Writ petition challenging ejectment orders under the Telangana Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation dismissed on grounds of inordinate delay and laches, as the petition was filed over 13 years after the final order without satisfactory explanation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
I!I I a
II I
[3303 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OFT/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT P ETITION NO: 35371 OF 2022
Between:
(Both R/o Asannagudem (V), Dammapeta (M), Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
,.PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 olthe Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated inthe affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or directionpreferably Writ of mandamus,declaring the action of the respondent nos. 2 to6 and their subordinatesin trying to dispossess the pelitioners from their respectivelandsi.e. land admeasuring Ac.3-05 gts., in Sy.no.'1392/AA of petitioner no.1 and landadmeasuringAc.3-06 gts., in Sy.no.1392/A situated at Nagupalli(v) Dammapeta (M) BhadradriKothagudem District of petitioner no.2 without anynotice and without following due processof law under the guise of orders of LTRcase no. 37112OOS1DMPTdt.14-9-2007 as confirmed in cMA No.59/2008 dl.2ol6l20o9as illegal, arbitrary and violativeof principles of naturaljustice and consequentlyset aside the said orders andfurther direct the respondents not todispossessthe petitionersfrom the subjectland except in due course oflaw.
7
1 : i
lt2il
IANO:1 OF 2022
Petition und :r Se:ction15'1 CPCpraying that in the r;i-:rrm:;tances statedin the affidavit f led irs rpcort of thepetition,the HighCourt r iry b€ pleasedto stay the dispossession tf thepetitionersfrom the subjectland .er' land admeasuring Ac.3-05 gts , in S1no.'1 392/AA ofpetitioner no.1 andland ;r'lmeasuringAc 3-06 gts., in Sy.no.13' 2/A situaled at Nagupalli(v) Danrm,rp'eta (lt/) Bhadradri Kothagudem Distri t,)fpetitioner no.2 under the guise of otck,rrs :f LTR case no. 371/2005/DN/PT c .141912007 asconfirmedin CtvlAno 5(t,'20C8dt 2016/2009' pending the dispos rl of 'rvrit petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Between:
Kodimi Veera Swan i,ll/o Ramdas Aged 60years occ.Agricultrr,-'R,oThottipampu (v) Dammapeta (M) 3l- adradri Kothagudem District.
...Poti tiorrer/Respondent
...Responc etrt N o.2/Petitioners
...ResPon clentsJResPondents
Petition unde Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circtrrnstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Court tr.raybe pleasedto vacate the interim o dt:r Cated 12logl2o22passed in l.A.No.' tf 2)22 in W.P.No 35371 oI 2022 and c srnissthe Writ Petition.
7
lt3il
IA NO |1 0F 2023
Behlreen:
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
(Both F/o Asannagudem (V), Dammapeta (lr4), Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
...Respondents/Petitioners
...RespondenURespondent
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 vacale the status quo order passed in l.A.No.1/2022 in W.P.No.3537112022 daled 1210912022.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SAKET FOR SRl. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: AGP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SMT VASUDHA NAGARAJ
The Court made the following: ORDER
il
HI )ITI,BLE sRI JusTIcE J. SREEN,,vAsi RAo WRIT PETITION No.35371 OF 2022
ORDER:
Th s writ petltion is filed seeking a \l,r it of Mandamus declarin5 the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 6and their subrrrdin rt{)s in tn,ing to dispossess the peti ,i -.r ers, from their rcspcctiv lands i.c. land admeasuring rr:3-05 grs in Sv.No.13 2 /AA of petitioner No. 1 ancl izrncl atimeasuring Ac.3 C6 ts ;n Sy.No.1392/A situated at ltiL,lrpiLlli Villagc, Dammapr tzr Mandal, BhadradriKothagurlenr tristricl of petitroncr No.2t without issuing notice and witholr fo)lowing due proccss , f lzrw under the guise of orders of LTR case No.37l12, Or;/DMPI' dated 14.09.2007 as con"r-rtecl in C.M.A. No.5!)/20{ 8, dated '.tO.06.2009 as illegal, arbitrarl, ar.d violative of pnncip :s of natnral justice and conse<luenlly set aside the said order ancl further direct the respondents rr<):_ to (lispossess the petitio rers from the subject land except in clue course ofd larv.
4
appearing for respondentNos. I to 6 and Smt.Vasudha Nagaraju, learned counselfor respondentNo"7
3.1 Thepetitioners submitthat they are owners of lhe land to an extent of Ac.3-05gts inSy.No.1392/AAandAc.3.O6gts in Sy.No.1392lA, situated atNagupalli Village, Dammapeta Mandal, BhadradriKothagudemDistrict, and their namcs wcre mutated in therevenue recordsand pattadar pass books "r'ere issued in their favour. They further submitthat therespondent No.6, some officials started interfering withtheirpossession on the ground that earlier LTRproceedings were initiated against the brother of the1"t petitioner and father of the petitionerNo.2 for the entire land and anorder ofevictionwas passedon |4.O9.2OOT in LTRcase No.37|I2OOSIDMPIdated 14.O9.2OO7 which was confirmed in C.M.A. No.59/20O8, dated20.06.2009. In fact, father of thepetitionerNo.2 viz., M. Koteswara Rao died on 14.12.2018 and thepetitioners are not aware ofthe above said orders.
3.2 That they made application underRTI Act andobtained the copies of the orders in C.M.A.No.59/2OO8,dated 20.06.2009 from the office of therespondentNo.3 on
)
'22.48.'2O 12 Thcy lurther submit that rhe t:[iLioners are in posse ssic'r rf the sublect propcrty and latr Kotesl iu,ara Rao also had no k; o,vkrdgc about the order passed by resl>ondent No.3.
3.J it i: frirlher sr-,;.bmitteci that respondt nts h.-.,-e r.ot followed the proc,drrrr: for execution of evir:tiorr orc(:r. as per the provision: cI'Ielanl;ana State Scheduled ArezLs l,and Transfer I?egulatro; s. 1959 Ji/w Regulation Act 1 of()70 (hereinafter rcl'erred tr as 'Regulations" for brevity) antl tlrr 3jrlctlnent order passcd b1 the respcndcnt No.4 dated 14.09.:2 )(,7.vhich '"r'as cor:firmed in C.M.l, No.59/2O08, dated 20.0t,.20O9 bv the responder llo.3 are not binding upon therrL.
3.4 Thel urther submit that in the yea:' ,1971, similar proceedrng; wt:re initiated against the father r)r' the petitioner No.2 uide L]'R No.1tl96/ 1974 and the same rvrr; dlopped on 12.O2.197!. Hence, the impugned order pirs.sed by the respond.en Iros;.3 and 4 is hit by the principle:; r>l- res judicata and the re p()ndent No.7 is not entitled to seek lr)for:ement of the rrnpugr ec orders after lapse of 15 years.
6
father ofpetitioner No.2 were recordedin the 'enjoyer'column for the year i98i-1982pahani, bothbecamepattadars from the year 1997 -1998 and thetransactiontook placeafter the " Regulations"came into effectonly, and thcrefore,it is a clear violation of tL.e Regalations-
4.1 He furthersubmitsthat respondent No'4 initiatedthe proceedings uid.e LTRcase No'371/20O5/DMP|andafter following the dueprocedureunder law passedejectment orders on 14.O9.2007.Against the samefather of the petitionerNo'2 namely M. KoteswaraRao frled appeal uideC M A' No 59 of 2O08 beforerespondent No.3 and the samewas dismissed on merits. Hence,the allegations made by the petitionersthat M' Koteswara Rao,who is the appellant in the said appealand the petitioners werenot havingknowledge about the said orders is not true aldcorrect.
5.' RespondentNo'7 frled auntercontending thatthe respondent No.4rightly initiated theproceedingsunder Regulations videLTRcase No.371l2OO5/DMPT and after considering thecontentionsof the following due Procedure, verifying the records, Passedthe parties, and alsoafter by giving cogentreasons, ejectment orderson 14'O9'2OO7
/
hoiding th rt tlic sarlo s:rlc clecd entered betrveerr tht: father of the petitio Lc iJo.l ,,,i2., M. Vt_.era Venkaialt :rrc liaram China Venkat.U)p r s not val jd and basing on the urLr r1,1ist,:red sada sale deed t .c pr'titioners arc not entitled to <.lairr rr:y rights over the prcper'r'. Agg.eved by the said order, tli( lather of the petitioner l o.2 filed <).M.A_ No.59/200g belbre t re respondent No.3 thror qir his :ounsel. The responclent No.3 after considering the .rontelttions of the parties, nratcriiri evi,:1sn6s 6. record dism s,eec thc a.plteal by its order date C 2C. l(:.2C,09. The orderspzrssr i b1 thc i,rd and 3.,i respondents ha\ e t;ecc me final anci brndinp cr ihe p,rLies. pursuant to the seii orcers, the revenue ar_,horLties have conducted pancheurerma dated 03.07.2OO8 r nrl tranded over the possession to tJr: :esltondent No.7 and r n:e therL the responden[ Nc.7 hal, L,een in possession a; d erLjoymr:nt of the property.
-
./
8
basingon the rePresentation of 7.1 He furthersubmits that theresPondent No'7'the resPondentNo'4 initiatedthe proceedingsvide LTR caseNo'371/2005/DMPTdated l4.Og.2OO7and thesame was dismissedon the ground of resjudicatabyits orderdated' 2l'l2 2OO5and the said order has becomefinal'
t)
7.2 Hc L-tlLcr submits thaL basing on thc r,r:,rr:s:ntation of the respor d,rni No.7 rcspondcnt No.4 initiate<i tt:e proceeclings LTR case No..l7 1/2005i DMPT ancl against Xl {ote swer Rao father ol 1 :t itirtner I'1o.2 once again and passeci e j,:ctrnent order dateci 14.t9 2OO7 stating that respondenl therlin purchased the proper y tlLrough sada sale agreement rvhicl is nct valid as per the prr visions of Section 17 (b) of Regislradorr ,,\ct, 19O8 and the princi,lcs of res; judicatars not applicirble r:r,1 also stated i-hat rhe r rs roncient therein iailed to prt,ve rt rir they arc in larvlui pro scss.ion ,)vei tltc said land as r:cluir:d nnder Regulation . Aligriev,:d by thc said order, fathcr ( I rhe petitioner No.2 iilcd, ).1,4.,\ No.li9 of 2O08 before responclent \o.3 and the same was li:;missed on 20.O6.2009. Though resl ron,lent No.3 and 4 pas ecl rjectment orders against thr grar rl'ather of the petitioner l'o 1 and tather of the petitioner No ! ,:rnd the said orders wer, rrol executed as per the provisions of Requlations. The orders rassed by thc respondent No.3 confiraL:r'rg the orders of the resp, nrlent No 4 are liable to be set aside lr'. the ground of principle c f rioctrine of res judicota. He furthe : i;ubmits that the petitior er s are in possession of the subjr:c,_ land. The handing ovr r,rf the possession to the respondeltt ,'l(:.7 lursuant to the oanc. alama dzrted 03.07.20O8 is absolui.ell i:rcorrect.
I0
B. In support ol his contentions, he reliedupon the judgments in Kola Mahalaxmi Vs Agent to Government, Khammam & Othersr and in Gaddarn Narsa Reddi and Others Vs. Collector, Adilabad and others2.
9.1 She further contended that the earlier orders dated 12.02.1975 and 72-12.20O5 werepassed due to non-production of the material evidence and the same is not a bar toinvoke fresh proceedings and the respondent No.4 rightly initiatedthe proceedings :uoder Regulations, and after verifying the enlire records, passed the ejectment order on 14.O9.2OO7 bygiving cogent reasons. Questioning the said order, father ofthe petitioner No.2 namely Morampudi Koteswara Rao had filed
'1999SCC OnLine AP 565: (1999) (3)APU,5O9(HC)
t tssr 121 neu 1uc1 260:rgarscconri."apsa
,'I
/ I I l
C-trI.A. N r.:19 of 2008 bcjbrc respondelit Nc.: tlLrcugh his counsel ?c spondcr-rt No.3 lrfter consideri:tg th,. l:ontentions of the respe< -ive parties anci after hearing tht, s:rm: 1is;lissed the appci by ts o:der dated 20.06.2009.
9.2 She fulrther submits that against the or rlur rassed by responden llo.3 Revision Petition lies beforr-- Ciov3rnment as per the provisi rns of Se<;tion 9 of Regulations. pelir ioner.s without zrvailing th ' zrlternative rcmcdl,' as provided unclt r. statute, hled the presen vrrit petir_ion before this Court rrnil t, re same is not maintainal e ulder iaw. She also submits that ',: e petitioners filed the v rir ltetition questioning ihe orcl.ers p I sseC by the respondent Nt.ll dated 20.O9.2OOg after lapse of rr:ore. than 13 years and I le same is liable to be dismissed on tl.e 6lround of delay and 1z [ches.
1 1 . Learnr C Assistant Govt. Pleader for Sc <: ial Welfare submits tha the respondent No.4 while exercisin: the porvers
t 1zoz21 2 Srpre., Cc urt Cases 2j
7
?
\
conferred underthe Regulationsrightly initiated the proceedings and passed the impugnedorder on1,4.O9.2OO7 and the same was confirmed by the respondent No.3 on 26.06.2009 and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orderpassed by the respondent Nos.3 & 4. She also submits that the petitioners without exhausting the alternative remedy asprovided under Sec.6 of Regulationsfiled the writ petition and the same is not maintainable under law.
Point Nos.i to iii
14.09 .2OO7 by exercising the powers conferred under the Regulations. In the said case the father of the petitioner No.2
ti
viz. , Mo ra nl)udi Kotcs$'cra Rao appcared ar(l s Lrbrnittccl his explanzrtio t. liimilarly, the responrlcnt Nr 7 v'iL; als,o prescnl and rlfter recording their statcmeltts anc afte- verifying the recor(l pas ;e,l thc ejectment orders on 14.O').2O)1 Lhc operative portion ol 1( order is extracted hereunder:
Feruscd tlre case records from the l,TR <asc or<lers passe t n case No.tl96/1994, it is eviden. tlrat .l e t.ren sDc/ '\), Palvoncha had ignored the fact tx rt the respo d(nt purchased thc suit schcdulc land thrcllth srda sale .gr ee.nent which is not valid und,.r S,x . I / B oI Regist 'ation Act. The sada sale agrcemcnt is nol vrIr. under Reg. I 5<,t )'lw l,t70. llcncc,res .iudrcata cou c ,rot be consi< :r,:ci in this case.'l'fie resporldent fai ed t( r:r,)!.e his lau,ful p,)ssession otcr the surt schedule lanri its r:.qutrcd under R(B.l/59 rlv, 117O.
A.i per the evidence placed before tlris Co rr. il is DroYe( tlrat the transfer of immovab)e propcr ty be io]llging to *he S' (pelitioner herein) sas made to thr: I\on tribal in contra 'ention of the sub-scction I of the SectLon 3 rL:; laid in the F rdhra Prarlesh (Scheduled Areas) {,arLd "ransfer llegulz .ion, 1959 read with the Regulation r ol L(t'l1) alter commr ncerlent of the said Regulation and as suctr i is null and vc d.
ln exercise of the powers conferred on rne br. trrr: St b- Sectior 2 a) of llr.e Section'3 of the Regulation I of 191i9 I Co hereby order ejectment of the rcspondent or rvhorr.evc' is in posses ior of the immovable property descril:ed ie the schedte( given below and direct that tne rlr.r,tvatrle proper / in(luestion be restored to the tribal petition r. cr tris Icgal h, irs. under cover of panchanama".
13.1 Aggrir /ed by the said order, the father of h,: petitioner No.2 name r Morampudi Kotesrvera Rao had I ted C.M.A. No.59/ 2oO i leiore respondent No.3 under the rr;ovisions of Regulations, trrough his counsel. Resporrdenl \o.3, after considering h,r oontentions and also after hearirrll the parties,
!/1
i'..
dismissed theappealon merits by its order dated 2O'062OO9' holding that the appellanttherein claimed the property basing on the allegedsadasaledeed dated 05.05' 1961 madebetween M.Veera Venkaiah andKaram China Venkatapa and the same is not valid and basingon the unregisteredsa-le deed appellant's family will not to acquireany rightsover the scheduleland and further held thatnowhereeither the name of the non-tribal appellant or hisfather name was found either in 'Patta' column or in 'enjoyers' column.Their namcshave been found only in the year 2OO4-OSonwardsand the appellant therein is in possession of landafter the Regulationscame into effect, and the same is contraryto the Regulationsand furtherheld that the earlier orderspassed in LTR case No'371/2005/DMPI dated, 14.09.2007and LTR No.1O961 1974 dated' l2'O2 1975 in the absence of documentaryevidence and principles of res judiciata are not applicable andthe respondentNo'4 rightly passed the ejectment order.
I
'l
13.2 The petitionersfrled the present writ petitionaggrievedby the orders d'ated20.06.2009 passedby the respondentNo'3 conlrrming the ordersdated 14.09.2007 of the respondentNo'4 after lapse of nearlymore than 13 years'The petitionershave not given any reasonsin the affidavit filed in supportof the writ
pclition iv .y tL ey have not chosen to file tht \,rit r)etil ion \r.rthin thc stipul .t(id time or within lhe reasonrrbl(-, Ii]rLe. Though lhere is r > prescritrerl period of limitatio:-l lb' I iinri the rvrit pctition, r ntler Article 226 of Constituticn o[ irditr but the parties ha' e to apprc,ach the Court within the r( € :i,:)nable period of limitatio r.
i 3.3 Thc >etitioners simply stated that thcy ar r not a',vare of thc crciers passed i:y thc respondent Nc,s.i] ir:d.l tlll thc olfrcials ol the respondent No.6 started inlerfe rir'g vrith thcir possession The rea.sons assigned in supnort c i thc affidavit .'lied by the p3titioner is not acceptable on the s:l[e grc und tha.t the father , f the petitioner No.2 namely Moramo;r:li Xoteswara Rao, who ir the respondent in LTR case N,r.371l:,lOO i/DMPI, prosecuted -he proceedings before respondent Nc.1 ,rnc he hled appeal uid, l.M.A. No.59 of 2OO8 .be[ort: re s rondr:nt No.3 questioning tl:e ejectment orders passed by the rt:r;lt,rncent No.4 dated 14.01 .20C)7 through his counsel and he c:rrtested the appeal befc-e the respondent No.3 and thc sairl ap1>eal was dismissed o r ;le'rits by its order dated 26.06.2009. At the time of passing c'the order, the father of the petitioncr I'Jo.1l is alive and as per the averments made in the aflidavit, he died on 04.72.2014. The petitioners to covcr up the l,r 18 dt:lay ernd
16
r\
latches simply stated that theyare not awareof the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3. It is notthe case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioner No.2 namely M. Koteswer Rao, who is appellant in C.M.A. No.59/2OO8 orhis counsel have not received copy of the impugnedorderdated 20.06.2OO9 or the respondent No.3 without giving any opportunity to them passed the impugned order behindtheir back. So, in the absence of any such reasons,cogentand convincing evidence, the petitioners are not entitledto seek any relief much less to the relief sought in the writpetition by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226of Constitution of India.
,l\t \
13.4 It is pertinent to mention here, that during thelife time of father of the petitioner No.2 has not taken any stepsto question the orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and after his death the petitioners frled thepresentwrit petition aiter lapse of more than 13 yearsand they stated that they are not aware of the orders passed by therespondentNos.3 and 4 and also the sarne are notbinding upon them,is not acceptable under law. It is alreadystated suprathat it is not the case of the petitioners that therespondent No.3 dismissed the appeal and passed the impugnedorder dated20.06.2009
a--
t1
I! 1
bchrrd bl ci: of the fathcr cf the petitloncr lio .' r\ ho i-q the a;rocilanI irL the appeat CMA No.59/2(108, ., Lhout giving ol)portuni y cither to the father of petiti<,ner,lr:.2 or to hrs counsel, a rc t:iey have not received the colty o' tt-Le s tid order He ncc, tht col" tention ra.ised by the petitioners I Irilt the orclers pa.ss( d by tL e respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not iritrding on Lhe oetiti()ners ir; not tenable under law.
I 4 . ir Il :la Mahalaxmi case stated (su1tra1 , 1ri-ag -aph Nc.9
i-cads as u Lder
'9 I extly it is contended on behalf of the p( titlonc r lllai tlle earb r order ()f the competent author ity .r]ctor the Rcgt Ia ror.rs dated 24-5-1973 has decided thc Iis l,ct\ecn the ar tles and 1.he father of the respondeni No. 1 b v ncrnre Bad, Pullaiah has already suffered an order datctl 24-05 1971 , in rvhich the authorities have held ttrat the r;rLid srale bein ; ric,r to the commencement of the Fegrrlart o:r could not' e,;onsidered and accordingly rejected lhe p('tilion. 'lhe resp n([er-t No. ] being his successor, is bounrl l)r t.re said orde and the matter cannot be re-opened at his instarce. The earned Counsel for the petitioner further su )mitlcd that h( piesent lmpugned orders passed on the trasir; of the repo i(,f the Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW), Palo'r,: rrr is hit by tl : ]>rirrciples of res ludicata. As against this (:cr.lentirn, the :alned Counsels for the respondents subnril:cd trat thc 1-ir,ciple so res judicata does not apply ro lhr: crlers of the z -rtrorities like Tribunals and such a principl: tpplies only to the Courts. ln support of their cirntert(,r, tlrey relie< rrpon the judgment of this court rePortr<l in G. Ragl tutluv. Agent to Gouernment (supra). Aftrr gong thror gh ttLe entire judgment, I nnd that thc learorl single Judg of this Court has held that the orinc pl,: of.es judic ta or a prirrciple analogous thereto shall lx i ppLcd \ith r( aLtion ard circumspection, dealing wi{h tl-( ca:;es arisir g undcr the Regulations, which zire n.),lnt [or prote tion of the tribals. He further held tha: il the procr :drngs were dropped earlier for the reasor tl.at the respc rdlnt-tribal could not produce sufficient evile;rce, it docs ror preclude the authorities for a subst'quent(r quil. From this.iudgment, it is clear that the earlie.()nqrily \as
J
l8
,\ .t'. Ii
dropped for lack of cvidence and a subsequcnt frcsh enquiry was started regarding the atleged violation of the Regulations. Having regard to these circumstances, this Court held that the principle of res judicota would not apply to that case. But in the instant case i find from the earlier order dated 24-5-1973, that the authoritics rejccted the petition filed by the respondent No. l's father on the ground that the sale deed dated 11-3-1963 though unregistered was prior to the commencement of the Regulations. Thus, the said Order was on merits arld the respondent No. l's father himself was a party to the said order and the said order has become hnal and as such the principle of res judicata applies to this case".
\
14.1 In Gaddam Narsa Reddi and Others case stated (supro)
lE. So far as the latter submission is concemed, it is clear from ttre provisions of section 3(2Xa) of the Regulation that the Agency or the Agency Divisional Ofhcer or the other offrcer mentioned therein can only pass a decree of ejectment against any person in possession of the property claiming under a transfer from a tribal where such transfer of immovable property is made in contravention of sub-section (1) of Sec. 3. Therefore, thejurisdiction under section 3(2) of the authorities mentioned therein to pass a decree of ejectment is limited to determine, the question whether the transfer effected is made in contravention of the provisions of sections 3(1)(a) and (b). But, in a proceeding under section 3(2)(a), the Agent or the other authorities mentioned therein are not empowered to determine whether the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act Would be available to the transferees in the absence of prior permission under Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act Or a validation
I9
'erlrfi( rt'r rLir(ler Section 50 B of th(' said Ar t. -.In([(]. Scrtron 3(2) ol tt, -r Flcp,uiai on, the crrquir), o[ lhe auth )ritie i r.i con lnc.l onlr r declzrre nul1 and void thc transl,'r of lrnlovable r)roi)e!') srtuiltcd in agencv tracts if it (--ontrar€ rcd the rrovis rns.rI section 3(1) of the Rcgulatiol anr] t) d(crec r:tec:m n' against any person in possession of th: prol)erty r:lairni g under such transfer. To such a transfer ftrlting $,thin rhc pr r! e$ o[ Sec. 3(1)(a) the provision ol the ]ransf(r of Proper y Act or lhe provisions of Hyderb; rl Tcrtr:.rcy and r\gricu -u-al l-ands Act or the lndian Registratron Act \r lul( not apply, ard, therefore, the protection of seclion ltlJ /r, of the 'l'rans[ r,)f ?ropert]' Act would not be available to a :l,rrson rn f)osses ion< laiming under a transferfalling wrthintlr,rpurview of sr--cl or 3(l)(a) of the Regulation. [n other worCi '1he-e a transf((iorLtraverres the provisions of section 3(l (a of the fiegtrla ior, it r,vil] not be saved even If it h:s be,:r rnads in conforr til, with the relevant provisions of the I';rnsfc- of l'roper , .\c1 or th(: Indian Registration Act o- the )Iy,lcrabad 'l'enanc ., ar (l Agricultural Lands Act or any ,r.l cr law apt)lrce )1( ilrcreto Thus, a person in possessirn of iclrno,lble propc in ilgenci, tract by virtue of a tr.rnsfcr filad( in contra\ rntioo of the provisions of Section 3(11(a) rr,>rr c no, be entlt e( L( calm the benefit of section 53-A ol the'Iransfer of Frcpcrl /\ct.vhelher it conlorms to the relevrrnt p-<rir;ions ol the'lri osler of Property Act, Indian Registrirtion lci or the I vclera ,arl'l'enanc]' and Agricultural Lends \cr. Ihe authon iej under Section 3(21(a) of the ReguLr-i,rn are confcrr d sfccial()r exclusive jurisdiction t(, dct()r ri] ne the limrtcd qLestion whether the transfer of imrnovabl€ J]roperty situate( in the agency tracts is made in contiavent cr of the provisi< rs oi section 3(f) of the Regulation, and iur',' other queslro s outsid(: the scope of such a procee(ii.l€. under scction l(11)(er) of th,: Regulation. In this view, rt is rr( t operr to the au1 ro-ities unier section 3(2)(a) to go into the qrestion lvhetire tlle sale or agreement to sell is regisrered()1. not, or rvhetl1e tILe iransferee under such a transfer is ent t ((i to the protecti n of section 53A of the Transfer of Property /,ll in the abscnc( of any prior permission under Section 4? of the Hyderal ad Tenancy and Agriculturat l,ands Act or..rllidation certifica c urder section 5 D-B of the said Act. tl(n,:e it is unnecer lary for us to go into the conflicting views exp-,::;sed by several le,;isrons o[ this Court on the question w1 ) l-rer -he protecti n of section 53-A of the Transfer of Proporf/ Act is availabl to a trans['eree in possession under an ag]'renrent to sell, rvh re tLe provisions of section 47 or section 50-l of rhe H1'derat rd Tcnancy and Agricultural Lsnds Acr hav,) r(:t b(en complie $ itb .
20
\r
transfers made t.ly membcrs of thc Scheduled Tribes in the agency tracts of Tclangana area priorto 1-12-1963 or to transfers made of lands in the agency tracts by non-tribals prior to the coming into force of the Regulation I 1970. There is no express provision in the said Regulation giving retrospective effect. Section 2(g) merely defines "transfer' and it includes a contract to sell; but it does not indicate whether it applies to transfers made prior or subsequent to the said Re- gulation. Scction 3(1)(a) declares that "any transfer of immovable property situated in the Agency tracts by a person, whether or not such person is a member of a Scheduled Tribe................. shall bo absolutely null and void unless the transfer is made in favour of a person who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe or a society mentioned therein.' Section 3(2)(a) applies only to a transfer made in contravention of subsection (1) of section 3. These provisions do not indicate whether they are applicable to transfers made prior to the coming into force of the said Regulation as amended from time to time. The languagc of sections 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(a) docs not expressly give them retrospective effect.
i : .l
t1
1.5.'lh,: :z-rr.crl c(,unsei lor the petitioners ;_r.ri,:d upon thc above.juclg tr nts viz.. (i) Kola Maha Laxmi, conterrling; thaL the imltugnecl ,rrlers pa:;sed by the respondent Nc.l] ar.e hit by prirrciples >f res judicala and (ii) Gaddam l,,l,rrs;, Reddy contending h lt the sada sale deed dated 0.5.05 . (J,51 does not require regi tration .{orvever, this Court is not 11t ing into the merils of thr case to decicle the above said aspect_s, on the solc ground tl'ra tLre petitioners have filed the ,,rr.it petition questioninq tlre ordr:r dated 20.06.2OOg passr:d by thc respondenr Jo.3 aftcr lapsc of more than 13 y:zrrs without explaining sz .i: factory reasons.
"2O. The lrrirciples governing delay, latches, ,rnd acquiesce rc,: rrre overlapping and interconnectcd or. tnrny occasions I-o,,ever, they have their distinct chnractt,rs ,rnl distinct e enlents. One can say that delay is Ute genr:!; to rvhich Ia :hes and acquiescence are species. S-ilnile rly, latches n ight be called a genus to a species ty nnm. acquiesce ce. However, there may-be a r.ase rvhere acquicsce ce ir; invoh,ed, but not latches. Thesc prinr:ry:les are comm ,rr la.v. p.rinr'ifles, and perhaps o.,. coulb i,1,. i.ify that thc-sr restrict th prir ciples find place in various ",r, ut." , . ., .i., period of ljmitation and create non_consid(,rttion of condon, ti(n in certarn circumstances. They are botutl to be applied I:y w ry of practice requiring prudence ,)f the ,.,)rrrt than of a .trict application of larv. The underlyirrg princil,)e governing :h,ts( concopts rvould be one of isto-ppel. llt.re
22
'{1
question of prcjudice is also an important issue tobe taken note of by thc court.
\i \
{
21- The rvord "latchcs" is derived from theFrenchlanguage meaning "remissness and slacknes{. lt thusinvolves unreasonable delay or negligence inpursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice tothe other party. [t is neglect on the part of aparty todo anact rvhich law requires while asserting a right, andtherefore, must stand in the way of theparty Settingrelief or remedy.
others4 Full Bench of this Court held:
"70. From the decisions of the Supreme Court,it is seenthat no limitation is prescribed for hling a Petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution and there is no rule ofuniversal application for condoning thedetay. Though thereis no period of limitation prescribed for filing a P€tition underArticle 226, a person aggrieved should approachthe Courtwithoutloss of time and if there is delay, then co8ent explanationshouldbe offered for the same. The line ofdecisionsof the Supreme Court on the issue would be indicative thatthe Courtshave evolved self imposed restraints in enquiringinto belatedor stale claims. Though it is open to theHighCourt to exercise
a2o13 scc onLine AP 729 :(2013)4ALD 386 (FB)
II I! I!
its(x, <liscretion to granl itnY relicfin stale o- b(lEt)l claurs, be fcr re ll()inqro c;<crr:ise suclr discretion, tl(] Oourihas. to enquii r i,hr:ther tllc partv is guilt5 ol laches 1'or a r:,r.;onlLble pc riod :rl dela,r irr iLppr-oachine the Court. Thc excrcirir: cf s.rch Ciscre orr rvoulcl rlcPenci ulton differcnt cir( umslarces irnd .acts € rci may bc diffcrent frotn case to case. lir a czrse rlelay of six iI< rtlrs or so rra]' be treare(l as inordinate and fi lrLl in the lacts n(l(:iicumstanccs of [he case and the (],)l-t rlay declinr rc c,rndone the dela), but in another crse de iLj, of "rve ]:ears, r rio though may bc trcated as inordinrLte but nlt firtal in the a( t i;ituation the Court ma,y condone the de ir., as an except )n to mect the cnds of.,ustice. Therefor,:, it a.l C:perrds upor.r f ct s cf each,:ase.
IJ Tlrough no period oi limitation is prascrib((l for he \vrit Cc,Llrts to excrcise their porvers r triler \rlicle 226()I the Constitution of lndia or t(' I]l(,a {r t l)etrtion, a person aggrieved should apPrcirch hc Oourt \'rthout loss of timc. ln approl r irrte ascs, iYhcre theie is delay and the same [tas ,rcperly bceo cxplainecl with cogent reasons, (i)rlrt -ray ('ondonc the de 1a)' as an exception lo mce t Lhe n(ls cfjustice. But, it $,ould be a sound anrl rv:se xercise of (liscretlon for the Courts to rofllrn: to xercise their extraordrnary powers under /L ti(:le 2(' in the casc of persons who do not approa:L, it , xpeditiousll for relief and who stand bl and r ll:rw liDgs to happen and then approach the Cour: to Iut forward staleclaims and tn, to unsettle se tt.l(td ) lar teis.
( ) Courts have evolved rules of self-imD,)sod r :strarnts or fe tters where the High Court mey b f t ( lquire into belated or stale claim arld deny reliet t a party if he is found guilty of laches. Onr, ,rl-Lo i tzLrdy, not vigilant and does not seek interventi(:n c tlre Court rvithin a reasonable time fron the ,l a ,e c a:crual of cause ofaction or alleged violation ,>f t e constitulional, Iegat or other rigllt, is rlot e rtilled to relief under Article 226.
(i t .{o hard and fast rule can be laid dow-.r fr:rr u rirersal application and every case sh.rll havt :o b decided on its own facts.
l;Y'
21
\
(4) There is no invrolable rule of law that whenever thcre is a dcla!, the Court mustneccssarilyrefuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule ofpractice based on sound andproper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its ownfacts.
\
(5) There is no lower limit or upper limit and it will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose.
(6) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing thepetition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had cmerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners.
(7) Where there is remiss or negligence on the part of a party approaching the Court for reliefafter an inordinate and unexplained delay, in such cases, it would not be proper to enforce the fundamental right As a general rute if there has been unreasonable delay the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party in exercise of the extraordinary power of mandamus,
(8) There is no waiver of fundamental right But while exercising discretionaryjurisdiction Court can take into account delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ Court
(9) Though the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 in its discretiongrant reliefin cases where the fundamental rights are violated, but, in such cases also, High Court, to meet the ends ofjustice, shall refuse to exercise its high prerogative jurisdiction in favour of a party -who has been guilty of laches and where there are other relevant circumstances which indicate that it would be inappropriate to exercise the discretionaryjurisdiction.
(10) The maximum period fixed by the kgislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil Court must be brought may ordinarily taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be treasured.
I !i I
lli) Ii a Dersoir cltitlc(l to a reliel cirornr:; [o r(n1i1in silent for long, hc thercbl, gi.,es ris, ro ;r rcaSlnabie bclief rrr rht: rnir)d ol othe, s ti.lrrt hc is not interes,ed in clairning that relief. Corrrt: I avr: al,plrei ,h(. rule ol Jela). rrith grea er ril o ,,, sc rvlce mafters.
(12) Ihe bcnefit ot a Judgment cannot be elt_,.rlcd to a case automatically. The Court is elrt t ((i to ta<e into consideratron the fact as to rvhctlro,- thc p(lil oner had chosetr lo sit over the millc rnd wrrke up atter the decision of the CDur[ If it is 'bunrl that the petirroncr approacher lhe (,un 11 h unreasonable delav, lhe samc m. rv rli:i( r.l rtlc rirn to obiirin a drsct(.tionan, relief irrg lclaf lisentitles a party to ihc discretionan, reliet u,t,ler \r icles 32 and 2)l) ;rrrrl pei-sons rr:h . hari r,l .pt )v(:r their rghts for icrrg and elccted io ,ur.l, Jp vben they had the inrltctus lrorr the -,udgnLrrti o[ rinriLrrly placed p.."o,,.r.
1-:) .\Vhere during the intervening peri,)d rit,tts of hr-d partbs have crystallize<l, it rvou c be rt'quitablc lo disturr, those rithts at 1 ,e .n.ildl,cc I I l)erson rvho has approacl)eci the _-orrr : I cr )ngjapse cf time and u,here there is nc. (:( !I.nt xl larlation tbr the dela..
i4 \4'here the appellatc authority actinq $.itlrir ts trisdiction condonecl the d;lay a;ter t e ir rg r rtjsfied with the facts stated in ielation the-,:lo] I le High Court in exercise of its polr,ers I rclcr t rticle 226 or 227 of thc Constitution ;hculd r.ot ( 'd narily interfere ivith the order.
Tribunal, Ar anthapur and anothers while con srjdering the judgments o t he Hon ,bie Apex Court and the 1,.rn,Lrle Full Bench of thi (lourt dismissed writ petition on the gr(,und of delay and Ia :tLes as the petitioner therein irled -r.; it ,etition
2016 SCC Ont,irrc yd 29 :20116 @ ALD 450
6
N\
questioning the Award passeci by the Labour Court-cumIndustrial Tribunal, in I.D. No, 161 of 1998 dated 30.08.2001 after lapse of ten years.
I I .,!
"3O.-.. A right not excrcised for long time is non-existent. Doctrine of delay and latches as well as acquiescence are apptied to no-suit the litigants who approach the Court/appellate authorities belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing action after unreasonable delay. In the present case, challenge to the order of dismissal from service by way of appeal was after four years and five months, which is certainly highly belated and beyond justifiable time".
6 2023 (2) ALD 337 (TS)
a-
)1
1 uI
i4.Tl .is, the $1.i: pctiticit is liable ro be crsnrrss,(l on lhe ;1spc( )f delal, anC lachcs and also or ricr. o ii(ir: ot neces ialy irnd prc,per l)arties',.
2C. Il is p(:rtrnen- to mention herein that sl-rcrr ilrc.e is an inord rae delay cf 22 years in filing \,t jt p(.i 1ion, the petLti( rei nlust explain the detay by giving b< na fi,1,, r.::asons. ln th case on lrand, thc l), titioner simpli, stat,,,l in his afllda it that due to misplace of record, he crrrlrl 1)t file the writ I rtition within a reasonable time. If ,har b r Jo, the petitic rer-has not specificall-y stated the steps he hrr, trrkerr rn acquir n6 tlte reqlrired documents from his e mplo,,:.- r,r,lren rdmit :d y he is continuing in service u.,, ^tt,,, rling his duties as Asst. Depot Clerk in the respond,rnt,Corp rition rrnd h beirrg well versed rvith thc procedure Tlte r:titiorcr ()ught o have made efforts lo obtain those (jocunl(lr:s frlrn lhe m nirgement 3f the respondent Corporaliotr flr tak rrg irccess rr] st_eps on the grour)d of misplace o[ t]re r:r o.ci. Iiirr lhe pe ili)n,:r is n,)L dilrgent cnough in takin . s r- r. ,rd trc had sL ttovr'r the nratter throughout his sen,ic : [.. ,, .,, " ,,,r,, tlvo d cades and has miserably failcd t ) ,lxD ir n rhe inordir rt<. delay of 22 years rrr filing thc 1>resc rr ,,r-t l) .trti,,n. Ljoless the petitioner satisfres the abnorrnai <c1av, lr,: is rLot entitle( tl ctaim the equitable relicf as er vts.rge I un( er Artic\e 2'.16 of the Constitution o[ India ro iircl:e r're Jurisdiion()f this Court.
]E
Ni
"8. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 stipulated one year time from the date of arising of cause of action for an employee to invoke thejurisdiction of the Tribunal. This being so, we do not flnd any reason as to why the same yardstick shall not be applied to the employer for hling the writ petition, if he is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal. Though Articte 226 of the Constitution of India does not stipulate anyperiod of limitation for hling writ petitions, in a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court held that even in the absence of limitation, the Constitutional Courts have to examine whether the party has approached the Court within a reasonable time and that what is reasonable time depends on the facts of each case.(See Slate of M.P.v. Bhailal Bhai, TilokctandMotichond v. H.ts. Munshi and Mafattal Industies Ltd. v. Union oJ lndia. As noted hereinbefore, for an employee, a limitation of one year is stipulated. It is appropriate that the same yardstick shall be applied to the State or any other employer for frling a writpetition against the orders of the Tribunal. Any other standard, in our opinion, would discriminate between an employee and an employer. Applying thisyardstick and in the absence of any explanation whatsoever offered for the inordinate delay in liling the present writ petition, we are of the opinion ttrat the writ petition is tiable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone".
21.Having regardto the view expressedby the Hon'bleApex Court and this Court, though there is noprescribed time Iimit for filing writ petition, the parties have to approach the Court within a reasonable time, and in the absence of satisfactory explanaLion for the inordinate delay, theparties arenot entitled
2016 SCC OnlineHyd 15O |(201614 LLD297
29
1 !
t o see k eq, it), ,turisdiction as enshrined u.rrdcr ,\r rici': 225 of Constitutio i of .ndia
SN/. N. CHT.NDR.q SEKHARRAO AStil"sTA!IREGISTRAR ,--_ll)
//TRUE COPY// SECTIONOFFICER
One fair6r py to THE HON'BLE SRt JUSTICEJ' S.RElfiNl/AS RAO - -'- -(f ot His Lordship's Kind Perusal)
To,
4 One CC t;'s;ii;;[;Furin r,"r,Advocate. [oF'r'JCl. 5 Two CC ;ir" GPi;; ffiiJWefare, nigh court fdr lr': State of Telansana at Hyde
6 Two CC 3ff%ttot:[..ignment,High court for the sitate: of relanganaat 7 HyderalOne CC acl. i.' Sii louTlVa"uOr.,raNagaraj, Advocate IOPJ o] 8 Two C[ Copies
CHR LS
-l
HIGH COUR T
DATED:21 10112023
ORDER
W.P-No.35371 of 2022
,1
rl :'
2 r, !,rl i ?u:l
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CoSTS
$ 1
o
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging orders passed in 2009 is maintainable after a delay of more than 13 years?
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief on merits?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kola Mahalaxmi Vs Agent to Government, Khammam & OthersReferred¶8
1999 SCC OnLine AP 565: (1999) (3) APLJ 509 (HC) · Who else cites this
Gaddam Narsa Reddi and Others Vs. Collector, Adilabad and othersReferred¶8
1981 (2) ALT 260 : 1981 SCC OnLine AP 10 · Who else cites this
Union of India and Others Vs. N. Murugesan and OthersReferred¶10
2022 (2) Supreme Court Cases 2
P.V. Narayana Versus APSRTC Hyderabad and othersReferred¶17
2013 SCC OnLine AP 729 : (2013) 4 ALD 386 (FB) · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M. Suryanarayana
Morampudi Prasad
The State of Telangana
The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem District
The Additional Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam
Kodimi Veera Swami
J Sreenivas Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
