LawSphereX

K. LAXMA REDDY, R.R. DIST. v. THE JT. COLLECTOR-I, HYD.AND 4 OTHERS

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-02-21. K. LAXMA REDDY, R.R. DIST. v. THE JT. COLLECTOR-I, HYD.AND 4 OTHERS. Read the judgment and case...

Judgment text

[ 32s8 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU WRIT PETITION NO:13442 OF 2010 Between: K. LaxmaReddy,S/oK. NarayanReddy,agedab^out40years'occ:Business'Fi/o i'i;7,""Cd"dJpatiigrt, vitt'ag", NFi t'l;gar Gatkesai Mandal, Ranga Reddv District. ... PETiTIONER AND Fl/o Lakdikapool Hyderabad 1 The Joint Collector-|, Ranga Reddy District, Shourva lnvestments & Finance P\d. Ltd. , Rep. by T' Virupaksha S/o 2 nimaiin Gupta Reg. office at'1-8, Saroornagar, Hyderabad J lvladdi Mallamma, W/o Late Buchaiah' aged about 64 years, Occ: Household nyo? ss, Venit< iriy akla, Gatkesar Mand al, Ranga Reddy District' 47 years, Maddi Ramanjaneyulu, S/o Late Buchaiah, ag9! Rl/o 4-58' 4 . a'bout Venikirayakla, Gat(esar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Maddi Sailu, S/o Late Buchaiah, aged about 43 years, Rl/o 4-58, District.

Venikirayakla, Gatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy ... RESPONDENTS lndia praying the Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of that in High court may be circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the in the pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction one mote particularly the proceedings initiated by the 1st nature of writ of Mandamus a) declaring 9-3-2010 in file Nos. F215479120O7 respondent and the common order dt. principles of illegal and violative of F2t2657l2oo8 and F212658t2008 as arbitrary, natural justice and set aside the same. IAN O:1OF 2020 Petition under section 15'l cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of Cr. p. C. LA. NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP.

NO:1 6946 0F 2010) Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the common order dt. 9-3-2010 in file Nos. F2ls4lgl2oo7, F2l26s7t2oo8 and F21265812008 of the 1st respondent and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent or his agents not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and extent of Acres 12. 23 gts in Sy. No. 211 situated at Madaram village, Ankushapur Grampanchayat, Gatkesar Mandal, R. R. District. lA NO: 'l OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to implead the petitioner to the main w. p. No. 13442 of 2010 as respondent nos. 6 to 10. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2O14(V'lV MP. N O: 888 OF 2014 Between: lnve-s-tments & Finance pvt. tholiry! Ltd. , Rep. by T. Virupaksha -' S/o Ramaiah Gupta Reg.

Office at 1-8, Saroornagar, HyObraO5O ... pETlTtONER(2"d Respondent) AND 1. K. ,LaxmaReddy, S/o K Narayan. Reddy,. aged about40 years, Occ: Business, No 1 1 -47, Chanduoauagudd Vitrage,'Nr6- N Jgii cri(e. ri' n,''rniia], ;i;;, Reddy District. ... RESPONDENT(WRIT PETTTIONER) 2. The Joint corrector-r, Ranga Reddy District, R/o Lakdikapoor Hyderabad '7 '$i'. 1#:[:T[]2#itE53,#i,*a,,,"Hi.. #[3iJ,"A::i,3[";Househo,d 4. lt/addi Ramanianevr , t v;,r,i*itri", 47 y earc, Rvo 6;*J,ll; ;l$53r-? ffi"fjeffi 4-58, i,. ;3fl u y#fl years, l,f"1ll Fr/o 4-s8, 31i," i? &f. r33lll",o, "p#". :? ,f;,,,'o1ilfl (Respondents 3to5 are not necessary) ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1,3TO5 Petition under Section 151 Cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted on 19th day of July 2010 passed in W. p. M. p No. 16946 of 2O1O in W. p No. 13442 ot 2010. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI D.

RAMAKRISHNA Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1 : Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : SRI K. V. SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 to S : The Court made the following: ORDER i lr ,l ti g' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU . NO. 44 F2 JUDGMENT: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the Joint Collector (R1), M/s. Shourya Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. , (R2), and [hree private individuals with a prayer to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly In the nature oF V/rit of Mandamus declaring the proceedings initiated by the first respondent and the common order dated 09-03-2020 in File Nos. F2/5479/2007, F2/2657/2008 and F2/2658/2008 as arbitrary, iilegat and violative of principles of natural justice, thereby, set aside the said order. 2. As per the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the Writ petition, the following was his case: The petitioner has got acquaintance with the facts of the case.

He has filed the Writ Petition being aggrieved by the common order dated 09-03-2010 in the above referred three different appeals. The petitioner has claimed that property to an extent ot Ac. L2-23 gts in Sy. No. 2Ll at Maddaram Village originally belongs to one P. Raja Lingam, and one Maddi Sailu I wP. No 13442 or 2010 the father-in-law of respondent No. 3 namely Maddi Mallamma and grand-father of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was the protected tenant in respect of the above property. After the death of Maddi Sailu, his son Buchaiah inherited the property and as contemplated under the provisions of A. p. (T. A. ) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, the said Buchaiah was issued ownership certificate under Section 3B-E after following due procedure vide proceedings in File No. B/40211975 dated 26-06-t975. The said Buchaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the property.

However, in spite of issuance of certificate, his name was incorporated in the Revenue Records as pattedar and possessor during his life time. Since the said Buchaiah and respondents No. 3 to 5 were illiterates, they were not aware that their names were not incorporated in the Revenue Records but their possession over the property was not disturbed. The petitioner further claimed that after the death of Maddi Sailu and Maddi Buchaiah, Respondents No. 3 to 5 were in possession and enjoyment of the property lut in the year 2005, they were illegally and forcibly dispossessed by the sons of the original pattedar without following any due process of law. l \ J -7 SSRN,. ] WP. No 134a2 of 2010 3. Therefore, respondents No. 3 to 5 approached the Tahasildar, Ghatkesar and filed an application under Section 32 of A. P. (T. A.

) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 seeking restoration of their possession on the property and Tahsildar after fofiowing due process of law and having issued notices to all concerned conducted enquiry and allowed the application of respondents No:3 and 4 by order dated 24-OS_ 2007 in File No. B1143 1/2006. 4. In pursuance of'the. said order, the Revenue Inspector, Ghatkesar conducted a panchanama on 27_06_ 2007 and delivered the property in favour of respondents No. 3 to 5. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have obtained tiile deeds and pattedar pass-books and their names were mutated in the Revenue Records. The petitioner has further claimed that subsequent to the above proceedings and delivery of possession, mutation of their. names in the Revenue Records, they have executed an agreement of sale cum GpA with possession in favour of the petitioner vide a registered document bearing No. 18O4/2OOB and sold the property to an extent of Ac. t2-23 gts for a valuable consideration of Rs.

94,31,500/- which was paid to respondents No. 3 to 5. The petitioner has craimed that in pursuance of the said GpA and 4 SSRN, J wP. No 13442 0t 2010 in view of the sale, he was put in possession of the property with all absolute rights. The Writ petitioner has thereafter developed the property having spent huge amounts. 5. The petitioner further averred that subsequently, he came to know that responclent No. 2 while concealing the true facts and having knowledge about the purchase of the property by the Writ petitioner, filed appeal under Section 90 of the Act, 1950 and questioned the orders of Tahsildar in File No. 81/43 1/2006 vide case No'F2/5479/2007 and filed two more appeals questioning the panchanama conducted by Revenue Inspector and orders of Tahsbar dated 24-05-2007 ' 6. The petitioner has claimed that the second respondent has got knowledge about the purchase of the property by the Writ petitioner but he was not shown as a party in the appeals.

The petitioner had no notice of the above referred appeals but the first respondent disposed all the three appeals under a common order dated 09-03-2010 and set aside the order of Tahsildar dated 24-05-2007, panchanama dated 27-06-2007 and 38-E certificate issued in favour of Buchaiah' 7. The petitioner has claimed that the common order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the dated 09-03-2010 \ wP. No. l34. 12 ot20l0 provisions of the Act, 1950, thereby, it is liable to be quashed. It is also claimed that the second respondent has got knowledge about the ownership and possession of the petitioner and that he has already filed a suit in OS. No. 54g of 2008 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, thereby, prayed for setting aside the common order dated 09-03-2010. B. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner as none appeared' on his beharf. The rearned counsel for the respondent i. e. , "M/s. Shourya Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd.

,opposed the petition on the ground that the respondent ,the is in possession of property since a long time and there was no such panchanama, no delivery of property I to the said respondents and alleged sale cum GpA was only a paper tra nsaction. POINT : 9. The petitioner herein has filed the Writ petition mainly on the ground that subsequent to the proceedings of Tahsildar, Ghatkesar dated 24-OS_ZOO7, there was an a g reem ent between himself and respondents No. 3 to 5 and having paid a substantial amount of Rs. 94,31,500/_, ne was put in physical possession of the property with absolute right SSR\. J wP. No. l3442 ot 20I0 but in view of the order dated 09-03-2010 in three separate appeals preferred by second respondent herein, the orders obtained by respondents No. 3, 4 were set aside. The common order dated 09-03-2010 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1950, thereby, sought for setting aside the order.

A part from the present Writ petition, there are three separate revision petitions filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 vide C. R. P. No. 5490, 5491, 5492 of 2015 were also heard and disposed by a common order, where under, the petition filed by the revision petitioners i. e. , respondents No. 3 and 4 herein are dismissed. The order dated 24-05-2007 by Tahsildar, Ghatkesar was already set aside by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy under the above referred common judgment in the appeal preferred by second respondent herein. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner which is mainly based on the proceedings dated 24-05-2007 cannot give any right to the Writ Petitioner. 10. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy while disposing the appeals preferred by the second respondent, recorded a categorical finding that the second respondent has purchased i the property after verifying the Revenue Record and after : satisfying that no protected tenant over the above referred I WP. No.

l3442 of 2Ol0 land. Therefore, the issuance of certificate under Section 3B-E is also liable to be set aside. The order dated 09-03-2010, the loint Collector has cancelled the pattedar pass-book and set aside the alleged panchanama by which respondents No. 3 and 4 herein said to have been put in \ possession of the property \ were also set aside. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner who is claiming right through an agreement of sale cum GPA dated 27-03-2008 cannot acquire any right over the property. The contention petitioner of the Writ that he has spent the amount for the development of the property cannot be accepted because the second respondent herein having purchased the property in 1972 is in possession For more than 30 years. Therefore, simply because there was a proceeding said to have been conducted by Revenue Inspector on 27-06-2007 and delivered the property in favour oF respondents No. 3, 4 and that respondents No.

3 and 4 have delivered the property to the Writ petitioner cannot be accepted to be true. The alleged agreement of sale cum GpA said to have been executed by respondents No. 3,4 in favour of the Writ Petitioner is only a nominal document without any right in their favour. In view of the orders dated 09_03_2010 which were confirmed by this Court in the above referred ----I xr-.. Fry:+.? lrHr \ wP. No 134{ 2 0r 2010 three revision petitions, the Writ petitioner is not entifled to any relief, thereby, the petition writ is riabre to be crismissed. 11. In the result, the Writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// ,\,1 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Joint Collector-1, Ranga Re. ddy District, Rt/o Lakdikapool Hyderabad 2 . one CC to SRt D. RAMAT<htsxrun, ' novoCate. iOptict J . Two CCs to GP FOR REVENU-E,H|gh Court foiihe State of Tetangana. [OUT] 4. One CC to SRI K. V.

Sudhakar, Advocate. tOpUCl 5 Two CD Copies BSK GJP \ \ \ HIGH COURT I i t0212024 DATED:21 ! I 1 HE SrAI A s o 7 1( q ( f, ORDER > o 2 282{ o 2 3 APH '_) of 2010 WP. No. 13442 * t)F. spnTCB{) THE WRIT PETITION DISMISSING COSTS WITHOUT JO

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.