Dismissed

Mohd. Suleman v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC18 Jan 2023WP/26705/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three writ petitions filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of his name in revenue records, holding that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, including the setting aside of the RDO's order, execution of an AGPA, and SARFAESI proceedings. The petitions were dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000 payable to respondent Nos.4 and 5.

Mohd. Suleman Vs The State of Telangana and 4… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

[3168 ]

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos: 2670s 43067 0F 2022 AND 40020F 2020

¶7

W.P.NO: 26705 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd. Suleman, S/o- Mohd. Buran, aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Ranipet Vlllage, Midjil Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The Collector, Mahabubnagar District, lvlahabubngar.

¶14

The Thasildar, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubangar District.

¶15

Gorige Parvathalu, S/o. Late Gorige lt/allaiah, aged about 45^years, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o. Konded village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

¶16

Gorige Pullaiah, S/o. Late Gorige Mallaiah, aged about 40^years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Konded village, Jadcherla Mandal, tvlahabubnagar District

¶17

..RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayjng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in not contrnuing to record the name of the petitioner as pattadar and possessor of the land in Sy. No. 406/4, admeasuring Ac.5- 1 1 guntas, at Kodgal Village, Jadcherla IVandal, Mahabubnagar District, though there are orders passed by the revenue authorities and civil court which are in favour of the petitioner, as illegal, unlaMul and contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner to continue his name as pattadar and possessor of the above land and issue Dharani passbook in his favour by duly considering the orders passed by the revenue authorities and also civil court.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

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 grant} interim order directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation^dated 1310512022 filed by the^petitioner to continue to record his^{name in the ROR as} pattadar and possessor in respect of the land in Sy. No. 406/4, admeasuring Ac.511 guntas at Kodgal Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and^issue Dharani passbook in his favour,^pending disposal of^main Writ^Petition.

¶21

IA NO: 20F 2022

¶22

Between:

¶23

Mohd. Suleman, S/o. lvlohd. Buran, aged about 65^years, Occ.^{Business,R/o.} Ranipet Village, Nilidiil Mlandal, Mahabubnagar^District.

¶24

...PETITIONERYPETITIONE R

¶25

AND

¶26

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

¶27

The Collector, lt/ahabubnagar District,^{Ivlahabubngar.}

¶28

3- The Thasildar, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubangar^Diskict.

¶29

Gorige Parvathalu, S/o. Late Gorige Mallaiah, aged^{about 45 years, Occ.} Agriculture, R/o. Konded village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶30

Gorige Pullaiah, S/o. Late Gorige Mallaiah, aged^about 40^years,Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Konded village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶31

M/s. Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt.^{Ltd., Hyderabad, H.No.3-5-808and} 808/1 , Venkateshwara Bhavan, Hyderabad, Rep. by its^{General Manager,} K.G. Anand S/o. K.C.G.Sharma, aged about^{65 years, Ryo.Plot No.12,} Syndicate Bank Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderbad.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS/PROPOSED 6th RESPONDENT

¶33

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^may be^pleasedto implead the 6th respondent herein as 6th respondent in W.P.^{No.2670512022so} as to enable him to file counter and contest the matter on^merits.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: M/s. V.DYUMANI

¶35

W.P.NO: 43067 OF 2022

¶36

Between:

¶37

Mohd. Suleman, S/o. Late Buran, aged about 70 years, Occ: Agriculture,^R/o. Ranipet village, Midjil Mandal, [ilahabubnagar District.

¶38

...PETITIONER

¶39

AND

¶40

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

¶41

The Collector, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar.

¶42

The Tahsildar, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubangar District.

¶43

G. David Shanth Raj, S/o. G. Jamesh, aged about 55^years, Occ:^Business, R:/o. H. No. 12-5-1881416, Flat No. 104, Saharsha Ruth Residency, Viiayapuri, Secunderabad.

¶44

M/s. Venkateshwar Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.,^For Venco Research^{and Breeding} Farm Pvt. Ltd., D.No. 3-5-808 and 808/1, Venkatehswara Bhavan,^Kin g Kothi Road, Hyderabad, by rep. by its General lvlanager, K.G. Anandh, S/o. K Sharma.

¶45

Gorige Pullaiah, S/o. Late Gorige lvlallaiah, aged about^{40 years, Occ:} Agriculture, R/o. Konded village, Jadchcrla Mandal, Ivlahabubnagar District.

¶46

Gorige Parvathalu, S/o. Late Gorige Mallaiah, aged about 39^{years, Occ:} Agriculture, R/o. Konded village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar^District

¶47

Ivl/s. Dhanalakshmi Trading Company, Rep. by its lvlanaging^{Director, Sri K} Siddi Reddy, Office No- 6-130, Arvind Colony, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶48

...RESPONDENTS

¶49

Petition under Arlicle 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of It/andamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings daled 22-11-2022 in file No. D1/ROR/002O122 in appointing the committee aided by the 3rd respondent for the purpose of submission of the report with reference to the records along with physical possession of the land in Sy. No. 405 and 406 at Kodgal village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and contrary to the orders passed by the civil court and also without^jurisdiction and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to decide the issue which is involved in the above file No. D'1IROR/0O2U2022 as to validity of AGPA and its implementation in the ROR in favour of the 4th respondent as^per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 2784112022.

¶50

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶51

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^issue interim order suspending the operation of the impugned^proceedings dated^22-11' 2O22 in File No. D1IROR/002O122 in appointing the committee under the Head of the 3rd respondent for submission of the report with reference to the^records along with physical possession of the land in Sy. No.405 and 406 at Kodgal^village, Jadcherla Mandal, l,4ahabubnagar District,^pending disposal of main Writ^Petition.

¶52

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M-DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: AGP^{FOR REVENUE} Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B.SUDHAKAR^REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.5: M/s. V.DYUMANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: SRI V.MURALI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI CH.SAMSON BABU

¶53

W.P.NO: 4002 OF 2020

¶54

Between:

¶55

Mohd. Suleman, S/o. lvlohd. Buran, aged about 64^years, Occ.^{Business,R/o.} Ranipet Village, Midjil tMandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶56

...PETITIONER

¶57

AND

¶58

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

¶59

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar Division,^Mahabubnagar

¶60

The Thasildar, Jadcherla lvlandal, Mahabubangar Diskict.

¶61

Gorige Parvathalu, S/o. Late Gorige Mallaiah, aged about 45^years,Occ. Agriculture, RJo. Konded village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar^District.

¶62

Gorige Pullaiah, S/o. Late Gorige Mallaiah, aged about 40^years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Konded village, Jadcherla tvlandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶63

...RESPONDENTS

¶64

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l\4andamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned order dated OB|O2|2O2O in file No. N346912O13 in rejecting the application of the petitioner daled 1311112019 submitted by him only for implementation of the orders passed by the RDO, Mahabubnagar and Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in file No.

¶65

B/ROR/3379/20108, dated 1110612009 and file No.^{D11382712009' daled} O7tO7t2O12 respectively in ROR in respect of the^land in^{sy. No. a06ln,} admeasuring Ac.5-1 1 guntas, at Kodugal^{Viilage, JadcherlaMandal,} Mahabubnagar District, as illegal, unlawful and contrary^{to law and consequently} direct the 3rd respondent to implement the above orders^{passed by the RDO and} Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar by recording his name as^{pattadarand possessor} of the above land and issue new^{pattadar pass book.}

¶66

lA NO: 1 OF 2O2O

¶67

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^High Court^{may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of the impugned order^{dated 08.02.2020 passed by the 3rd} respondent in file No. N346912013 by directing the 3rd^{respondentto continue to} record the name of the^petitioner as^pattadar and^possessor of the^{land in Sy. No.} 40C admeasuring Ac.5-11^guntas at Koduoi^{Village, JadcherlaMandal,} lrilahabubnagar District in terms of the orders^{passed by the RDO and Joint} Collector, Mahabubnagar,^pending disposal of^{mainWrit Petition.}

¶68

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶69

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 pleasedto} extend the interim order daled 2510212020 and subsequently extended order^dated 2310312020 as granted by the honorable high court in W.P.No^{400212020unlil} future order pending disposal of main writ^petition.

¶70

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶71

Between:

¶72

Gorige Parvathalu, S/o. Late Gorige Mallaiah, aged about^{45 years, Occ.} Agriculture, R/o. Konded village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar^District.

¶73

Gorige Pullaiah, S/o. Late Gorige Mallaiah, aged about^{40 years, Occ.} Agriculture, R/o. Konded village, Jadcherla tvlandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶74

.,.VACATE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS NO.4 & 5IN W.P

¶75

AND

¶76

tvlohd. Suleman, S/o. Mohd. Buran, aged about 64^years, Occ.^Business, R/o. Ranipet Village, tl4idjil Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. -

¶77

...RESPONDENT NO.1/PETITIONER IN W.P

¶78

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

¶79

The Revenue Divisional Officer, lvlahabubnagar Division,^{Ivlahabubnagar}

¶80

The Thasildar, Jadcherla Ir,4andal, tr/ahabubangar District.

¶81

...RESPONDENTSiRESPONDENTS

¶82

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 orders dated 25.02.2020 Passed in l.A. No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 4002 of 2020 and dismiss the WP with exemplary costs.

¶83

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'t TO 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI V.MURALI MANOHAR

¶84

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶85

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN xil{If lElITIOdNos.4Q02^qF 2020,26705 AND 43067 OF 2022 COMMON ORDER:

¶86

Lis involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, therefore, the same were heard together and decided by way of this common order

¶87

2-a. W.P.No.26705 of 2022 is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in not continuing to record the name of the petitioner as pattadar and possessor of the land in Sy.No.406iA, admeasuring Ac.5. I I guntas, at Kodgal Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, in spite of the orders passed by the revenue authorities and civil court in favour of the petitioner, as illegal and consequently direct 2nd and 3'd respondents to consider the aforesaid claim of the petitioner.

¶88

2-b. W.P.No.43067 of 2022 is filed to declare the action of 2nd respondent in issuing impugned proceedings dated 22.11.2022 in F.No.D1/ROR/002012022 in appointing the committee aided by 3'd respondent for the purpose of submission of the report with reference to the records along with physical possession of the land in Sy.No.405 and 406 at Kodgal Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, as illegal and consequently direct 2nd respondent to decide the issue which .

¶89

)

¶90

is involved in the^{irnpugned proceedings dated 22.11.2022as to validity} of AGPA and its in.rplementation^{in the ROR in lavour of 4'h respondent} as per the direction of^{this Court in W.P.No.2784l of 2022'}

¶91

2-c. W.P.No.4002 ol 2020^{is filed to declare the action of3'd} respondent in^{issuingimpugned proceedingsdated 08.02 2022 in} F.No.A3/3469 12013^{in rejecting the application of the petitioner dated} l3.l1.2019 submitted by him^{only lor implernentationof the orders} passed by the RDO, Mahabubnagar^{in F.No.B/ROR/3379/2008,dated} I 1.06.2009 and Joint Collector,^{Mahab''rbnagarin F.No.D 1/3827 12009'} dated 21.07.2012 respectively in^{ROR in respectof the landin} Sy.No.406/A, admeasuring^{Ac.5.1l guntas, at KodgalVillage,Jadcherla} Mandal, Mahabubnagar^{District,as illegal and consequentlydirect 3'd} respondent to implement^{the above orderspassed by the RDOand Joint} Collector, Mahabubnagar for^{recordinghis nameas pattadarand} possessor ofthe above land and issue^{new pattadar passbook.}

¶92

Heard Mr. M.Damodar^{Reddy, learned counselfor the} petitioner in all the writ^{petitions; Mr.V.SethuMadhavaRao, leamed} counsel, representing^{Smt. V.Dyumani, learned counsel appearing for} respondent Nos.4 and^{5 in W.P.No.26705 of 2022 and W'P.No.4002of} 2020, and respondent^Nos.5,6 and 7 in^{W.P.No.43067of 2022;}

¶93

¶94

Mr.Ch.Samson Babu, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.8 in W.P.No.43067 of 2022; and Mr.B.Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.43067 of 2022; and also leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the official respondents in all the writ petitions. Perused the record.

¶95

According to the petitioner, originally the father of the petitioner namely tate Mohd. Buran was the pattadar of the land admeasuring Ac.21.01 guntas in Sy.No.405 of Kodgal Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Smt. V.Satyavani and others including Gorige Mallaiah got their names entered in revenue records in respect of land in Sy.Nos.405 and 406 illegally. Therefore the petitioner herein i.e. Sri Mohd. Suleman, being the sole legal heir of Mohd.Buran filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, the Act, 1971') before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Mahabubnagar, who in tum, allowed the said appeal vide Case No.B/ROR/3379/2008 vide order dated 11.06.2009. Sri Gorige Mallaiah is 4'h respondent in the said appeal. In the said order dated 11.06.2009, RDO held that Smt. V.Sathyavani and 5 others including Gorige Mallaiah got their names entered in the revenue records illegally. It was also held that Garage Mallaiah got his name

¶96

¶97

entered in revenue record illegally in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.5.l lguntas in Sy.No.406/A. with the said findings, the RDO ordered to restore the name of the petitioner in revenue records in respect ol the land in Sy.Nos.405 and 406. Gorige Mallaiah and others have filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act, 197 I before the Joint Collector, Mohabubnagar. Sri Gorige Matlaiah and also filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 vide Case No.Dl1382712009 in respect of the aloresaid land admeasuring Ac.5. I I gutnas in Sy.No.406/A, the Joint Collector dismissed the aloresaid revision including the revision filed by Gorige Mallaiah vide order dated 25.07.2012. There is no challenge to the said order passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnaear by Gorige Mallaiah and therefore, it has become final. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an application before Tahasildar, Jadcherla, seeking restoration of his name in respect of the aforesaid land admeasuring Ac.5.l lguntas in Sy.No.406. Tahsiladr, Jadcherla vide order dated 12.12.2012 in case No.A/73 1712012 restored the name of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid land.

¶98

Challenging the aloresaid order dated 11.06.2009, other respondents have filed writ petitions vide W.P.Nos .26099, 26100, 26101 and 26103 of 2012. This Court vide common order dated 17.09.2009 set

¶99

)

¶100

aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar, Jadcherla for conducting fresh enquiry in the matter.

¶101

On remand, after conducting enquiry in compliance with the order, dated 17.09.2009,'Iahasildar, Jadcherla, has passed common order dated 04.02.2014 in F.No./A/346912013, wherein it was held that the name of the petitioner was illegally recorded in revenue^records from 1954-55 onwards. According to the petitioner, Tahsildar has not considered the fact that the name of the father of the petitioner was recorded prior to khasra 1954-55. Since the order passed by the Joint Collector rejecting the revision of Gorige Mallaiah, the^{petitionergot} entered his name in revenue records and continued to be^{in possession} and enjoyment of the same.

¶102

When the legal heirs of Gorige Mallaiah i.e. G.Parvathalu and G. Pullaiah interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the aforesaid land, he filed a suit vide O.S.No.4 of 2013 and leamed Junior Civil^judge, Jadcherla granted interim^{injunctionand} also police protection to the petitioner. The said suit is^pending.

¶103

The petitioner herein had filed a writ petition^vide W.P.No.365¹ 8 of 201 5 challenging the order passed by the Tahsildarⁱⁿ F.No.N346712013, dated 04.02.2014 pursuant to the aforesaid common

¶104

¶105

order dated 17 .09.2013 in W.P.No.26099 ol 2012 and batch. Thereafler, he withdrew the said r.'u,rit petition and filed a suit vide O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file ol the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar seeking declaration of title in respect of the land in Sy.No.406 and 405 exccpt the land admeasuring Ac.5.i1guntas in Sy.No.406/A. According to the petitioner, he has already obtained injunction in respect olthe said land from the Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla. In the said suit, legal heirs of the said Gorige Mallaiah got themselves irnpleaded as defendants. The said suit is pending. In the said sLrit, thc Coult bclou, has passed order in 1.A.No.285 of 2020 restraining the defendant No.15 therein lrom conducting mining operations. The said suit is pending and the said interim order is subsisting

¶106

In view of the afbresaid facts, according to the petitioner, the claim of the respondents that after the death of Gorige Mallaih, they have succeeded the land admeasuring Ac.5.l I gutnas in Sy.No.406/A and some extent of land admeasuring Ac.3.24 guntas said to have been sold in favour of Nirnma Saritha who in tum sold the said property to M/s. Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Limited is baseless. Accordins to the petitioner, after disrnissal of the revision filed by Gorige Mallaiah, Gorige Mallaiah himself is not having any right over the said land and

¶107

¶108

thereflore, the claim of the respondents, the legal heirs of Gorige Mallaiah and also purchascrs from them is not tenable and they do not have any right over the aforesaid property.

¶109

Without considering the said facts, pursuant to the order dated 04.07.2022 in W.P.No.27841 ol 2022, the District Collector Malrabubnagar vide proceedings dated 22.11.2022 appointed Team of Olficers to inspect the spot^jointly and fumish detailed report with relerence to the record along with the physical possession. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.43067 of 2022. With the said submissions, he sought to set aside the aforesaid proceedings dated 22.11.2022, impugned memo dated 08.02.2020 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for implementation of the orders of RDO and a direction to the District Collector and Tahsildar to continue his name as pattadar and possessor in respect of the aforesaid land admeasuring Ac.5.1 lguntas ln Sy.No.406/A of

¶110

Kodgal Village.

¶111

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No.26705 of 2022 and W.P.No.4002 of 2020 and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.43067 of 2022 i.e. G. Parvathalu and G.Pullaiah, sons of Gorige Mallaiah have filed counters contending that as per Kasra Pahani 1954-55 of Kodgal

¶112

¶113

¶114

Village, name of N. Venkata Ran.ri Reddy, recorded as pattadar in respect of land admeasuring Ac.19.12 guntas in Sy.No.406 of Kodgal Village. RDO, Mahabubnagar vide proceedings No.D.Dis.No.l Al 14421 78 issueri occupancy rights cerrificate under lnam Abolition Act in favour of R.Sucihakar Reddi Sio. Venkata Rama Reddi in respect of land rneasuring Ac.1,66.26 acres including aloresaid land Ac.19.l2guntas in Sy.No.406 of Kodgal \ziltage. On the strength of the same, R.Sudhakar Reddi had executed Sada Binama, dated 20.01.1983 in respect olthe land admeasuring Ac.l.lOguntas ln Sy.No.403, r\c.3.l9guntas ln Sy.No.404, Ac.5.l lguntas ln Sy.No.406 in total Ac. l0.0Oguntas in favour of father of respondents by name Gorige Mallaiah. The same was regularized as per the procedure laid down under the Act, 1971 and the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Rules, 1989 (for shor1, 'the Rules'), issued Forrns i3A, 13B and l3C. Pursuant to Form No. l3(B), pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in favour of Gorige Mallaiah.

¶115

Gorige Mallaiah had executed a registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.76 I /201 0 dated 16.02.201 0 in favour ol his wife Smt. Gorige Narsamma in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.4.00guntas in Sy.No.406/A out of AC.5.11guntas. On the application

¶116

¶117

submitted by Gorige Narsamma, mutation proceedings in favour of her two sons i.e. G.Parvathalu and G.Pullaiah were issued. They have executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.6063/2010 dated 3 I . I I .20 l0 in favour of Nimma Saritha in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.24 guntas in Sy.No.406 and Ac.0.12guntas in Sy.No.404/A. Their another brother Shiva Lingam was also a confirming party to the said sale deed.

¶118

It is fur1her contended that Nimma Saritha had mortgaged the aforesaid land and other lands as security for repayment of the Credit Faciliteis sanctioned by the erstwhile Andhra bank, Kothapet Branch, Hyderabad to M/s. Sheetal Breeding Farms Private Limited to which her husband was the Director. The said borrower had committed default in repayment of the loan and therefore auction was conducted as per the provisions olthe Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for shot, 'the SAR-FAESI Act'), and a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed before the District Collector, who in tum, and the District Collector vide order dated 14.06.2016 directed the Tahsildar, Jedcherla to take possession ol the said propefty and 7 other properties lully described in the said order. Accordingly, Tahsildar has taken possession

¶119

¶120

of the aforesaid properties. The erstwhile Andhra Bank, Kothapet brouglrt all the properties offered as security including Ac.3.24guntas out of Ac.5.I lguntas in Sy.No.406/A lor auction for recovery ol the amounts due under SARFAESI Act. M/s. Venkateswara Hatcheries Private Limited participated and stood as the highest bidder at Rs.3,94,30,050/- including the aloresaid propefty i.e. Ac.3.24guntas out of Ac.5.l lguntas in Sy.No.405/A of Kodgal Viilage. A sale certificate No.5809/2018, dated 12.03.2018 was issued in favour of M/s.Venkateshwara Harchcries Private Limited. The company is in possession and enjoyment ol the aforesaid property and it has constructed poultry sheds after obtaining necessary permissions frorn the authorities concerned. It is further contended that the writ petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.4 of 2013 before the Junior Civil Judge and obtained interim orders.

¶121

The contention of the petitioner is thar Gorige Maltaiah did not challenge the orders passed by the Joint Collector dismissing the revision filed by him and therefore the orders dated 11.06.2009 olthe RDO is untenable in view of the cornmon order dated 17.09.2013 passed by High Court in W.P.No.26099 of 2012 and batch. Pursuant to rhe aforesaid order, Tahsildar had passed a detailed order dated 04.02.2014

¶122

¶123

in Act, l97l appeal No.A/346912013.If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, dated 04.02.2014, he has to file appeal under Section 5(B) of the ROR within thirty (30) days instead of filing an appeal, he has filed the present writ petitions and sought to implement an order which is not in existence. Il,l/s. Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Limited has also obtained mutation proceedings dated 08"06.2018 and also conversion proceedings dated 03.08.2018 converting the aforesaid land from agriculture to non-agriculture. The said M/s. Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Limited is in peaceful possession of Ac.3.24guntas in Sy.No.406 and sons of Gorige Maltaiah i.e. G.Parvathalu and G.Pultaiah are in peaceful possession of Ac.l.27guntas in Sy.No.406/A.

¶124

It is also further contended that the petitioner herein has created Kasra Pahani 1954-55 and in the order dated 04.02.2014 of the Tahsildar, there is a categorical finding that the said proceedings were challenged in Writ petition W.P.No.365 l8 of 2015, he withdrew the said writ petition and filed a suit vide a suit O.S.No.22 of 2020 seeking declaration and also recovery of the possession in respect of certain suit schedule properties. It is further contended that the petitioner herein had executed a registered agreement olsale - cum - GPA bearing document No.688/2008, dated02.02.2008 in favour of G. David Shanth Raj i.e.4th

¶125

¶126

respondent in W.P.No.43067 of 2022. The petitioner herein^has suppressed several facts and filed writ^petitionsand the^{atbresaid suit. It} is a lrivolous litigation. Thus all the writ^{petitionshave to be disrnissed} with costs. With the aforesaid submissions, they have sought to^disrniss the all the three writ petitions.

¶127

M/s. Venkateshrvara I latcheries Private Limited has also adopted the very same argurnellts.

¶128

ln 17, Leamed counsel appearing for 4th respondent W.P.No.43067 ol 2022 on instructions would submit that said David Shanth Raj has purchased the properties rvhich are specifically mentioned in the schedule of the aforesaid registered Agreement of^sale -^{cum - GeneralPowcr of Attorneybearing No.688 of 2008 dated} 02.02.2008. He has paid the entire sale consideration to the^petitioner herein. It is a registered document. Even then, by way of a legal notice dated 21.08.2012, the petitioner cannot cancel the aforesaid docutnent. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner had no right or title over^the aforesaid properties and even then, he has filed the present^writ petitions. With the said subrnissions, he sought to dismiss the present writ petitions.

¶129

¶130

Sri Ch.Samson Babu, learned counsel appearing for M/s.Dhanalakshmi^'lrading Company i.e. 8'h respondent in W.P.No. 43067 ol 2022 would submit that it is absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.405. The petitioner herein has fited the aforesaid suit O.S.No.22 of 2020 and obtained the aforesaid order by suppressing the facts. It has contested the said application and also the said order Therefore, according to it, the petitioner has no right over the land in Sy.No.405 and he has interpolated his father's name as pattadar in respect of the aforesaid property and obtained certified copy. Basing on the certified copy ol the Kasra Pahani in which his father's name has been interpolated, Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar referred the matter to the RDO. The RDO Mahabubnagar passed an ex parte order, dated 11.06.2009 in case No.B/RON337912008, cancelled the existing entries in revenue records in respect ofaforesaid entries and also cancelling the passbooks and title deeds in favour ofthe pattadar.

¶131

The petitioner herein has also executed a registered agreement of sale -cum-GPA bearing document No.688/2008, dated 01.02.2008 in favour of G.David Shantharaj. Challenging the said orders, a revision was also filed before the^joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act. The same was dismissed. Challenging the said order, the aforesaid writ

¶132

¶133

petitions were filed. Vide comtnon order dated 07.09.2022, this Court reinanded the matter back to the Tahsildar. ln the^{saidorder, this Courl} also set aside the order dated 11.06.2009 ol^{RDO. Therelore, the} petitioner had no right over the aforesaid propefty and he is seeking to implement the order which is not in existence.

¶134

On remand, in compliance with the aforesaid common order dated 07.09.2013, Tahasildar had passed an order dated 04.02.2014 in F.No.A/3469i l3 canceling entries of the writ petitioner and also AGPA holder together with pattadar passbooks issued to them. It was also prepared to bring the names of the land owners existence prior to the name of the writ petitioner and AGPA holder. Necessary changes were also made in ROR and no land stood in the name of the writ petitioner. Suppressing the said fats, the petitioner herein had obtained order dated 13.11.2022 in W.P.No.29269 of 2019. In compliance with the said order, Tahsildar has passed order dated 08.02.2020 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. With the aforesaid submissions, Tahsildar, Jadcherla sought to dismiss the aforesaid three.writ petitions.

¶135

The aforesaid facts would reveal that according to the petitioner he is the absolute owner and possessor ol the subject land. According to the respondents, the petitioner has no right or title over the

¶136

aforesaid land. He has created khasra pahani forthe year 1954-55 and created the entire frivolus litigation.

¶137

According to the respondents, as per Khasra pahani 1954-55, one N. Venkata Rami Reddi was the pattadar to the land admeasuring Ac.l9.l2guntas in Sy.No.406 of Kodgat Village. Occupancy Rights Ceftificate was issued under Inam Abolition Act in favour of R.Sudhakar Reddi S/o. Venkata Rama Reddi in respect of land admeasuring Ac.i66.26 acres including the aforesaid land of Ac.l9.l2guntas in Sy.No.406 of Kodgal Village. On the strength of the same, R.Sudhakar Reddi had executed Sada Binama, dated 20.01.1983 1n respect of the land admeasuring Ac.l.l0guntas ln Sy.No.403, Ac.3. l9guntas ln Sy.No.404, Ac.5.1 lguntas llt Sy.No.406 in total Ac. lO.00guntas in favour of f'ather ol respondents by name Gorige Mallaiah. The same was regularized as per the procedure laid down underthe Act, 1971 and the Rules issued Forms l3A, 13B and 13C and regularized the Sada Binama

¶138

23" Pursuant to Form No. l3(B), pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in favour of Gorige Mallaiah who had executed a registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.761l2010 dated 16.02.2010 in favour of his wife Smt. Gorige Narsamma in respect of

¶139

¶140

1n the land admeasuring Ac.4.O0guntas Sy.No.406/A out of AC.5.1 lguntas. Mutation proceedings in favour of her tu'o sons i.e. G.Parvathalu and G.Pullaiah r,"'ere issued. Thev have executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.6063/2010 dated 31.11.2010 in favour of Nimma Saritha in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.24 guntas in Sy.No.406 and Ac.0. l2guntas in Sy.No.404/,4.. Nimma Saritha had mortgaged the aloresaid land and other lands as security for repayment of the Credit Facilities sanctioned by the erstwhile Andhra bank, Kothapet Branch, Hyderabad to M/s. Shectal Breeding }rarrns Private Limited to which her husband was the Director. The said borrower committed default in repayment of the loan and therefore auction was conducted as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, and a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed before the District Collector, and the District Collector vide order dated 14.06.2016 directed the Tahsildar, Jedcherla to take possession of the said propefty and 7 other properties fully described in the said order. Accordingly, Tahsildar has taken possession of the aforesaid propenies. The erstwhile Andhra Bank, Kothapet brought all the properties offered as security including Ac.3.24guntas out of Ac.5.l I guntas tn Sy.No.406/A for auction for recovery of the amounts due under SARIAESI Act. M/s.

¶141

¶142

¶143

Venkateswara Hatcheries Private Limited participated and stood as the highest bidder at Rs.3,94,30,050/- including the aforesaid property i.e. Ac.3.24guntas out of Ac.5.1lguntas in Sy.No.406/A of Kodgal Village Sale certificate No.5809/2018, dated 12.03.2018 was issued in lavour of M/s.Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Limited which is in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid^propefty also obtained mutation proceedings, converslon proccedings and pennission from the authorities concemed and constructed poultry sheds.

¶144

24" Sri M.Damodar Reddy, leamed counsel appearing for petitioners in all the aforesaid rvrit petitions rvould contend that the representation filed by Gorige Mallaiah under Section 9 of the Act chaltenging the order dated I 1.06.2009 passed by the RDO, Mahabubnagar was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2012. There is no challenge to the said order. Therefore, the said order attained finality. Pursuant to the said order, the l'ahsildar, Jadcherla vide order dated 12.12.2012 in case in case No.A/73 1712012 restored the name of the petitioner as pattadar in respect of the aforesaid land admeasuring Ac.5.l I guntas in Sy.No.402 and the same has become final. Therefore, the name of the petitioner has to be restored as per the orders dated I 1.06.2009. The said facts were not considered by the Tahsildar in the

¶145

¶146

order dated 08.02.2020. The constitution ol the aioresaid Committee bv the District Collector vide proceedings dated 23.11.2022 is also illegal.

¶147

In view ofthe same. it is relevant to note that the respondents in aforesaid ROR appeals have filed separate revisions under Section 9 of the Act before the Joint Collector. Mr. Gorige Mallaiah has also filed a separate revision challenging the said order dated I 1.06.2009 passed by the RDO. The Joint Coilector has passed separate orders dismissing all the revisions including the rcvision filed by Gorige Mallaiah vide order dated 25.07.2012.

¶148

It is not in dispute that Gorige Mallaiah did not challenge the aforesaid order dated 25.07.2012 passed by the Joint Cotlector dismissing the revision filed by hirn challenging the order dated 11.06.2009. But at the same time, it is also not in dispute tl.rat the orher respondents in ROR appeals have filed the aforesaid writ petitions vide W.P.No.26099, 26100, 26101 and 26103 of 2012. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide common order dated 17.09.2013 remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar to conduct fresh enquiry and also set aside the order dared 11.06.2019 of RDO, Mahabubnagar.

¶149

27 . The relevant paragraphs of the said order is extracted below:-

¶150

¶151

"ln this view of the matter. order dated 01 .07.2012 of respondent No.l is set aside. Even though order dated 11.06.2009 of respondent No.2 is not formally questioned in these writ petitions, in the light of the findings rendered above and in order to render substantial justice to all the parties, this Court is ol the opinion that the said order also needs to be set aside. Accordingly. the ordcr ol respondent No.2 dated 11.06.2009 is also set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to hold a detailed enquiry after issuing notices to both the parties and pass a speaking order as to who among the petitioners and respondent No.5 have interest in the property and are entitlcd lor mutation ol their names in the ROR. Respondent No.3 shall complete this exercise rvithin a period ofthree months lrom the date ofreceipt of this order."

¶152

Thus, vide the aforesaid common order, this Court also set aside the order dated 11.06.2009 of the RDO. Therefore, there is no need of challenging the said order dated25.07.2012 passed by the Joint Collector dismissing the revision fited by Gorige Mallaiah challenging the aforesaid order dated I 1.06.2009 of the RDO. The petitioner herein did not file any appeal challenging the aforesaid common order. In view of the same, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 11.06.2009 passed by the RDO, Mahabubnagar which is set aside by this Court attained finality and that the said order dated I 1.06.2009 has to be implemented is unsustainable. Therefore, the

¶153

¶154

petitioner herein cannot seek to implernent the order dated I 1.06.2009 of RDO which was set aside by this Court.

¶155

In view of the same, the reliefs sought by the petitioner in W.P.No.26705 of 2022 to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. District Collector, Mahabubnagar and Tahsildar. Jadcherla in continuing the name of the petitioner as pattadar and possessor in revenue records in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.5. I I guntas at Kodgal Village, Jadcherla Mandal, against the orders passed by the Court and the revenue officials, cannot be granted for which the petitioner is not entitled. Therefore, W.P.No.26705 of 2022 is liable to be dismissed as the Tahsildar, Jadcherla, on remand of the aforesaid matter pursuant to common order dated 17.09.2013 in W.p.No.26099 ol 2012 and batch, after conducting enquiry has passed order dated O4.OZ.2OI4 in case No.A/346912013 with categorical finding which is extracted below:_

¶156

"Upon verification and perusal of origina[ Khasra pahani for the year !954-55, the entries made available in the true extract of Khasra pahani produced by the appellant is not tallied with the original entries available in the original Khasra Pahani. Further the name of Buranoddin is subsequently added in the certified copy issued from Tahsil olfice, .radcherla, w.hich clearrl.' reveals the subsequent adding beneath the originar pattadar entry. Further upon perusal of all the subsequent revenue records, right from Scssala pahani to tilr to date no such name of Buranoddin is established. In the circumstanccs. it is clearly revealed that the appellant herein has added the name of-Buranoddin

¶157

¶158

subsequently after issue as certified copy liom Tahsil offlce. He added/Fabricated the name of Buranoddin with a mala fde intention. lfreally Buranoddin is pattadar. his name nlust be available in the original Khasra Pahani. Since his name is not available in the original Khasra Pahani as such it is clearly established that the appellant has added the name of Buranoddin in the certified copy of khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 beneath the entries of Sri Sudhakar Reddy.

¶159

Further to assertion faclual position and^possession of the suit Sun'ey Numbers either by the appellant i.e. Md.Suleman and respondent No.5 beiore the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.Hyderabad never observed in possession and in personal local enquiry with the adjacent pattedars at village and all prominent persons in the village also revealed either the appellants father by name Buranuddin or his successors ever cultivatcd the suit lands and also their names not appeared in any revenue record in Khasra Pahani or any subsequent records including Sessala Pahani."

¶160

With the said observations, Tahsildar, Jadcherla in the order dated 04.02.2014 held that the name of Buranuddin is subsequently added in the certified copy issued by the Tahsil office, Jadcherla and produced by the appetlant/petitioner herein is found with a malo fde intention to grab the subject property illegally. The name of Buranuddin is not at all recorded in the original record of Khasra Pahani, it is purely bogus and fabricated one. Therefore, the application of Mr.Suleman and others for issuance ofpattadar passbooks in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5.l lguntas in Sy.No.406/A of Kodgal Vitlage cannot be considered. He has also gave a categorical finding that the order dated 1 1.06.2009

¶161

¶162

was set aside by the High Court^{and therefore, the question olrestoring} the name of the petitioner in^{revenue recorddoes not arise.}

¶163

It is also relevant to^{rlote that if the petitioner is aggrievedby} the said order dated 04.02.2014^{passed by Tahsildar, Jadcherla, he has to} file an appeal under Section^{5(B) of the Act,1971 within thirtydays.} But he has not filed any such^{appeal.However,ti.re petitionerlrereinhad} filed a suit vide O.S.No.4 of^{2013 againstGorige Mallaiah, Nimma} Saritha for perpetual^{injunctionand also obtained orders of injunction} and police protection. He has^{also filed writ petition videW.P.No.l3528} of 2019 complaining that the^{policeare not providing police protection} pursuant to the Court orders, but^{the said writ petitionwas closed. He} has submitted a representation^{dated13'11.2019to the Tahsildar,} Jadchrela, to implement the^{order datedI1.06'2019 ofRDO,} Mahabubnagar. Since the said representation^{was not considered,he has} filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.29269^{of 2019 and this Court disposed} of the said writ petition vide^{order dated 06.01.2020 directingthe} Tahsildar to consider the^{aforesaid representationand passorders.The} petitioner herein had also filed^{a writ petition videW.P.No.365 18 of} 2015 challenging the aforesaid^{order dated04.02.2014.Thesame was} withdrawn. Thereafter, he has filed the aforesaid suit^vide

¶164

¶165

O.S.No.32l2020 seeking declaration and also recovery of possession in

¶166

respect of certain suit schedule properties. The said suit is pending.

¶167

Thus, the aforesaid facts would reveal that the petitioner herein did not challenge the order dated 04.02"2014 of Tahsitdar, Jadcherla wherein he gave aforesaid categorical finding rhat the petitioner herein has created the aforesaid Khasra Pahani, but he has never been in possession of the property etc. Even in the suit O.S.No.22 of 2020 revenue officials including Tahsildar who passed order clated 04.02.2014 are not parties. Thereflore, the aloresaid order dated 04.02.20 1 4 attained fi nality.

¶168

Pursuant to the order dated 06.01.2020 in W.P.No.29269 of 2019 the Tahsildar, Jadcherla has passed an order dated 08.02.2020 ignoring his findings in the order d,ated 04.02.2014. It was also held that the order dated I1.06.2009 of the RDO was set aside by the High Court and therefore, the petitioner's claim is untenable. In fact, the petitioner herein had obtained the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2020 in W.P.No.29269 of 2019 with suppression of material facts. The said facts were considered by Tahsildar in the order dated 08.02.2020.

¶169

Perusal of the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2020 in W.P.No.29269 of 2020, there'is no reference with regard to the

¶170

¶171

aforesaid AGPA bearing^{docutnent No.688 of 2008, dated 02.02.2008} executed by the petitioner^{in favcut'ofDavidShantharaj. Thus,there is} suppression of fact.^{The said lacts were consideredby Tahsildarin the} order dated 08.02.2020.^{As riglrtly heldby him,the petitiorrel is seeking} to implement the order^{dated I I.06.2009 of RDO w'hichwasset aside by} this Court vide common^{order dated17.09.2013in W.P.No'26099 of} 2012 and batch. Therefore,^{there is tto error in the orderdated} 08.02.2020 passed by Tahsildar,^{Jadcherla. The petitioner herein failed} to make out any case^{to interferewiththe aforesaidorder and therefore,} W.P.No.4002 of 2020^{challenging the order dated08.02.2020of} Tahsildar, Jadcherla is liable^{to be dismissed.}

¶172

It is relevant to note^{that the petitioner herein had also fileda} rvrit petition vide W.P.No.43067 of^{2022 challengingthe proceedings} dated 22.11.2022 issued by^{DistrictCollector, Mahabubnagar} appointing Team of Officers^{to inspectthe subjectproperty and submit} report. The said proceedings^{were issued in compliance with the orders} dated 04.07.2022 in W.P.No.2784l^{of 2022 to declarethe action of the} District Collector, Mahabubnagar,^{Tahsildar,Jadcherla innot} considering the application dated^{26.09 .201 8 submitted by the petitioner} requesting to restore his nameⁱⁿ ROil^{in respectof land admeasuring}

¶173

¶174

Ac.36. l9guntas in Sy.No.405 and 406 of Kodgal Vitlage as illegal. This Cou( vide aforesaid order dated 04.07.2022 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition permitting the petitioner to submit online application seeking the reliefs for restoring of his name in revenue records in respect of the subject land within two weeks and on submission of the said application, the District Collector shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This Court also directed the District Collector to put the petitioner and David Shanth Raj who is claiming the right over the property under registered AGPA bearing document No.688 of 2008 dated 01.02.2008 on notice.

¶175

In the said writ petition, the petitioner herein did not disclose the aforesaid facts including the lact ol setting aside the order dated I1.06.2009 by this Court. He has also not disclosed the sale of the land by the sons of Gorige Maltaiah i.e. respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.43067 of 2022 in favour of Nimma Saritha who in rum mortgaged the subject property with Andhra Bank, in respect of land obtained by M/s. Sheetal Breeding Farms Private Limited to which her husband was the Director. There is no mention about the delault committed by the said company and auction conducted by erstwhile Andhra Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act bringing atl

¶176

¶177

rhc properties^{offeredas security inctuding Ac'3'24guntas out of} Ac.5.l l guntas^{in Sy.No'406/Afor alrctitrn for recoveryof the amounts} due. M/s. Venkateswara^{HatcheriesPrivate Limited stoodas the highest} biddcr at Rs.3,94,30,050r-^{including the aforesaidproperty' sale} certificate^{rvas issued in its favour. Sincethen the company is in} possession and^{enjoymentof the aforesaidpropefty and ithas} constructed^{pouttry sheds and necessarypermissionsfrom the} authorities concemed.

¶178

3T.ItisalsorelevanttonotethatthoughthisCourttakerrnoteol the execution of the^{aforesaidAGPA by the petitioner hereinin t'avour} of David shantharaj.^{The aforesaiddocument, the petitioner herein has} obtained^{permission to make online applicationwith the District} Collector seeking^{mutationol his name by suppressingthe facts'} Therefore, the^{said order is not on consideration of the fact' The} petitioner herein^{failed to disclose the order dated 06.01.2020in} W.P.No.29269^{of 2019 passed by this Court directingthe Tahsildarto} consider the^{representationdated 08.11.2019.Thus,there is clear} suppression^{of the facts by the petitioner herein. Pursuant to the said} order dated 04.ol^{.2o2ow.P.No.2784l o12020and in complianceof the} same, the District^{Collector,N{ahabubnagarvide proceedingsdated}

¶179

¶180

22.11.2022 appointed Team of Olficers i.e. the District Panchayat Officer Mahabubnagar, the Assitant Director (Survey and Land Records) Mahabubnagar, the RDO Mahabubnagr, Tahsildar Jadcherla, to inspect the site jointly and fumish a detailed report. Thus, as discussed supra, the petitioner herein has obtained the aforesaid order dated 04.07.2022 in W.P.No.2784l of 2022 by suppression of facts and the said order was passed without considering the aforesaid aspects including common order dated 17.09.2013 in W.P.No.26099 of 2012 and batch, there is no need to conduct joint inspection. Thereflore, the proceedings dated 22.11.2022 are also set aside.

¶181

It is relevant to note that in W.P.No.43067 of 2022 on one hand, the petitioner has contended that during the pendency of the suit vide O.S.No.22 of 2020, the petitioner had executed registered AGPA. The District Collector, vide proceedings dated 22J1.2022 appointed a team of officers to conduct inspection and submit report, on the other hand, in the foresaid two writ petitions vide W.P.No.4002 of 2022 and 26705 of 2022, he sought to restore his claim and implement the aforesaid order dated 11.06.2022. Thus, the contentions ofthe petitioner are contradictory he has fited the aforesaid writ petitions in suppression of facts. He has obtained interim order dated 25.02.2020 in

¶182

)

¶183

¶184

W.P.No.4002 of2O22. i.e. status qto^{with regard to entriesin revenue} records which was extended by six months^{videorder dated23.06.2020.} Thus, the entire action of the^petitioner in filing^{the aforesaid writ} petitions with suppression of facts again seeking^{consequentialdirection} to znd respondent i.e. District Collector,^{Mahabubnagarin} W.P.No.43067 of 2022, to decide the^{issue which is involved in} F.No.D1,/ROR/002012002 as to validity of the AGPA^{and its} implementation in ROR in favour of^{4'h respondenti.e. G.David} Shantharaj, as per the direction^{of this Court in W.P.No.2784lof 2022} is illegal.

¶185

As discussed supra, the^{petitioner herein had obtainedthe} aforesaid order dated 04.07.2022 in^W.P.No.2784l of^{?022 by} suppression of facts and the said order^{is not on consideration of actual} facts. The petitioner is not entitled^{for the aforesaidrelief.Therefore,} W.P.No.44067 of 2022 is also liable to be dismissed^{except to the extent} of proceedings dated 22.11.2022 of District Collector^{appointinga Team} ol Officers.

¶186

It is also trite to note^{that the sons of late GorigeMallaiah i.e.} G.Parvathalu and G.Pullaiah^{havesold the land admeasuringAc.3.24} guntas out of land admeasuring Ac.5.l lguntas in Sy.No.406/A of

¶187

¶188

Kodgal Village in favour of Smt. Nimma Saritha vide a registered sale deed bearing No.6063 of 2010, dated 31.11.2010. The said Nimma Saritha mortgaged the said property as security with Andhra Bank, in respect of land obtained by M/s. Sheetal Breeding Farms Private Limited to which husband of Nimma Saritha was the Director" There is no mention about the default committed by the said company and auction conducted by erstwhile Andhra Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act bringing all the properties offered as security including Ac.3.24guntas out ol- Ac.5. I lguntas in Sy.No.406/A for auction fbr recovery ol the amounts due. N4/s. Venkateswara Hatcheries Private Limited stood as the highest bidder at Rs.3,94,30,050/- including the aforesaid property and sale certificate was issued in its favour and since then the company is in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid propefty and it has constructed poultry sheds and necessary permissions lrom the authorities concemed. The petitioner is fully aware of the said facts and filed the aforesaid suit vide O.S.No.22 of 2020 against Nimma Sarita (D.9), IWs. Venkateswara Hatcheries Private Limited^(D.16) which is evident from the plaint of said suit.

¶189

It is trite to note that as per Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect, notwithstanding

¶190

-1(l

¶191

any,thing irrconsistent therewith contairred in any other^{larv for the tirne} being in force or any instrument having effect by^{virtue of any such law.} Thus, the provisions o1'SARFA,ESI Act are having overriding^effecton other laws.

¶192

As discussed supra, N4/s. Venkateswara Hatcheries^Private Limited had purchased aforesaid land in auction conducted^{by erstwhile} Andhra Bank, as per the procedure laid down under SARFAESI^Act. Possession was also delivered. Therefore, the^{petitionelhereincannot} seek implementation of his name in revenue record in^respect of^the aforesaid land as per the provisions of the Act^{I 971 . In view of the said} fact also, the petitioner is not entitled for^{the afolesaidrelief. In the} order passed in O.S.No.3 of 2015 and O.S.No.22 of^{2020, thereis no} consideration of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act^which says^{that no civil} court shall have^jurisdiction to entertain any suit or^{proceeding in} respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the^Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to^{determineandno} injunction shall be granted by any court^{or otherauthority in respectof} any action taken or to be taken^{in pursuance of any power conlerred by} or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to^Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993⁽⁵ I of 1993).^{Thus, the petitionerherein}

¶193

¶194

has obtained atbresaid orders in O.S.No.3 of 2015 and 22 of 2020 contrary to the said principle.

¶195

As discussed supra, the petitioner herein had filed the aforesaid writ petitions without disclosing the fact of execution of a registered AGPA by the petitioner, for the first time in W.P.No.27811 of 2022 disclosed about the said fact. Thus, the petitioner herein had filed the aforesaid writ petitions with suppression of facts. According to G.Parvathalu and G.Pullaiah legal heirs ol Gorige Mallaiah, they are in possession of Ac.1.27 guntas in Sy.No.406/A after selling Ac.3-24 guntas in favour of Nimma Saritha and there is crop. The petitioner herein filed the aforesaid writ petitions, suits by suppression of material facts. The said fact was also confrnned by Tahisitdar, Jadcherla in the aforesaid written instructions.

¶196

As discussed supra, there is no challenge to the proceedings dated21.02.2014 of Tahasitdar, Jadcherla, wherein he has categorically held about manipulation of Khasra Pahani lor the year 1954-55 by adding name of the father of the petitioner and obtaining the aforesaid orders. The petitioner herein also suppressed the fact of the sale by sons of Gorige Mallaiah in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3.24 guntas in favour of Nimma Saritha. As discussed supra, he has made Nimma

¶197

¶198

Saritha and M/s.^{VenkateshrvaraHatcheriesPrivate Limitecias} delendants in O.S.No.22 ol^{2020. Thus, there is suppression of the} marerial facts in^{the aloresaiclitigation.rherefore,all the three wril} petitions are also liable^{to be dismissed.}

¶199

It is also relevant to^{note that the petitioner herein filed a} W.P.No.42661 of^{2015 to declare the action of the Tahsildar,Jadcherla} in not implementing^{the order passedby the 3'd respondentin File No'} B/ROR/3379/2008^{in respectof the land admeasuringAc 3-00 in Sy'No'} 406 situated at Kodgal^{Village' JadcherlaMandal, thoughthe orders} passed by 3'd respondent^{dated I1.06'2009have becomefinal upon the} dismissal of W.P.No.20^{887l2OOg filed by 5th respondentchallengingthe} order of 3'd respondent^{dated11.06.2009 as illegal and witha} consequential direction^{to Tahsildar,Jadcherla to implementthe orders} of the RDO dated I 1. 06.2009^{in so far as Ac 3-00 of land in Sy No 406} in his favour^{The said writ petition whencame up lor hearing on} 31.12.2015, this^{Court recordedthe submission made by the petitioner} that 5th respondent^{had challengedthe saidorderin W.P'No'20887of} 2009 and the^{said writ petitionwas dismissedon 16-12-2014and} thereby, the order^{of 3'd respondenthas attainedfinality. In view of the} same, this^{Courtdirected the Tahisldar, Jadcherla, to examinethe}

) )

( I

request of the petitioner and take appropriate necessary steps expeditiously. In fact, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition and obtained the aforesaid order by misrepresentation of facts. By the above said date, he has already executed the aforesaid registered AGPA. Even the petitioner herein had suppressed the aforesaid order dated 31.12.2015 in W.P.No.42661 of 2015 in the subsequent proceedings. There is suppression of the lact by the petitioner at every stage of the every proceedings.

¶204

It is also trite to note that the petitioner herein had filed the aforesaid suit O.S.No.22 ol 2020 to declare him as absolute owner of schedule-A property i.e. land admeasuring Ac.2 I .01 guntas ln Sy.No.405, Ac.l9.l2 guntas in Sy.No.406 and the land admeasuring Ac.40- l3guntas ol Kodgal village. There is no declaration sought by the petitioner to declare the afbresaid AGPA as illegal and null and void. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said agreement was cancelled by the petitioner by way of issuing legal notice dated 21.08.2012. It is relevant to note that the petitioner cannot cancel a registered document by way of issuance of legal notice. The said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner the said document is non-est as per Section 58 ol'the Registration Act, is untenable.

Perusal of^{the aforesaid registeredAGPAwoutdreveal that} the petitioner^{helein and othershave executedthe saiddocumentin} lavour ol G.David^{Shanth Raj, r'espondent No'4 in W'P'No'43067ol} 2022 in respect of^{scl.redulepropcrtiestherein includingthe land} admeasuring Ac.^{19-12 gunts in Sy'l'Jo'406,and Ac'21'0lguntasin} Sy.No.405.^{They have receiveC an amount of Rs'42,42'000/-from} G.David Shanth^{Raj. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the} al.oresaid document^{is cancelledby way of the aforesaid legal noticeis} untenable.

¶210

48.lntheresult,thesewritpetitionsaredismissedwithcostsol

¶211

Rs.50,000/-^{(Fifty thousand rupees only) payable by the petitionerto} respondent Nos.4^{and 5 i.e. GorigeParvathalu and Gariga I)ullaiah' sons} ofGorigeMallaiahwithinonemonthfromthedateofreceiptofacopy of this order. It^{is madeclear that leamedSenior civil Judge,} Mahabubnagar^{and leamedJunior civilJudge, .ladcherlashallconsider} the aforesaid^{factual aspectswhile decidingO'S'No'22of 2020 and} O.S.No.4^{of 2013 resPectivelY'}

¶212

Consequently,^{miscellaneouspetitions. ifany, shallstand closed'}

¶213

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

¶214

WRIT PETITION Nos: 26705.43067 OF 2022 AND 4002 OF 2020

¶215

Costs Quantified by Hon'ble Court (That the Petitioner herein in all the Writ Petitions is directed to pay costs of Rs.50,0001 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 i.e., Gorige Parvathalu and Gariga Pullaiah sons of Gorige Mallaiah within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Rs. ps.

50,000-00 50,000-00

TOTAL

SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGFRAR //TRUE COPY// g/ SECTION OFFICER

¶220

To 1. The Senior Civil Judge, lr,'lahabuabnagar. 2. The Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla. 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4. One CC to SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to tt//s. V.DYUtt/ANl, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI V.IMURALI MANOHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI B.SUDHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI CH.SAMSON BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies P Sfu-

It t

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810112023

COMMON ORDER

F- ST47 F
,^f.
s
//;
)
o 31 l[N ?$8 r)
\ i ";i