Anvik Mercantile Private Limited v. 1. The District Collector

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 2nd respondent to consider the application dated 20.01.2010 to mutate the name of the petitioner company in respect of properties to an extent of admeasuring Ac.65.28 guntas in Sy.Nos. 100, 99, 98, 101 (part), 102, 104, 105, 1O3, 107, 111,230,232, 234 (part) and 231 siutated at Shabashpally Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District as per the provisions of ROR Act without reference to the Endorsement Lr.No.B/23812001, dated 10.02.201'l issued by the 2nd respondent as per the provisions of ROR and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 , pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUNIL B GANU Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3:-- The Court made the following: ORDER 1 SK, .J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.13392 of 2O11 ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is liled questioning the endorsement in Lr.No.Bl238 l2Ol1 dated lO.O2.2O1.l whereunder the respondent No.2/Tahsildar rejected the application of the petitioner-company for mutating the name of the petitioner-company in the revenue record in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.65.28 guntas in Sy.Nos. 100, 99, 98, 101 (part), 1O2, lO4, 105, 103, lO7, 1I1,23O,232 and 234 (part) and 231, situated at Shabashpally Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property).

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner- company and the learned Assistant Government \ Pleadqr for Revenue and perused the material on record. 2 SK, .,I

3. Ther learned Counsel for the petitioner-company would submit that the petitioner-company had purchased the subject property for a sale consideration of Rs.10,75,00,000/- under registered docurnent No.3689 of 20 10 dated 14.10.2010 in the open auction conducted by the respondent No.3. Therealter, the petitioner-company has made application to the respondent No.2/Tahsildar on 20.Ol.2Olt, to mutate the name of the petitioner-company, but the siune was rejected on the ground that the erstwhile o\ /ner of the subject property, namely M/s Sree Sathyam Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, has not paid electricity dues to a tune of Rs.1,54,64,578 to APCPDCL arld an amount of Rs.1,62,79,722 / - the Central Government under the Head of Account1453, Foreign Trade and Export Promotion. \ 3 SK, J

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-company would submit that the impugned passed by the respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction. Sections 4 and 5 of The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar ass Books Act, 197 1(for short'the ROR Act') contemplates on intimation of acquisition of rights, the statutory authority has to take into consideration of transfer and shall effect the mutation, but it has no right to insist payment of dues are irrelevant and beyond the scope and jurisdiction of Section 5 of the ROR Act. The alleged dues, if any, recoverable from the erstwhile owner can be recovered under the respective laws by following the procedure under respective enactments ald requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter filed by the respondent \ \ 4 SK, J No.2 u,ould submit that the erstwhile owner of the subject property namely, Samrat Spinners Limited Company Limited had availed financial assista:rce from IDBI ald for non-payment of the said debt, the subject property was sold to the petitioner-company as per the Securitization Act. The'application made by the petitioner for mutation of the subject lands in favour of the petitioner-company was not in accordance with the Rules frarned under the ROR Act and as per Rr-rle-S (1) (B) of the Act the petitioner has to hle claim in Form No.I-A and once the petitioner-company makes application as per the Rules they will consider the same ancl requested to dismiss the writ petition.

6. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record this Court is of the considered view that, admittedly the petitioner had purchased the subject property through the Sale Deed No.3889 of 2O10 dated i 5 SK, J

14.10.2010 in the open auction conducted by the respondent No.3 under Securitization Act and thereafter petitioner-company made application to the respondent No.2 for mutation in the revenue records, but the sarne was rejected on the ground that the erstwhile owner of the subject property has not paid the electricity dues to a tune of Rs.1,54,64,5781- to APCPDCL and an amount of Rs. 1,62,79,722 l- to the Central Government under the Head of Account-1453, Foreign Trade and Export Promotion. In ttre counter, the respondent No.2 states that the petitioner- company has not filed application in accordance with Rule 5 (1) (B) of the ROR Act, which is not mentioned in the impugned order. The respondents cannot improve their case by filing counter afhdavit as 1aw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh eil4 & Anr us The ChieJ Election \ t 6 SK, J Comtnissionerl. In the instant case, the respondents without mentioning in the impugned order, stated in their cr:unter about non-filing of application by the petitioner-company in accordance with ROR Act. In the impugned orders only mentioned about the dues payable by the erstwhile owner of the subject property to the Government. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to set asicle.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned endorsernent in Lr.No.B7l238 /2olt dated 10.O2.2011 passecl by the respondent No.2 and granting liberty to the pt:titioner_ companv to make fresh application to the respondent authorities for mutation of the subject propert), as per the existing Rules. After Iiling such appiication, the respondent-authorities, without taking account of the I AIi 1978 SC 851 \ / i I I i i I i r-{ 7 SK, J dues of the erstwhile owner of the subject property, mutate the record of Rights, as per law. No order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, sha1l stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/, A.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT EGIS SEC N OFFICER To,

1. The District Collector, Medak District, Sangareddy. 2. The Tahsildar, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District 3. Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund, 1Oth Floor, lDBl Tower, WTC COmplex' Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005, rep. by its Authorised Officer.

4. One CC to Sri Sunil B Ganu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUfl

6. Two CD Copies TJ BSR 7# HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 ORDER ,11 ,'.^34 ,/:lti' -) I ,-) ":rtt S ' -,1 ..\ cd-' [ 1 i!. , li v ,.) WP.No.13392 ol 2011 i .J Dta I {:.$' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (n TE1"t 1c"?^s)