1-'194, Kumarpet Village, Adilabad District v. Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.T.S

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHEITY WRIT PETITION No.L9725 of 2019 ORDER: This Writ Petition is liled to dcclare Lhe actiorr of rcspondent No.3 in cntertaining [etter No.6g1/2019, of rcspondent No.4, as appeal in proceedings No.Cl3T2/2OI9, unclcr Tclangana liccord of l?ights in Land and pattadar l)assbooks ilcL, 197 t and cance lling the mutation orders uide proccedings datcd 09.08.2019, as illegal, arbitrary ancl in violation of Articlcs 14, 19 ancl 3OO-A of Constitution of Inclia. 2 Heard Sri A.Pranceth, Iearncd Counsel for petitior:ers ancl lcarncd Assistant Government pleader for Revenue for respondcnts

3. Brief facts of thc case ars avcrred in lhe writ affidavit arr: that petitioner No.1 rs the absolute o*,r,ner ancl posscssor of the lands in Sr,.Nos.27 and 28, mcasuring an exLent of Acs.4 _ 24 gts and Acs.16 - 10 gts rcspcctively; petitioner No.2 is the absolute owncr and posscssor of the lands in Sy.Nos.9, iO. 13, 19 and 20 mcasuring an extent of Ac.O - 16 gts, Acs.3 _ 24 gts, Acs.3 - 13 gts, Ac.l 22 gts and Ac. 1 - 32 gts respectivcly; Pctitioner No.3 is thc absolure owner and possessor of lands in Sv.Nos.1, 67, 68 and 72 mt--asuring an extent of \cs 2 - 07 gts' Acs.5 - 24 gts, Acs.2 - 32 gts ancl Acs 4 - OO g s respectivcly' situaled al (iur-r.1ala Vrllagt:, Bhcempr'tr Mar clal, Adilabad District, having pr-trchtrsed lhc salne undcr registt:rr:d sale dceds ctated O3.O2.2O17, 26 07 -2018 and 26'04')'t)78 bearing clocumcnL Nos.17'12 ol 2017, 11496 of 2018 anrl l'1494 of 2018 rr: spectively, lrom thc oriqinal iand ou'ncrs I-a a Bat' Sneha' Shantanu, H:rriprasacl, Kalar.rcli, Natini, Prlrbl: Deshmukh Ll-rrough their: registcred (lPA holdcr Praveen Kl rnilr P:rdmarn'ar' It is further averred that petitior-rers submiLted -epresentaLions dated 06.O7.2018, 01.08 2018 ar.rd O1.08 20 18 r'espectively, for mutation of their names in thc rcvenue records :o respondent No.4 anci tesponclent No.'1 satlctioned nitLtations uide B/13oil/ 2018-5 and proceeding Nos.B/ l174l20la, B/ 1308/2018 3, rcspcctivell , aftcr duc crr 1tliry aud by following the <1ue proccdure.

4. While tre matter stood thus, pctitioners r:c:eivr:d a noticc dated 01.O8.1)019 from responclcnt No.3 to apl)e ar before him along with documentary cvidencc to give depositions in respect of Sy.Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 7,9, lO, 1312, 19,20,'26. )7 28, 1,67,73' 75 and 79, situated at GLrnjala village, Bhcenrr-i: Mandal; that perusal of sa:ci notice discloscs that respondent llo.4 addressed 3 a letter dated 19.06.2019 to respondent No.3 recommending to rejcct the pattas of the above said survey numbers as per the orders of thc District Collector and Joint Collector, since the patLas \\re rc ntutatcd through GPA and the respondent No.3 uirle impugned proceedings dated 09.O8.2O19 cancelled the mutation proceedings r>f the petitioners and directed the respondent No.4 to resLore the namcs of original pattadars in the revenuc records. Aggricvcd by the same, present writ petition is tlled.

5. Leanrcci Counscl lor petitioncrs would submit that Tahsildar bcing indcpendent quasi-judicial authori[/ has to apply his orvn mind and adjudicate the casp under The Telangana Rccord of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, I97 1 ([rrr short 'the Acl). In the present case, respondcnt No.4-Tahsildar addressed a lettcr dated L9.06.2O19 to respondent No.3, as per the directions of District Collector and Joint Collcctr)r; that the respondent No.4 is not an aggrieved parly, there [ore, he has no authority and has no suo moto powers to address letter dated 19.06.2019 and respondent No.3 also committcd crror in er-rtcrtaining the same as appeal without any juriscliction contrary lo Section 5(5) of the Act, as the appeal cat'r be entcrtained only u,hen the same is preferred by an aggrieved party within a pcriod of 60 days under Section 5(3) of 4 thc Act. Ilt: furthe r submitted that respondcn. No.3, has no power akin to thc po',r,er vested u'ith the Joint (lrrllector under Sectior.r !) ol'thc Act, tircrclore, er)tertaining Iettc; lrr rtrsponclcrrt No.3 is u itl.roul au' jurisdrction and Lhe [)rdcr-s clatcd

19.06.2019 ar,: illt:gal

6. Lcarned Connscl for petitioners flrrther ,;ubmitted that petitioncrs havc purchased lands through rcgist(rrrcl sale dee<ls and rcspondcnt No.4 has issued mutation procer lings :rnd thcir have been mulated in the rcvenuc records, patlr dar passbooks have also bccn issued, therelore, the action of rt sponctent No.4 in addrcssing Icttcr to respondcnt No.3 for ,:e ncellation of mutation is illcgal without juriscliction and conr-:.1-\. to the Act. I{e {inally pmvcd to allo.,r. the u.rit petition by stting aside thc impugned pro<;ecdings dated 09.08.20 i9.

7. In supl)ort ol his conLenLion, learner: Counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the Judgments ol tl're erstvrhile I{igh Court of .Andl-rra Pradcsh in Joint Collector., R.R. District, Hgderabad and others Vs, P.V.Narasimha Rao and others,t 'zot t 121 nr.t r42 (r) B) l l i I i I I I I i I @ ) and in ?hrip ttrclucrrdtn Krishna Reddg Vs. Joint Collector, Cudd.apah and others.2

8. Learned Assistant Govcrnment Pleader for Revenuc would submit that pe[itioncrs pnrchased the subject lands through G.P.A holder and in vicrr-of ratio laid doq,n b,y thc Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp 6b Industries (P) Ltd., Vs. State of Haryana and another, u,ltcrein iL ',r.as held that a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create an), interest ir-r .Ln immovable propcrt), and therefore, respondent No.3 has rightlv passed the orders cancelling the mutation proccedings, as Lhc said mutation proceedings were issued basing on thc sale dceds executed by GPA holder, which did not confer titlc in favour ol petitioners. He further submitted that villagers havc approachcd the District Collector, Adilabad- respondent No.2, in tl're year 2O 19 and represented that GPA holder was sclling iands to thc pctitioncrs basir-rg on the GPA No.376 of 2Ol7 , dated r)2.O2.20 17 and requested respondent No.2 to cancel the pattas issued in favour of petitioners. As per the instructions of respondent No.2, respondent No.4 addressed the letter dated 19.06.2O19 to respondent No.3 to cancel the mutation proceedings issued in favour of petitioners. He further 'zoos lty aLo:+s @ !j.. . (t submitted that impugned procccdings w(ire lrrsse<l b1, cluly issuing notice ancl aflorclirrg an opportuni \ ol hczrritrg, thereforc, resoondent No.3 has nor commiltc(l rnv ileg:rlitv or irregularity while passing thc impugncd Orclcrr.

9. In the Iighl of submissions advanr:ccl r,, thr_. k:arned Counsel for pr:titioncrs as rvcll as Iearnr:d Assisir t-r (i()vcrrlr-n('ltt Pieadcr for Revcr-ruc, thc onlSr point Lhat arlscs l( r.r:olsider:rtion is whether rt:spondent No.3 has follorvcc.l rl,-rr' ;tror.css u.ltile passing the impugned proceedings datr:cl O,) t_8.2O 19 or it requires interlerence by this Court. 1O- Perusal of thc record ciisckrscs that irrpurlrLtcl 1tr-or:er:rl ilt gs dated 09.O8.2019 was passcd b1' rcspondc:l No.ii on rhe ground that SA/GPA/WILL transactions do not ..onlcr- ztn!, riLle and as thc salc decds in favour of pe titionc.s \\',,r . c\(tclttccl by G.P.A, the salne are invalid and dicl not c:onfc.r.:r rv tltlc ro Lhc petitioners. Respondent No.3 r.r,hile passing rh<: i,nprrgned Orcler has referred to the Judgmcnt of thc [lon,bk. Apr:x Court in Suraj Lamp (supra). 1 1 . It is appropriate to refer t hc purport Lrn<l r.:Ltio lzlicl rlou,n by the Hon'ble Apex Court in thc :rbovc said .lLrt Lgrrcnt bclore 4iry ,{ -F i I I I 1 l I I i I I I ) ) ; t l I I I I l I I i i 1 l l l i I j j 7 adverting to the mcrits of the case. In Surcj Lamp (supra), tLre issue that fell for consideration beforc the Honble Apex Court was u,hether there can be transl'er of rights or title on execution of an agreement of sale and power of attorney and Will. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering various precedents and laws observed as under:- i) Ang contract of sale does not itself create any interest or charge on the propeftA os per Section 54 of Transfer of Propeftg Act; ii) A pouter of attomeA is not on instntment of transfer in regard to anA ight, title or interest in an immouable propefty; iiil A Will is a testament of the testator and it uill come into effect ofter the death of the testator and so longs as the testator is aliue, the utill is not be u.torth tte poper on tuhich it is .witten, as the some can be reuoked at anA time by the testator duing his life time.

12. Hon'ble Apex Court by observing so, finally came to the conclusion that 'SA/GPA/WILL' transfers does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property, since 'SA/GPA/WILL' transfers are not transfers or sales and such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyance, therefore, no one can claim right or title basing on .SA/GPA/WILL'.

13. jn the present case, the claim of thc pelitioners is not based on 'SA/GPA/WILL' and is based on registered sale deed 8 Nos.1742 of '2017, 14496 of 2018 and t4494 rtf 2O18, dared

03.O2.2077, 26.O7 -2018 and 26.04.2O 18 rcspect vely. Thercfore, ratio laid dor,r,n by the Hon'ble Apex Court i-L Suraj Lamp (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the prese rr case. pcrusal of the impugned Order clearly shows that rcspon,lcn: No.3 has wrongly interpreted the Suraj Lanp (supra) eurcl has come Lo erroneous conclusion and committcd error ir-r r:anc:clling tl-re mutation sanctioned in favour of the petitioners.

14. Another issue that requires adjudicati rtr is whether Tahsildar can address a letter to RDO for crlnccllation of mutation proceedings. It is relevant to note that undcr the Act, only the .Joint Collector is conferred with Sro rnolo and revisional powers under Section 9 of the Act ar-r I the Tahsilclar has no Suo moto or revisional powers empou,crin g l-rin.r to address letter to the RDO for cancellatior, of mutation proceedings. Further, after passing mutation proceedings, the Tahsildar becomes as funans ab initio and ther,tf:re, the letter dated 19.06.2019, addressed by respondent No..i to respondent No.3 recommending to reject the patta of petitior-r:rs is u.ithout any aulhorjty or jurisdiction 9

15. In the light of above discussion, the impugned Order datecl 09.08.2019, passed by respondent No.3 is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

16. In the result, the writ petition is allowcd and [he impugned proceedings No.Cl372l2019, dated 09'O8 2019, is set aside. There shall be no order as [o costs- Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, Sd/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY SSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Hvderabad.T.S.

1. The Principal Secretary io Govt , Revenue Department' Secretariat' 2. The Collector, Adilabad District' a. iil; R;;;;;"'Divisionat officer, Adilabad. Adil-abad District i. fn" fuf,".ildar, Bheempur Mandal, Adilaba{Distnct 5. One CC to SRl. A. PRANEETH, Advocate IUHUU] 6. i;; ddd t"-Gc ron nevEuui ,Higi, coLi't for the state of relangana 7. Two CD CoPies touTl BM Wy PMK |) I I I t i l I HIGH COURT DATED:1811112025 t t ORDER WP.No.19725 oI 2019 ItlR E 7tl ) : : _1 \i' i 2 5 tlou p5 lrq\€o t (\ ) -s3' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITI.IICUT COSTS { 1l i I I : 1,: L I l I ; rl16')L-1 t -t-l 1b