, and the order in Proceedings No.E11242412010 dated 04.02.2014 passed by respondent No.2 - the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, Telangana State, and the orders in Case No.A/779l2015 dated 24,04.2015 issued by respondent No.4 - the Tahsildar, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad Disrrict for resumption of patta of the land in favour o1'respondent Nos.5 to 10 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the same directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to resume the land in Survey No.42lA ol Dariyapur village, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas ro petitioner No.l and Ac.0-10 gLrntas to petitioner No.2 and also to issue pattadar pass books and title deecls to petitioners Nos. I and 2.

¶39

t-_

¶40

¶41

The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.l is absolute owner and possessor of the land adrneasuring Ac.0_05 guntas in Survey No.42lA of Dariyapur Village, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District having purchased the same from one Mr. Vankar Mohan under a registered sale deed bearing document No.4359 of 2006 dated 16.03.2006. petitioner. No.2 is absolute owner and possessor of the land adrneasuring Ac.0-10 guntas in Survey No.42lA situated at Dariyapur Village, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District having purclrased the sarne from Mr. Vankar Mohan under a registered sale deed bearin.q document No.4360 of 2006 dated 16.03.2016.

¶42

(i) The vendor of the petitioners Mr. Vankar Mohan has originally purchased an extent ofAc.0-30 guntas ofland in Survey No.42lA from one Dodda Santosh Reddy under a registered sale deed bearing document No.9289 of 2004 dated 1g.10.2004, who in tum purchased the same frorn one Mr. Katike Chinna Ganga Ram under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1912 of 2002 dated 08.03.2002.

¶43

(ii) On 18.03.2015 and 22.03.2016, petitioners submitted applications to respondent No.4 to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in respecl oi'the lands purchased by them. Respondent No.4 issued a Merno l"o.B/73711016 dated nil-04-2016 stating that the land in Survey No,42lA is Government land, assigned to Mr Katike Chinna Ganga Rarn; after the death of Katike Chinna Ganga Ram, his sons viz., Billi Peda Gangadhar, Billi Ganga Ram, Billi Satyanarayana, Billi Gandhi, Billi Ganesha and Billi Hussaini have partitioned the sr:bject land and acquired 5 guntas each, and the land was mutated in their names vide proceedings No.N7l9l2015 dated 24.04.2015 by the orders of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad in File No.E1/242412010.

¶44

(iii) Aftel receipt of Memo No.737 of 2016 and Memo No.738 of 20 16 dated nil-04-2016 issued by lespondent No.4. the petitioners made enquiries and rvere surprised to know that late Katike Chinna Ganga Ram has tlled an appeal under Section 5(B) of the A.P. Rights in Land anci Pattadar Pass Books Act l97l aggrieved by issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-30 guntas in Survey No.42lA

¶45

¶46

in favour of Mr. Dodda Santosh Reddi, r.,,,ho has originally purchased the same fr.om him (Katike Chinna Ganga Ram) under a registered sale deed bearing document No.19l212002 dated 08.03.2022. The said appeal was numbered as proceedings No.A_ 31109912006 and an enquiry was conducted and order was passed on 17.05.2006 by respondent No.3 cancelling the pattdar pass book and title deeds issued in favour of Mr. Dodda Santosh Reddy and restored patta in the name of Mr. Katike Chinna Ganga Ram. The order reflects that Mr. Dodda Santosh Reddy sold away his property and left to Rayalaseema four years bacl< prior to initiation of the proceedings and he was not residing in the village. The order also reveals that Mr. Katike Chinna Ganga Ram has disputed sale of the subject land in favour of Mr. Doclda Santosh Reddv.

¶47

¶48

(ir) The petitioners submit that orre Mr. Nyamatabad Gandhi has purchased an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas from Mr. Vankar Mohan under a registered sale deed bearing document No.12488 of 2005. Aggrievecl by the orders of respondent No.3 dated 17.05.2006, Mr. N. Gandhi has filed a revision before respondent No.2 under Section (b) of the Andhra pradesh

¶49

¶50

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The revision was taken up b1, the Joint Collector, Nizamabad vide File No.811242412010. The revision petitioner Mr. Gandhi has contended that Mr. Dodda Santosh Reddy has filed O.S. No.443 of 2002 on the file of the leamed Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad for perpetual injunction against the sons of Mr. Katike Chinna Ganga Ram and the suit was decreed in favour of Mr. Dodda Santosh Reddy on 18.08.2004. ln the said suit, Mr. Katike Chinna Ganga Ram has filed his evidence (affidavit) stating that he has sold away Ac.0-20 guntas of land in Survev No.42lA which shows that he has executed sale deeds.

¶51

(v) Mr. Katike Chinna Ganga Ram filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against Mr. Dodda Santosh Reddy and the sarne was disrnissed as abated on i1.08.2009 as the plaintitTMr. Katike China Ganga Ram died on 08.03.2008 and no steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record. However, the revision petition was dismissed by respondent No.2 by the order dated 04.02.2014 on the ground of contravention of Sectiq4 r] of the Andhra pradesh

¶52

¶53

Assigned Lands (prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (For short 'PoT Act 1977'). Challenging rhe same, W.p. No.l967g of 2014 was filed by Mr. N. Gandhi and the salre was disrnissed by this Court on 15.07.2014 confirming rhe order of respondent No.2.

¶54

Heard Mr. p. Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.l to 4, and Mr. Damodar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 10, and perused the materials on record.

¶55

The leamed counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are bona ficle purchasers of the land in Survey No.42lA and they are also landless poor, and therefore, they are entitled to be protected under Section 3(5) ol.the poT Act, 1977. The petitioners were not put on notice ar.rd had notice been issued to them, they would have contested and proved before respondent Nos.2 to 4 that they are entitled ro rerain thc subject land. It is also contended by the learned counsei tbr the petitioners that dismissal of W.P. No.19678 of 2014 dated 15.07.2014 is not a bar to the petitioners to file the present writ petition as the plea of landless

¶56

¶57

poor under Section 3(5) of the poT Act 1977 was not an issue either in the orders of respondent No.2 and 3 or in W.p. No. 1967g of 2014. The order dated 17 .05.2006 in proceedings No.A3l1099/2006 passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 04.02.20 I 4 in Proceeding s N o.E I / 2424120 I 0 passed by respondent No.2 are liable to be set aside as the same are in violation of the principles of natural j ustice and without prior notice to the petitioners.

¶58

On the other. hand, the leamed counsel for respondent Nos.5 to l0 would subn.rit that f'ather.of respondent Nos.5 to l0 Mr. Katike Chinna Ganga Ram was assigned.an extent of Ac.0_30 guntas in Survey No.42 of Dariyapur Village, Nizamabad Taluq and District in l97O under patta Certificate proceedings No.A5ll790711970 dated 01.07 .1972 issued by the Tahsildar, Nizamabad Taluq as per G.O. Ms. No. 1406 dated26.07.l9.5g read with G.O.Ms. No.1724 dated 26.0g.1959. Mr. Katika Chinna Gangaram was a landless poor person and eligible for grant of assigned land. He diecl on 0g.03.200g and the petitioners succeeded to the subject land. Itjsan assigned land, as such, any

¶59

¶60

¶61

transfer or alienation even under registered sale deed is null and void as per the poT Act 1977. The first clause in the final patta certificate itself clearly says that the lands assigned shall be heritable but not alienable and thus, if alienations are made, the same are null and void. The order passed by respondent No.3 in proceedings No.A3ll 099/2006 dated 17.OS.2006 and the order passed by respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.E112424/2010 dated 04.02.2014 are legal.

¶62

It is submitted thar as per Section I 0 of the poT Act 1977, the Act has overriding the other laws notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force of any custom, usage, or contract or decree or order of a Court, Tribunal etc.

¶63

Further, it is submitted that respondent Nos.5 to l0 are in possession of the subject land. The suit filed by Mr. Dodda Santosh Reddy in O:S. No.443 of 2002 against respondent Nos.5 to 10 was decreed by the judgment dated 1g.0g.2004. However, suit filed by Mr. N. Gandhi in O.S. No.44 of 2006 against respondent

¶64

¶65

¶66

Nos.5 to l0 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0_15 guntas was dismissed by the judgmenr and decree dated ll.O4.[OIL. E.p. No.l17 of 2013 was filed before the leamed Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad for execution of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.443 of 2002 by the purchasers of Dodda Santosh Reddy (plaintiff) and by Mr. N. Gandhi and the same is being conrested by respondent Nos.5 to 10, and it is pending. The decrees of the civil Court have no elJbct in view of Section l0 of the poT Act 1977.

¶67

The petitioners claim to have purchased the subject lands under registered sale deeds. The impugned orders in proceedings No.A3/1099/2006 dated 17.05.2006 was passed by respondent No.3; the order in proceedings No.El/2424/2010 dated 04.02.2014 was passed by respondent No.2; and the orders in Case No.N779/2015 dated 24.04.2015 passed by respondent No.4 are not against the petitioners. The order dated 17.05.2006 was passed by respondent No.3 cancelling rhe parradar pass book and title deed issued in favour of Mr.. Dodda Santosh Reddy by holding that purchase of land by him from the assignee Mr. Katika chinna

Ganga Ram was in violation of Section of 3 of poT Act 1977 . The order dated 17.05.2006 was challenged by Mr. N. Gandhi by way of revision in File No.El 1242412010 which was also dismissed by respondent No.2 by the order dated 04.02.2014. It was claimed by the revision petitioner Mr. N. Gandhi that Mr. Dodda Santosh Reddy has sold Ac.0-30 guntas of land to Vankar Mohan vide registered sale deed bearing document No.92g9 of 2004 dated 18.10.2004 and he in turn sold an extent olAc.0_15 guntas to the revision petitioner under the registe.ed sale cieed bearing document No. 12488 of 2005, The revision peririon filed by N. Gandhi was dismissed by the or.der dated 04.02.20 I-l; it r,,.as challenged in W.p. No.19678 of 2014 and the same was dismissed by the order dated 15.07.2014. The petitioners herein are neither parlies to the revision petition nor parties to the appeal before respondent No.3.

¶72

It appears that subject land to an extent ofAc.O_15 guntas out of Ac.0-30 guntas in Survey No.42lA which was purchased by Dodda Santosh Reddy from Katika Chinna Ganga Ram was sold to Vanakar Mohan under registered sale deed bearing document No. 12488 of 2005 . The said Vanakar Mohan sold Ac.0- 15 guntas

¶73

(

¶74

¶75

of land to Mr. N. Gandhi under the registered sale deed bearing document No. I2488 of 2005. The dispute berween Mr. Katika Chinna Ganga Ram (since died ancl represented by his legal heirs respondent Nos.5 ro 8) has attained finality by the impugned proceedings. Though the petitioners are not clear as to whether the same extent of Ac.0-15 guntas of land purchased by them was the land purchased by Mr. N. Gandhi, the purchase of subject lands under registered sale deeds dated 16.03.2006 vide document No.4359 and 4360 of 2006 are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens as evident from the reference cited ther.ein in the proceedings No.A3l1099/2006 dated 17.05.2006 passed by respondent No.3 which indicates that appeal was preferred by Katika Chinna Gangaram under Secrion 5(5) of the A.p. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971on 0g.03.2006. Thus, the petitioners are pendente /ite purchasers. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that notice was not issued to the petitioner.s is without any merit and liable to be rejected. Apan from rhar, this Court holds that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. It is not explained as to how the petitioners are

¶76

¶77

aggrieved by the impugned^{order dated 17.05.2006 and 04.02.20 l4} passed against Mr. Dodda Santosh Reddy and Mr'^{N. Gandhi} respectively. There is no averment^{in the writ affidavit as to how} the petitioners are aggrieved by the^{orders impugnedand their} locus to challenge these orders.^{On this ground alone, the writ} petition is liable to be disrnissed.^{Furlher the contentionof the} learned counsel for the^{petitionersthat claim of the petitioners} under Section 3(5) of the PoT Act^{has to be consideredis} misconceived.^'lhus, there are no tnerits^{in this writ petition}

¶78

¶79

Therefore, the writ^petition is disrnissed.^{No olderas to}

¶80

costs.

¶81

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pending} in the writ petitionstand closed. -*---'-

¶82

<br>

¶83

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPYII @

¶84

SECTION OFFICER

¶85

To,

¶86

'1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assignment) Department, State of Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶87

The Joint Collector,, Nizamabad, Telangana State.

¶88

The Revenue Divisional Officer,, Nizamabad,^{Telangana State.}

¶89

The Tahasildar,, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District, Telangana^State.

¶90

One CC to Sri P Giri Krishna Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court^{for the Stateof Telangana.} [OUT]

¶91

One CC to Sri Damodar Rao, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶92

B. Two CD Copies L One Spare Copy MBC aa

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1310412022

-// t", 1t i:.
i:
1
))) { t !/,.,i i''' d'
'4
.Dai ..'/. ii!

¶98

ORDER

¶99

WP.No.21963 of 2016

¶100

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶101

WITHOUT COSTS

¶102

¶103

Hirekar Satyanarayana, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hirekar Satyanarayana, v. The State of Telangana

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

Sandhyarani Kondapaka Vs The State of Telangana

Mamatha Srivari Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Smt.N.Geethanjali Vs The District Collector

R. Jyothi Vs The District Educational Officer

Mrs. Neelima Lele Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Nallala Bhumakka Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited and 4 others