Back
2019 Supreme(Telangana) 239
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J.
Mulkala Chandraiah and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 2358 of 2019
Decided On : 25-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prabhakar Chikkudu
For the Respondents: G.P. and Varanasi Venkateswara Rao
Headnote:
Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 – Section 5-A & 9 – Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 – Rule 22 & 9(1)(a)(iv) – Registration Act, 1908 – Seeking its regularization and validation – Exercise of revisionary power under Section 9 of Act, 1971 passed order setting aside appellate order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer – Aggrieved thereby, respondents 1 and 2 in revision, appellants 1 and 2 before Revenue Divisional Officer, are before this Court by way of this writ petition – Held, No material was placed before Joint Collector to support such finding as record reflects that no validation certificate in Form XIII-B was ever produced by respondents 6 and 7 before her – In absence crucial document, Joint Collector not have given respondents 6 and 7 benefit of doubt on strength of unregistered documents of title relied upon by them – Order of revisionary authority therefore suffers from patent non-application of mind apart from being without valid reasoning, as mere entries in pahanies not sufficient in themselves to prove actual possession, but she held to that effect – Petition allowed (Paras: 16 & 17)
Facts of the case:
Seeking its regularization and validation – Exercise of revisionary power under Section 9 of Act, 1971 passed order setting aside appellate order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer – Aggrieved thereby, respondents 1 and 2 in revision, appellants 1 and 2 before Revenue Divisional Officer, are before this Court by way of this writ petition
Findings of the court:
In absence of any proof of validation of unregistered document of title executed either in their favour or in favour of their father – Joint Collector ought not to have held that this was case where appeal should have been filed under Section 5-B of Act 1971 and appellate order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer in appeal filed under Section 5(5) of Act 1971 was erroneous – No material was placed before Joint Collector to support such finding as record reflects that no validation certificate in Form XIII-B was ever produced by respondents 6 and 7 before her – In absence crucial document, Joint Collector not have given respondents 6 and 7 benefit of doubt on strength of unregistered documents of title relied upon by them – Order of revisionary authority therefore suffers from patent non-application of mind apart from being without valid reasoning, as mere entries in pahanies not sufficient in themselves to prove actual possession, but she held to that effect
Result: Petition allowed
ORDER :
P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.
1. In exercise of revisionary power under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1971'), the Joint Collector, Jayashankar-Bhupalpally District, passed order dated 08.01.2019 setting aside the appellate order dated 18.05.2013 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani Division, Jayashankar-Bhupalpally District. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 1 and 2 in the revision, appellants 1 and 2 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, are before this Court by way of this writ petition.
2. Heard Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Varanasi Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel on caveat for respondents 6 and 7 herein, the revision petitioners before the Joint Collector and the respondents before the Revenue Divisional Officer.
3. The case of the petitioners, who are brothers, is as follows: They inherited the agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 3.35 guntas in Survey No. 206 of Kondampet Revenue Village, Malhar Rao Mandal, Jayashankar-Bhupalpally District. According to them, they went to the office of the Tahsildar, Malhar Rao Mandal, in June, 2012, to secure copies of the revenue records for availing an agricultural bank loan and found that the names of respondents 6 and 7 herein were entered in the pahanies from 1999-2000 onwards. Alleging that the said respondents had colluded with the revenue authorities and got their names entered in the records by tampering therewith, they preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani Division, under Section 5(5) of the Act of 1971. The said appeal was allowed on 18.05.2013. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 6 and 7 herein preferred a revision under Section 9 of the Act of 1971, resulting in the impugned order dated 08.01.2019.
4. Perusal of the appellate order dated 18.05.2013 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani Division, reflects as follows: The petitioners herein, being the appellants in the said appeal, claimed that they and their ancestors cultivated the subject land since many decades and no sale had ever been effected by them or their predecessors in respect thereof. They further asserted that no notice was ever issued to them by the Tahsildar, Malhar Rao Mandal, before effecting changes in the records and incorporating the names of the respondents therein. They stated that they came to know of these facts only on 29.06.2012, when they took the pahani extracts for the purpose of a bank loan and promptly filed an appeal on 05.07.2012. The appellate authority found that the name of Mulkala Rajaiah found mention in the pahanies from 1979-80 onwards till 1999-2000, when the names of the respondents in the appeal were incorporated. The pattadar pass book issued under the Act of 1971 also bore the name of Mulkala Chinna Rajaiah as the pattadar in relation to the subject land. Mulkala Chinna Rajaiah is the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, the appellants in the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Respondents 6 and 7 herein, being the respondents in the appeal, produced a photocopy of an unregistered Sale Deed dated 05.04.1994, whereunder their father, Mulkala Mallaiah, was stated to have purchased an extent of Acs. 3.12 guntas in Survey No. 206 of Kondampet Village from one Cheerla Raji Reddy, S/o. Lachi Reddy. They also produced another unregistered document bearing the date 21.05.1992 in favour of Cheerla Raji Reddy but there was no mention of the survey number therein. The appellate authority, having considered this material, opined that there was no basis for entering of the names of the respondents in the appeal in the revenue records while the pattadar pass book produced by the appellants clearly reflected that their father was the real owner and cultivator. As there were no valid sale deeds or regularization thereof according to law, the appellate authority held against the respondents and allowed the appeal. Consequently,
