Kunuru Narsimha v. The Joint Collector, Nalgonda At

I 3303I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 582 OF 2009 Between:

Kunuru Narsimha, S/o. Buchaiah, aged about 62 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Chityal Village, and Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Nalgonda at, Nalgonda.

1.

The Tahsildar (eadier Mandal Revenue Officer), Chityal N4andal, Nalgonda District.

2.

Guntoju Rama Chary, S/o. Lingaiah, aged about 47 yearc, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Chityal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Order dt. 20-9-2008 in Revision Case No. F211496612007 of the 1st respondent herein and also the Order No. 4/696/06 dt. 18-8-2OO7 of the 2nd Respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary unreasonable violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and pattedar Pass Books Act 1971 and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and rssue a consequential direction to the respondents h€rein not to give effect to the same.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009 WPMP. NO: 702 OF 2009 ) - 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 stay the operation of the Order No. 4/696/06 dt. 18-8-2007 of the 2nd respondent herein which is confirmed by the Order dt. 20-9-2008 in Revision Case No. F211496612007 of the 1st respondent herein pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A.RAVINDER REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.582 of 2OO9 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is hled seeking following relief: .

"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction pa-rticularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the order dt.2O.9.2OO8 in Revision Case No.F2l 1496612OO7 of the 1", respondent herein and also the Order No.A/696/O6 dt. 18.8.2OO7 of the 2"a respondent herein, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of principles o[ natural justice and also violative of the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act 1977 and a-lso violative of Articles 14, 2l and 300-! Of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein not to give effect to the same..."

2.

Heard Sri G. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, Iearned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 as well as learncd Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on bchall o[ respondent Nos. I and 2.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submiLs that the pctitioner is the or.t,ner and possessor of agricultural land to an cxtent of Ac.4.OO gts. in Sy.No.53O of Chityal Vitlage and Mandal, Nalgonda Drstrict, and he acquired the same by way of succession. He further submits that respondent No.3 filed application before respondent No-2 invoking the provision of Section 5-A ol rhc A.P- Rights tn Land ancl Pattadar Pass Books Act, I97 I (hercinaftcr called brevitl', 'the

ISR. J w P No i8' '1009 Act) for seeking validation and regulari zation of the alleged agreement of sale dated 26.03.1996 on the ground that the petitioner sold the said ProPertY to him' He also submits that respondent No 2, without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioner' issued 13-B certifrcate in faovur of respondent No'3 on 18'08'2007 regularizing the said agreement of sale, though, respondent No'2 is not having any authority or jurisdiction to regularize the unregistered agreement of sale, especially the petitioner disputing the genuinity of the said document

3. I . Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed revision before respondent No.l under Section 9 of the Act and the revisional authority, without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in the memorandum o[ revision petition, simply dismissed the revision' without giving any reasons and the same is contrary to lau' He further contcnded that respondent No.l and 2 ought to have dircct the respondcnt No.3 to approach the competent civil Court for enforcement of the alleged agreement of sale' 3.2. [n support o[ his contention, he relied upon the Division Bench judgment ol this Court in I(onkana Ravinder Goud and others v' Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society, Hyderabad and othersr contending that the agreement of sale cannot bc considercd as a transfer within the meaning of Section 5-A of the AcL' ' toot (j) AL.D 6:-l (t)u)

JSR, J w P No iE2 ot2009 He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in V. Krishnaiah and others v. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and others2. 4.

Per contro, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondent contending that respondent No.3 had purchased the subject property from the petitioner through sada sale deed (simple sale deed) dated 26.03.1996 by paying valuable sale consideration. Respondent No.3 has made an application before respondent No.2 invoking the provision of Section 5-A of the Act, for seeking validation of the said sada sale deed. Respondent No.2, after lollowing the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of thc Act as well as the Rules made thereunder, validated lregiarized the sada sale deed and also issued 13-B certificate vide proceedings No.A/696/06 dated 18.O8.2007 and respondent No.3 has paid an amount of Rs.9,120/- towards registration charges. 4.1 Hc further contended that Respondent No.

2, after due venhc:rtion o[ the records and after considering the recitals of the sada sale deed dated 26.03.1996, rightly validated the said document and issued 13-B certihcate on 18.O8.20O7. Questioning the above said proceedings, the petitioner filed revision before rcspondent No'1 zrnci the rcvisional authority after considering the contentions o[ respectivc parties and after due verification of lhe records, rightly clisnrissed the revision petition, by its order dated 20 09 2O08, ancl l00r(lti\t.

JSR, ] W P.No.582."?009 there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 conhrming the order of respondent No'2 to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Att\cle 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. -Learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that respondent No.2, having exercised the powers conferred under Section 5-A of the Act, validated the sada sale deed by collecting the stamp duty and registration charges and issued 13-B certificate' Respondent No. 1 rightly confirmed the orders passed by respondent No.2 by its order dated 20 'O9 '2OO8 and the petitioner is not entitled any relief, much less the relief sought in the writ petition' 6.

Having considcred the rival submissions made by the respective parties ancl alter perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that rcspondcnt No 3 is claiming the rights over the property basing upon the sada sale deed dated 26'03'1996 executed by the petitioner' From perusal of the said sada sale deed' it reveals that respondenl No.3 had paid an amount of Rs'5'O00/- on 26.O3.1996 and subsequently remaining amount of Rs'65'000/ - was paid on 20.O4 .1996 It lurther reveals from the record that respondent No.3 has made an application before respondent No 2 invoking thc provisions ol Section 5-A of the Act seeking regularizalion / validation of the said sada sale deed' Respondent No.2, after issuirrg notice to the respective parties and aftcr

JSR, J W P.No t82 of 2009 conducting enquiry, validated the sada sale deed and issued 13-B certificate under the Rules on 18'08'2007' Pursuant to the same' the name of respondent No'3 was mutated in the revenue records { and pattadar pass book and title deed were also issued in his favour' Questioning the above said order, dated 18'08'2O07' petitioner filed re,rision petition invoking the provision of Section 9 of the Act' The revisional authority, after considering the contentions of both parties and also after due verihcation of the records, dismissed the revision petition by giving cogent reasons holding that the nature of the document executed by the petitioner amounts to sada sale deed and it is not an agreement of sale'

7 .

It is very much relevant to mention that respondent No 2 issued notices to both the parties and petitioner had engaged counsel, but he has not rlled any objections. Hence, the contention o[ Iearned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No 2 issued 13B certilicarte behind back of the petitioner is not tenable under larv' Respondent No.2 after fotlowing the due procedure as contemplatcd undcr thc Act and Rules made thereunder validated the sada sale deccl ancl issr-recl l3-B certificate'

8.

[nsolar as [he contention of the learned counsel for the petitioncr that the document dated 26'03' 1996 is a forged and fabricated onc, rle.:ther respondent No'2 nor respondent No l is not h:rving an1. right, authority or jurisdiction to decide the genuinit-v- ol

,.

lsR..

.2 ol Xn9 the said document under the provisions of the Act as we as the Rules made thereunder.

It is very much relevant to mention here that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not decided the title over the property nor genuinit5r of the document.

Respondent No. 1, while dismissing the revision petitioner specihcally held have to agitate the rights before the competent that the parties civil Court to establish that the document dated 26.03.1996 is not genuine one. It is also relevant to place on record that the judgment relied upon by learned counsel in V.Krishnaiah and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Konttana Ravinder Goud supra are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, on the sole ground that the recitals of the document did not come q,ithin the ambit of agreement of sale and said document comes within the ambit of sada/simple sale deed. Respondent No.2 rightly validated the sada sare deed exercising the powers conferred under Section 5_A of the Act. This Court do not lrnd any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by respondent No.I conlirming the order of respondent No.2 by exercising the pou.ers ccrnferrcd under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9.

Accordingly, the r.r.rit pctirion is dismissed. petitioner is granted libertl. to pursue his remedies law, if circumstances so $,arr.lnt.

However, the under common

JSR, J W P No 5t2 of20o9 In view of dismissal of main writ petition' interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed' I SD/- K.AMMAJI ASSTSTAN$E isrRAR //TRUE COPY// sEcrK oFFrcER To, '1. One CC to SRI G.VENKATA NARAYANA, Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to SRI A.RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI

3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies i BSR GJ b

HIGH COURT DATED: 2911212023 1rrE STAI€ /\ q o t:, 01 rEB 202[ ,i5 * -it:

ii

ORDER

lg eD.11 l-.

WP.No.582 of 2009 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @iru %t---,'

dw