Disposed

Minnala Balaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Dec 2024WP/4696/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged revenue authorities' reversal of a validated Sada Bainama relating to Ac.17-00 in Ranga Reddy District. The Court set aside both the impugned orders, directed status quo for eight weeks, and left parties to seek their inter-se rights through a civil suit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Minnala Balaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 4696 OF²⁰¹⁹

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 . Minnala Balaiah, S/o.Late^{Minnala Balaiah, Aged about 78 years,} Occ.Agriculture

¶10

Minnala Jakaraiah, S/o.late^{Minnala Balaiah,Aged about 58 years,} Occ.Agriculture

¶11

Abraham, S/o.Late Minnala^{Balaiah,Aged about56 years, Occ.Agriculture}

¶12

John, S/o.Late Minnala Balaiah,^{Agedabout53 years, Occ.}

¶13

Pramod Kumar, S/o.late^{Yakoob Aged about40 years',Occ' Agriculture}

¶14

Prameela, D/o.late Yakoob,^{Aged about37 years,Occ.Agriculture}

¶15

Padmaja, D/o.late Yakoob,^{Aged about 34 years, Occ.Agruculture}

¶16

B. Estheramma, Wo.late^{Yakoob Aged about 60 years, Occ.Agriculture} All are Rl/o.Gattuppalapally^{villageThalakondapally Mandal,R.R.District} *

¶17

(previously Mahaboobnagar Dist)

¶18

...PETITIONERS

¶19

AND

¶20

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

¶21

The District Collector, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶22

¶23

The Joint Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District}

¶24

The Revenue Divisional^{Officer, Mahaboobnagar,}

¶25

The Tahsildar, O/o.Mandal^{Revenue Office,Talakondapally Mandal, R'R'Dist'}

¶26

Khamarunnisa Begum,^{Wo.Sayed Saleemuddin, D/o.Gulam Dastagir} Rlio.Tallagadda, Mehdipatnam,^Hyd.

¶27

Md.Hafeezuddin, S/o.late^{Md.Azeemuddin Agedabout48 years,Occ'RTC} Driver

¶28

B. Md.Khaleemuddin, S/o.late^{Md.Aleemuddin Aged about 44 years,} Occ.Business

¶29

Md.Aleemuddrn, S/o.late Md.Azeemuddin Aged about 4'l years, Occ. Buseiness

¶30

lt/d,Nazinnudd in, S/o.late Md.Azeemuddin Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business

¶31

Parveen Sulthana, D/o.late Md.Azeemuddin Aged about 3i years, Occ.Housewife

¶32

Yaseen Sulthana, D/o.late Md.Azeemuddin Aged about 28 years, Occ. Housewife

¶33

13.Taseen Sulthana, D/o.late Md.Azeemuddin Aged about 23 years, Occ. Student

¶34

All are 7 to 13 Rl/o.Yadagiri Colony, Hyderabad-S9.

¶35

14.Ashwaq Ahmed, S/o.Hafeez Ahmed Aged about 33 years, Occ.Business Rl/o.Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad.

¶36

Nazia Begum, W/o.Quthbuddin Aged about 37 years, Occ.Housewife Fl./o.Azeezbad. Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

¶37

16.Thar_shia Beguql, Dlo.Hafeez Ahmed Aged about 28 years, Occ.Housewife Rl/o.Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the 3'd Respondent in case No.D5/4505/2016 dated 2-2-2019 by confirming the order of the 4th respondent in File No.B/ROR11462t2010, dated 7-6-2016 in respect of land in Sy.Nos.34 (Ac.4_ 12 gts) and Sy.No.606 (Ac.12-28 gts) total adm Ac.17-00 situated at Gattulppalapally village, Thalakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is illegal, unlaMul, unjust and contrary to law and against the principles of naturat justice and consequently to direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the possession of their land in Sy.Nos.34 (Ac.4-12 gts) and Sy.No,606 (Ac.12-28 Sts)^{total admeasuring} Ac.1 7-00 situated at Gattu-lppalapally village, Thalakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by setting aside the orders of the respondents 3 and 4 herein in the interest of justice.

¶40

lA NO:^'t OF 2019

¶41

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the Highcourtmay be pleased to direct} the respondents no to disposes the^{petitioners from the possessionof their landin} sy.No.s 34 and 606 with extents^{Ac.4-12 gts Ac. 12-28 gts respectively situated at} Gattu-lppalapally Village,^{ThalakondapallyMandal, Ranga Reddy Dist in the} interest of^justice.

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRI MUNUGA SATEESH}

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.l to 5: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶44

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No.6 toI6:SRI MOHD. MUMTAZ PASHA}

¶45

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶46

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶47

WRIT PETITION No.4696 of 2019

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

This writ. petition is hled with the following relief:-

¶50

"...issue appropiate uit or order or directton more particularlg one in the nature of turit of mandamus declaring the order of the 3,,1 RespondetLt in case No.DS,/ 4505/ 2016 dated 2-2-2019 bg confi.rming the order of the 4tt, respondent in File No.B/ ROR/ 1462/ 2010, dated i- 6-2016 in respect of land. i.n Sg.Nos.34 (Ac.4-12 gts) and. Sg.No.6O6 (Ac.12-28 gts) total adm Ac.|7-OO, situated at Gattu-Ippalapally village, Tl,.alakondapallg Mandal, Ranga ReddA District is itiegai, unlawfu| utrjust end contrary to lana qnd against the pinciptei of natural justce and. consequentlV to direct the Respondents r.ot to dispossess the petitioners from the possession of thei.r taftd. in Sy.Nos.34 iAc. 4-12 gts) and SA.NI.6O6 (Ac.12 28 gts) totat admeasurttll Ac.17-0O situated at GattuJppalapaltg uillage, Thalakondapallg MandaL Ranga Reddg District bg setting aside the ord.ers oJ tl re respondents 3 & 4 herein in the interest of juittce and to poss suclr other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court maA deem fit and proper ir t the circumstances of the cose".

¶51

Heard Sri Munuga Sateesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.l to 5 ard Sri Mohd.Mumtaz pasha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.(, to 16 and perused the record.

¶52

It is staterl that originally one Sri Minnala Balaiah was the protected tenancy holder of the lald bearing Sy.No.34 admeasuring Ac.O4-12 guntas and Sy.No.606 admeasuring Ac.l2-29 guntas, total admeasuring Ac. 17-00 guntas, situated within the limits of Gattu Ippalapally Village. It is further stated that as per Kasra pa-hani for the year 1954-[;5, his name was depicted as protected Tenant and

I \

CVBR, J wp_4696 2019

Cultivator of the said iand in^{all the revenue recordsand he was in} actual cultivation of the said lands.^{It is further statedthat said} Minna-la Ba,laiah died Ieaving behind his^{sons namelyi) Minnala} Balaiah, ii) Minnala Yakoob, iii) Mlnnala^{Abraham, iii) Minnala} Jakaraiah and v) Minnala John as his^{legal heirs who are the} petitioners herein. It is further stated that after^{the deathof said} Minnala Balaiah, the^{petitioners are continued their actual and} exclusive physical^{possession over the said lands. It is furtherstated} that after the death of the^{original pattadar namelyGulam} Dasthagiri, his wife namely^{Ameena Bee has executed aSada} Bainama in favour of the^{petitioners having received the validsale} consideration and seeking enforcement^{of the said Sada Bainama,} the petitioners have made an^{application underSection 5-A of the} Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land^{and Pattadar Pass Books Act,} 1971(for short'ROR Act, 1971')^{and also paidthe requisite amount} by way of a Challan d,ated 26.02.2O09^{vide challan No.279O4' It is} further stated that after issuing^{notices as required underthe} provisions of the Rules and after^{conducting panchanamaand} recording the statements of the^{adjacent pattadars,tl.e Sada} Bainama executed in favour of^{the petitioners has been validatedby} the Tahsildar in file No.B/1044312OO9^{dated 16.1O.2009 andalso} issued certificates under Section^{13-Band 13-C. It is further stated} that questioning the validation^{of the Sada Bainama in favour of the}

¶57

¶58

CVBR, J wp.4696:2019

¶59

petitioners, an appeal has been fi1ed by the unofhcial respondents under Section 5(5) ofthe Act on the file of respondent No.4 - Revenue Divisional Ofhr:er, Mahabubnagar. The Revenue Divisional Officer while entertaining the appeal has set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar in va lidating the Sada Bainama by stating that nonissuance of personal notice to the affected parties who are on record suffers from principles of natural^justice. It is further stated that aggrieved by :he said orders, a revision has been filed by the petitioners herein under Section 9 of the Act on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶60

The griel'ance of the petitioners is that the revisional authority vide its order dated O2.O2.2O19 dismissed the revision and confirmed the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Talakondapally Mandal.

¶61

It is seen from the record that the Sada Bainama relied on by the petitioners v,ras validated as per Section 5-A of the Act vide proceedings in file No.B/ 10443 /2OO9 dated 16.1O.2OO9 and also issued consequ.ential certificates under Section 13-B and 13-C of the Act. Questioning the regularization of the Sada Bainama alleged to have been execr.rted, an appeal came to be filed by the unoffrcial respondents in file No.B/ROR/1462 /2010 and the said appeal was allowed by the Revenue Divisionai Officer on the ground that the ' ;-' record dqqs not reveal the issuance of notice to the

¶62

¶63

CVBR, J wp_4696]019

¶64

appellants/unofficial respondents herein and the finding recorded^by the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer has been confirmed by the Revisional Authority while exercising powers undor Section 9 of the Act^vide proceedings in case No.D5/4505/2016 dated 02.O2.2O19.

¶65

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have paid the requisite anount for validation of the Sada Bainama vide challan No.279O4, dated' 26.02.2009.^{He further} contended that a panchanama^lMas conducted in the^{presence of the} adjacent pattadars and their statements have been recorded^before validating Sada Bainama in favour of the petitioners. The^petitioners instead of filing al appeal as required under Section^{5-B of the Act,} have filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act.^{Itis the} contention of learned counsel that even though there^{is a procedural} irregularity when the powers being traceable to the^authorityto exercise appellate^{jurisdiction,} the application filed either^under section 5(5) of the Act or under Section 5-B of the^{Act could not} make any difference.

¶66

7 . Prima facie the Sada Bainama has been^{regolarizedin favour} of the petitioners in the year 2009 and the^{said proceedings have} been declared as null and void by both^{the authorities vide} proceedings dated. 07 .06.2O 16 and O2.O2.2O19,^{afterlapseof more} -*=ttran 1o years.

CVBR, J wp 4696 2019

I 0

It is the case of the unofficial respondents that at no point of time either the petitioners or their predecessors in interest have executed any Sada Bainama nor the validation proceedings are followed by the procedure known to the law.

¶72

Once thr: proceedings have been issued by regularizing Sada Bainama, the entries would be changed in the revenue records in the name of the persons who obtained 13-B and 13-C certificates. Therefore, at thr s length of time setting aside the entries made in favour of the eitl'rer of the parties would have an impact over the title and possession.

¶73

It is also settled that mere entries in the revenue records or consequential rssuance of pattadar passbooks does not take away right of the either of the parties to the title or possession, and if they have any grievance with regard to title or possession, the appropriate remedy is to institute a comprehensive suit before the competent civil Court. In vierv of various documents being produced u,hich are Xerox copies of the original proceedings, this Court is not in a position to examine the Xerox copies produced by either of the parties to come to a conclusion that the regularization of the Sada Bainama in favour of the petitioners is valid one or it is invalid one.

¶74

¶75

CYBR, J wp_4696 1019 /':

¶76

In view of the above, the impugned orders^{passedby the} Tahsildar as reversed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and^as confirmed by the Revisional Authority are set aside, leaving it open^to the parties to institute a proper suit for claiming their inter-se^rights over the subject property. Furttrer, the^parties are^directedto maintain status-quo existing as on today in respect of^{the subject} property for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable^the petitioners to approach the competent civii Court seeking appropriate relief, if they are so advised.

¶77