Point of Law: Section 41 says that where with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immovable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorised to make it.

JUDGMENT :

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

1. This common judgment and order will dispose of both writ appeal Nos.1105 of 2018 and 23 of 2022.

2. We have heard Mr. J.Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Advocate General, Telangana, for the appellants and Mr. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

3. Writ appeal No.1105 of 2018 arises out of writ petition No.9707 of 2009, whereas writ appeal No.23 of 2022 arises out of writ petition No.23913 of 2010. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by the common judgment and order dated 14.02.2017.

4. Be it stated that W.P.No.9707 of 2009 was filed to quash order dated 09.04.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) according permission to Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District to initiate proceedings for cancellation of supplementary sethwar in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.26.16 guntas in survey Nos.4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 14/9-12 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (briefly ‘the subject land’ hereinafter) in terms of Section 166-B (3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F.

5. Second writ petition i.e., W.P.No.23913 of 2010 was filed seeking a direction to interdict the action of the revenue authorities in creating a dispute of location and enjoyment and thus unlawfully dispossessing the writ petitioners from part of the subject land; further seeking a direction to the revenue authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land by the writ petitioners.

6. Order dated 09.04.2008 was passed by the Director (Appeals), also referred to as the Commissioner (Appeals), in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration in proceedings No.T2/1001/2005. The said proceedings were initiated as per request of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District for according permission under Section 166-B (3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F (briefly, ‘the Land Revenue Act’ hereinafter) for cancellation of supplementary sethwar in respect of the subject land. By the aforesaid order, permission was accorded to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District for initiation of proceedings for cancellation of supplementary sethwar dated 24.07.1993 in respect of the subject land, further directing him to verify the two points mentioned thereunder which we will advert to at a subsequent stage of this judgment.

7. By the common judgment and order dated 14.02.2017, learned Single Judge quashed the proceedings No.TS/1001/2005 dated 09.04.2008. Learned Single Judge also noted the statement of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration that the revenue authorities would not be interfering with the possession of the writ petitioners over the subject land. Both the writ petitions were accordingly allowed.

8. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23913 of 2010, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority filed W.A.No.52 of 2018. By the judgment dated 21.09.2021 a Division Bench of this Court opined that Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority could not be construed to be a party aggrieved. Accordingly the writ appeal was dismissed. In the meanwhile, writ appeal No.1105 of 2018 was filed. Therefore, while dismissing writ appeal No.52 of 2018 Division Bench clarified that the said decision would have no bearing on writ appeal No.1105 of 2018 which shall be decided on its own merit.

9. Writ appeal No.1105 of 2018 was initially filed by the following appellants:

(1) Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Government of Telangana (previously Government of Andhra Pradesh);

(2) Commissioner (Appeals), Office of Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Government of Telangana (previously Government of Andhra Pradesh);

(3) Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District; and

(4) Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

10. In the proceedings held on 21.09.2021, an objection was