Dismissed

Kishan (Died Per Lrs) and 4 Others v. the Government of a.P., Tribal Welfare Dept., and 3 Others

Telangana HC4 Sept 2023WA/1120/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal filed by tribal family members challenging orders related to an unregistered land transfer in Adilabad district. The Court held that transfer of immovable property exceeding Rs.100/- requires registration and the unregistered document was invalid, dismissing the appeal with no costs.

What did the court decide?

The intra-court appeal (Writ Appeal No. 1120 of 2008) is dismissed; all pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Kishan (Died Per Lrs) and 4 Others Vs the Government of a.P., Tribal Welfare Dept., and 3 Others — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

13377 )

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY HE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEIilBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1^'120 OF 2008

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 9-8-2007 in WP.No.889 of 2004 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

'l . Kishan (died per Lrs)

¶11

Jadhav Kalwathi Bai, Wo Late Subash, Occ: Household, aged 50 years.

¶12

Jadhav Datta, S/o Late Subash, aged 25 years, Occ: Agriculture.

¶13

Jadhav Pandari, S/o Late Subash, Agriculture

¶14

Jadahav Madhukar (Died per Lrs as P-6 to B vide separate sheet) S/o.Late Kishan, aged 45 years, Occ:Agriculture

¶15

All Ffo Wadagaon Villge, Indravalli, tVlandal Adilabad District

¶16

Jadhav Yashodabai, W/o Late Jadhav lMadhukar, Aged about 50 years, Occ Household H.No.1-92,Shampur Village and Mandal, Adilabadf District - 504346

¶17

Jadhav Vittal, S/o Late Jadhav Madhukar,Aged about 35 Years Occupation Agriculture, H.No.1-92,Shampur Village and Mandal, Adilabadf District - 504346

¶18

B. Jadhav Parmeshwar, S/o Late Jadhav Madhukar Aged about 30 Years Occupation Agriculture, Rl/o H. No.1-92,Shampur Village and Mandal, Adilabadf District - 504346

¶19

(Appellant Nos.6 to 8 are brought on record as Lrs of deceased Appellant No.5, as per Court Order dated 24.07.2023 Vide lA No.l of 2022 in W.A.No.1120 of 2008)

¶20

...,-APPELLANTS

¶21

AND

¶22

'1 . The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tribal Welfare Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶23

The District Co lector & Agent to the Government, r\dilab;rd District at Adilabad.

¶24

The Special D€puty Collector (Tribunal Welfare), A,iilaba J t)ist-ict H.Q. at Utnoor. Adilabz d District.

¶25

Anand Rao S/o late Naga Rao, R/o Wadgalpur Village, lrdravalli Mandal, Adilabad Distrir t.

¶26

,...R]SPONDENTS

¶27

|.A.NO:3 OF 2008(Wl,MP. NO:2x70 OF 2008)

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcum;tances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High Cour nray be pleased to grant interim directior,s to the Respondents No. 1 to 3 not to irlir.'nate and created third party rights in re spect of the lands admeasuring Ac.20.(,0 in lly.No.'144 and Ac.15-11 gts in sy.l,lo.145 situated at Wadagaon v llage, lrdravalli Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶29

Counsel for the Appr llant : Sri B.Akash Kumar, Adv for Sri \rivek Jain

¶30

Counsel for the Respo ldent Nos.1 to 3 : Sri P.Ramprasad,^tlP For Social Welfare

¶31

Counsel for the Resp ondent No.4 :^--

¶32

The Court made the lollowing Order :-

¶33

T,.

¶34

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AIOK ARADHE

¶35

AND

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE N.V. SH

¶37

W.A.No.1 720 of 2008

¶38

GMENT (Pet thc Hot'bb the ChieJJattice Alok Aradbe)

¶39

Mr. Baglekar Akash Kumar, lcarned counscl representing Mr.

¶40

Vivek J ain, learned counsel for thc appellants.

¶41

Mr. Pathipaka Ramprasad, learned Governmcnt Pleader lor Social Welfare for respondcnt Nos.1 to 3.

¶42

This intra court appeal arises out of order dated 09.08.2007 by ivhich W.P.No.B89 o[ 2004 preterrcd by the appcllants has bccn dismisscd.

¶43

The facts grving rise to Ffing o[this appeal briefly stated arc that on 04.03.1959 A.P. Scl.rcduled Arcas I-and Transfer Rcgulation, 1959 (hercinaftcr relerred to as "the Regulation') was cnacted. Thc said Regulation prohibits transfer of land by tribal to a non-tribal person. On 01.12.1963, thc ltcgulation was amcndcd afld was^{made applicablc} to Adilabad district. Halafnama (unrcgistered^{a[Frdavit)wascxccuted} benvccn appellant No.1 and respor-rdcnt No.4,^{whoare non-tribals. In} the afloresaid Flalaflnama, land^{measuring Acs.20.00guntas} llt

¶44

)

¶45

Sy.No.144 and another part of land measurin,3 ,\c,r.1.i.11 guntasⁱⁿ Sy.No.145 of l/2d2gn6n Village, L.rdravalli Mandal, r\rlilabad district, rvas sougl.rt to b : sold to appellant No.1 .

¶46

After ex,:cution o[ thc aforcliaid []an frar n (rnregistered afhdavit), the Rrgulation was an'rended rvith clfect frorr,]3.()2.1970 and in the amender Regulatron, cven transfer of land cr n,tn-tribal to another non-tri ral in age ncv arcas was decia'cd v ord. AFter the Regulat-ion was rmcnded, a sale dced rvas cxccrrted orr 29.04.197() in favour of appelll nr No.1.

¶47

The Special Depury Collector, Adilabad, inrtiate,l Jrroccedings undet Regulatiorr 3 o[ thc Rcgulation and passcd cj :crion ordet on 21.12.1984 against appellant Nr>.1 on thc groun,l thar lhc Halafnama (unregrstered affi Javit) has to be dul)'srampcd an,l resiirorc(l under the Indian Stamp A,:t, 1899 and thc llegistrarion Act, 1!Oli rt:spcctivcly The order o[ ejer ti,x was assai]e d by the appellar rs in rn appcal under the Regulation, rrhich, on 19.0,1.1990, was dismisscd b.,' the District Collector.^-fhe crder passed by thc District Collt,ctor w:Ls a f[rrmed in tevision an09.122003.

¶48

¶49

-t

¶50

The appellants assailed the validiry o[ the aforesaid orders dated 21.1.1984, 19.04.1990 and 09.1,2.2003 passed under the Regulation in a writ petition and the learned Single Judge by order dated 09.09.2007 dismissed the said writ pet-it-ion. In the alorcsaid factual background, this appeal is hled.

¶51

Learned counsel for thc appcllants submitted that the Regulation

¶52

was amendcd with cffcct kom 03.02.1,970 and thc Regulation has no reuospecdve operation. Fle further submittcd that the Spccial Depury Collector has no^junsdiction to decide the issue with regard to nonregistrarion o[ a document cxecuted in lavour of the appellants. It is contended that Regulation 2 (g) of the Regulation uses the expression "any other deal-ing", rvhich is wide enough to include the transfcr o[ document by Halaflnama (unregistered afhdavit).

¶53

In support of the aforesaid submissions, rcliance has been placed on thc dccision of Full Bcnch o[ this Court in Gaddam Narsa Reddi

¶54

¶55

vs. Collector, {.dilabadr and thc dccision o[ rhc I^lc:n'l lc Su;rremc Court in Bikkir a Rama Rao vs. Special Depu y Ta^rsildar2.

¶56

On the other hand, leatncd Govcrnment Pl:adcr lor Social Welfare has sup rorted thc ot:dcr passed by the lc;rrned Singlc.]udgc.

¶57

We have :c,nsidere d the rivll submrssion; nrarle on both sides and perused the record.

¶58

By execut ng Halalnama (unregistcred aflfrdavit,, an immovable property, u,hich is more than Rs.100/-, cannot bc tar sierr,:d. Section 54 of thc'fransfer o[ Properq'Act, 1882 (hcrtinaftr,r refcrred to as "the Act'), prov des that 'salc' i-s an absolute transfer c f^()wrrcrship and has to be rcgiste red. Simitarly, a gr lt dced exccu,cd urrder liectior.r 123 of the Act requir:s teqistrauon.

¶59

By the unrc6fstered document dated 25.06 1968 land measuring Ac.20.00 guntas ln Sy.No.144 and Ac.15.11 luntai Itl Sv.No.14.5

¶60

situated at Wada qaon Viliagc, Indravalli Mandal, Adile b:Lcl rlstrict rvas transferted in far our of appellant No.1. Such translcr ol'o,,;nersl.rip in

¶61

respect of immot abie properql is not permissible n lau.

¶62

1 lrsar; z APU 260

¶63

'z^{lzors; o scc tzl}

¶64

::5

¶65

Admittedly, thc Rcgulat-ion was amended with effect from

¶66

03.02.1,97 0 and thereafter, the salc deed was executed in favour of appellant No.1 by respondent No.4 in respect o[ the subject lands on

¶67

29.04.1970. Thercforc, thc authoritics undcr the Act and thc learned Single Judge has righdy concluded that the immovable property o[ a value more than Rs.100/- cannot be transferred by unregistered

¶68

docume nt.

¶69