Allowed

B.Anitha v. The State of Telangana, And 5 Others

Telangana HC9 Jan 2023WP/29962/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging regularization of an unregistered simple sale deed under Section 5A of the Telangana Rights in Land Act, 1971. Held: Such a deed is an agreement to sell, not a completed transfer; non-marginal farmers are ineligible; procedure not followed. Impugned proceedings set aside.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings No.SB/NG/BG/AM/2016/11753 dated 11.09.2019 issued by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4.07 guntas in Survey No.505A/3, Motakondur Vill

B.Anitha Vs The State of Telangana, And 5 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 29962 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

B.Anitha, Wo. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ ; Housewife, R/o.H.No.3-48, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Opposite Uppal Depot, Boduppal, Peerzadiguda, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The District Collector, Yadadri -Bhuvanagiri District.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongiri Revenue Division, YadadriBhuvanagiri District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Motakondur Mandal, Yadadri -Bhuvanagiri District.

¶16

P.Simharayulu, S/o. lnnaiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ ;Agriculture, Rl/o Sikindarnagar Village, Motakondur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

¶17

P. Agasteen, S/o.lnnaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ ; Agriculture,

¶18

R/o. Sikindarnagar Village, Motakondur Mandal , Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. ,/

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition Under^pfticle 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 such appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly, in the nature of a Writ of certiorari. (i) declaring the action of the respondents herein more particularly Respondent No.4 herein in regularizing the bogus sale deed alleged to have been executed by the settlor of the Petitioner herein in respect of Iand admeasuring Ac.4.07 gts in Sy.No-505 A/3, of Motakondur Village Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District through proceedings bearing No.SBiNG/BG/AM1201611753, dated^111912019 in favour of Respondent No.s and 6 without issuing any notice to the Petitioner herein or her^{predecessor-in-} title against the provisions of old RoR Act, 1971, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and without^jurisdiction and⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ consequently, set aside regularization

¶21

proceedings bearing No.SB/NG/BG/AM1201611753, dated 1"11912015 of Respondent Ncj.4 herein with further direction to remove the names of the Respondent No.5 and 6 in respect of subject land by cancelling their passbooks.

¶22

(Prayer is amended as per Court Order dated 16-11-2022 in l.A.No. 1/2022)

¶23

I.A.NO:1 OF 2021

¶24

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 dispense with filing of copy of regularization proceedings bearing No.B/1735/19 dated 111912019 of Respondent No.4 herein, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶25

|.A.NO:2 OF 2021

¶26

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 operation of regularization proceedings bearing No.B/1735/19 dated 111912019 of Respondent No.4 herein, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s.L.VANI

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'t to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.s & 6 : SRI.PASALA JOJAPPA

¶30

The Court made the following ORDER

¶31

HON'BLE SRI JTISTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.29962 OF 2021

¶33

OITDEIT:

¶34

Hcard Mrs. L.Vani, lealned counsel for the petitioner, learnecl Covemment Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf ol respondent Nos. I to 4 and Mr. Pasala Jojappa, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶35

This writ petition is filed to declare the action ol respondents, more particularly, respondent No.4 in regularizing the bogus sale deed alleged to have been executed by the Settler of the petitior.rer herein in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4.07 guntas in Survey No.505Ai3, situated at Motakondur Village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District through proceedings No.SB/NG/ BGlAW20l6ll753, dated I 1.09.2019 in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 without issuing any notice to the petitioner or her predecessorir,-titlc and against the provisions ol I'elangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Acl, l97 l (fbr shorr'Act, l97I') as illega!, and consequently set asi<,le the same by directing resporrdent No.4 to

\ \

;

KT-.J W.l'. No.29962 ol :01I

¶41

had submitted a written r:epresentation dated 18.06.2020 with respor.rdent No.3 to set aside the aforesaid regularization proceedings No action was taken by respondent No.3. Therefore. she had filed^a writ petition vidc' W.P. No.1 1208 of 2020, and this Court disposed ol the said writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to^prefera statutory appeal under Section - 5l] ofthe Acl, l97l bef,ore respondent No.3, and respondent No.3 uas directed to dispose of the said appeal in accordance with law within a period of six (06) months.

¶42

vi) Accordingly, the petitioner had prefened an appeal befbre respondent No.3 on 07.08.2020 and in view of promulgation of Act, 2020, the appeal was transferred to Special Tribunal, Yadadri Bhongir District However, the said appeal was not taken up by the Special Tribunal, the petitioner had filed a writ petition vide W.P. a No. 18719 of 2(t2l , and this Court disposed of the same wirh direction to decjde the appeal in accordance with law. The Special Tribunal refused to take up the matter on the premise that responcient No.3 did not nurnber the appeal preferred by the petitioner, it is not pending. Therefrrre, the Special Tribunal is not in a position to decide

¶43

) )

¶44

¶45

KL,J W P. No.29962 of202l

¶46

the same. Since there is no other altemative, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶47

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NOS.S AND 6:

¶48

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed counter contending as tbllows:

¶49

i) They have purchased the subject property from the husband ol'the petitioner under a Sada Bainama (Simple Sale Deed) dated 3 1.05.2009 by paying consideration.

¶50

ii) Since there was dispute with regard to the payment ol' consideration, panchayat was held, wherein consideration was enhanced and the same was paid. Only an amount of Rs.59,8651^is due to the husband ofthe petitioner.

¶51

iii) Despite efforts made by respondent Nos.5 and 6, husband ol the petitioner did not come forward to execute a registered sale deed in their favour. Therefore, they have approached respondent No.4 by way of submitting Form 5,{ for regularization of the said simple sale deed through Mee^Seva on^15.06.2016.

¶52

\ \

¶53

¶54

Kt,,J \'.P. No.29962 of 2021

¶55

iv) Respondent No.4 had issued impugned proceedings dated 11.09.2019 strictly lbllowing the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Act. l97l .^'Ihere is no error in it. E,nquiry was conducted and Panchanarua was drawn before passing the impugned proceedings. Neitl.rer the husband of the petitioner, nor the petitioner appeared before respondent No.4.

¶56

v) Initialll , the aloresaid application dated 15.06.20216 was rejected without assigning any reasons. Therefore, they had requested the Recording Authority time and again to take appropriate enquiry and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, respondent No.4 has conducted enquiry in accordance rvith procedure laid down under the Act, 197 i and also the Rules nrade thereunder, issued impugned proceedings and, thercafter issued latest pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Thus, there is no error in it.

¶57

ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

¶58

i) Challenge to the impugned proceedings by the petitioner is

¶59

on the following grounds:

'.|

KL.J W.P. No.29962 ol202l

¶65

a) Husband of the petitioner never executed any document including lhe sada bainama dated 31.05.2009 in favour of rcspondent Nos.5 and 6;

¶66

b) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have created the aforesaid document;

¶67

c) It is only an Agreement of Sale, but not sale deed;

¶68

d) It is not a registered document;

¶69

e) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not Marginal Farmers and, therefore, they are not entitled for regularization in terms of Section - 5A. olthe Act, l97l;

¶70

0^{E,ven as per the simple saledeed filed by respondentNos.5and} 6, they have not paid the consideration to the husband of the petltloner;

¶71

g) No notice was served either on the husband of the petitioner or

¶72

on the petitioner before issuance of the impugned proceedings;

¶73

h) Therefore, the entire action of respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned Forms 13-B and 13-C, both dated 11.09.2019 and

\ l

KL,.J W.P. No.29962 of^201|

¶78

Pattadar Passbooks issued on 26.10.2019 and 28.10.2019^is

¶79

illegal.

¶80

ii) WP is opposed on the following grounds:

¶81

a) It is a sale deed and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have paid agreed sale considerationi

¶82

b) Whereas, the husband of the petitioner demanded more money, lor rvhich a partcltavat was held in the presence of the village elders, wherein sale consideration was enhanced and even the enhanced consideration was paid;

¶83

c) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are due and liable to pay only an amount of Rs.59,865/- which they are ready to pay;

¶84

d) Despite specilic request. lrusband of the petitioner did not tum up for execution of registered sale deed;

¶85

e) Therefore, they hal'e submitted Form - 5A with respondent No.4 through Mee Scva on 15.06.2016. The same was

¶86

rejected without assigning any reasons;

¶87

¶88

¶89

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of202l

¶90

l) Therefore, they requested respondent No.4 to conduct proper enquiry by following due procedure laid down under the Act, l97l;

¶91

g) Accordingly, respondent No.4 conducted enquiry strictly in accordance with law and issued Form 138 and l3C. both dated 11.09.2019 in lavour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and also the proceedings. It is a sale in terms of Section - 54 ofthe Transfer ofPropefty Act, 1882. Therefore, there is no errol' ln lt;

¶92

h) Reliance was also placed on the copies of the simple sale deed dated 31.05.2009, receipt 05.06.2009; Form t2 Notice, dated 26.07.2016, panchanama dated 15.03.2017 and enquiry proceedings dated 15.03.2017 and memo dated 21 .03.2017 etc

¶93

iii) In view of the aloresaid rival submissions, the issues that

¶94

fell fbr consideration before this Court are:

¶95

(a) Whether respondent Nos.5 and 6 are entitled^for regularization proceedings under Section -5A^{of the Act,}

¶96

\ \ t

KI,.J w.P. No.29962 ol202l

¶101

I97 I basing on an unregislered 'Sada Bainama'^(simple sale deed) dated I1.05.2009?

¶102

(b) Whether respondent Nos.5 and 6, being non-marginal f'arnrers are entitlc-d for regularization proceedings? and

¶103

¶104

iv) Adrrittedly, the .Sada Bainama is dated I1.05.2009. It is scribed in Telugu. Translation Copy is also filed. Perusal of the same would reveal thal the husband of the petitioner being the owner of the subject land agreed to sell thc' same on 17.11.2005 in the presence of the Well-wishers/Mediators. Rs.52,000/- per acre was agreed as sale consideration. An advanc.' of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- were received. There was a cornplaint to the elders/med iators about the rate being very lou and, therefore, Ttanchayat was held, mediators/elders have decided to increase the rate to Rs.3,50,000/- @ Rs.82,000i- per acfe. On 3i.05.2009, an arlount of Rs.30,000/- was paid. Balance amount was agreed to pa!' starting from 05.06.2009 and to get

¶105

¶106

¶107

KL.J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

¶108

registration done. Thus, as per the said simple sale deed, an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- was paid to the husband of the petitioner leaving balance of Rs.59,865/-.

¶109

v) Whereas, retbrring to the receipt/MOU, dated 05.06.2009, lcamed counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 would submit that a panchayar was held in the presence of the elders/mediators with regard to the consideration. In the panchayat, elders have decided to increase the sale consideration, and as per the said decision, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have paid an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to the brother of the husband of the petitioner herein i.e., Bobbala Yadi Reddy. According to him, the husband of the petitioner was not present and the said amount was paid to his brother since they belong to one family.

¶110

vi) Thus, respondent Nos.5 and 6 did not pay the aforesaid part consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the husband of the petitioner i.e., Bobbala Narayana Reddy. The petitioner is disputing the very cxecution of the simple sale dced dated 31.05.2009 said to have^been entered between the husband ol the^petitioner and respondent^Nos.5

KL.J W.P. N0.2996 Doll0ll

¶115

Factual and 6. There is specific asserlion to the said effect.^'Ihe said aspects including the genuinity ol execution of the aforesaid Iimple sale deed cannot be gone inlo either by respondent No.4 un<Iel the Act, 1971 or this Courl under Article - 226 ol the Constitu ion of lndia. It is for the competenl iurisdictional Civil Court to dec lde the said aspects

¶116

vii) Section - 5,A. of the Act, 1971 deals with regularza[ion of certain alienations or other transfers of lands. Respondent Nos1.5 and 6 sought to regularize the subject land basing on the aforesai il sada bainama. Regularization of sada bainama by invoking the probedure laid down under the provisions of the Act, 1971 is no mclre res integra. A leamed Judge ol the combined High Court of IIndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in V. Krishnaiah v. Joint Col fector, Mahabubnagarr categorically held that the scope of e Fqurry under Section - ,5A of the Acl. 1971 and the relevant rules is imited and restricted. In a case where the alleged transferor or alienot |^flatly denies the execution of the document, in relation to the trans Fc^{t ron,} which is sought to be regularized, or where he takes the p lea of 2007 (3) ALT^.720

I']

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

¶121

limitation. Once the execution of the document is disputed, its genuinity can be decided only alier a trial and by applying the principles enunciated in the Evidence Act. If a plea of limitation is raised, necessary issue has to be framed, and a finding thereon has to be recorded. With the limited nature of powers conferred upon a Recording Authority, such a stupendous task becomes almost impossible for the Recording Authority.

¶122

viii) A Division Bench of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Konkana Ravinder Goud v. Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society2, referring to agreement of sale held that agreement of sale cannot be termed as a complete contract of sale. Agreement to sell does not convey any right, title or interest in the property. From the intent and purport of the Act, it is clear that what was sought to be validated was only a completed contract of sale, which for want of registration, in view of the provisions of the Registration Act had not the effect, of conveying rights, title or interest in favour of the purchaser. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid^judgment are extracted as under:

. 200i (5) ALD 654

\ i

KL.J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

¶128

"62. Agreement to sell does not convey any right, title or interest in the property. Supieme Court in K. Seetharama Reddy and Arr. v. I lassan Ali Khan, , examined the effect of execution of an agrecment ol sale. It was argued before the Supreme Court that in India also like England on execution ol agreement of sale equitable interest in the property is created. Repelling this argument, it was held that the English doctrine of conversion ol realty into personality cannot be bodily lifted f.rom its native English soil and transplanted in statute-bound India lau. But. we have to notice that man)'olthe principles olEnglish Equity have taken statutory lorm in India and have been incorporated in occasional provisions of various Indian statutes such as the Indian Trusts Act, the Specific Relief Act, Transfer of Propertv Act etc. and where a question of interpretation of such Equity based statutory provisions arises we will be well justified in seeking aid lrom the Equity source. The concept and creation ol duality ol ownership, legal and equitable, on the execution of an agreemcnt to convey immoveable property, as understood in England is alien to Indian Law, which recognises one orvner i.e. the legal orvner. Relying upon the decisions in Rambaran Prosad's case (supra) and Narandas Karsondas case (supra) and, referring to Section 54 of Transfer of Propertv Act, Apex Court held that ultimate paragraph of Sectior-r 54 of the Transfer of Property Act enunciates that a contract ol thc sale of irnrnovable propefty does not,

¶129

t I

¶130

¶131

KL.J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

¶132

¶133

¶134

of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. The ultimate and penultimate paragraphs ol Section 40 ol the Transfer of Property Act create an obligation, annexed to the ownership of immovable property, not amounting an interest in the property. Thus, the only right a person acquires by execution of agreement is not an interest in the property but a right to seek enforcement of the agreement by resorting to provisions of the Specific Relief Act and filing a suit to enlorce the agreement of sale.

¶135

The intent and purport ol the Act is very much clear that what was sought to be validated was only a completed contract ol sale, which for want of registration, in view of the provisions of the Registration Act had not the effect, of conveying rights, title or interest in favour of the purchaser. The leamed Single Judge proceeded to hold that the transfer or alienation made by agreement of sale can be regularised by placing reliance upon few decisions of the Supreme Court and ol the I {igh Courts lor which wc need not go into the details since the very approach of the leamed Judge to the answer is erroneous. Such decisions could not have been made the basis in holding so. Instead of taking the definition ol word "transfer" as contained in the Transtbr ol Property Act. the leamed Single Judge proceeded to make use ol the dictionary meaning ol the word "transfer" and placed reliance upon the decision ol the Supreme Court in Pandey v. Ramchandra, The Suprcme Court in that case.^proceeded to interpret the^word

(

Kt,.J W.P. No.29962 ol202l

¶142

'transfer" as contained in Section 71-A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. In the abscnce ol deflnition of the word 'transfer" under the provisions of the said Act, the Supreme Court held that considcring the objects and reasons of Chotanagpur Tenancy AcL more particularly Section 7lA of the said Act it was not proper to confine the meaning ol the term "transfer" under the Transfer of Property Act or a statutory transfer, The Supreme Court proceeded to hold that even passing of possession from one person to the other as per scheme of the Act would amount to transfer. In our view. the ratio of the said decision could not have been made applicable while interpreting the word "transfer" as contained in Section - 5A of the Act, the scheme of which is different as noticed by us. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy, , Commissioner of Incomc Tax v. Podar Cement Private l.imited, . and Balraj v. Commissioner of Income Tax, , wherein in a dif-ferent context the words "owner" and "transfer" \,ere construed.

¶143

In the lnstant case, we are concemed with the purport and meaning of the word "transfer" as contained in Section 5-A of the Act in the light of the objects and reasons in introducing the said provision. namely, to regularise an unregistered sale transaction. which would not rnean to regularise incomplete transfers. There is no machinery or mechanism provided in the Act that even a person who has

Kl I W.P. No.29962 of 2021

¶148

¶149

entered into an agreement ol sale and in case sale is not completed but he has been put into possession of the property even on payment ol entire sale consideration that can approach the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of a certificate under Section 5-A ol the Acr. The Mandal Revenue Officer in such a case cannot proceed to hold an enquiry as to whether agreement of sale has been complied with or not. On the failure on the part of vendor to complete the sale transaction, a person in whose favour there is an agreement of sale can seek specific performance of the agreement of sale so as to convey right, title or interest ol the vendors. The machinery provided under the Act is not the appropriate machinery for perfecting title merely on the basis of agreement to sell. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the leamed Judge that there is a valid transfer of immoveable property under agreements ol sale cannot be sustained. Thus, wc have no hesitation in holding that thc agreement ol sale relied upon by the Society is not covered by the term transfer and cannot be treated as an "alienation" or "transfer" within the scope and meaning of Section 5-A of the Act and we answer the first question accordingly."

¶150

i*) lt is also trite to note that this Court in Pamshetty Jojappa, died Per LRs. v. the State of Telangana, represented by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secreta riat,

¶151

¶152

¶153

KL.J U .I'}. No.29961 ol202l

¶154

Hyderabad3 reitcrated the alirrcsaid principte. In the said case also, the document was validated as it was not a complete contract and it was executed by the owner of the land. In the present case also, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have i;ouglrt regularization of the unregistered simple sale deed. l'herefbre, tlrcy are not entitled for regularization of the simple sale deed 1'or the lolloiving reasons:

¶155

(a) It is an unregistered sirnple sale deed (In fact, it is an agreernent ol sale);

¶156

(b) lt was pursuant to the agreement dated 17 .ll .2005;

¶157

¶158

(d) An amount of Rs.1,10.000/- was paid to the brother of the husband of the petitioner i.e., Bobbala Yadireddy under a receipt dated 05.06.200().

¶159

(e) Petitioner herein is disputing the execution of the very simple sale deed dated 31.05..1009; agreement dated 17.11.2005 and receipt dated 05.06.200q:

¶160

r. Order in W.P. No.t0558 of 2018, decided on 23.01.2020

\ I

KL,J W.P. No.29962 ol202l

¶165

(f) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 instead of seeking specific perfomance of the said agreement of sale deed dated 3 1.05.2009, sought to regularize the same in terms of Section

¶166

ofthe Act, 1971.

¶167

(g) Theretbre, respondent Nos.5 and 6 cannot consider the said simple sale deed dated 31.05.2009 and regularize the same by way ol issuing impugned proceedings No.SB,AIG/BG/AM/ 20161 17 53, dated I 1.09.201 9;

¶168

(h) In respect ol both respondent Nos.5 and 6, same proceedings number is mentioned i.e.. SBAJG/BG/AW201611753.

¶169

Therefore, the said proceedings are illegal and contrary to the procedure laid down under the Act, 197 I and also the principle laid down in the aforesaid^judgments. Thus, the same are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

¶170

x) tt is relevant to note that the Govemment of Telangana has

¶171

issued G.O.Ms.No.l53, dated 03.06.2016 with regard to regularization ol sada bainama. The last date rvas fixed to receive Form 'X' claims

¶172

uprto 15.06.2016. As per Clause - 3 (d) of the said G.O., the \

I I

KL.J W.P. No.29962 of202l

¶177

Alienee/Transferee is a srrall /marginal fanner. The Chief Commissioner of t.and Administration and the Special^Chief Secretary, has issued guidelines in the rnonth of May, 2016 lor implenrentation of said bainanta lor Executive Officers, vide CCLA's Ref.No.LR.2/62512016. Clause - 5 of the said Circular deals with

¶178

'Pre-requisite Conditions'ancl tlie same is extracted below:

¶179

'5. Pre-requisite Conditions:

¶180

a Category of larnrers covered under the scheme:

¶181

Sada Bainama holder should be a small and marginal larmer having agricullural iands up to 2.5 acres Wet or 5 Acres of Dry.

¶182

I1 Sada Bainarna should have been executed prior to on or before 02.06.2014.

¶183

ul. Sada Bainama holder shall be in possession ofthe land. The extent of Sada Bainama holders and other extents put together shall in no case exceed thc extent as per the corresponding basic revenue record. (Sethwar/khasra./pahani).

¶184

The purchaser must be small^/marginal farmer as on the date ol application.

¶185

vl 'fhe regularizations shall be applicable only to the agricultural lands located in rural areas.

¶186

:1t This scheme shall not be applicable for the transfers pertaining to the lands located in the areas of Urban Local Bodies like HMDA, Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats.

¶187

vIIl, The Tahsitdar should see that the date of Sada Bainama transaction must be prior to 02.06.2014 "

KL.J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

¶192

As per the said Clause, sada bainoma holder should be a small and marginal farmer having agricultural land up to 2.5 acres Wet or 5 acres Dry.^'['he purchaser must be small/marginal farmer as on the date of application.

¶193

xi) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed counters enclosing latest pass books, and as per the said pattadar pass books, both respondent Nos.5 and 6 are owners and possessors of agricultural land more than Acs.2.5 guntas of wet land or Acs.5.00 guntas of dry land. Therefore, they wilt not be treated as small and marginal farmers, as such, they are not entitled for regularization of the subject land.

¶194

xii) Ctause - 7 of the said guidelines deals with 'Checking Applicant details', and as per sub-clause (c), verification of rhe'sada bainama^' document and checking up the revenue records, such as pahani, ROR-lB Register and Encumbrance records for the piece of land. lf there is no encumbrance on the land, the MRO proceeds to generate the Form XI and XII. If there is an encumbrance on the land, then MRO shall genuine if the encumbrance is genuine or false. It is f'alse. then the MRO shall conduct a detailed enquiry and give a \ (

¶195

¶196

KL.J W.P. No.29962 of 2021

¶197

speaking order of its rejection.^('lause - 9 of the said guidelines deals with 'Field Inspection'. The Veritlcation Officers / Team shall verify all details with the basic recorcls. such as Sethwar / Khasra Pahani (1954-55)/Chessala Pahani (l!)5-i-58). They should also verily if the app licant/transferee is recorded in Column 13 of Pahani as on 02.06.2014 and also in physical possession and enjoyment of the said land, even though the namc is not in the l3 column of the pahani, but he is in physical possession since long time, the Tahsildar should conduct discreet local enquirl in the village by recording the statement of neighbouring pattadar etc. Such procedure was not followed by respondent No.4 rvhile issuing the aforesaid impugned proceedings

¶198

xiii) As discussed abol'c. both respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not small and marginal larmers and. therefore, they are not entitled lor regularization of the subject lancl under Section - 5A of the Act, 1971. Respondent No.4 did not lollou'the aloresaid guidelines issued by the CCLA vide the aforesaid Circular. Thus, viewed from any angle, impugned proceedings are illegal

¶199

\ \

¶200

¶201

KL.J W.P. No-29962 of 2021

¶202

xiv) It is relevant to note that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have submitted Form - 54. with respondent No.4 seeking regularization of the aloresaid simple sale deed on 15.06.2016 through Mee Seva with LD. No.ROSO2l60l2957 19. On coming to know about the said application, the petitioner had submitted objection with respondent No.4 stating that her husband never executed any sale deed including sada bainama in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 that they have created bogus documents and are trying to regularize the said sada bainama. Theretbre, considering the same, the Tahsildar had rejected the said application on 28.1 1.2016. But, there is no chalienge to the said rejection orders.

¶203

xv) However, in paragraph No.6 of the counter, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have contended that such rejection order is without reasons and it is not passed by lollowing the procedure laid down under the Act, l97l and the Rules made thereunder and, therefore, they have requested respondent No.4 to conduct proper inquiry and issue proceedings. On their request, respondent No.4 sought for reporl from the Mandal Revenue Inspector, who submitted report.

¶204

According to them, inquiry was conducted, statements were recorded \ t I

¶205

¶206

¶207

KL.J W.t'. No.29962 of 2021

¶208

and a panchanam(i was drawn. As stated above, when the application submitted by respondent Nos.5 and 6 under Section - 5A of the Act, 197 I was rejecterl, either the1, have to submit fresh application or challenge the same. They cannot request respondent No.4 to conduct proper inquiry without challenging the same. Therefore. the said contention of the lespondent Nos.5 and 6 is untenable and on the said ground also, the inrpugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

¶209

xvi) Mr. Pasala Jo.iappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 would subrnit that respondent Nos.5 and 6 were unaware of such rejection proceedings since they have submitted the application through Mee Seva. It is relevant to note that Clause - 3 of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the CCLA deals with 'computerization'. and it says that a coresponding database link up shall be provided by TS Ontine Team for transferring the application received at Mee Seva Io I'LRMS for a detailed scrutiny and examination using the workflow based regularization module by the NIC. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 having submitted the aforesaid application on 15.06.2016 through Mee Seva vide the aloresaid I.D.,

¶210

\ I

¶211

¶212

KL,J W.P. No.29962 of 202l

¶213

¶214

they cannot now contend that they have no knowledge of the aforesaid rejection. Therefore, the said contention of the leamed counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 is also untenable.

¶215

xvii) Rule 22 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 prescribes the procedure for service of notice on the aft'ected pafiies. As valuable right to property is sought to be affected, notice on the vendor/his successor(s) and persons interested is mandatory. In the present case, respondent No.4 did not follow the above said procedure by duty serving notice on the petitioner or her husband. Therefore, impugned proceedings dated 11.09.2019 issued by respondent No.4 are in utter violation of the aforesaid procedure laid down under the Rules, 1989 and therefore, on the said ground also, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

¶216

xviii) Leamed counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, referring to Section - 54 ofthe Transfer ofProperty Act, 1882, would contend that 'sale' is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or

¶217

prorf,ised or part-paid and part promised. Therefore, the simple sale I

¶218

¶219

KL.J W.P. No.29962 of l02l

¶220

)()

¶221

deed dated 31.05 2009 is a sale ar)d, therefore, respondent No.4^has considered the sarne. As stated above, it is an agreement of sale, but not simple sale deed. Assuming for a moment that it is a simple sale deed, it is an unregistered sale deed/simple sale deed which cannot be considered by Recording Authoritv. Sale consideration was not paid and the petitioner IS disputing the very execution of the said document. Further, all the said aspects are complicated questions of fact which this Coufl cannot consider in a writ petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶222

6. CONCI,TISION:

¶223

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings No.SBA.IGlBGl AMl20l6ll 753, dated 11.09.2019 issued by respondent No.4 in lavour ol respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the subject land admeasuring Acs.4.07 guntas in Survey No.505A/3, situated at Motakondur Village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(

KL,J

\ 'I

W.P. No.29962 of 2021

¶231