2020 Supreme(Telangana) 756

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
E.J. David – Appellant
Versus
The Additional Collector, Sangareddy Division and Ors. – Respondents
Interlocutory Application Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of 2020 in Civil Revision Petition No. 978 of 2020, Contempt Case No. 1681 of 2019 in W.P.M.P. No. 49482 of 2017 in Writ Petition No. 39913 of 2017 and Contempt Case No. 712 of 2020 in W.P.M.P. No. 49482 of 2017 in Writ Petition No. 39913 of 2017
Decided On : 15-12-2020

Authorities under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 do not have the jurisdiction to decide questions of title to property or to evict persons in occupation of the land.

Headnote:

The High Court, exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, and Tahsildar, declaring that the subject property was Government property and the petitioner's vendor had no title to it. The Court held that the authorities under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act) did not have the jurisdiction to decide questions of title to property for which application for mutation had been made under the Act. The Court further held that the authorities under the Act had no jurisdiction to evict persons in occupation of the land. The Court also held that the impugned orders were passed in blatant violation of an interim order passed by the High Court, which directed the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioner and another. The Court sentenced the respondents to two months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for willful disobedience of the interim order.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 5.01 gt. of land in Sy. Nos. 990 and 1052 situated at Kandi-Chimnapur Village (Dharmasagar) of Sangareddy Mandal and District under registered sale deed No. 19847/2013 dt. 08.11.2013 from one Ancha Srinivasa Rao. Ancha Srinivasa Rao had purchased Ac. 18.03 gts. at Kandi-Chimanpur Village (Dharma Sagar), Sangareddy Mandal of erstwhile Medak District under two registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos. 14064/2007 and 14065/2007 dt. 05.07.2007 from G. Suman Babu and R. Satish Yadav. The petitioner applied in the prescribed format in Form 6A under the Act for mutation of the Ac. 5.01 gt. of land purchased by him on 02.03.2015. The Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District rejected the petitioner's application for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbook opining that the land purchased by the petitioner is unsurveyed land, described as "Billa dakhala" land in Revenue records and there are no basic records such as Village Map, Tippan, Wasool Baqui, Sethwar etc. and these lands were not accounted for in the Khasra pahani of 1954-55. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 5473 of 2017 in the High Court to declare such inaction as illegal and to direct the Revenue Authorities to issue title deed and pattadar passbook in his favour. The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District to take appropriate action on the petitioner's application within four (4) weeks. The Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District issued Endorsement No. A/4192/2019 dt. 22.03.2019 rejecting the petitioner's application for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbook. The petitioner questioned the same by filing Appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy. The Revenue Divisional Officer also rejected the Appeal. Challenging the order dt. 04.11.2019 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, petitioner filed Revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 before the Additional Collector, Sangareddy District. The Additional Collector also held that the legal title of petitioner's vendor is defective, that petitioner's vendor had no legal title over the said land, that vendor of the petitioner had pleaded in various Revenue Tribunal and the High Court that he had no interest or title over the subject land and got it deleted from his holdings; so he is setting aside order dt. 13.12.2005 in File No. C/12312/2005-2 passed by the then MRO, Sangareddy and the subsequent order dt. 13.09.2007 in File No. B/10300/2007-1 of the Tahsildar, Sangareddy; and directing the Tahsildar, Kandi to delete the names of third parties from the Revenue Records for the extent of Ac. 63.05 gts. and record the same as Government lands and also to evict encroachers, if any, in the said lands and take it into Government custody with immediate effect.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the authorities under the Act did not have the jurisdiction to decide questions of title to property for which application for mutation had been made under the Act. The Court further held that the authorities under the Act had no jurisdiction to evict persons in occupation of the land. The Court also held that the impugned orders were passed in blatant violation of an interim order passed by the High Court, which directed the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioner and another.

Issues: 1. Whether the authorities under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act) have the jurisdiction to decide questions of title to property for which application for mutation has been made under the Act? 2. Whether the authorities under the Act have the jurisdiction to evict persons in occupation of the land? 3. Whether the impugned orders were passed in blatant violation of an interim order passed by the High Court, which directed the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioner and another?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Act details with aspect of mutation in revenue records, and such mutation orders, as per settled law, cannot be a source of title (see District Collector and others Vs. Harikishan Agarwal and others 2001 (6) ALT 397 (DB)), the Act cannot be interpreted as conferring powers on the quasi judicial authorities like respondents 1 to 3 exercising powers under the Act to decide questions of title to the land. 2. The Court held that administrative authorities like Collectors have no jurisdiction to decide questions of title. It relied on the Supreme Court decision in Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust v. Collector, Haridwar (2017) 16 SCC 418, where the Court held that "the Collector is an officer of the State. He can exercise only such powers as the law specifically confers upon him to enter upon private disputes. In contrast, a civil court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon all matters involving civil disputes except where the jurisdiction of the court is taken away, either expressly or by necessary implication, by statute." 3. The Court held that the impugned orders were passed in blatant violation of an interim order passed by the High Court, which directed the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioner and another. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit (1973) 1 SCC 446, where the Court held that "quasi judicial authorities, like the respondents 1-3, are subject to the supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. It declared: "14. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is vested with the power of superintendence over the courts and tribunals in the State. Acting as a quasi-judicial authority under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, the appellant was subject to the superintendence of the High Court. Accordingly the decisions of the High Court were binding on him. He could not get away from them by adducing factually wrong and illegitimate reasons."

Final Decision: The High Court quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, and Tahsildar, declaring that the subject property was Government property and the petitioner's vendor had no title to it. The Court also sentenced the respondents to two months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for willful disobedience of the interim order passed by the High Court.