Smt.Karike Niruparani, W/o K.Satyanarayana, v. The Government of A.P, rep.by
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-27. Smt.Karike Niruparani, W/o K.Satyanarayana, v. The Government of A.P, rep.by. Read the judgment...
Judgment text
[ 34841 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENry SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. M. MOHIUDDTN WRIT PET]TION NO: 23907 0F 2013 Between: Smt. Karike Nirupqlani, Wo K. Satyanarayana, Occ: House wife, R/o H. No. 1. t-100, Srinivasa Colony, Ramachandrapuram village and mandal, Medak District. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The Govemment of A. P, rep. by, its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy 3. The Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. 4. Verrkata Subba Rao, S/o late Radhakrishna Murthy, {agariamudi . occ Business, Ri/o Rachapudi, post Addanki, Kousapadu mandal, prak-asham District. 5. Lagula Manohar, S/o. Jangaiah, Rt/o Nandigama village, Patancheru mandal, Medak District. 6. L. Bheemaiah, S/o Jangaiah, R/o Nandigama village, patancheru mandal, Medak District. 7.
LRamulu, S/o Jangaiah, Rl/o Nandigama village, Patancheru mandal, Medak District. 8 L. Laxman, S/o Jangaiah, R/o H. No. 1-b2, Nand igama village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. 9. Smt. Mujahithipuram Pushpamma, Wo Yadaiah, Fl/o H. No. 1-141, Lingampally, Ranga Reddy District. 10. K. Amruthamma, Wo Mogulapa, Rt/o H. No. 2-26, Damarched village, Basheerabad. mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 11. Aliva Prabhavathi, Wo A. Yadagiri, R/o H. No. 2-26, Damarched village, Basheerabad mandal, Ranga Reddy District. (respondents 5 to 11 are not necessary parties and are rep. by their GpA holder i. e. , respondent No. 4) 12. Yellagoni Pentamma, Wo Yadaiah, R/o Nandigama village, Patancheru manda', Medak District. 13. Chakal,i S/o Pentaiah, R/o Nandigama . S_atyallgyqna, village, Patancheru mandal, Medak District. 14. Chakali Laxminarayana, S/o Pentaiah, R/o Nandigama village, Patancheru mandal, Medak District. l5.
Chakali Mallesham, S/o Satyanarayana, Rl/o Nandigama village, Patancheru mandal, Medak District. 16. Ramineni Shekar Saibaba, S/o Veeraiah, Rl/o Nandigama village, Patancheru mandal Medak District. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issJe a writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Manrjamus declaring the impugned proceeding No. F3/4770l2008- F3l42lRoV2oc8 dated 22. s. 2o09 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequenfly direct the 3rd respondent to re- enter the nam€, of the petitioner in the revenue records. lA NO: 1 OF 2A25 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to expedite the ht:aring of the w. P.
No, 23907 of 20'13 by fixing an early date for final hearing, and pass such other order Counsel forther Petitioner: SRt CH. VIDYASAGAR RAO, SENTOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH Counsel forthe Respondents No. 1 to 3: Gp FOR REVENUE counsel for the Respondent No. 4: sRr v. RAvr KIRAN RAo, sENloR couNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI JAYARAJ JOEL BABU RAIDU The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI"ANGANA AT ITYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No. 2-39_OJ oJ 2013 pATE: &?. O2.? 026 BETWEEN: Karike Niruparani .... Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and 15 others. Respondents ORDER Heard Sri Ch. Vidyasagar Rao, learncd Senior Counsel representing Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader lor Revenue for the official respondents and Sri V.
Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Jayaraj Joel Babu Raidu, learned counsel lor responclent No. 4 and perused the i-ecord. 2. This writ petition is filed unrler Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:- "... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ o. f Mandamus declarhtg the impugned proceeding No. F3/ 4770/ 20O8-l'^3/ 42/ ROR/ 2O0E dctte<l 22. 5. 2009 passed by tlrc 2nd resportd. ent as illegal, arbitrar'4, wtthottt juisdiction and ) :onsequently direct the 3rd respondent to re-enter the name of the ,cetitioner in the reuenue records and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the ,nterest of . justice. " 3. 'lhe lis pertains to agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 6. 13 Gts in Sy No. 256 of Nandigama Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Ac. 2.
08 Gts out of the said survey number from respondent Nos. 13 and 14 uide registered sale deed dated 25. 03. :2004. The 4th respondent claims rights over the entire extent of Ac. 6. 13 Gts in Sy No. 256 based on a registered General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of Sale dated 30. 08. 11007 executed in his favour by respondent Nos. 5 to 11, who clzrim to bc the legal heirs of the original protected tenant, late LaSlula Swamy. Factual matrix {in brief} 4. The present writ petition emanates from protracted dispute concerning agricurltural lands in Sy. Nos. 25l, 252 and 256 of Nandigama Villagc, under the provisions of the Andhra PradeshL (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (frr short, 'the 'lenancy Act'), and subsequent revenue adjudications. 'lhe essential facts, stated in their chronological sequence, are delineated hereunder: --"'--Y,,/ i) Originally, one Bhooma Goud was the protected tenant of the subject lands.
Upon his demise, his sole son, Lagula Swamy, succeedcd to the tcnancy rights by virtue of 'l'hereafter, Section 4O ol the Tenancy Act. the competent authority granted a certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act in favour of Lagula Swamy on 14. 05. 1985, conferring orvnership rights, and his name was accordingly mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor. ii) It is thc casc on record that certain sale transactions were allegedly executed in the year 1973 by Lagula Swamy in favour of Yellagoni Pentamma and the predecessors of respondent Nos. 13 and 14. These transactions are stated to have been unregistered and on plain paper, and to have preceded the grant of the Section 38-E certificate. iii) On the strength of such alleged documents, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Patancheru, issued certificates under Section 13-B on 29. O9. 1994 in File Nos. F/3897 11994 and F/38961L994, recognising rights in favour o[ the said purchasers to an extent of Ac. 1. OO in Sy. No.
256 and Ac. S. 13 Gts respectively. iv) Lagula Swamy is stated to have died leaving behind two wives namely; Gangamma and Basamma and four daughters through Basamma, who are arrayed as respondcnt Nos. 5 to 11. v) on 30. 08. 2oo7, thc said legal heirs executed a registered General Power o[ Attorney-cum-Agreement of Sale with possession in flavour of the 4ft respondent in respect of [he entire extent of Ac. 6. 13 Gts in Sy. No. 256. vi) lSubsequently, in the year 2008, respondent Nos. S to 11, represented by their GPA holder (4rh respondent), prefcrred a revision before the Joint collector under Iiection 9 of the Andhra pradesh Rights in Land and l)attadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ,lg7I Act) challenging the validity of the 13-B certilicates dated 2'9. O9. 1994.
vii) I - was asserted in the revision proceedings that the alleged transactions of thc year lg73 were legally unsustainable, as Lagula Swamy was, at the relevant point o[ time, onlv a protectcd tenant and therefore not vr:sted with transferable title. It also placed on record ',r,as ttrat subsequent to the issuance of the certificate under S,--cti<>n 38-E on i4. 0S. 198S, the statute imposed a prohibition on alienation for a period of eight years under Sr:ction 48-A of the Tenancy Act. The notices issued to the ccncerned parties were returned with the endorsement ) 'refused', and they were accordingl5r proceeded against ex parte. viii) By order dated 22. O5. 2OO9, the Joint Collector allowed the revision, holding that the alleged sale transactions of 1973 were devoid of legal validity and that the 13-B certificates issued in 1994 were unsustainable in law.
The Joint Collector arccordingly set aside the said certificates and directed mutation of the revenue records in favour of the GPA holder-cum-agreement holder, i. e. , the 4th respondent, in rcspect of the entire extent in Sy. No. 256. i*) In the interregnum, the present petitioner had purchased an extent of Ac. 2. O8 Gts out of Sy. No. 256 from respondent Nos. i3 and 14 under a registered sale deed dated 25. O3. 2OO4. Pursuant thereto, a Pattadar Pass Book and Titlc Deed were issued in her favour on 22. 03. 2005 and her name was entered in the revenue records. x) It is asserted that the petitioner became aware of the Joint Collector's order dated 22. O5. 2OO9 only on 25. 07. 2013, when certain persons allegedly interfered with her possession clairning rights under the said order. On enquiry, petitioner was informed that the revenue entries had been altered for the year 2oL2-13 in favour of the 16ft respondent on the basis of the impugned order.
xi) Aggrieved thcrebl', petitioner instituted the present writ petit. ion scckir-rg to assail the <>rdcr oI the . Joint collector irnd for consequential directions to restore her name in '-he revenue records. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order <lated 22. o5. 2oo9 and has advanced his submissions as under: i) That the )d respondentJoint Collector lacked jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, for the purpose of setting aside a certificaLe issued undcr the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The revisional porver under Section 9 of the 1971 Act is confined to orders passed under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B thereof, and does not extend to adjudicating upon thc validity of a 13_B certificate issued under the Tenancy Act. The impugned order was therefore stated to be without jurisdiction and void. ii) That the petitioner, having purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed dated 25.
03. 2004 and having been issued a Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed on 22. O3. 2OO5, was a necessary and proper party to the revision proceedings. iii) That failure to implead the petitioner and afford an opportunit-v of hearing was alleged to be violative of the principles of natural justice. [t was also urged that the revision petition itself, having been filed in the year 2008 challenging certificates issued in 1994, suffered from inordinate delay and ought not to have been entertained. iv) That the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for valuable cclnsideration, who acted on the basis of subsisting revenue entries and 13-B certificates standing in the names of her vendors. v) That the pctitioner's rights had crystallised and ought not to have been unsettled by the impugned order on the basis of Pattadar Pass Book and subsequent Pahanies reflecting her possession. Submissions on behalf of respondent No. 4 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.
4, supported the impugned order and submitted as under: i) That the foundational document of titre is the certificate issued under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act on 14. 05. 1985 in favour of late Lagula Swamy. Upon his demise, his legal heirs (respondent Nos. 5 to l1) succeeded to the property. The alleged alienations of the year 1973, r,r,hich formed the basis for issuance of 13-B certificates in lgg4, were stated to be legally untenable. ii) That at the time of the alleged sale in LgZ3, Lagula Srvamy was only a protected tenant and had no transferable title. orvnership rights were conferred only upon issuance of the 38-E certificate in 1995. Moreover, Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act imposed a statutory embargo on alienation for a period of eight years thereafter. Any transaction in contravention of the said provision was asserted to be void. Consequently, the 13-B certificates, having been founded upon such transactions, were liable to be annulled.
iii) That the revisional jurisdiction under section 9 of the l97l Act empowers the Joint collector to examine the legality and correctness of entries in the Record of Rights. where the foundational document for mutation is void or non-est, the revisional authority is competent to set aside such entries to prevent perpetuation of illegality in the revenue records. i*r) That no title can pass from a person who has none, and the petitioner's vendors, deriving title from a void transaction, could not convey any lawful interest, thus petitioner cannot claim as a bona purchaser. fide v) That the petition ',r,rit was also stated to be liable for dismissal on the ground of dcla_v, as the impugned order u,as passed in 2OO9 whereas the writ petition was instituted in 2013. Submissions on behalf of respondent Nos. l to 3 7.
Learned Government Pleader lor Revenue (Telangana Area) supported the impugned order and submitted as under: i) That the Joint Collector had excrcised his revisional jurisdiction in accordance with lau'. ii) That the 13-B certificates were issued without proper authority and on thc basis of rransactions lacking legal validity. The Joint Collector, upon examination of the relevant records and statutory provisions, set aside the said certilicates and directed correction of the revenue entries. l0 i:i) That the impugned order is reasoned and within the scope of statutory powers, and does not r,rrarrant interf<:rence in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 ol thc Constitution of India. 8. I have taken note of the respective submissions urged and the material on record, including the proceedings before the revenlre authorities, the impugned order dated 22. os. 2oo9, and the other connected documents and perused the record. Consideration by this Court 9.
In the present case, it is apposite to remind oneself of the contours oljurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of 'lhis India. court does not sit in appeal over findings recorded by a cluasi-judicial authority. lnterference is warranted only where the impugned order is vitiated by jurisdictional error, patent error of law apparent on the face of the record, perversitr', or violation of principles of natural justice. Re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of this court,s view for that of the sratutory authority is impermissible within the limited,lompass otjudicial review. 1971 Ar:t 1(). The core /is that arises for consideration pertains to the competence of tly: Joint collector to examine the validity of a ll l3-B certificate issued under the'l'enancy Act while exercising revisional jurisdiction unde r Section 9 of the 1971 Act. 11.
Section 9 of the 1971 Act empowers the District Collector to call for and examine records relating to orders passed under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B of the I97I Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to their legalicy or propriety. These provisions relate to preparation and maintenance of record of rights and mutation entries. L2. It is well-settled that a 13-B certificate originates under the Tenancy Act. However, in the present casc, the revision before the Joint Collector was directed against mutation entries in the revenue records, u,hich were admittedly founded upon the 13-B certificates issued in 1994. 'fhus, the revisional authority was called upon to examine the legality o[ entries made in the rccord of rights. 13.
It is apposite to observe that '*,here mutation entries are founded upon a document alleged to be void or lacking legal sanctity, the authority vested with supervisory jurisdiction over revenue records cannot be rendered officio in examining functus the validiff of such foundational document, to the limited extent necessary to assess the legality of the consequential entries. In the present case, the Joint Collector did not embark upon an independent determination of tenancy rights; he confined t2 himsr:lf to examining whether the mutation entries could be susta. ned in law if the underlying transaction itself was devoid o[ leg,ll effcct-. 'lhcreforc, the exercise undertaken by the Joint collector cannot be characterised as one beyond the scope of Section 9 of the 1971 Act. Allese d Violation o f Natural Justice L4. [n the instant case, it is undisputed that the petitioner was not arrayed as a party to the revision proceedings.
However, the re corcl discloses that notices were issued to the then record,:d pattadars, which were returned ',l,ith the endorsement 'refuseC', and the-v were accordingly set ex parte. 15. It is to be noted that the petitioner claims to have purchascd the propertv in 2oo4 from respondent Nos. l3 and 14, whose names were reflected in the revenue records on the strength of thc 13-B certificates. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioner had acquired such a vested and independcnt right as u,'ould render the impugned order void for non-imrlcadmcnt. As already observed, the title of respondent Nos. 13 and 14 u'as wholly traceable to the alleged alienations of r973 and the consequential 13-B certificates. If the foundational transaction itself lacked legal validity, any derivatire claim flowing therefrom cannot confer a superior or indepencent rjght upon the petitioner.
In such circumstances, l3 mere non-impleadment would not, by itself, render the impugned order void, particularly in the absence of demonstrable prejudice or infringemcnt o[ a lcgally sustainable right. Validitv of the Petitioner's Title L6. A perusal of the record reflects t. hat late Lagula Swamy was granted ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act only on 14. 05. 1985. Prior thereto, he was a protected tenant. L7. It is trite law that under the schcmc o[ the'lcnancy Act, a protected tenant does not possess absolute ownership rights prior to conferment of ownership under Section 38-E. Furthermore, Section 48-A of the Tenancy Act imposes a statutory prohibition on alienation for a period of eight years from the date of issuance of the ownership certificate. 18. In the present case, the alleged alienation is of the year L973, i. e. , prior to conferment of ownership in 1985. Prima facie, such transaction could not have conveyed valid title.
The 13-B certificates issued in 1994 were founded upon the said alleged transaction. If the underlying sale itself lacked legal efficacy, any derivative rights flowing therefrom would necessarily be unsustainable. l4 19. Furthermore, the petitioner's purchase in 2oo4 was from respondent Nos. i3 and 14, who derived their claim solely from the 1{}-B certificates. It is w,ell settled that a transferee cannot acquire better title than that possessed by his transferor. The plea <rf bona fide purchase, though equitable in character, cannol override statutory prohibitions or validate a transaction that is voirl in lau'. 20- '[he Pattadar Pass Book and revenue entries relied upon by the petitioner are fiscal records and do not, by themselves, confer titlc. Thev merely rcflect possession or entries made for revenue purposes. ln the absence of a valid root of title, such entries cannot crcate or perfect ownership.
Delav:rnd laches 2L- At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the impugned order rvvas l)asscd on '22. os. 2oo9, whereas the writ petition ,rvas instituted in 2013. The petitioner states that knowledge of the order was zrcquirr:d onlSr in July 2OL3. While the explanation may n()t be cntircly convincing, it is evident that the writ petition was filed soon after the asserted date of knowledge. 22. on the other hand, the revision before the Joint collector was filel in 2ooti challenging certificates issued in 1994. The revisionirl ar-rthorit-\, acceptcd the explanation of knowledge and proceedt:d t. examine thc legality of the certilicates, particularly l5 i T t T t I I in view of the allegation that the unde. rlying transaction was a * void. tt is settled that a void transaction does not acquire validity by lapse of time, and the aurhority r,r,as justified in examining the matter on merits. The revisional authority therefore cannot be faulted.
Thus, no ground is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Conclusion 23. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 22. O5. '2OO9 passed by the Joint Collector, Medak district, does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The said order correctly held that the alleged lg73 transaction was legally untenable and that the 13-B certificates issued in 1994 were unsustainable . The consequential direction to rectify the I revenue entrtes ln favour of the 4th respondent, claiming J through the legal heirs of late Lagula Srvamy. is therefore, unassailable. 24. It is also noted that the interim order granted on 14. o8. 2o13 in w. P. M. P. No. 29387 of 2o13 has continued for a considerable length of time and has become absolute on r6 29. 02. 2024.
continuance of such interim protection, in the absence ol an5, sustainable ground, cannot be justified. 2s. Accordingly', the writ Petition is dismissed. The order dated 22. o5. 2009 passed b. r' the Joint collector, Medak District, 'l'hc is alfirmed. inrcrim order dated 14. 08. 2013 in W. P. M. P. No. 29387 of 2OI3, which was made absolute on 29. O2. 2024, is hereby vacated. oonscqucnth,. , misccllaneous pe titions pending if any shall stand r:loscd. No order as to costs. Sd/. P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFTCER To 1 one c(] to SRI PALLE SRTHARTNATH, Advocate topucl 2 Two ccs to Gp for Revenue, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. one cc to sRI JAYARAJ JOEL BABU RAIDU, Advocate topucJ 4. Two C[) Copies MP. v HIGH COURT DATED i2710212026 ,f,; THE S t () ')ntn 0 5 ritlP * a ORDER WP. No. 23907 of 2013 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS hb
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.