Disposed

Challagondla Sharada Devi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Dec 2022WP/24919/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land regularization and pattadar records were challenged for want of notice to the admitted owner. The court set aside the revisional order, restored the appellate remand and directed a fresh enquiry after notice. Both writ petitions were disposed of, with revenue-record status quo maintained pending enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Revisional order set aside; appellate remand restored; records to District Collector for fresh enquiry within four months of receipt, with notice. Revenue-record status quo maintained pending decision

Challagondla Sharada Devi Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS: 37653 OF 2017 AND 24919 OF 2021

¶7

W.P.No.37653 ol 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

Challagondla Sharada Devi, W/o. Narasimha Rao, Aged about 43 years, R/o. Seetampeta (V), Pinapaka (M). Bhadradri, Kothagudem District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate, Khammam District at Khammam.

¶14

3- The Revenue Divisional Officer at Khammam, Khammam District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

¶16

Chinthapally Venkatanarayana, S/o. Pedda Venkaiah, Aged about 53 years, Fl/o. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban l,4andal, Khammam District.

¶17

Chinthapally Veerababu, S/o. Pedda Venkaioah, Aged 49 years, Rio. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

¶18

Chinthapally Upender Rao, S/o. Pedda Venkaiah, Aged 33 years, R/o. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban [v1andal, Khammam District-

¶19

Chinthapally Sreenu , S/o. Pedda Venkaiah, Aged 37 years, Fl/o. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban lvlandal, Khammam District.

¶20

Yerragadda Veerabhadram, S/o. Narayana, Aged 34 years, Ryo. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

¶21

Chinthapally Rajaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 75 years, Fl/o. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

Contd....2

-2-

Naddi Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, Aged 39 years, Rl/o. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban- MandJt, Khammam District.

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, partiiularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the order dt. 7.4.20i7 in RoR Revision petition No.07/2013 of the 2nd respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the provisrons of A.p. Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act and the Rules made thereunder and also vioaltive of of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and issue a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 4 herein not to gave effect to the same.

¶29

I.A.NO:1 OF 2021

¶30

Between:

¶31

'1 . Chinthapally Venkatanarayana, S/o. pedda Venkaiah, Aoed about 53 vears. R/o. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban Mandal, kframmam Oidtiiit.^'

¶32

Chinthapally Veerababu,.S/o. Pedda Venkaioah, Aged 49 years, Rio. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban fVlandal, kframrriam Oistrict.

¶33

Chinthapally Upender Rao, Sio.^pedda Venkaiah, Aged 33 years, Fi/o. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban Mandai, K"hammjm Olitrici-

¶34

Chinthapally Sreenu, S/o pedda Venkaiah, Aged 37 years, R/o. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban Maidal, fdamm'am Oistrict.

¶35

Ierragadda Veerabhadram, S/o. Narayana, Aged 34 years, R/o. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Ur6an Mandal. Kh-ammim District.

¶36

Chinthapally Rajaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 75 years, R/o. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban lvlandal, Khammam Diatrict.

¶37

Naddi Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, Aged 39 years, Rio. Raghunadhapalem (V), Khammam Urban Mandil, Khammam District.

¶38

....VACATE PETTTTONERS/RESpONDENTS Nos.5 to 11

¶39

AND

¶40

Challagondla Sharada Devi. W/o. Narasimha Rao. Aged about - 43 years, Fl/o. Seetampeta (V). Pinapaka (tV). Bhadradri, Kothagudem bistrici.

¶41

...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

¶42

Contd....3

¶43

AND

¶44

The State of Telangana, rep by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶45

The Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate, Khammam District at Khammam.

¶46

The Revenue Divisional Officer at Khammam, Khammam District.

¶47

The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

¶48

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Nos.1 to 4

¶49

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 vacate the interim order granted on 30/1 112017 in W.P.N/.P No 46763 of 2017 in W.P. No 37653 of 2017 in the interest of justice

¶50

l.A.NO:1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO:46763 OF 2017)

¶51

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 dt. 7 .4.2017 in ROR Revision Petition No.07/2013 of the 2nd respondent herein, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶52

|.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶53

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the documents as per list as additional material documents in W.P.No. 37653 of 2017 in the interest of justice.

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.S.NAGESH REDDY

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 11 : SRI.M.V.HANUMANTHA RAO

¶57

W.P.NO: 24919 OF 2021

¶58

Between:

¶59

Challagondla Sharada Devi, W/o Narasimha Rao, Aged about 43 years, R/o. Seethampeta Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Bhad rad ri-Kothag udem District, Telangana.

..,PETITIONER

Contd....4

{ i

-4-

AND

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶66

The Joint Collector and Addl District l\rlagistrate, Khammam District at Khamnram.

¶67

The Rervenue Divisional Officer, Khammam District.

¶68

The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District

¶69

Chinthapally Ven katanarayana, S/o Pedda Venkaiah, Aged about 53 years, Rl/o Raghunandhapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District

¶70

Chinthapally Veerababu, S/o Pedda Venkaiah, Aged about 49 years, R/o Raghunand hapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District.

¶71

Chinthapally Upender, S/o Pedda Venkaiah, Aged about 33 years, R/o Raghunandhapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District.

¶72

Chinthapally Sreenu. S/o Pedda Venkaiah, Aged about 37 years, R/o RaghunanChapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District.

¶73

Yerragadda Veerabhadram, S/o Narayana, Aged about 34 years, R/o Raghunadhapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District.

¶74

l0.Chinthapally Rajaiah, S/o l\zlallaiah, Aged about 75 years, Rt/o Raghunandhapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District.

¶75

Naddi Sreenivasa Rao, S/o Venkaiah, Aged about 39 years, Rl/o Raghunandhapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam Drstrict.

¶76

...RESPONDENTS

¶77

Petition Under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order or direction or writ, more so in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 4th Respondent in restoring the revenue records with respect to Ac. 12-00 Gts. in Sy. No. 335, 265, 276 and 277 of Raghunadhapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District in the name of the Petitioner and arbitrarily continuing the names of the unofficial Respondents in the ROR/Dharani Record, despite receipt of the interim orders dated 1311.2017 in W P. lV P. No. 46763/2013 in W.P. No. 37653 of 2017 and the orders dated 01 02.2013 in ROR Appeal No. A31472312012 passed on the file of the 3Rl Respondent herern as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and in violation of Articles 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of lndia with a consequential prayer directing the 4th Respondent to implement the names of the Petitioner in the ROR/Dharani with respect to lands in Sy. Nos. 335, 265, 276 and 277 ot Raghunadhapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

¶78

Contd....5

¶79

t I II l I sI ,i i .a .

-5-

l.A.NO:1 OF 2022

Between:

Chinthapally Ven katanarayana, S/o Pedda Venkaiah, Aged about 53 years, R/o Raghunandhapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District.

¶85

Chinthapally Veerababu, S/o Pedda Venkaiah, Aged about 49 years, R/o Raghunandhapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District.

¶86

Chinthapally Upender, S/o Pedda Venkaiah, Aged about 33 years, R/o Raghunandhapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District.

¶87

Chinthapally Sreenu, S/o Pedda Venkaiah, Aged about 37 years, Rl/o Raghunandhapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District.

¶88

Yerragadda Veerabhadram, S/o Narayana, Aged about 34 years, RJo Raghunadhapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District.

¶89

Chinthapally Ralaiah, S/o t,4allaiah, Aged about 75 years, Rl/o Raghunandhapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District.

¶90

Naddi Sreenivasa Rao, S/o Venkaiah, Aged about 39 years, Rl/o Raghunandhapalem village, Khammam Urban mandal, Khammam District.

¶91

..VACATE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS Nos.5 to 11

¶92

AND

¶93

Challagondla Sharada Devi, W/o Narasimha Rao, Aged about 43 years, FIo. Seethampeta Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, Telangana.

¶94

....RESPONDENTAA/RIT PETITIONER

¶95

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 vacate the interim order granted on 0411012021 in W.P.No.24919 of 2021, in the interest of justice.

¶96

l.A.NO:1 OF 2021

¶97

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 Nos.2 and 4 not to entertain any request from Respondent Nos.5 to 1 1 for transfers with respect to land admeasuring Ac. 12.00 Gts in Sy.No.335, 265, 276 & 277 o'f Raghunadapalem village, Khammam Urban IVla nda l, Khammam District.

Contd . . ..6

-6-

|.A.NO:2 OF 2021

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 4'n Respondent to implement the name of the Petitioner in the ROR and Dharani Portal against Ac.^'12-00 Gts, in Sy. Nos. 335, 265,276 & 277 of Raghunadhapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

¶102

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.S.NAGESH REDDY

¶103

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶104

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.s to 11 : SRI.M.V.HANUMANTHA RAO

¶105

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER

¶106

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶107

WRIT PETITION Nos.37653 OF 2OL7 AND 24919 0F 2021

¶108

COMMON ORDER:

¶109

The subject matter of these two (02) Writ Petitions is one and the same and between the same parties and hence, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one Challagondla Sharada Devi, who is the daughter of Smt. Takkellapati Usha Rani, daughter of Late Vipparla Mangaiah. It is the case of the petitioner that her grandfather, namely Vipparla Mangaiah, was the original owner and pattadar of land admeasuring Acs. 12.00 gts., situated in Sy.Nos.335, 365, 276 ar,d 277 of Raghunadhapalem Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, and he executed a registered gift settlement deed, dated 07-04-1971 in favour of the mother of the petitioner namely smt. Takkellapati Usha Rani, vide Doc. No.945 of 1971 in respect ol the said extent of land. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said land, which was gifted in favour of the petitioner's mother, was included in the holding of Sri Vipparla Mangaiah under the proceedings initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the said extent of land was finally

¶110

-"tt'

¶111

¶112

MSK,J !\n 17651..2017 & wp-24919 2021

¶113

deleted from the holding of the said Sri Vipparla Mangaiah, as the same was gifted in favour of the mothcr of the petitioner herein. The same is also stated to be confirmed by this Court, in a Civil Revision Petition. While the mother of the petitioner was staying away from the village where the subject lands are situated, the grandfather of the petitioncr ..vho is said to be passed away in the year 2000, used to look after the said lands. After the demise of Sri Vipparla Mangaiah, the mother of the petitioner stated to have approached rcspondent No.4 herein requesting for mutation of her name in IIOR and for issuing Pattadar Pass Books, but the same was r-rot considered and finally it came to the notice of the mother of the petitioner that the names of respondent Nos.S to 1 I herein have been mutated in the Revenue records and Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds were issued in their names in respect of the subject land. Having noticed the same, the mother of the petitioner herein filed appeal under sub section (5) of Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Bool<s Act, 1971 (for short the Act, 1971') before respondent No.3 l-rcrein and the said appeal No.A3 I 4723 l2ol2 was allowed b), respondent No.3 herein, by an order, dated 01.02.2013, cancelling the pattadar Pass Books issued in the name of respondent Nos.s to 11 and

¶114

MSK,J wp 37653_2017 & wp_24919 2021

¶115

-f

¶116

remanding the matter back for fresh consideration to respondent No.4 herein. During pendency of the appeal before respondent No.3, the mother of the petitioner, who was the appellant in the said appeal, passed away and the petitioner herein, who is the soie legal-heir of Smt. Takkellapati Usha Rani, came on record as appellant in the said appeal.

¶117

Aggrieved by the said order, dated O1.O2.2013, respondent Nos.5 to i t hercin hled Revision Petition under Section 9 of the Act, 197 1 before respondent No.2 herein and the said Revision Petition was allou,ed by respondent No.2 by an order, dated 07.O4.2O17, in Revision Petition No.07 of 2013 by setting aside the order dated 01.02.2013 passed by respondent No.3 herein. Aggrieved by the said order dated 07 .04,2017 passed by respondent No.2 hereln, the petitioner fi1ed Writ Petition No.37653 of 2017.

¶118

This Court, while admitting Writ Petition No.37653 of 2017, passed an interim order in W.P.M.P.No.46763 of 2017, dated 30.1L2O17. The said interim order is extracted

¶119

hereunder:-

¶120

"Admittedly, there is no recortl availablc in the office of the^4e respondent about regularization of the sada sale deeds set up by respondent Nos.5 to I I for obtaining 13'B certificates. This is the frnding recorded by 3,,1 respondent in his order dt.01.02.2013 in ROR appeal No.A3 /4723 l20 12.

¶121

¶122

MSK.J wp_i7651_2017 & wp 249t9_2021

¶123

Ilo$r:ver. in the revision filed by responrlent Nos.s to ll betbre the 2"(r rcspondent, without adverting to this aspect, the 2"d respondelrt comes to a startling conclusion that there is an abnormal dcla]' on the part of the petitioner in challenging the mutatjon and issuance of pattadar pass Book to res-pondent Nos.S to I1.

¶124

When there is no record avaitable with respondent Nos.l to 4 regarding the alleged regularization of the sada sale deeds presented by rcspondent Nos.S to 11, it is absurd to think that petitioner rs aware of it and therefore kept quiet for any period of tirne parlicularly rvhen there is ,ro i,.idence to show that petitioncr had notice of such proceedings taken up by 4th respondcn t.

¶125

Therefore, thcre shall bc interim suspension as prayed for.,

¶126

Durirrg pendency of the said W.p.No.37653 of 2017, the Act, 1971. ( irme to be repealed by enacting the Telangana Rights in l.and and Pattadar pass Books Act, 2O2O (for short 'the Acr, 2020') and digitaiization of 1and records also came into exist()ncc including Dharani portal. The names of respondent Nos.S to 11 have been updated on Dharani portal and they were also issued Digital^pass Books in respect of the subject land. Apprt:hending that respondent Nos.S to 11herein may alienate the subjecl lands or create third party interest, the petitioner hereirr filed W.P.No.24919 of 2O2l seeking implementation of the order, rlatcd O1.02.2O13, passed by respondent No.3 on the ground that the order passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Petition, dated 07 .O4 .20 1 7 was suspended by this Court, as noted above ancl as such the order, dated O1.02.2013 is bound to be given clfect to. This Court, while directing the said Writ

¶127

¶128

MSK.J Np 37653 2017 & wp 24919_202t

¶129

I I I I I

¶130

Petition to be Iisted along with the W.P.No.37653 of 2017, made an observation that, any alienation made in respect of the subject land shall be subject to result of the Writ Petition. 6. Respondent Nos.S to 11 filed a common counter in both the Writ Petitions along with vacate petitions. Both the matters are listed before this Court and counsel on either side argued the matter at length for hnal disposal of the Writ Petitions and accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are heard by this Court. 7. Hcard Sri V.Murali Manohar, learned counsel representing S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions and Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Iearned counsci appeir.ring for respondent Nos.S to 11 in both the Writ Petitions and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in both the Writ Petitions. 8. It is the further contention of Mr. Murali Manohar, learned counsei lor the petitioner that the alleged sada sale deeds said to have been executed by the mother of the petitioner are in fact not the sale deeds and as is evident from the document dated 01.07.1976 filed along with the counter affidavit in W.P.No.37653 of 2017, the same is only an agreement of sale and hcnce the question of regularization of an agreement ol sale docs not arise and it is only the sada sale

¶131

¶132

¶133

MSK,J \r'p 37651. 2017 & \p 14919 2021

¶134

dceds that can be regularized under Section 5(A) of the Act, 1971. Reliance is also placed on a judgment ol the erstu,hile Lligh Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case ol Konkana Ravinder Goud And OrS. v. Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society and othersr wherein it was held at as para 67 under:_

¶135

'ln the instant case, we are concemed with thc purport and meaning of the word "transfer" as contained in Seclion j_A of tl," Act in the light of the objects and reasons in introducing the said provision, namely, to regularise an unregistered sale transactior.r, ('hich u,ould not mean to regularise incomplete tr.rnsfcrs. ,fhere is no rnachinery or mechanism provided in thc Act tltat ever a person who has entered into an agreement of salo and in r-ase sale is not completed but hc has been put into possession of thc property even on payment of entirc sale consideration that cirlr approach the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of a ccrtificalc under Section 5-A of the Act. The Mandal Revenuc Ol.t.icer in srrch a casc cannot proceed to hold an enquiry as to whetitcr agreement of sale has been complied with or not. On the failure on the part of vendor to complete the sale transirction, a pcrsoil in $'hose favour there is an agreement of sale can scek spccific performance of the agreement of sale so as to convet. right, iitle or irterest of the vendors. The machinery provided unclci the Act is not thc appropriate machinery for perfecting title mcreh. on the basis of agreement to sel1. We are, therefore, of thc vic\, that the fiIding of the learned Judge that there is a valid transfer of immoveable property under agreements of sale ca.nol l)e sustained. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the agreement oJ sale relied upon by tJ:e Society is not covered by the term transfer and cannot be treated as an^{,,alicnation,,} or "transfer" \vithin the scope and meaning of Secdon S-A of the Act and we answer the first question accordingly."

¶136

He also further contended that respondent Nos.S to 11 herein have played fraud and obtained the regularization proceedings without there being any sada sale deeds executed b1, the mother of the petitioner and hence, the question of lin-ritation does not arise and that the fraud vitiates entire '^2o03 (s) ALI) 654

¶137

¶138

M5K,J wp_17653_2017 & wp 2491t) 2O?l

¶139

T t I :

¶140

proceedings, as such there is no necessity to file any separate application seeking condonation of delay and submitted that respondent No.3, having taken note of totality of facts and circumstances of the case, deemed it fit to remand the matter back to respondent No.4 for fresh consideration. He also placed reliance on a^judgment of the Honl:le Apex Court in the case of Sesha Nath Singh and others v. Baidyabati Co-operative Bank Ltd. And others2, to contend that there need not be any formal application seeking condonation of delay. Thougl-r the counsel for the petitioner relied upon several other citations, this Court does not find it necessary to refer to all such citations for disposal of the present case.

¶141

On the other hand Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learncd counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 11, having laid a stress on the ground of delay in filing appeal before respondent No.3 herein and also on the ground that under a wrong provision the appeal was filed, contended that the sale deeds that are being claimed by the respondents are never questioned nor sought for cancellation of such sales and supported the impugned order contending that respondent No.2 has rightll, interfered with the order passed by respondent No.3. He also '(2o2tl⁷ SCC³¹³

¶142

¶143

MSK,J rp I76-s.r 2017 & wp ,249t9_ZOZt

¶144

further placed reliance on a order, dated 1 j,.O2.2021 in Special Tribunal Case No.352 of 2O2I passed by the Speciai Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act,2O2O, wherein the Special Tribunal refused to interfere with the matter on the ground that their dispute is on civil nature, and the Writ petition vide W.P.No.37563 ot 2077 is pending before this Court.

¶145

In the light of the above observations and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that respondent No.3 has rightly exerciscd its power and the reasoning given by respondent No.3 lor exercising such power also equally meets a1l the objections and contentions raised by learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 1l with regard to the aspect of limitation, which is already discussccl in detail in the paragraphs supra. Insofar as the order of Special Tribunal, dated 11.02.2021 is concerned, it is not known how tJle said matter went before the Special Tribunal and tl.re learned counsel on either side could not inform this Court about the same. Even otherwise, the said order has no bearing in adjudication of this Writ Petitions.

¶146

It is an admitted fact that Sri Vipparla M;rr-rgaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of the subjcct lands and he executed a registered gift settlement deed, dated 07.04.1971

¶147

::9::

¶148

MSK,., wp_17651_2017 & vp 24919_ZOZI

¶149

vide document No.945 ol 1g7l in^{favour of the mother of the} petitioner herein. The claim of the^{petitioner's motheris basing} upon the said registered gift settlement^{deed. The claim of} respondent Nos.S to 1l herein^{is basingupon a sadasaledeed} said to have been^{executedby the mother of the petitioner} herein during the years 1976^{and 7977, and that the saidsada} sale deeds were regularized^{under Section 5A of the Act,1971,} by respondent No.4 herein.^{Respondent Nos.Sto 11 herein, who} are the respondents in the appeal^{filed by the mother of the} petitioner before respondent No.3, have^{filed thcircounter in the} said appeal. From^{the said counter, the basis for the claim of} respondent Nos.5 to 11^{is clear, especiallyin paragraphs 5 to 8'} The same are extracted^herein:-

¶150

"It is submitted^{that, the father of the respondentNos.2to 5 by} name Chintapalli Pedda Venkaiah^{purchasedthe iandsin the} year L976 and 1977 through sada sale^{deeds from the very} appellant and his^{namewas also recordedin the Revenue records} and got regularized the^{same about 20years backand} subsequently obtained^{ROR titleDeed and Pass Book on his} name and he was in^{peaceful possession and enjoyment of the} same till his death. After^{his demisc,therespondent Nos.2 to 5} being his legal heirs^{succeededthe saidproperty and they are in} peaceft l possession and elrjovment of the^{samewith absolute} rights of ownership, having^{perfect,goodand marketable title} thireto. Thus the respondent^{Nos.2 to 5 and their father werein} possession and enjoyment over the above lands for^{the last 35} years without any interruption and their^{title alsoperfectedin} due course of law.

¶151

That the father of the^{respondcnt No.6 by nameYerragadda} Narayana purchased the land^{of Acs.4.OO gts., inand out of} Sy.No.265, 263 and 264 situatcd^{at RaghunadapalamVillage,} through a sada sale deeds in the^{year1976 and 1977 from the} very appellant and his name was also^{recordedin theRevenue}

¶152

::10::

¶153

MSK,J $p_37653_2017 & rvp 24919 2O2t

¶154

rccords and got regularized the same in the year 1992 onwards and subsr-'rluentlv obtained ROR title Deed and pass Book on his namc anrl he^,ivas in peaccful possession and enjoyment of the same till his good health. After his iU health, thi respondent Nos.6 bcing his Iegal heir succeedecl the said property and he is in peacchri possession and enjoyment of the same i.s absotute rights of orr,,nersl.rip, having perfect, good and marketable tifle thcreto. 'lhus the respondent No.6 and his father are in possessiorr and enjoyment over the above lands for the last 35 ycars $'ilhout anJ. interruption and their title also perfected in due cour:;e of lau,.

¶155

That thc respondent No.7 by name Ch.Rajaiah purchased the land of Acs.3.20 gts., in and out of Sy.No.265, situated at Raghunadapalam Village, through a sada sale deed in the year 1976 and 1977 trom the very appellant and his name was also recordccl in the Revcnue records and got regularized the same al)out 20 r'r.ars back and subsequently obtained ROR title Deed and Pass llook on his name and he is in peaceful possession and cnjovrnenl of thr: same with absolute rights of ownership, having pcrfect, !y)od and rnarketable title ther;to. Thus the respondent No.7 is in Possession and enjoyment over the above landi for the last 3.5 ieirrs \'ithout any interruption and their title also pcrfcctcd in due cour-se of lau,.

¶156

That rhc father of thc respondent No.g by name Naddi Venkaiah purcl.rascrl thc land Acs.2.0O gts., in and out of Sy.No.26S and the land of Acs.3.OO gts., in and out of Sy.No.33-g situated at Raghun:rclrrpalam Village, through a sada sale deeds in the vear 1976 irnd 1977 from the appellant and his ,rr-" *u"^"".1"o recorded rt the Revcnue records and got regularized the same about 20 r.ears back and subsequently obtained ROR title Deed and Pass []ook on his name and he was in peaceful possession and enjo,'ment of the same till his death. After his demise, the respondcnt No.8 being his legal heir succeeded the said property and he is in peaceful possession ald enjoyment of the same w.ith absolute rights of ownership, having perfect, good and marketable title thereto. Thus the respondini No.g andhis father are in possession and enjoyment over the above lands for the last 35 years u,ithout any interruption and their title also perfected in due corirsc of laq.."

¶157

From the above extracted paragraphs, it is clear that respondent Nos.5 to 11 (including their predecessor_in-title) have been claiming title only through the mother of the petitioner hcrein and by virtue of regularization done under Section 5A ol the Act, I971, and the consequential certificates

¶158

MSK.J wp_37653_2017 & wp 24919 202t

¶159

¶160

11::

¶161

issued in Form 13-B. Copies of the certificates issued under Section 5A i.e., Form 13-B certilicates are placed on record along with the counter filed by respondent Nos.S to 11 in W.P.No.37653 of 2Ol7 at pages t22, l3l, 140 and 145 dated 05.03.1992, 08.08.1994, 17.O1.1993, and SO.OZ.t9g2 respectively.

¶162

i3. A perusal of the said certificates shows that the respective purchasers under the said certificates through whom respondent Nos.5 to 11 herein are claiming right and title over the subject lands are shown to have purchased the respective extents covcred by the said certificates from the grandfather of the petitioner herein namely Vipparla Mangaiah. Thus, the claim of respondent Nos.s to 11, as contended in the counter filed before respondent No.3, is running contrary to the contents of the Form 13-B certificates. Further, from the material filed on record along with I.A.No. 1 of 2022 in W.p.No.249 L9 of 2O2l i.e., the files that pertain to the regularization proceedings show that one Chintapalli Peda Venkaiah purchased an extent of Acs.4.20 gts., in Sy.No.265 of Raghunadapalam Village through document dated 10.04.1973 from one Vipparla Mangaiah. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 hercin are claiming through the said Chintapalli Peda Venkaiah. Similarly, one yerragadda Narayana

¶163

L2:i

¶164

MSK.J wp 37651 2017&rvp 21919 2021

¶165

claims to have purchased the land situated in Sy. No.265 admeasuring Acs.2.O0 gts., through a document dated 06.03. 1970 from Vipparla Mangaiah. Respondent No.9 he rein is clairning through the said yerragadda Narayana, so also respondent No. 10 herein also claims to have purchased land to an extent ol Acs.3.20 gts., in Sy.No.265 through a document dated 03.02.1973 from the said Vipparla Mangaiah. So also one Nadcii Venkaiah claims to have purchasecl the land in Sr,.Nos.265 and 338 admeasuring Acs.2.OO gts., and Acs.3.0O gts., respectively under a document dated 03.05.1969 from Vrpp:rrla Mangaiah.

¶166

From the above noted contents of the rcgularization procr'edings, it is noticed that the so called purchase of the subjcct property by respondent Nos.S to 11 herein is during the years 1969 to 7973, which is contrary to the specific stand of respondent Nos.S to 11 before respondent No.3 i.e., the subject lands were purchased by respondent Nos.S to 11 during the years 1976 and l97T from the mother of the petitioner herein. In a rvay, respondent Nos.S to 1 t herein have admitted the title of the mother of the petitioner herein namely Smt. Takkcllapati Usha Rani and claim to have purchased the subject land from the mother of the petitioner herein and got

¶167

-i r

¶168

:: 13::

¶169

MSK wp_37653 2017 & wp _24919 _202t'

¶170

¶171

the same regularized. Once respondent Nos.S to 11 admit the title of the mother of the petitioner over the subject land, any proceedings regularizing the subject land in favour of respondent Nos.S to 11 by showing the purchase from Sri Vipparla Maagaiah, the grandfather of the petitioner herein is of no avail.

¶172

A perusal of the copies of the file pertaining to regularization proceedings does not show that the mother of the petitioner herein was put on notice before issuing the regularization proceedings or Form r3-B certificates in favour of respondent Nos.S to 11 herein. The respondent Nos.S to 11 herein filed copies of various sada sale deeds, dated 1O.06.1977, O1.O7.1976, 19.O2. 1983, 12.06.1968 and.21.O2.t982 along with their counters. These said sale deeds are not the copies of the sale deeds that were referred to in the file pertaining to the regularization proceedings. There are no regularization proceedings regularizing the above referred five (05) sada sale deeds nor any such material is placed on record either before rcspondent Nos.2 and 3 or before this Court. Thus, the Claim of rcspondent Nos.S to 11 herein is self contradictory.

¶173

A perusal of the appellate order, dated Ol.O2.2Ol3, shows that the respondent No.3, having noticed the ambiguity,

¶174

:: l4::

¶175

MSK.J up 17653 201? & \rp_2,1919 2021

¶176

contradiction and inadequacy or non availability of the record pertaining to the regul arization proceedings, remanded the matter back to respondent No.4 for considering the matter afresh by putting all the parties on notice. The said order of respondent No.3 is interfered with by^.respondent No.2 in exercise of revisional power under Section 9 of the Act, 1971, through the impugned order 1I'I W.P.No.37o5 ] ot 2017. Respondent No.2 Revisional Authority herein, having noted the rival contentions in detail has recorded the follor,r,ing findings.

¶177

"The Revision Petitioners have purchased the schedr.rlc lands from father of the respondent No. I herein through sada sale deeds in the year 1976 and 1977 .

¶178

Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds rverc issued to thc Revision Petitioners in the year 1994 and 13-B Certilicate has also been issued.

¶179

The Revision Petitioners are in actual possession of the land for the past 30 years.

¶180

The respondent No.1 filed appeal before the RDO after a period of nearly 30 years. Without condoning the abnormal delal, the RDO passed orders.

¶181

Respondent No.I argued that her father is the pattadar of the schedule land and after his demise she succeeded ti)e property arrd she appointed one person Talluri Veerabhadra Rao as GpA to malage her tands. They never alienated or sold the lands to anyone till now. By relying on this argument of respondent No. 1, the lower Court passed orders. But lower Court failed to observe that Revision Petitioners are in physical possession of the land for the past three years, respondent No.l is silent for the past 30 years, by the time respondents got gift registration. The Revision Petitioners are in physical possession and also entered in record. Hence the order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer vide Rc.No.A3/4723/2012, datcd 01.O2.2013 arc set ;rsidc and directed Tahsildar to restore the PPB/TD's issued in lavour of Revision Petitioners over the suit schedule property.

¶182

Any miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand disposed off.,,

¶183

::15::

¶184

MSK,J wp 176s3 2017 & wp:24919 2021

¶185

¶186

In spite of the categorical claim of respondent Nos.5 to 11 that they have purchased the subject property from the mother of the petitioner, respondent No.2 observed that they have purchased the subject property from the grandfather of the petitioner herein during the years 1976-77 and the same was regularized in the year 1994. Such a hnding or observation noted by respondent No.2 is contrary to the record and admitted facts and such finding is pcrverse. The further finding with regard to physical possession of the subject property is totally an irrelevant factor while deciding the validity of the regularization proceedings issued under Section 5A of the Act, I97l.ln spite of contradictory claims made by respondent Nos.S to 11 and their failure to substantiate the regul arization proceedings, respondent No.2 erroneously interfered with the order passed by respondent No.3 on the ground that the mother of the petitioner herein kept quiet for more than thirty (30) years.

¶187

The main defence of respondent Nos.5 to 1 1 to contest the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein fi1ed appeal after a long lapse of time without there being any application either seeking condonation of delay or giving any explanation for filirig such an appeal. Though, such an objection at the first

¶188

::16::

¶189

MSK,J wp,17653 2017 & wp.24919_2021

¶190

instance appears to be attractive and convincing, but, having noted the admitted fact situation, the so called delay in filing appeal shall not come in the way of the petitioner in agitating her rights especially in the context of the findings rendered above. The Juclgment of the Hon'ble Apex.Court in the case of Sesha Nath Siagh (2 supra) relied upon by the counsel for petitioner applies to the fact situation wherein it was held as

¶191

under:-

¶192

"Section 5 o[ rhe [-imitation Act, 1963 does not speak of any application.^'l'he Section enables the Court to admit an applicatior.r or appcal if the applicant or the appellant, as the case may be, satrsfir:s the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the .rpplication ancl/or preferring the appeal, within the time prescribed. Although, it is the general practice to make a formal applir:atir)n u n(lcr Section 5 ol' the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enal)lc the Court or Tribunal to weigh the sufliciency of the cause Ior the inabilitv of the appellant/applicant to approach the Court/Tribunal u'ithin the time prescribed by limitation, there is no bar to exercise b-, the Court/Tribunal of its discretion to condone dclat', in the absence of a formal application.

¶193

A plain reacling of Section 5 of the Limitation Act makes it amply clear that, it is not mandatory to hle an application in writing before relief(an bc granted under the said section. Had such an application l)ee n mandatory, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have expressly provided so. Section 5 would ttren have read that the Court might condone delay beyond the time prescribed bY limitation for liling an application or appeal, if on consideration of 1he application of the appellant or the applicant, as the casc rnay bc, for condonation of delay, the Court is satisfied that thc appellant/ applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Aiternativel], a proviso or an Explanation would have been addecl to Section 5, requiring the appellant or the applicant, as the case mav be, to make an application for condonation of detay. Ilou,ever. the Court can always insist that an application or an affidar it shorving cause for the delay be filed. No applicant or appellant can clairrr condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act .rrj of right, iYithout making an application.

¶194

:17ii

¶195

MSK,J wp -31653 _2017 & wp ]4919 _20?t

¶196

¶197

In any case, Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act are not mutually exclusive. Even in a case where Section 14 does not strictlj,apply, the principles ol Section l4 can be invoked to grant relief to an applicant under Section S of the Limitation Act by purposively construing 'sufficient cause'. [t is welt settled that omission to refer to the correct section of a statute does not vitiate an order. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that delay can be condoned irrespective of whether there is any formal application, if there are sufficient materials on record disclosing sufficient cause for the delay."

¶198

Though respondent Nos.5 to 11 claim to have acquired right over the subject land from the mother of the petitioner, admittedly she was never put on notice while issuing the regularization proceedings in favour of respondent Nos.S to l1 in respect of the subject property. Any order passed behind the back of the effected person in violation of principles of natural justice, is non est in the cye of law and the same is not binding on the party concerned.

¶199

It is settled Iaw that the Revisional Authority, while exercising the power of revision, has got very limited scope to interfere with the matter. [n the context of a detailed order passed by respondent No.3, while remanding the matter back to respondent No.4 wherein all the contesting parties will have an ample opportunity to put forth their claim and establish the same, the revisional authority, while misconstruing the facts and the contentions of thc rcspective parties, erroneously interfered with the order passcd by respondent No.3 herein. In the considered view of this Court, the action of respondent No.2

¶200

¶201

::L8::

¶202

MSK.J tvp 17651 2017 & \p 21919-2021

¶203

in exercising its revisional power, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is totally unwarranted and rcspondent No.2 ought to have allowed the parties to go before respondent No.4 to estabiish their respective ciaims. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable and the same is liable to be sct aside. Thercfore the objection on the ground of delay which is purcly technical shall not come in the way of administration of justice and lair play. In view of the fact that the so called regularization procecdings under Section SA of the Act, 1971 were issucd in lavorrr ol respondent Nos.S to 11 behind the back of the mothcr of the petitioner, who is admittedly the owner of the subjcct propcrty and copies of the so called regularization proceedings are not communicated to the mother of the petitioner, the question ol delay in fiiing appeal does not arise.

¶204

In the light of the above, the impugned order, dated O7.O4.2O\7 is set aside and the order passed by respondent No.3 in appeal No.A3/ 422312OL2, dated O 1.O2.2013 is restored. 21 . ln vieu, of enactment of the Act, 2020 and the issuancc of Circurlar No. 1 of 2021, d,ated lS.Ol.2O2L issued by the Chief Comrnissioner of Land Administration, respondent No.4 is not having any authority to deal with the subject matter in tcrms of

¶205

;i19;:

¶206

MSK.J wp_37651 2017 & wp L49l9-2O21

¶207

¶208

¶209

the order passed by respondent No.3, dated 01.02.2013. In the circumstances, the respondent No.4 herein is dirccted to forthwith transmit the entire record pertaining to the impugned regularization prbceedings in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 1 1.30 gts., situated in Sy.No.265 of Raghunadapalem Revenue Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District to the oflice of the District Collector, Khammam District and on recc'ipt of such record from respondent No.4, the respondent No.2 shall conduct necessary enquiry by putting all the parties concerned on notice and after affording them a reasonable opportunity shall decide the matter within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of the record from the office o[ respondent No.4.

¶210

Pending disposal of the matter by the District Collector, Khammam District as directed above, staf,us quo obtaining as on date with regard to entries in the Revenue records shall be maintained.

¶211

It is further made clear that this Court has not dealt with the aspect of possession over the subject property in any manner and this order shall not be construed as an order having an effect on the physical possession of the subject property.

¶212

:20::

¶213

N,tSK.J wp,l765l'2017 & Np 24919 2021

¶214