Allowed

Kotha Ravinder and 8 Others v. the State of Telangana., Revenue Dept., and 3 Others

Telangana HC15 Feb 2023WP/10408/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders refusing Pattadar Pass Books to petitioners for land in Siddipet. Relying on earlier finalized judgments holding the land is not assigned government land, the Court ruled respondents could not reopen the issue or claim fraud to deny rights.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; respondents directed to issue Pattadar Pass Book cum title deed to petitioners within three months.

Kotha Ravinder and 8 Others Vs the State of Telangana… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIGE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:^'10408 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kotha Ravinder, S/o. Shankaraiah, Aged about 59 years, Rlo 11-4-111,

¶9

Kotha Vasantha, W/il K.Ravinder, Aged about 54 years, Rlo 11-4-111,

¶10

Kotha Santosh, S/o K.Ravinder, Aged about 32 years, Rlo 11-4-111,

¶11

Kotha Karthik, S/o K.Ravinder, Aged about 30 years, Rlo 11-4-111,

¶12

Rekha Ramesh, S/o Mallesham, Aged about 59^years, No 11-12-122,

¶13

Rekha Varalakshmi, Wo Rekha Ramesh, Aged about 57 years, No 11-2122,

¶14

Rekha Bhoomraj, S/o Rekha Ramesh, Aged about 39 years, Rlo 11-2-122,

¶15

Rekha Ramya, Wo Rekha Bhoomraj, Aged about 34 years, Rlo 11-2-122,

¶16

Rekha Kiran Kumar, S/o Rekha Ramesh, Aged about 38 years, Rlo 11-2-122,

¶17

(The petitioner all are R/o Bharatnagar, Siddipet, Medak District)

¶18

...PETITIONERS

¶19

AND

¶20

1 The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶21

2 The District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶22

J The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District.

¶23

4 The Tahasildar, Siddipet Mandal, Siddipet, Medak Diskict.

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Case No.D/542l2015, dated 1O.3.2O15 on the file of the 3rd respondent by duly confirming the Orders in

¶26

¶27

Proceedings D174112013, dated 2.12.2014 on the fite of the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of Right in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and also in voiation of Articles 14 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in favour of the petitioners for the lands in Sy.No. 1340i3 situated in Lingareddypalli, H/o Siddipet, Medak District.

¶28

LA- NO:^'l OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 13746 OF 2015)

¶29

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in favour of the petitioners for the lands in Sy.No.1340/3 situated in Lingareddypalli, H/o Siddipet, Medak District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI D. SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI V. V. N. NARAYANA RAO

¶31

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.1O4O8 of 2O15

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

Heard Sri D.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the^petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶38

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.4 in proccedings No.D/741/2013, dated 02.12.2014, refusing to issue Pattadar Pass Books in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.O. 15 gts., and Ac.O.12 gts., situated in Sy.No.1340/3 of Lingareddypalli Village H/o Siddipet, Medak District (presently in Siddipet District), as confirmed by respondent No.3 in case No.D I 5a2 I 2O15, dated 1O.03.2O1s.

¶39

The facts of the case are that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein claims to be the owncrs of land admeasuring Ac.O.15 gts., and petitioner Nos.S to 9 are the owners of land admeasuring Ac.O.12 gts., situated in Sy.No. l34O l3 of Lingareddypalli Village (hereinafter relerred to as 'the subject land'), having purchased the same under registe red Salc Deed, dated 16. iO.2O03, vide document No.4O6O/2OO4 from one Sri T.V.Suresh Vishnu S/o Venkata Narasaiah and eight others. The petitioners also

¶40

::2::

¶41

MSK.] Wp_10408 2015

¶42

claim to have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land by raising a Mango Garden. It is the further case of the petitroners thzrt r.r,hen the petitioners approached the respondents for mutation and grant of Pattadar Pass Books in their name in the year 2011, respondent No.4 issued notice in Form-2 under l?u1e-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, directing the petitioners to explain as to u,hy the subject land should not be resumed to Government. At that stage, the petitioners filed W.P.No.16489 of 2009 before this Court (the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh) questioning the said notices and the said Writ Petition was ailowcd bi' this Court, by an order dated 20.04.2011.

¶43

Consequcnt thereupon, the proceedings initiated by issuing Form-2 notices was dropped by respondent No.4. Thereafter, uih()n there was again interference with the possession of the petitioners, the petitioners once again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.1388 of 2Ol2 and this Court, Iry an rnterim order, dated 24,O1.2012 directed respondent No.4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of thc petitioners over the subject land. Thereafter, thc petitioners approached respondent No.4 for issuance of Pattadar Pass Books in respect of the subject land, but the said

¶44

¶45

MSK.J wp_1040E_2015

¶46

request of the petitioners was rejected by respondent No.4 through the impugned proceedings, dated O2.12.2O 14, on the ground that the subject land is a Government land and the same was assigned under Assignment Rules and also on the ground that the W.P.No.1388 of 2Ol2 is pending before this Court. The said order passed by respondent No.4 was confirmed by respondent No.3 herein and aggrieved thereby the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

¶47

This Court at the time of admission of this Writ Petition

¶48

passed an interim order, dated 15.04.2015 as under:-

¶49

"Pending further orders in the W.P.M.P., the petitioners shal1 not be dispossessed from the lald in question."

¶50

The same is operating as on date.'

¶51

Respondent No.4 liled counter affidavit contending that the land in Sy.No.1340 admeasuring Acs.91.04 gts., of Lingareddypalii Village is classified as Govemment land and the name of Ayyavaru Rangamma was recorded as Pattadars and possessors in the Revenue records in the year 1960-61 and the same was continued up to 1964-65 and thereafter, the name of one T.Venkata Narasaiah S/o Singaiah was entered as Pattadars for an extent of Acs.5.00 gts., in Sy.No. 134O/3 and that the same was also mutated in his name. It is further

¶52

:4::

¶53

MSK,J Wp_10408_2015

¶54

contended by the respondents that on having noticed that the said T.Venkata Narasaiah played fraud for mutation of the property in his name, proceedings were issued in proceedings No.D612928181, dated 14.11.1981 for resumption of the said land and questioning the said proceedings, the said T.Venkata Narasaiah filed W.P.No.5686 of l9a2 before this Court and that the said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court, by an order dated 23.12.1985 inter alia observing that no condition rvhich was attached to the assignment has been admittedly violated ,^{and therefore,the resumptionproceedingsare illegal. Itis} further contended that the said T.Venkata Narasaiah suppressing the Rule position from the notice of this Court in active connivance with the then Revenue official respondents and obtained orders from various Forums including this Court. It is also contended that the petitioners herein also played fraud and obtained orders in W.P.No. 16489 of 2O09 and lraud vitiates everything including all judicial acts and any Judgment obtained by fraudulent methods is nullity and nonest in the eye of Law and hence, the order passed in W.P.No. 16489 of 2009 does not disentitle the respondents from initiating action subsequently. Thus, it is contended that the petitioners have no right or title over the land in question and that they are not

¶55

¶56

IVISK,J Wp__I0408 2015

¶57

entitled for issuance of the Pattadar Pass Books and title deed in respect of the subject land.

¶58

It is an admitted fact that the very same land, which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition, was the subject matter of dispute before this Court in W.P.Nos.5686 of 7982 and 16489 of 2009. In both the writ Petitions, this Court held that the subject land cannot be treated as assigned land. In W.P.No.16489 of 2OO9, this Court held as under:-

¶59

"Having due regard to the facts and circumstances narrated hereinbefore, the provisions of the Act, of 1977 have obviousll' no application to the subject land. Once the subject land cannot be said to be an assigned land, the Form-I[ notices issued under the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside for more than one reason as they are clearly illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1977. Therefore, the Form-ll notices issued under the impugned proceedings bearing Lr.No.C/521612009 dated 01.07.2009 are hereby set aside and consequently the respondent authorities are directed to drop further proceedings in the matter."

¶60

The respondents herein allowed the said Judgment to become final. Though, the respondents herein claim to have Iiled review applications seeking review of the order passed in W.P.No.16489 of 2009, the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated O4.03.2022. A copy of the said order is also placed on record. Thus, the order in W.P.No. 16489 of 2O09 has become final.

¶61

g. As already noted above, tlre' orders passed in W.P.Nos.5686 of 1982 and 16489 ol 2009 are interse parties and they are binding on the parti-^^"rerein, who are also parties

¶62

::6::

¶63

MSK.J wp 10408_2015

¶64

to this Writ Petition. Having allowed the said orders to become final, the respondents herein are not entitled to contend otherwise and they are verv much bound by the said orders. Any such action on the part of the respondents if allowed, the same would amount to giving a goby to the orders passeci by this Court in exercise of its^jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An issue which is already adjudicated interse parties by this Court cannot be allowed to be reopened or otherwise allowed to be contended by the parties to the said order. In vierv of thc orders passed in the above referred two Writ Petitions, it is not open for the respondents to contend that the subject land is an assigned land or that the land belongs to the Government. Mere allegation of lraud or repeating the said allegations number of times ieads norvhere unless the^parties alleging fraud, plead such lraud and establish the same by adducing cogent evidence. Under no circumstances, Judgment or order passed by this Court can be said to be nonest or void for whatever be the reason. lf any party is aggrieved by an order passed by this Court, it is for such aggrieved party to take appropriate steps for setting aside such an order. Having allowed the orders passed by this Court referred to above to become final, the respondents are not entitled to dispute the title of the petitioners over Lhc subject land. The reason that is

MSK,J Wp_I0408_2015

I I

assigned by respondent No.4 while refusing the request of the petitioners for grant of Pattadar Pass Book-cum-titie deed is that the subject land is an assigned land belonging to the Government. As already observed above, such a plea is not available for the respondents in the teeth of the orders passed by this Court in the two Writ Petitions referred to above.

¶69

1O. Further, it is specificaliy contended in the counter affidavit frled by the respondents that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners himself admitted in the aflidavit filed in W.P.No.5686 of 1982 that the subject land was assigned in favour of the Smt.Rangamma as she was land less poor person under the Laoni Rules in the year 196O, the petitioners cannot be permitted to contend otherwise. No doubt, from the material on record it appears that such a contention was raised by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, but this Court, after having considered the said pleadings arrived at a conclusion that the subject land cannot be said to be an assigned land within the meaning of the provisions contained in the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. As the said issue was already adjudicated interse parties, it is not open for the respondents to raise such plea once again at this point of time, that too after having allowed the said Judgment to become

¶70

¶71

MSK.J wp 10408_201s

¶72

hnal and having dropped the proceedings initiated under the Act, 1977.

¶73

In the light of the above, the impugned orders are wholly unsustainable and they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, dated 10.03.20i5 and 02.12.2014 are hereby set aside and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to issue Pattadar Pass Book-cun1-title deed to the petitioners in respect of their respective land u'ithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of a cop1, of this order.

¶74