Banaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

¶1

[^325s ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO :12011 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Banaiah,.Q{o, R91a119, aged about 40 years, Rloindervelti village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District.^-

¶9

Rajanna,. S/o Ralanna,. aged about 37 years, Rl/o.lndervelli village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District.^-

¶10

7 3.^{N.arasaiah,.94o} Rgjallq, aged about 36 years, Rl/o.lndervelli village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Joint Collecto r Adilabad District, Adilabad. 2 The Revenue Divisi onal Officer, Adilabad.

¶14

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Indervelli, Adilabad District. 4 M,r.Ganapath fag,..(Qie{ 1g pgl LR R5), S/o.Tukaram, F/o.tnderveili viilage, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District. Mr. Adav Santosh,t S/o. Adav G-anapath Rqo, Rl/o. 8-23, Shivaji Nagar, lndervelli, lndervelly (B) 504346. Aditabad District.

¶15

(Respondent N^o 5^ 1s !1o-r1O,ht on record as LR of the deceased Respondent No.4 as per C.O. 23.04.2024 in tA No. 1t2017 (Wp N/p No.^.12894/20i 7))

¶16

State of Telangana, Represented by its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶17

(R9_spoldent No. 6 is impleaded as per C.O.dt. 23.04.2024 in lANo.2l201t (WP MP No. 12895/2017))

¶18

[VIr. Ada.v C_hampath Rao, S/o. Tukaram, R/o. 8-26, M.B. Road, lndravelly. lndervelly 504 346, Adilabad District.

¶19

I\ilr- Ada.v S.arwajeg! 9/o. Adav Champath Rao, Rl,/o. 8-2611 , M.B. Road, lndervelly. lndervelly 504 346, Aditabid District.

¶20

(Re-spondent Nos.:7 and B are impleaded as per C.O.dt. 01.O7.2024 in lA No. 3t2017 ) I .REspoNDENrs

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated iri the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for reccirds : relating to order in Appeal bearing No.D4lTA/4/89,

¶22

dated 09-03-1992 of the 1st Respondent and quash the same by issuing appropriate writ, order,or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and consequently direct the Respondents to restore possession of land in Survey No.23B admeasuring Ac.10.00 to the petitioners.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 14862 OF 2013)

¶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 grant injunction restraining the 4th respondent in alienating the land in Survey No.23B admeasuring Ac.10.00 in favour of third parties pending final disposal main W.P.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.RAMA SUBBA RAO

¶26

) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3 & 6: AGP FOR GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8: M/s. JOSHI AND CHILLARA LEGAL ASSOCIATES LLP

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: - SRI VIKAS JOSHI

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

.a,

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V, SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No. 12O11of2O13

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶34

"to call for records relating to ord.er in Appeal bearing No.Da/TA/4/89, doted 09.05.1992 of respondent No.1 and qtosh the same and consequentlg direct the respond.ents to restore pos.session o/ land in Sg.No.23B admeasuring Ac.10-00 gts., to tlrc petitioners."

¶35

The facts of the case in brief are that one Smt.Durgamma was protected tenant of agricultural land to an extent oI.Ac.17-O9 gts., in Sy.No.238 situated at Indervelli Village of Adilabad District. Accordingly ownership rights under Section 3B_E of A.p.(T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 were conferred on L.Rs of the said Durgamma i.e., Godala pochiga uide proceedings of respondent No.2 in G/5915174 and the same was confirmed by respondent No.1 in Appeal by order dated 29.05. 1976. lt appears that respondent No.4 has fi1ed compromise memo before District Revenue officer, Adiiabad but the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the land lord Smt.Subba bai filed C.R.p.No.934 /1976 belore this Court which was dismissed on 74.O9.1979. petitioners, further case is that by virtue of the said order, the ownership rights were confirmed on Mr.Gadala Pochiga and the matter has attained finatity.

¶36

NVSI( J w.P. N..12O11ol20l3

¶37

2

¶38

It is further submitted that though the ownership rights were conferred on the protected tenant, the said land was found to be in occupation of landlord Smt.Subba bai, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the said land iord under Rule (1) of Amended Act 2 of 1979 by rhe Tahsildar, Indervel[i on 01.08. i980. Aggrieved by the same, the land lord has filed W.P.No.4266 of 1980 before this Court and this Court uide order dated 04.04.1986 disrnissed the said writ petition and granted liberty to the land lord for raising a1l objections I before Mandal Revenue Officer. After considering the objections raised

¶39

by the land lord, the Mandal Revenue Officer i.e., respondent No.3 by order dated 12.05.1989 ordered eviction and directed to handover the possession to the L.R.s of Late Gadala Pochiga under Section 38-E(2) of Amended Act 2 of i979. During the pendency of the proceedings, Gadala Pochiga died and his daughter Smt.Budi was brought on record. Accordingly, Smt.Budi was inducted into possession of the land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac.l7 -O9 gts., on 12.05.1989 in the presence of panchas and panchanama was recorded to that effect.

¶40

Aggrieved by the order of respondent No.3 dated 12.05.1989, the land owner Smt.Subba bai and her son had filed an appeal before respondent No. 1 on 22.O5.198q ald simultaneously filed W.p.No.70B8 of 1989 before this Court wherein this Court uide order dated 24.O5.19a9 in W.P.M.P.No.92Z6 of 1989 granted an order of interim

¶41

)

¶42

W.F. No.l2O11of20l3

¶43

stay. On 22.06.1989, an order of interim stay was also^granted in^the appeal filed before respondent No. 1. Subsequently, the land owner had withdrawn the said Writ Petition in W.P.No.7O88 of 1989 on 23.12.1991. Thereafter, the matter came up before respondent^No.1 and the appellant and respondent therein agreed foi compromise and in terms of the said compromise memo, the appeal came to be disposed of by order dated 09.03.1992. Questioning the said order^the present writ petition is Iiled seeking to quash the order dated q9.03.1992 seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to restore possession of land in Sy.No.238 admeasuring Ac. 1O-O0^gts., to the petitioners.

¶44

It is the case of the petitioners that they being legal heirs of Smt.Budi W/o.Rajanna, are in actual possession of the subject land in view of the possession handed over to Gadala Pochiga on 12.05. 1989 itself. It is their further case that Smt.Budi during her lifetime has never informed the petitioners that she has compromised the matter with Mr.Ganpath Rao i.e., respondent No.4 and only during the month of Ju1y, 2011, when the said Ganpath Rao tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners, the petitioners were informed that the matter was compromised during the lifetime of petitioners' mother u2., Smt.Budi. Thereafter, petitioners have verified the revenue records and came to know about the alleged compromise and applied

¶45

!wsK, J w.P. No.12Ol1ot20t3

¶46

4

¶47

for certified copies of the order of respondent No. 1 on I8.O4.2O12 which were f,rnished on 26.06.2012. It is further submitted that the ownership rights under Section 3g(E) of the Act conferred on the Gadala Pochiga became final and respondent No. 1 ought to have verified the compromise stated to have been agreed by Smt.Budi as there is no mention of presence of Smt.Budi before respondent No.1 at the time of recording of the compromise. Therefore, the thumb impression of Smt.Budi might have been forged by respondent No.4.

¶48

Petitioners further case is that the compromise has been tampered by changing the extent of land ailotted i.e., Ac. i0_OO gts., to respondent No.4 and Ac.7-O9 gts., to Smt.Budi which was originally typed ad Ac. 10-OO gts., to Smt.Budi and Ac.7_09 gts.. to respondent No.4. Therefore, it is alleged that the compromise has been recorded by respondent No.4 in collusion with respondent No. 1 and that the said compromise was brought into existence by playing fraucl on the mother of the petitioners in collusion with respondent No.1 and it is not binding on the petitioners and the areged compromise is riable to be set aside, as it is contrary to section 3g(E) of the Andhra pradesh Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It is further submitted though the alleged compromise has been recorded by respondent No.1 on 09.03.1992, however, the same has not been acted upon as the petitioners are in continuous possession.

¶49

)

¶50

NVSI{, J W.P. No.r2Oll of 2Ol3

¶51

ar

¶52

A counter affrdavit has been frled by respondent No.3 i.e., the Mandal Revenue Of{icer, Indervelli, Adilabad District by stating that Smt.Subba Bai w/o. T\rkaram was the pattedar of agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 17-09 gts., dry in Sy.No.238 at Indervelii-B village of Adilabad District and Smt.Durgamma was the protected tenant. It is further submitted that after issuing notices and conducting necessary enquiry and after issuance of provisional list as required under Rule 4(1) of A.P.(T.A.) Protected tenants (Transfer of Ownership of lands) ,Ruies, 1973 and after publication of final list under Rule 4(3) of the above Ru1es, the ownership certificate of the said land was granted to Gadala Pochiga who is legal representative of Smt.Durgamma on 16.02.1975. It is further submitted that the appeal filed by the pattadar Smt. Subba Bai before the Joint Collector, Adiiabad was dismissed uide order dated 20.05. 1979 aod the Civil Revision petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by this Court on 74.O9.7977.

¶53

It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that the said land was found to be in occupation of landlord urz., Smt.Subba Bai even after the ownership rights conferred on Gadala pochiga have attained finality due to dismissal of appeal and writ petition fi1ed by the landlord Smt.Subba Bai. Therefore, an eviction notice was issued by the Tahsildar, Utnoor under Rule I of the Amended Act 2 ol l9T9

¶54

NWSK. J w.P. No.12011 ol2013

¶55

6

¶56

in Reference No.B3 l25la l8O^{dated01.08.1980 to the landlord.} Aggrieved by the said^{notice, the landiord fi1ed W.P.No.4266of 1980} before this Court and the^{same was dismissedon 14.04.1986 by} giving liberty to the land owner^{to .raise all objectionsincludingthe} one which she raised in^{the writ petitionby submittingher} explanation to show cause^{notice,within four weeksfrom the dateof} the order. After considering^{the explanation ofthe landlord,} respondent No.3 uide^{proceedingsdated12.05.1989 ordered eviction} of landlord Smt.Subba^{Bai from the subject land and restoration of} possession of the same from legal heirs of^{Gadala Pochiga under} Section 38(2) of Act, 2 ol^{1979 arrd incomplianc:ethereofthe} possession of the land in Sy.No.238^{admeasuringAc. 17-09gts-,} situated at Indervelii-B^{village was givento Smt.DurgammaL.R. of} G.Pochiga on 12.O5.1989 in the^{presence of panchas recording} panchanama by the Mandal Revenue^{Inspector of Indervelli.}

¶57

Aggrieved by the orders dated^{12.05.1989 of respondent No.3,} the landlady Smt.Subba Bai and^{her son Ganpath.Raohave filed an} appeal before respondent No.l^{on 22.O5.19a9and the landlady also} fiied W.P.No.7088 of 1989 before this^{Court and this Courtin} W.P.M.P.No.9276 of 1989 in^{W.P.No.70B8of 1989 has granted an} order of interim stay.^{RespondentNo.1 also granted an interimstay by} his order dated 22.06.1989 in^{Case No'D4/T4} 14189.^{Thereafter, the}

¶58

7

¶59

w.P. No.12011 0t 2013

¶60

i',i

¶61

landlady had withdrawn the said W.p.No.7OBB of 1989 on 23.12.1997. It is further submitted that when the appeal was pending trial before respondent No. 1, the landlady Smt.Subba Bai and original protected tenant Smt.Gadala Durgamma expired and their legal representatives Ganpath Rao S/o. Smt.Subba Bai and Smt.Budi Dlo.Late Gadala Pochiga were brought on record and they have filed a compromise petition having settled the issue by sharing the subject land Ac.10-OO gts., in favour of Ganpath Rao and Ac.T -O9 gts., in favour of Smt.Budi. ,^{It isfurther submitted} that possession of land was given on

¶62

12.05.1989 itself under proper panchanama to Smt.Durgamma and her name was entered in pahani for the year 1g9o-gi as pattedar to the total extent of Ac.l7 -O9 gts., and thus the order passed by respondent No.2 by issuing ownership certificate under Section 3g_E of the Act were implemented and the name of Smt. Durgamma continued as pattedar till the year 2O08-09. Learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3 would submit that the version of the petitioners regarding the compromise memo filed before respondent No.1 on 31.O1.1992 and its genuineness needs no consideration at this distant point of time.

¶63

1O. It is further submitted that certihcate issued under Section 38-E of A.P.(T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 sha1l be conclusive proof of the protected tenant becoming owner with effect

¶64

NVSX, J W.P. No.12O11of2013

¶65

8

¶66

from the date of ownership cerLificate issued and therefore, the name of the 1ega1 representative of protected tenant was implemented as pattadar in revenue records also. The compromise was recorded by respondent No.1 as agreed by both the parties and thereafter, the appeal was disposed of. It is also submitted that if at all Smt.Budi was not satisfied with the orders in appeal, she should have taken appropriate steps during her life time but the same has not been done in view of the amicable settlement between both the parties i.e., .j landlord and protected tenant to apportion the land amongst them.

¶67

1 1. It is also submitted that on verification of pahanies for the years 7992-93 to 2OO7 -OB, Smt.G.Durgamma w/o. Pochaiah is recorded as pattedar arrd cuitivator of total extent of Ac. 17-O9 gts., Sy.No.238 of IndervelliB Village. In the pahani 2008-09, extent of

¶68

Ac.77 -O9 gts., (i)Ganpath Rao S/o.Tukaram (ii) Champath Rao S/o.Tukaram and (iii)Rajanna are recorded as cultivators to the extent of Ac.5-0O gts., Ac.5-00 gts., and Ac.7 -O9 gts., respectively. It is further submitted that petitioners have not availed any remedial measures as available to them under the relevant laws and resorted to file a writ petition before this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶69

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5 who is being impleaded and brought on record as legal heir of

¶70

9

¶71

W.P. ro-12Oll oI2Ol3

¶72

-' -a' - ,',/.

¶73

the deceased respondent No.4 as per order of this Court dated 23.o4.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2or7 and respondent Nos.7 and B are uncre and cousin brother of respondent No.S herein. The averments made in counter affidavit of respondent No.3 were reiterated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.S and accordingly prayed to dismiss t he wrir petition.

¶74

A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit. It is submitted that respondents has no authority to record compromise deed dated 31.O1.1,992 and the said compromise recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P.C. was tampered and at paragraph 4 of the said compromise, there is an overwriting.

¶75

Per contra, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.S, 7 and 8 submits that unofficial respondents names were recorded in the revenue records and loans were also taken and that only two names of the petitioners are recorded and one of the petitioners, name is not recorded an1'where in the revenue records and only parties to compromise must challenge the compromise deed dated 09.03.1992 and not the legal heirs. It is further submitted that a panchanama dated 01.O2.1992 was conducted and recorded by respondent No. 1.

I

l0

ir

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the compromise was recorded in 1992, the same is not implemented in the revenue records til1 the year 2Ol1- 12 and also panchalama is a fabricated document and there is no signature of officiai respondents and as such the same ...r.roi be looked into.

¶80

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 adopts arguments of respondent No.5. It is further submitted that an extent ,^{of Ac. 10-00 gts., was recorded in the name of respondent No.4 and an} extent of Ac.7-O9 gts was recorded in the name of Smt.Budi w/o. Rajanna in terms of the compromise recorded before the Joint Collector, Adilabad dated O9.O3.1992. The said compromise dated 09 .03.1992 is now challenged at a belated stage of 2 1 years.

¶81

Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the record.

¶82

In the order dated 09.03.1992, which is filed under Section 9O of A.P.(T.A) Tenancy Act, 1950, the Joint Collector, Adilabad recorded that a writ petition was Iiled by the appellants therein in W.P.No.7088 ol 1999, however, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, The case came up for finai hearing on 31.01.1992 and the respective parties have filed compromise petition and have settled the issue. Learned counsel for respondent No.S drawn attention of this

¶83

/

¶84

11 W.P. No.1201r of2Ol3

¶85

Court to compromise deed filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P,C,, dated 31.01.1992 and would particularly refer to paragraph 4 of the said compromise which reads as under:

¶86

"4. Ttnt, out of Sg.No.238 of Inderuelli (B), ttte respondent Budi agreed to part Ac. 17-O9 gtp:, in fauour of Gonpath Rao and Ganpath Rao Lrcrein also agreed to take Ac.17-O9 gts., from the aboue land acres parting Ac.7-09 gts., to Budi."

¶87

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 draws attention of this Court to pattadar passbook issued in favour of respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8 wherein respondent No.s was allotted with Ac.5-O0 gts., at Sy.No.238/B; respondent No.7 was allotted with Ac.S-OO gts., at Sy.No.23B/A and respondent No.8 was allotted with Ac.5-00 gts., at Sy.No.238/AA. It is also to be noted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 name was recorded in pahani for the year 2Ol1-L2 wherein Ac.3-24 gts., and Ac.3-25 gts., was a,llotted to each of the petitioners. At that point of time, petitioners have not taken any steps in questioning the same, however, are now claiming Ac.17-1O gts., in Sy.No.237. Petitioners a,11 through did not question the compromise which was entered by their predecessor Smt.Budi and at this belated stage are questioning the compromise decree dated 09.O3.1992. Even otherwise, if the compromise recorded was found faulty, the parties therein ought to have taken immediate steps in challenging the said compromise.

¶88

{

¶89

N1/SI<, J W.P. No,l2()l r of2013

¶90

t2

¶91

(r

¶92

In a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that compromise decree can only be challenged when the same was obtained on fraud basis. The Hon'bie Supreme Court in various judgments also held that compromise decree can only be challenged before the concerned Courr which passed t}le decree in an application under Order XXIII Rule 34 CPC. One such recent judgement of the Hon1r1e Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.439 of 2022 dated O9.O2.2O22 and the relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as

¶93

/ follows:

¶94

"13. hr uieu of the aboue and for the reasons stated aboue, the present appeals succeed. The impugnecl^judgment and order passed bg the High Court allouing the appeal and quashing ond setting aside the order passed bg the II Additional District Judge, Rango Reddg Distict passed on 02.05.2019 in I.A. No. 108 of 2019 in O.S. No.537 of 2018 is herebg quashed and set aside. The order passed bg the Trial Court dated 02.05.2019 in I.A. No.1O8 of 2O19 in O.S. No. 537 of 2018 rejecting the ptaint is herebg restored. Hotueuer, it is obserued that LUe haue not expressed anything on meits ott ualiditg of the Compromise Decree an.d the same shall haue to be decided and considered ltg the Court u.thich passed the decree in an application under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC, uLhich as obserued hereinaboue has been Jiled bg the oiginal plaintiff and the said application be decided and disposed of bg the concentetl Couft in accordance uith lau and on its oun merits a nd. the contentions/ defences which may be auailable to the respectiue parties on the uoliditg of the Compromise Decree are kept open to be considered by tLte concerned Couft in accordance with lau and on its own merits."

¶95

It is also striking to note that petitioners have not filed any

¶96

document in their favour in this writ petition and the submission

¶97

NVSIq J

¶98

13

¶99

made on behalf of^petitioners are contrary to^records and Court orde rs. As such the claim of the^petitioners is not sustainable. More so, the compromise decree cannot be challenged at this belated stage after 21 years that too when the^petitioners themselves are aware that their extent was recorded as Ac.3-24^gts., and Ac.3-25 gts., in the revenue records.

¶100

Therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated O9.03.1992^passed by respondent^No. 1 i.e., Joint Co1leclor, Adilabad District. Accordingly, writ petition is devoid of merits, I-ails, and srands dismissed.

¶101