Smt. Chenni Bhagyalakshmi v. The State Of Telangana,

\ [ 3302 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETIT ION NO : 45619 OF 2018 Between:

Smt. Chenni Bhagyalakshmi, W/o. gammaiah-'. Aged about 58 years'. Occ ; Eo,j."*i., nyolFe-ntrriiiipet viilage, Etkathurthi Mandat, Karimnagar District. .....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue)' TS Secretarrat guilding's, Secreiaridt, Saifabad, Hyderabad'

2. The District Collector, Karimnagar,

3. The Joint Collector, Karimnagar.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar'

5. The Tahasildar, Elkathurthi Mandal, Karimnagar'

6. Mudraboina Rajamouli (Died) perLRs, Mudraboina Madhukar' S/o' L9!9 - niiamoufi. nqea aOoui aa ydars, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Penchikalpet Village' El(athurthi M-andal, Karimnagar District'

.....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfi|edtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari call for records and set-a-side the orders daled 26-O4'2018 made in Revision Petition No. E313294t2014 on the file of 3rd Respondent Joint collector in confirming the orders dated 13-09-2014 made in Appeal No. L/870/2009 on the file of 4th Respondent (RDO) in confirming the orders of resumption of assigned land dated 2B-}1-2OO5 in File No. B13269104 of 5th Respondent Mandal Revenue officerasillegal,arbitraryandviolativeofArticle14,2land300.Aofthe

Constitution of lndia and also contrary to the provisions of TS Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the application of the Petitioner dated 06-10-2018 to reassign the land admeasuring Ac.4-00 gts., in Sy. No. 28211 of Penchikalpet Village, Elkathurthi Mandal, Karimnagar District to the Petitioner who is a bonafide purchaser, under the provisions of Section 4(1Xb)(i) of TS Assigned Lands (Prohibition Of Transfers) Acl, 1977 and as perthe Memo No.24196/Assn. l(3)12017-1 dated 1812-2017. LA.NO:I OF 2018 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 direct the Respondents not disposses the Petitioner from her possession of the land admeasuring Ac.4-00 Gts., of Sy.

No. 28211, Penchikalpet Village, Elkathurthi Mandal, Karimnagar District pending consideration of her application dated 06-10-2018 by suspending the operation of the orders dated 26-04-2018 made in Revision Petition No. E31329412014 on the file of Joint Collector, Karimnagar District pending disposal of the above writ petition. A.NO:1 OF 2022 Between Mudraboina Rajamouli (Died) per LRs, Mudraboina Madhukar, S/o. Late Rajamouli, Aged about 44 yearc, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Penchikalpet Village, Elkathurthi Mandal' Karimnagar District .....pErroNER/RESpoNDENT No.6 tN wP.NO.

1. Smt. Chenni Bhagyalakshmi, W/o. Sammaiah, Aged about 58 years, Occ; Housewife, Rl/o. Penchikalpet Village, Elkathurthi Mandal, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDE NTA,VRIT PETITIONER tN w.P.NO.4561912018

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), TS Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.'

3. The District Collector, Karimnagar,

4. The Joint Collector, Karimnagar.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar.

6. The Tahasildar, Elkathurthi Mandal, Karimnagar. .... -.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 lnterim Order dated 18.12.2018 in l.A.No.1 ot 2018 in W.P.No.45619 of 2018 and dismiss the above W.P.No.45619 of 2018 with exemplary costs in the interest of Justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI LOKIREV PREETHAM REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: SRI S.LAKSHMI KANTH The Court made the following ORDER

i W.P.No.45619 o12018 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.45619 of 2018 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel for the unofhcial respond.ent No.6 and perused the material on record.

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolute owner of land admeasuring Ac:4-00 gts in Sy.No.282/ 1 of Penchikalpet Village, Elkathurthi Mandal, Karimnagar District, having purchased the same from one Mudraboina Rajamouii, deceased respondent No.6, through two simple sale deeds dated 20.01.1997 arld O9.O7.1997 and her name was mutated in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in her favour.

W.P.No.45619 of 2018 3.

Learned Counsel lor the petitoner further submits that while it being so, the vendor of the petitioner has filed application before the Mandal Revenue Officer' Elkathurthi, who in turn issued Memo dated 03.09.2O04 under Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers\ Act 1977 (herein after referred to "Act 9 of 1977") to the petitioner stating that the petitioner has obtained patta of the Government land which was assigned to her vendor and directed her to submit necessary documents' Even a-fter submission of her explanation on 05.10.2004, the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer, without conducting any enquiry, passed order vide proceedings No.B/ 3269 l2OO4 dated 2B'01'2005 cancelling the transfer of said land in favour of the petitioner and also cancelled her pattadar passbook and titie deeds and directed to issue pattadar passbook in favour of her vendor Mud'raboina Rajamouli' Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the

v W J W.P.No.45619 of 2018 , respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Ofhcer and the sarne was rejected on 13.09.2014 in Appeal No.Ll87O /2OO9 directing the Tahsildar to take possession ol the subject land from the petitioner and restore possession to the legal heirs of her vendor. The revision petition hied by the petitioner was also rejected by the respondent No.3-Joint Collector vide order dated 26.O4.2O1a in Revision Petition No.E3/3294 l2Ol4 and challenging the said orders, the instant writ petition is filed.

4.

l,earned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the vendor of the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.136 of 2O05 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurbad, against the petitioner and her husband with regard to the subject land and obtained injunction. Cha-llenging the same, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.1 of 20O6 on the Iile of the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad and the same I t

W.P.No.45619 of 20 1B was allowed by setting aside tle order of injunction and thereafter, her vendor has withdrawn the said suit. The petitioner also made a representation dated 06.10.2018 to the respondents seeking for reassignment of the subject land as she is a bonafide purchaser on 20.0i.7997 and O9.O7.1997 well before the stipulated date under Section 4 of the Act 9 of 1977 for a valuable consideration and she is in possession by doing agriculture apart from landless poor person, but no orders have been passed thereon. Learned counsel further submits that the oflicial respondents, at the instance of the respondent No.6, are taking steps to evict the petitioner from the subject land and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.

5.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following Judgment:

I

IE t'

W.P.No.456t9 of 2018

1. J & K Housing Board vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaull.

6.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer, after considering the explanation of the petitioner and the material documents, held that the subject land is a Government land assigned to the deceased respondent No.6 and as per the rules laid down under Act 9 of 1977, the transfer of the assigned iand is null and void and passed order cancelling the transfer of land in favour of the petitioner and a-lso cancelled her pattadar passbook and title deed and consequently, the appeal as well as revision filed by her were also rejected and there is no need to interfere with the orders impugned and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

/ (20r t) t0 scc 7 t4

W.P.No.45619 of 20 18 7.

Learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent No.6, based on the counter averments, submits that the subject property was actually situated within Sy.No.282 of Penchikalpet Village, Elkathurthi Mandal, Karimnagar District and subsequently, Sy.No.282 was allotted in respect ol the land in question AS Sy.Nos.282l 1 and 282/2. He further submits that the deceased respondent No.6 never sold the subject land to the petitioner under the alleged simple sale deeds and in order to grab the land, the petitioner in collusion with her husbald got entries on her name in the revenue records. He further submits that after knowing the corrections made in the revenue records, the deceased respondent No.6 has filed application before the Manda-l Revenue Ofhcer and after conducting detailed enquiry, calcelled the transfer ol suklject land in favour of the petitioner and also cancelled her pattadar passbooks and title deeds invoking the jurisdiction under Section a(1) of the Act 9 of 1977 and

W.P.No.45619 of 2018 thereafter, appeal and the revision liled by her were also rejected. Lear-ned counsel further submits that there u,,as no sale between the deceased respondent No.6 and the petitioner nor any possession was delivered in favour of the petitoner zrnd the alleged transfer itself is contrary to Section 3 ol the Acl 9 of 1977 .

8. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 further submits that as far as the suit in O.S.No.136 of 2OO5 filed by the deceased respondent No.6 .is concerned, it is innocuous suit for injunction ald as such, he did not proceed further since the land in question is covered under the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977. He further submits that as of now, the respondent No.6 is in actual physical possession and enjoyrnent of the subject land and there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to diStniss the writ petition.

\ /

W.P.No.45619 of 2O 18 g.

After hearing both sides and perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is challenging the orders passed by the respondent No.3-Joint Collector in the revision petition Iiled by her in confirming the orders passed by the respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, wherein the earlier orders passed by the respondent No'5 rtated 28.01.20O5 were confirmed under the Act 9 of 1977. The case of the petitioner is that she has purchased the iand admeasuring Ac'4-O0 gts in Sy. No. 282 / 1 situated at Penchikalpet Village, Blkathurthi Mandal, Karimnagar District, from the deceased respondent No.6 through sada sale deeds dated 2O.O 1. 1997 and Og.O7 .1997 and her name was also mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued in her favour'

W.P.No.45619 of 2018

10. Originally the subject land belongs to the Government and the Government has assigned the said land to the deceased respondent No.6 vide proceedings No.A7 /6032/77 dated 31.01.1978 and thereafter, the petitioner has purchased the property from the original assignee in the year, 1997. The original assignee i..e, the deceased respondent No.6, has filed a petition before the respondent No.5 stating that he had obtained debt ol an amount of Rs.50,OO0/-from his brother-in-law namely Chenni Sammaiah by keeping the subject land as pledge, but the said Sammaih had illegally transferred the sajd land to his wife i.e., petitioner herein, and requested the respondent No.S to restore the possession of assigned land in his favour. Basing on the said petition, the respondent No.5 issued Memo to the petitioner on 03.O9.2OO4 and the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 05.10.2005. After considering the said errylanation, the respondent No.S has passed order vide \

l0 W.P.No.45619 of 2018 proceedings No.Bl3269 104 dated 28.01.2005 declaring that the transfer of title of the subject land effected in favour of the petitioner ceases to be in force in respect of the assigned land and revived the title in lavour of the deceased respondent No.6. Thereafter, the petitioner has not taken any steps to challenge the said proceedings by filing appeal till 2009.

1 1. The petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.4 chalienging the proceedings No.Bl3269/2004 dated 28.01.2005 without explaining the reasons for delay and without filing any condone detay petition in the year, 2OOg. In the meantime, the deceased respondent No'6 has filed suit in O.S.No. 136 of 2005 on the fiie of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, for perpetual injunction' Initially, the trial Court has granted interim order on 06.10.2005 and against the said order, the petitioner has preferred C.M.A.No.1 of 2006 and the same was allowed / I r

7/ il W.P.No.45619 of 2018 by setting aside the injunction order on 2l .11.2006. Basing on the said Judgment and Decree, the respondent No.5 issued memo No.B/89/2008 dated 18.04.2008 instructing the Village Revenue Officer to record the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Against the said proceedings, the respondent No.6 has filed appeal No.D/1 1670/2012 before the respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer.

12. The appeal filed by petitioner against the order dated 28.01.2005 in the year, 2009 and the appeal filed by the respondent No.6 against the Memo issued by the respondent No.5 dated 18.04.2008 were clubbed together and passed common order on 13.O9.2OI4 d.ismissing the appeal fited by the petitioner and directed tle authorities concerned to restore the possession of the subject property in favour of the respondent No.6. Against the said order, the petitioner hled revision before the \ \

l2 W.P.No.45619 of 2Ol8 respondent No.3 in Revision Petition No.E3/3294 12014. The respondent No.3, after hearing both the sides, has rejected the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the revision pctition. Against the said orders, the instant writ petition is hled by the petitioner.

13. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the official respondents have not considered the Section a(b)(i) of the amendment to the Act 9 of 1977 as the petitioner is a landless poor and purchased the property from the original assignee under sada sale deeds and she is entitled to reassign the said land as per the amendment ol the Act 9 of 1977.

14. In the instant case, basing on the complaint made by the deceased respondent No.6, the respondent No.S has passed orders cancelling the pattadar passbook and title deeds and also declared the transaction between the petitioner and the deceased respondent No.6 as void by

t3 W.P.No.45619 of 2018 proceedings No.Bl3269l2O04 dated 28.01.2005. The petitioner without challenging the said proceedings kept quiet for more than 5 years, but without filing any petition for condonation of delay, she has hled appeal in the year, 2009. Now, the petitioner taking advantage of the Amendment Act 2l of 2OO8 has stated that her case has to be considered under Section a(b)(i) of the Act 9 of 1977. As the Amendment Act is not retrospective effect, the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 was declared as void by the competent authority in the year, 2005. The question of considering the case of the petitioner under the Amendment Act does not arise and revisional authority has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner. Moreover, as per the records, there is a dispute with regard to the transaction between t\ petitioner and the respondent No.6.

\/

tl SI(,J w.P.No.456 19 of 2018

15. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deceased respondent No'6 has frled suit for injunction and obtained interim orders and the Appellate Court has set aside the injunction order in favour of the petitioner and subsequently the said suit was not pressed by the deceased respondent No.6 and in view of the same, the petitioner is in possession of the property as a bonafide purchaser and the respondents have to consider her case. Once the petitioner admitted that she has purchased the subject property in violation of Act 9 ol 1977 and the competent authority has cancelled her pattadar passbook and title deeds, the injunction suit is not binding on the respondents' Moreover, the appellate authority has rightly passed orders directing the authorities to resume the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original assignee. \/1/

l5 W.P.No.45619 of 2O 18

16. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in J & K Housing Board's case ( cited 1 supra) is not apply to the facts of this case as Section ap)(i) of the Act 9 of 1977 was inserted aJter the amendment in the year, 2008 and in the instant case, the preliminary authority has passed the orders in the year, 2005. In view of the same, the question of reconsidering the assignment of the land to the petitioner in the conclusive proceedings does not arise.

17 . The contention of the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.6 is that once the transaction is in violation of the Act 9 of 1977, the question of reassignment of the subject property does not arise and the I ) respondents have also restored the possession of the subject property in lavour of the respondent No.6 vide proceedings No.Bl3269l2OO4 dated 16.O7.2OIB i.e., before fiIing of the writ petition and the same '"vas not

I6 W.P.No.45619 of 2O18 t challenged in the instant writ petition. Admittedly, the petitoner has not disclosed the same in the writ affrdavit and not filed any reply to dispute the said facts.

18. In the above circumstances, there is no illega_tity or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the oflicial respondents urider the Act 9 of lgZZ wa_rranting interference by this Court.

79. In view of the above findings, the Writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs.

20. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand dismissed.

SD/.A.SRINIVAS REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFI CER To l.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hvderabad. [OUTI ,. il;"eC il dnrl6rrnrv PREETHAM REDDY,. Advo-cate [oPUC]

5. o;; cc 6 aRi s.t-Rt<sHtttt KANTH, Advocate (oPUc)

4. Two CD Copies SA BSK w I

tl tt ( HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212024 14 r4'

s e ( 0 5 FEB 20fr o o

ORDER

i * .s T WP.No.45619 of 2018 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.

@ b\ t^<