IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, T.VINOD KUMAR, JJ.
K. Ranga Raju and others – Appellants
Vs.
Joint Collector – II, Ranga Reddy District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.7839 of 2007 and Writ Petition No.7839 of 2007
Decided on : 30-04-2021
A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 9 - A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 15(1) - Declaration - A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 - Rule 9 - Competent authority - Revenue Records - Government lands - Order of mutation - Seeking direction that condition imposed by 3rd respondent in his order in Proceedings that petitioners should file declaration under provisions of Act, 1976 and further stating that his order is subject to provisions of the said Act as well as Act, 1973, be set aside - Whether petitioners are surplus land holders under said Act by issuing a notification under Section 10(3) of said Act - Contention of petitioners that said property is part of C.S. pending on file of High Court; that a preliminary decree was passed on; that their vendors had become absolute owners of Acs.125.00 in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village by virtue of various orders passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.S. in their favour as well as in favour of their predecessors; that possession had been delivered to their vendors by bailiff of the District Court, Ranga Reddy in E.P.; and out of said extent, they alienated Acs.4.20 gts. to petitioners under the above sale - Held, Court reject all the contentions of respondents/State of Telangana that it is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District or that petitioners have no right, title or interest in extent of Acs.4.20 gts., in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village, and that they are not entitled to mutation of their names in the revenue record by the respondents - Since the title of State of Telangana has been set up in the additional counter affidavit and was argued by the Additional Advocate General, though as pointed out it has been negatived atleast 8 times in past, we deem it appropriate to implead the State of Telangana represented by it’s Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Boorgula Ramakrishana Rao Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad as 4th respondent in the Writ petition as we propose to impose costs on it for such vexatious and malafide stand - Accordingly, the State of Telangana represented by it’s Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad is impleaded suomotu as 4th respondent in Writ Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
The background facts
The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging order dt.13.02.2007 in Case No.D5/3705/2006 passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District (1st respondent) setting aside the order dt.16.02.2006 in File No.B/1249/05 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (3rd respondent) exercising suo moto Revisional powers under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) in relation to land of extent Acs.4.20 gts. in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
Petitioners also seek a direction that the condition imposed by the 3rd respondent in his order dt.16.02.2006 in Proceedings No.B/1249/05 that petitioners should file declaration under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and further stating that his order is subject to the provisions of the said Act as well as A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, be set aside.
2. Petitioners purchased the said land of Acs.4.20 gts. admeasuring Acs.4.20 gts. in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from I. Sudarshan Rao and 30 others including M/s.Goldstone Engineering Ltd under a regd.sale deed dt.18.10.2005.
3. It is the contention of petitioners that the said property is part of C.S.No.14 of 1958 pending on the file of the High Court; that a preliminary decree was passed on 28.06.1963; that their vendors had become absolute owners of Acs.125.00 in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village by virtue of various orders passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.S.no.14 of 1958 in their favour as well as in favour of their predecessors; that possession had been delivered to their vendors by the bailiff of the District Court, Ranga Reddy on 19.04.1999 in E.P.No.8 of 1999; and out of the said extent, they alienated Acs.4.20 gts. to the petitioners under the above sale deed dt.18.10.2005.
The order dt.16.2.2006 in proceedings No.No.B/1249/2005 of 3rd respondent
4. Petitioners made an application for mutation of their names in the Revenue Records before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and on 16.02.2006, in Proceedings No.B/1249/2005, he passed orders granting mutation in favour of the petitioners and directed to affect changes by amendment in the Record of Rights Register of Hafeezpet Village by changing the nomenclature of the land in Sy.No.80 of Acs.4.20 gts. from Government land (Gairan Sarkari) to Patta, subject to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, and he also directed the petitioners to file declarations before the Special Officer and Competent Authority under Section 15(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Other events between 2005 & 2007
5. Initially, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division (2nd respondent) took up a suo moto appeal and suspended the orders dt.16.2.2006 in Proceedings No.B/1249/2005of the 3rd respondent.
6. Petitioners questioned the same in W.P.No.11637 and 12166 of 2006. The Writ Petitions were allowed on 07.07.2006 and the orders passed by the 2nd respondent on 31.05.2006 were set aside holding that there is no suo moto power conferred on the 2nd respondent to entertain any appeal against the proceedings or orders of the recording authority (3rd respondent).
The orders passed by the 1st respondent on 13.02.2007 in exercise of suo moto Revisional powers
7. Thereafter, the 1st respondent exercised suo moto Revisional powers invoking Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and suspended the orders passed by the 3rd respondent on 16.02.2006 initially; and then after hearing the petitioners passed orders on 13.02
H.Lakshmaiah Reddy Vs. Venkatesh Reddy
M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Limited Vs. State of Telangana
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra
Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties
The main legal point established in the judgment is the finality of the preliminary decree, the lack of jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the rights of parties with regard to Jagirs, and the ....
A preliminary decree in a suit for partition merely declares shares that parties are entitled to in any of properties included in plaint schedule and liable to partition--On the basis of a mere decla....
Point of law: it would be a travesty of justice to ask the petitioners to avail the lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a Civil Suit before the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Sec. 83 of the W....
An order declaring land surplus issued in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and violates principles of natural justice, warranting its quashing.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.