Guduru Padma Reddy And 4 Others vs State Of Telangana And 6 Others

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal in case No.F2/1950/2021, dated 25.06.2021 and to set aside the same.

The facts of the case are that the names of the petitioners herein are mutated in the Revenue records in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.6.37 gts., situated in Sy.No.251 of China Konduru Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District since the year 1993-1994 onwards. Aggrieved by such entries in the Revenue records, respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein filed a Revision Petition under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971’), before the Joint Collector of Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District and the said Revision Petition was transferred to respondent No.2-Special Tribunal, in terms of Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020. The said Revision Petition was disposed of through impugned order, dated 25.06.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, contended that the petitioners herein are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject land admeasuring Acs.6.37 gts., situated in Sy.No.251 of China Konduru Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’) and their names were accordingly entered in the Revenue records from the year 1993-1994 onwards and the same is continuing for more than two (02) decades. It is further contended that the Revision Petition filed by respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein, after a long lapse of time is not maintainable and the same ought to have been dismissed by the Special Tribunal on the ground of delay. It is also contended that the Special Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, failed to take into consideration the counter filed by the petitioners herein and also failed to advert to various contentions raised by the petitioners before the Special Tribunal. It is also further contended that the Special Tribunal, on an earlier occasion, having dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground of delay, failed to advert to the aspect of delay while passing the impugned order and reversed the order passed on an earlier occasion. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel that, though there was a prior litigation between the same parties in respect of an extent of Acs.11.00 gts., situated in Sy.No.251 of the said Village, the same was ended in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein, respondent Nos.4 to 7 never claimed any right or title over the subject land during pendency of the previous litigation. Thus, it is contended that respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein having recovered the possession of an extent in Acs.11.00 gts., situated in Sy.No.251 from the petitioners herein through execution proceedings, have sold the said Acs.11.00 gts., and having sold the same, respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein started falsely claiming right over the land that belongs to the petitioners herein. It is also contended that, though the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.74 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Ramannapet seeking permanent injunction against respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein, the said suit was withdrawn by the petitioners and as such any findings that are rendered in an interlocutory order in the said suit, cannot be taken into consideration for any purpose. But the Special Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, has taken note of the findings that are rendered in an interlocutory order passed in the said O.S.No.74 of 2014 erroneously and thereby, subjected the impugned order to illegality.

On the other hand, Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6, contended that the said Revision Petition was filed by respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein jointly in respect of the subject land and the said Revision petition was decided in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein. It is further contended that, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed as the same is filed against respondent Nos.4 and 7, who are dead persons. It is also contended that the petitioners herein having been fully aware that respondent Nos.4 and 7 are no more, filed the Writ Petition against them by not bringing the legal representatives of respondent Nos.4 to 7 on record. Thus, it is contended that the order passed by the Special Tribunal is an inseparable one and for want of bringing the legal representatives of respondent Nos.4 and 7 on record, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. It is also further contended that, respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein on an earlier occasion filed a Civil Suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of land admeasuring Acs.11.00 gts., in Sy.No.251 and an extent of Acs.6.37 gts., in Sy.No.252 of the China konduru Village, and the said suit was decreed in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein and the same was also confirmed in the first appeal as well as in the second appeal. According to learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, in the said suit, it was the specific contention of the petitioners herein that they have purchased the land in Sy.Nos.251 and 252 admeasuring Acs.11.00 gts., and Acs.6.37 gts., respectively from the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein and they never made any claim over an extent of Acs.6.37 gts., in Sy.No.251 which is the balance extent that remained in the said survey numbers. It is further contended that the petitioners herein, having lost their claim in the above referred O.S.No.68 of 1982, fraudulently got their names mutated  in the Revenue records in respect of the balance extent of Acs.6.37 gts., in Sy.No.251 without notice to respondent Nos.4 to 7 and behind their back and by placing reliance on such entries in the Revenue records, they have filed O.S.No.74 of 2014 for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein and in an interlocutory application in I.A.No.250 of 2014 filed therein seeking temporary injunction, the learned trial Court has rendered a finding that the petitioners herein have no right or claim over the land in Sy.No.251. It is further contended that having invited an adverse finding, the petitioners herein have withdrawn the said suit and thereby, they lost their claim over the subject land. Thus, it is contended that the claim of the petitioners herein is totally fraudulent and without having any right or title over the subject property and they are making a false claim over the subject property to deprive the petitioners of their rightful ownership over the subject land. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition as well as the counter filed before the Special Tribunal does not show any source of title in favour of the petitioners. No where it is mentioned as to how they have acquired right and title over the subject property, except claiming that their names are entered in the Revenue records since the year 1993-1994. There is no other basis for claiming title over the subject property. Surprisingly, in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is contended that the respondents have perfected their title over the subject property by adverse possession as the alleged possession of the petitioners is in the knowledge of the unofficial respondents herein. Thus, indirectly the Writ Petitioners have admitted the title of the unofficial respondents over the subject property and thus claiming title by adverse possession. As the petitioners herein failed to base their claim on any legal methods to acquire title over the subject property and also failed to place on record the basis or the proceedings basing upon which the names of the petitioners herein were entered in the Revenue record from the year 1993-1994, this Court has no option except to treat the entries that are made in the Revenue records in respect of the subject property in favour of petitioners as unauthorized. Such entries will not confer any right on the petitioners to continue such entries in the Revenue records prejudicial to the interest of the rightful owners. The petitioners herein, having made a claim of title by adverse possession from respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein have acknowledged the title of respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein. No doubt respondent Nos.4 to 7 have filed a Revision Petition after a long lapse of time contending that the entries in the name of the petitioners herein were made in the Revenue records behind their back and without there being any proceedings or order passed by any competent authority that to without putting the respondent Nos.4 to 7 on notice. When such an allegation is made, it is the primary duty of the petitioners herein to place on record, the relevant documents that show the right, title and entitlement of the petitioners herein and the proceedings under which and when exactly the names of the petitioners herein were entered in the Revenue records. In the absence of any such basic averment or material being placed on record, it is not known when exactly such entries are made in the Revenue records. Such entries could have been made at much later point of time than the year 1993-1994, as such entries are admittedly made without there being any endorsement in the Revenue records. It is also not the case of the Writ Petitioners herein that their names are entered in the Revenue records from the year 1993-1994 by virtue of any order passed by any competent authority.

Admittedly, there was a long litigation between the petitioners herein and respondent Nos.4 to 7 in respect of the land in the survey numbers in question and the petitioners herein having lost the said litigation up to second appeal stage and having lost possession to respondent Nos.4 to 7 under execution proceedings appears to have made a claim over the balance extent of Acs.6.37 gts., in Sy.No.251. As the petitioners herein failed to base their title to subject land on any legally permissible source and also in view of the fact that, the petitioners herein having instituted O.S.No.74 of 2014 seeking a permanent injunction over the subject property basing on title have withdrawn the said suit after inviting adverse findings in an order passed in I.A.No.250 of 2014, this Court is inclined to acknowledge the reasoning given by the Special Tribunal on merits of the case as well as on the ground of the limitation.

The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary relief and any party approaching this Court invoking the said jurisdiction is expected to approach this Court with clean hands and by placing the true facts before this Court. In the instant case, as already observed above, the petitioners failed to trace their right and title over the subject property through any legal methods and also failed to even state as to how their names were entered in the Revenue records. It is settled law that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and it will be exercised only in furtherance of interest of justice and not on the making out of a legal ground or technical defect/ground as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and others (1997) 1 SCC 134. Though in the case on hand there appears to be a delay in approaching the revisional authority, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Certiorari jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Special Tribunal.

In addition to the above reasons, there is yet one another reason that disentitle the petitioners herein for any relief. In the present Writ Petition, as already noted above, respondent Nos.4 and 7 are no more and the same is also brought to the notice of the petitioners herein by way of a counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent Nos.4 and 7 are stated to be no more as on the date of filing Writ Petition itself. In spite of the same, the petitioners failed to take any steps for bringing the legal representatives of respondent Nos.4 and 7 on record. As already noted above, the Revision Petition was filed by respondent Nos.4 and 7 jointly in respect of the subject property. By virtue of demise of respondent Nos.4 and 7 herein, before filing the Writ Petition, the impugned order has become final insofar as respondent Nos.4 and 7 are concerned. As the said impugned order has become final as against respondent Nos.4 and 7, the same cannot be interfered with even in respect of respondent Nos.5 and 6 as well. Therefore, for this reason also the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Though, several other submissions are advanced by the learned counsel on either side by referring to the pleadings in the civil litigation between the parties, it is not necessary to refer to the same in view of the conclusion arrived at by this Court as above.

In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the interim order granted on 08.09.2021 shall stand vacated.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.