SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 38299

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Oruganti Janardhan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana AND 5 OTHERS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.88 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ch. Ravinder
For the Respondents: Mr. L. Ravinder, Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud

Mandatory procedural requirements under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 must be followed, including issuing notice to all interested parties during land transfer processes.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 5-A - Writ petition for certiorari to set aside order regarding land transfer - Petitioner claimed ownership based on ancestral rights and alleged violation of due process in land transfer to respondent No.6 without notice - Court found that mandatory procedures under the ROR Act were not followed, including failure to issue notice to the petitioner before altering land records. (Paras 3-6)

(B) Procedural Requirements - The court emphasized the necessity of providing notice to all interested parties in land transfer cases, as established in previous judgments, highlighting that failure to do so renders actions of revenue authorities invalid. (Paras 5-6)

(C) Evidence of Forgery - The court noted the petitioner’s claims of forgery regarding receipts presented by respondent No.6 and the ongoing criminal proceedings against him. (Paras 5-6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned order was issued in violation of the mandatory procedural requirements of the ROR Act, 1971, and thus set aside the order.

Issues: The main issues pertained to the validity of the land transfer without proper notice and the alleged forgery of documents by respondent No.6.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the failure to provide notice to the petitioner constituted a violation of procedural rights, rendering the land transfer invalid.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. petitioner claims ownership of ancestral agricultural land. (Para 2 , 3)
2. respondent no.6 argues possession and validity of sale. (Para 4)
3. court analyzes procedural compliance under ror act. (Para 5)
4. court concludes on procedural violations leading to setting aside of the order. (Para 6)

ORDER

Heard Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused original record.

2. This writ of certiorari is filed to call for the records including the order passed in New Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/303/2021 (Old Case No.B/2466/2019 at Old Revenue Court, RDO, Devarkonda), dated 04.02.2021 and review orders passed in new case dated 04.07.2021 by respondent No.2 and consequently allow the appeal filed by the petitioner.

3. CASE OF THE PETITIONER

i) He is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.13 guntas in Survey No.382/AA; Acs.4.17 guntas in Survey No.383/AA and Acs.1.05 guntas in Survey No.396/AA, making a total extent of Acs.5.35 guntas, situated at Koppole Village, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District.

ii) It is his ancestral property.

iii) Respondent No.6 is his elder brother.

iv) During life time of his father, he distributed the agricultural land in three (03) equal shares among the petitioner, respondent No.6 and another son.

v) When his father was alive, he and his father sold the subject land to respondent No.6 vide agreement of sale deed 10.07.1991 for a total consideration of Rs.69,000/- and he received an amount of Rs.36,500/- as advance and balance shall be payable on or before 01.08.1991.

vi) As per recitals of the agreement, if the amount is not paid by respondent No.6 within the stipulated time, said agreement stands cancelled and the advance amount stands forfeited.

vii) In view of the said clause, the said agreement of sale stood cancelled.

viii) Respondent No.6 did not initiate any legal steps for performance of said agreement of sale before competent Civil Court.

ix) After expiry of their father in the year 1997 and as per the family settlement made when their father was alive, the rights of the petitioner were recognized by Revenue Authorities and his name was also recorded in revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deed were also issued in his favour. Even after introduction of Dharani Portal, latest pattadar passbook-cum-title deed was issued in his favour.

x) Respondent No.6 and another brother also got the latest pattadar passbooks-cum-title deeds in respect of their respective lands.

xi) While so, all of a sudden, the subject land was transferred in the name of respondent No.6 vide proceedings No.B/2662/2017, dated --.10.2019 without giving any notice to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity.

xii) Validation was also done contrary to the provisions of the the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘ROR Act, 1971’) by incorporating the name of respondent No.6 in place of the petitioner as pattadar.

xiii) Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal No.B/2466/2019 before respondent No.2, who dismissed the same vide orders dated 04.02.2021 without affording any opportunity by holding that there is no reason to set aside 13-B Certificate issued in favour of respondent No.6.

xiv) As per the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No.20 of 2021, the aforesaid appeal was reopened. After issuing notices to both sides, the matter was heard on 02.07.2021 on which date respondent No.6 did not appear to make his submissions. However, respondent No.2 again dismissed the said review upholding the earlier order dated 04.02.2021.

xv) Respondent No.6 submitted certain receipts said to have issued by the petitioner along with agreement of sale dated 10.07.1991. In fact, the petitioner never issued any such receipts and the same are forged and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top