Madagoni Sriramulu v. The State of Telangana

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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari- calling for the records relating to impugned order of the 3rd Respondent in dismissing Revision Petition filed by the petitioner vide Old Case No.F21709312018 (Old Revenue Court- Additional Collector, Nalgonda) New Case No. F2lSpl.Trib unall 020112021 , dated 28.01 .2C21 of his agricultural land to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas in Survey No.341 and 342, which is situated at Vallala Revenue Village Sivar, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 15,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also agatnst the principles of Natural justice and consequently to set aside the same, in the interest of .iustice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2023 Petition Under section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned order of the 3rd Resprondent in dismissing Revision Petition filed by the petitioner vide old case NIo. F2l7093/2018 (Old Revenue court:- Additional collector, Nalgonda) New case No.F2i Spl.Tribunal/ o2o1t2)21 , dated 28 01 2021 relaling to his agricultural land to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas in .survey No.341 and 342, which is situated at Vallala Revenue village Sivar, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District, pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice. I.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 rlPC praying that in the r;i'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High courl may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 23.1 1 .2023 passed by this Hon'ble court in LA.No.1 of 2023 in W.P. No. 3226't ol 2023 and dismiss the writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Res-pondent No.6 : SRI M-VENKAT RAM REDDY The Court made the following ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V.BHASI{AR REDDY trTRIT PETITIONNo.32267 of 2023 ORDER: This writ petition is hled seeking to issue a Writ of 'Certiorari by calling for the records relating to impugned order passed by respondent No.3 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide OId Case No.F2/2O93/2018 (Nerv Case No.F2lSpl.Tribwnal/O2OI /2O2tl dated, 2B.Ot.2O2t in respect of his agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 10.00 guntas in Survey Nos.341 and, 342 situated at Vallala Revenue Village Sivar, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District, and to consequently set aside the same, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to have pr,rrchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 10.00 guntas in Survey Nos.34l and. 342 situated at Vallala Revenue Village Sivar, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District from its lawful pattadar by name Malla Reddy,; who is father respondent No.6 herein, on 1O.O2.1985 under Sadabainama and since then he is cultivating the said land without any interruption. It is stated that acting upon the application submitted by the petitioner for regularisation of the said Sadabainama under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, l97l (for short "the ROR Act 19Z l"l, , the Tahsildar, I 2 Shaligouraram Mandal i.e., respondent No.5 herein, after conducting enquiry, issued 13-B Certifrcate vicle Proceedings No.B/1485/2006 dated 16.03.2008 and regularised the land under Sababainama and mutated his name in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and titb deed in his favour. It is further stated that questioning the same, respondent No.6, who is not having ary right or title over the subject land. approached the then Revenue Divi:;ional Oflicer, Nalgonda Division, by filing an appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act of lg|l and the sarne was allowed, against which the petitioner preferred a revision petition vide Case No.F2 /7093 1 2018, which in turn has been transferred to the Special Tribuna-I, Nalgonda i.e., respondent No.3 trerein, in view of the repeal Act came into force, and renumberr:d as New Case No.F2/Spl.I'ribunallO2OL /2021. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3, without appreciating thr: matter from the proper pbrspective, dismissed the revision in a mechanical manner. Ms. Murudula, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, relying upon the counter affidavit filed try respondent No.6, vehemently contended that the petitioner ha,s submitted a false represr:ntation before respondent No.S steLting that the document dated 28.07.1985 is a Sadabainama; in fact the said ,7)7 A ., document ls an agreemcnt of sale; thus, the petitioner fraudulenfly obtained certificate under Section l3_B of the ROR Act of l9Z1 from respondent No.S; a reading of the said document would clearly reveal that part of the sa-le' consideration has been paid; unless entire sale consideration is paid and possession of the property is delivered, the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation of land under the guise of Sadabainama; as such, respondent No.6 filed appea.l under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act of 1971 beforc respondent No.4, who in turn duly taking into considcration the said fact, has set aside the l3-B Certificate issued by respondent No.S in favour of the petitioner by relegating him to approach the civil court seeking specifrc pcrformance of agreqment of sale; but despite the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No.3 chaJlenging the said order; and respondent No.S passed the impugned order dismissing the said ievision by holding that respondent No.4 had rightly set asidc the l3-B certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Leamed counsel also relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh in the of Konkana Ravtnder Goud and others ,s. Bhavanarlshl Co-operatlue House Buildlng Societg and othersl. t zoo:10; at-t r i 4 Considered the submissions of the leamed counsel for the respective parl.ies and perused the record' A careful examination of the alleged Sadabainama relied upon by the petitioner reveals that it is only agreement of sale' as the recitals therein would clearly state that onl5' part of sale consideration is paid and as such the Tahsildar is not having any power or authority for regularisation of the subject lald much less rssue 13-B Certihcate on the basis of the said documentinfavourofthepetitioner.F\rrthermore,theerstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, white dea-ling with similar issue' in the case of Konkano- Raainder Goud (l supra) observed as under:- '67. ln the instant case, we are concemed with the purport and meaning of the word "transfer" as contained in Section 5- A of the Act in the light of the objects and re€tsons iltroducing the said provision, namely' to regularise an unregistered sale transaction, which would not lnean to regularise incomplete transfers' There is no machinery or mechallism provided in the Act that even a person who has entered into an agreement of sale and in case salie is not completed but he has been put into Possession of the property ev€n on payment of entire sale consideration that carr iapproach the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer for grant of a certificate under Section 5-A of the Act. The Manda] Revenue t]fficer in such a case cannot Proceed to hold an enquiry as tc' whether agreement of sale has been complied with or not On the failure on the part of vendor to comPtete the sale transaction' a person /,/ in whose favour there is an agreement of sale can seek specihc i i I 5 performance of the agreement of sale so as to convey right, title or irrterest of the vendors. The machinery provided under the Act is not the appropriate maci.rinery for perfecting title merely on the basis of agreement to sell. iVe are, therefore, of the yiew that the finding of the learned Judge that there is a valid transfer of immoveable property under agreements of sale cannot be sustained. Thus, wc have no hesitation in holding that the agreement of sale relied upon by the Society is not covered by the term transfer and cannot be treated as an "alienation" or "transfer" within the scope a-rrd mealing of Section 5-A of the Act and we answer the frrst question accordingly. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner and conhrming the order passed by the appellate authority. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies as available in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. JAYASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER '1 . One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate IOPUCI 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 3, One CC to SRI M.VENKAT RAM REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies To SA BS $ q o HE STAT (. 1 sL() \l c^ \ ( 2 3 APR' 2025 t DES PA-r c',9 .a' ._t ( t HIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 ORDER WP.No.32267 of 2023 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 4 .L\ tr \