WP/45619/2018 of Smt. Chenni Bhagyalakshmi Vs The State of Telangana, on 31 December 2024

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.]

SK,JW.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]Transfers\ [Act 1977 ][(herein ][after ][referred](Prohibition of 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]without [conducting ][any enquiry, ][passed ][order]Ofhcer, 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

JSK,JW.P.No.45619 of 2018

,

v

W

JSK,JW.P.No.45619 of 2018

respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Ofhcer and thesarne wasrejected on 13.09.2014 in AppealNo.Ll87O /2OO9 directing the Tahsildar to takepossession ol the subject land from the petitioner andrestore possession to the legal heirs of her vendor. Therevision petition hied by the petitioner was also rejectedby the respondent No.3-Joint Collector vide order dated26.O4.2O1a in Revision Petition No.E3/3294 l2Ol4 andchallenging the said orders, the instant writ petition isfiled.4. l,earned Counsel for the petitioner further submitsthat the vendor of the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.136of 2O05 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurbad,against the petitioner and her husband with regard tothe subject land and obtained injunction. Cha-llengingthe same, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.1 of 20O6 on theIile of the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad and the same It was allowed by setting aside tle order of injunction andthereafter, her vendor has withdrawn the said suit. Thepetitioner also made a representation dated 06.10.2018to the respondents seeking for reassignment of thesubject land as she is a bonafide purchaser on20.0i.7997 and O9.O7.1997 well before the stipulatedthereafter, her vendor has withdrawn the said suit. Thepetitioner also made a representation dated 06.10.2018to the respondents seeking for reassignment of thesubject land as she is a bonafide purchaser on20.0i.7997 and O9.O7.1997 well before the stipulateddate under Section 4 of the Act 9 of 1977 for a valuableconsideration and she is in possession by doingconsideration and she is in possession by doingagriculture apart from landless poor person, but noorders have been passed thereon. Learned counselfurther submits that the oflicial respondents, at theinstance of the respondent No.6, are taking steps toorders have been passed thereon. Learned counselfurther submits that the oflicial respondents, at theinstance of the respondent No.6, are taking steps toevict the petitioner from the subject land and requestedto allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugnedorders.to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugnedorders.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on thefollowing Judgment:

I

1. J & K Housing Board vs. Kunwar Sanjay KrishanKaull.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenuesubmits that the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer, afterconsidering the explanation of the petitioner and thematerial documents, held that the subject land is aGovernment land assigned to the deceased respondentNo.6 and as per the rules laid down under Act 9 of 1977,the transfer of the assigned iand is null and void andpassed order cancelling the transfer of land in favour ofthe petitioner and a-lso cancelled her pattadar passbookand title deed and consequently, the appeal as well asrevision filed by her were also rejected and there is noneed to interfere with the orders impugned and requestedto dismiss the writ petition.

(20r t) t0 scc 7 t4

SK,JW.P.No.45619 of 20 18

7. Learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent No.6,based on the counter averments, submits that the subjectpropertywasactually situated within Sy.No.282 ofPenchikalpet Village, Elkathurthi Mandal, KarimnagarDistrict and subsequently, Sy.No.282 was allotted inrespect ol the land in questionAS Sy.Nos.282l 1 and282/2. He further submits that the deceased respondentNo.6 never sold the subject land to the petitioner underthe alleged simple sale deeds and in order to grab theland, the petitioner in collusion with her husbald gotentries on her name in the revenue records. He furthersubmits that after knowing the corrections made in therevenue records, the deceased respondent No.6 has filedapplication before the Manda-l Revenue Ofhcer and afterconducting detailed enquiry, calcelled the transfer olsuklject land in favour of the petitioner and also cancelledher pattadar passbooks and title deeds invoking thejurisdiction under Section a(1) of the Act 9 of 1977 and

thereafter, appeal and the revision liled by her were alsorejected. Lear-ned counsel further submits that there u,,asno sale between the deceased respondent No.6 and thepetitioner nor any possession was delivered in favour ofthe petitoner zrnd the alleged transfer itself is contrary toSection 3 ol the Acl 9 of 1977 .

8. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 furthersubmits that as far as the suit in O.S.No.136 of 2OO5 filedby the deceased respondent No.6 [.is ]concerned, it isinnocuous suit for injunction ald as such, he did notproceed further since the land in question is coveredunder the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977. He furthersubmits that as of now, the respondent No.6 is in actualphysical possession and enjoyrnent of the subject landand there are no merits in the writ petition and requestedto diStniss the writ petition.\

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]No.3-Joint [Collector ][in ][the ][revision ][petition]respondent Iiled by her in [confirming ][the ][orders ][passed ][by ][the]No.4-Revenue [Divisional ][Ofhcer, ][wherein ][the]respondent 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]the iand [admeasuring ][Ac'4-O0 ][gts ][in]purchased Sy. No. 282 / [1 ]situated [at ][Penchikalpet Village, ][Blkathurthi]Mandal, Karimnagar [District, ][from the ][deceased]No.6 [through sada sale ]deedsrespondent 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']

10. Originally the subject land belongs to theGovernment and the Government has assigned the saidland to the deceased respondent No.6 vide proceedingsNo.A7 /6032/77 dated 31.01.1978 and thereafter, thepetitioner has purchased the property from the originalassignee in the year, 1997. The original assignee i..e, thedeceased respondent No.6, has filed a petition before therespondent No.5 stating that he had obtained debt ol anamount of Rs.50,OO0/-from his brother-in-law namelyChenni Sammaiah by keeping the subject land as pledge,but the said Sammaih had illegally transferred the sajdland to his wife i.e., petitioner herein, and requested therespondent No.S to restore the possession of assignedland in his favour. Basing on the said petition, therespondent No.5 issued Memo to the petitioner on03.O9.2OO4 and the petitioner has submitted herexplanation on 05.10.2005. After considering the saiderrylanation, the respondent No.S has passed order vide\

SK,JW.P.No.45619 of 2018

dated 28.01.2005 [declaring]proceedings No.Bl3269 104 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]

ilSK,JW.P.No.45619 of 2018by setting aside the injunction order on 2l .11.2006.Basing on the said Judgment and Decree, the respondentNo.5 issued memo No.B/89/2008 dated 18.04.2008instructing the Village Revenue Officer to record the nameof the petitioner in the revenue records. Against the saidproceedings, the respondent No.6 has filed appealNo.D/1 1670/2012 before the respondent No.4-RevenueDivisional Officer.

12. The appeal filed by petitioner against the orderdated 28.01.2005 in the year, 2009 and the appeal filedby the respondent No.6 against the Memo issued by therespondent No.5 dated 18.04.2008 were clubbed togetherand passed common order on 13.O9.2OI4 d.ismissing theappeal fited by the petitioner and directed tle authoritiesconcerned to restore the possession of the subjectproperty in favour of the respondent No.6. Against thesaid order, the petitioner hled revision before the\\

SK,JW.P.No.45619 of 2Ol8

respondent No.3 in Revision Petition No.E3/3294 12014.The respondent No.3, after hearing both the sides, hasrejected the contention of the petitioner and dismissedthe revision pctition. Against the said orders, the instantwrit petition is hled by the petitioner.

13. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner mainlycontended that the official respondents have notconsidered the Section a(b)(i) of the amendment to the Act9 of 1977 as the petitioner is a landless poor andpurchased the property from the original assignee undersada sale deeds and she is entitled to reassign the saidland as per the amendment ol the Act 9 of 1977.

14. In the instant case, basing on the complaint madeby the deceased respondent No.6, the respondent No.Shas passed orders cancelling the pattadar passbook andtitle deeds and also declared the transaction between thepetitioner and the deceased respondent No.6 as void by t3SK,JW.P.No.45619 of 2018

proceedings No.Bl3269l2O04 dated 28.01.2005. Thepetitioner without challenging the said proceedings keptquiet for more than 5 years, but without filing anypetition for condonation of delay, she has hled appeal inthe year, 2009. Now, the petitioner taking advantage ofthe Amendment Act 2l of 2OO8 has stated that her casequiet for more than 5 years, but without filing anypetition for condonation of delay, she has hled appeal inthe year, 2009. Now, the petitioner taking advantage ofthe Amendment Act 2l of 2OO8 has stated that her casehas to be considered under Section a(b)(i) of the Act 9 of1977. As the Amendment Act is not retrospective effect,the transaction between the petitioner and therespondent No.6 was declared as void by the competentauthority in the year, 2005. The question of considering1977. As the Amendment Act is not retrospective effect,the transaction between the petitioner and therespondent No.6 was declared as void by the competentauthority in the year, 2005. The question of consideringthe case of the petitioner under the Amendment Act doesnot arise and revisional authority has rightly rejected thecontention of the petitioner. Moreover, as per the records,not arise and revisional authority has rightly rejected thecontention of the petitioner. Moreover, as per the records,there is a dispute with regard to the transaction betweent\ petitioner and the respondent No.6.\/t\ petitioner and the respondent No.6.\/

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/

SK,JW.P.No.45619 of 2O 18

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

17 . The contention of the learned counsel for theunofficial respondent No.6 is that once the transaction isin violation of the Act 9 of 1977, the question of re-assignment of the subject property does not arise and theunofficial respondent No.6 is that once the transaction isin violation of the Act 9 of 1977, the question of re-assignment of the subject property does not arise and therespondents have also restored the possession of thesubject property in lavour of the respondent No.6 videproceedings No.Bl3269l2OO4 dated 16.O7.2OIB i.e.,before fiIing of the writ petition and the same '"vas notbefore fiIing of the writ petition and the same '"vas not

I)

\

I6

SK,JW.P.No.45619 of 2O18

challenged in the instant writ petition. Admittedly, thepetitoner has not disclosed the same in the writ affrdavitand not filed any reply to dispute the said facts.

18. In the above circumstances, there is no illega_tity orinfirmity in the impugned orders passed by the oflicialrespondents urider the Act 9 of lgZZ wa_rrantinginterference by this Court.

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

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

SD/.A.SRINIVAS [REDDY]ASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFI[CER]

To

l.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaatHvderabad. [OUTIHvderabad. [OUTI,. 5. il;"eC o;; cc il 6 dnrl6rrnrv [aRi ][s.t-Rt<sHtttt ][PREETHAM ][KANTH, ][Advocate ][REDDY,. ][(oPUc)][Advo-cate ][[oPUC]]4. Two CD Copies4. Two CD Copies SABSK

BSKw

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 11212024

ORDERWP.No.45619 of 2018

DISMISSING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS.

@b\[t^<]

(

1Hes14 r4'(o0 5 FEB 20froi*.sTH