Telangana High Court
Smt. G. Mallamma, Rr Dist And 4 Others vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad And 8 … on 10 January, 2025
1
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
WRIT PETITION Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
W.P.No.4951 of 2015
Between:
Smt Gunda Saralamma died per LR Gunda Chandrasekhar.
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary for Revenue,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
...Respondents
COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 10.01.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment : Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of
judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
2
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
+WRIT PETITION NO.4951 and 24536 of 2015
% Dated 10.01.2025
W.P.No.4951 of 2015
# Smt Gunda Saralamma died per LR Gunda Chandrasekhar.
...Petitioner
and
$ The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary for
Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
....Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner in W.P.4951 of 2015: Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor
! Counsel for Petitioners in W.P.24536 of 2015: Sri K. Ravi Mahender
^ Counsel for official respondents
in both the writ petitions: GP for Revenue
^ Counsel for Respondents Nos.4 and 5
in both the writ petitions: Pillix Law Firm.
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1 (2015) 3 SCC 695
2 (1998) 9 SCC 558
3 (2001) 9 SCC 717
4 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 604.
5 Unreported Judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.2692 of 2009-MANU/AP/1745/2022
6 2014 (3) ALT 140 (S.B.)
7 2008(4) ALT 794 (S.B.)
8 2012 (6) ALT 6 (S.B.)
9 2018 (5) ALT 148 (D.B.)
10 2021 SCC OnLine AP 1902
112019 SCC Online TS 3455.
12Un-reported Judgment of this Court
in W.P.No.12748 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019.
131995 Supp (3) SCC 249
14 2006(2) ALT 44 (S.B.)
3
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
COMMON ORDER:
As both these writ petitions are filed challenging
the order passed by the respondent No.2-Joint
Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District in Case
No.D1/5951/2008 dated 12.12.2014, they are being
disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned
counsel for the unofficial respondents.
3. For the purpose of narrating the facts,
W.P.No.24536 of 2015 is taken as a lead case.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the
writ petitions submits that originally one
Sri Gopal Rao Deshmukh was the Inamdar of lands
4
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
bearing Sy.Nos.330 admeasuring Ac.6-09 gts,
Sy.No.335 admeasuring Ac.17.26 gts, Sy.No.338
admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts, Sy.No.339 admeasuring Ac.6-
03 gts, Sy.No.340 admeasuring Ac.2-15 gts and
Sy.No.369 admeasuring Ac.0.33 gts situated at
Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District and the said lands are Inam Dasthagardan
lands.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the paternal grandfather of petitioner, by
name Gunda Veeranna, was in possession and
enjoyment of the said lands as protected tenant during
his lifetime and after his demise, his two sons namely
Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda Eshwarappa have
succeeded the said lands and the Inams Tribunal has
granted Occupancy Rights Certificates in their favour in
the year 1975-76 and their names were entered in the
5
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
revenue records as pattadars of the above said lands as
per their shares since 1978 onwards. He submits that
in the said Certificates, the land to an extent of Ac.6-09
gts in Sy.No.330 situated at Singapur Village,
Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was not
incorporated either by mistake or by inadvertence,
however mutation in respect of said lands was effected
in favour of Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda
Eshwarappa along with the other lands in the year
1978-79. After demise of Gunda Chandrappa and
Gunda Eshwarappa, the petitioners in two writ
petitions have succeeded the tenancy rights over the
said lands and they are in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the subject lands.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that during the course of time, the land to an
extent of Ac.2-02 gts in Sy.No.330 was sold to the
6
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
third parties through registered sale deeds, converted
the said land into residential plots and also constructed
residential houses. While it being so, after a period of
30 years, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed revision
petition in the year, 2008, for correction of entries in
the pahanies from the year 1978-79 onwards regarding
the land to an extent of Ac.6-09 gts in Sy.No.330 of
Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District. He further submits that the respondent Nos.4
and 5 have no right or title over the subject lands. The
respondent No.2 allowed the said revision directing the
respondent No.3 to conduct fresh enquiry and pass
appropriate orders as per provisions of Telangana
Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for
short ‘the ROR Act, 1971’). Learned counsel further
submits that the impugned order itself is illegal on the
ground that the revision was filed after a lapse of more
7
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
than 30 years without any condone delay petition and it
is barred by limitation.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 without filing
appeal under the ROR Act, 1971 have directly filed
revision petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971
and the respondent No.2-Joint Collector has
entertained the revision petition and passed impugned
order and the same is not maintainable. The
respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order
without jurisdiction and ought not to have remanded
the matter to the respondent No.3 for fresh enquiry and
requested to allow the writ petitions.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of
their contentions, has relied upon the following
Judgments;
8
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
1. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District vs. D.
Narsing Rao 1
2. Ram Kali Devi (Smt) Vs. Manager, Punjab
National Bank, Shamshabad2
3. Ragho Singh vs. Mohan Singh 3
4. Kosaraju Balaji vs. The State of Telangana rep.
by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad 4
5. Niadu Sambasiva Rao vs. The Joint Collector,
Krishna5
6. P. Anjaneyulu Gupta vs. Mohd. Abdul Basith
Khan6
7. Pratap Jungle Resorts Private Limited,
Hyderabad rep. by its Director Sri D. Prathap
1
(2015) 3 SCC 695
2
(1998) 9 SCC 558
3
(2001) 9 SCC 717
4
2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 604.
5
Unreported Judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.2692 of 2009-MANU/AP/1745/2022
6
2014 (3) ALT 140 (S.B.)
9
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
Chander Reddy vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy
District 7
8. Vanga Narsa Reddy vs. Joint Collector,
Adilabad 8
9. P. Ghousia Begum vs. Basireddy Rukminamma9
9. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5
in both the writ petitions, based on the counter
averments, submits that the respondent Nos.4 and 5
being wife and son of late Yashwanth Rao Deshmuk
have succeeded the land to an extent of Ac.6-09 gts in
Sy.No.330 situated at Singapur Village, Shankarpally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District along with several other
lands from their ancestors. He submits that initially
the Land Reforms Tribunal has declared the husband of
respondent No.4 as surplus land holders to an extent of
2.081 standard holdings and aggrieved by the same,
7
2008(4) ALT 794 (S.B.)
8
2012 (6) ALT 6 (S.B.)
9
2018 (5) ALT 148 (D.B.)
10
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
her husband filed appeal before the Land Reforms
Appellate Tribunal in File No.LRA Nos.24/89 and the
same was dismissed on 23.08.1993. Aggrieved by the
same, the husband of respondent No.4 and others have
preferred revision in C.R.P.Nos.4017, 4018 and 4019 of
1993 and the same were allowed on 27.12.1995 by
setting aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal with a
direction to make a fresh enquiry in accordance with
law after giving sufficient opportunity to both parties.
He further submits that though the lands bearing
Sy.Nos.335, 338, 339, 340 and 369 admeasuring total
Ac.29-36 gts situated at Singapur Village are Inam
lands and Occupancy Rights Certificates were granted
in favour of Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda
Eshwarappa, at no point of time, the land admeasuring
to an extent of Ac.6-09 gts in Sy.No.330 was part and
parcel of the ORC proceedings granted in favour of said
Chandrappa and Eshwarappa and without there being
11
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
any order from the competent authority with regard to
Sy.No.330, the authorities without verifying the same
have removed the name of the original pattadar Gopal
Rao Deshmukh and inserted the names of Gunda
Chandrappa and Gunda Eswarappa in the pahanies for
the year 1978-79 along with other survey numbers.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5
further submits that in fact, Gunda Chandrappa and
Gunda Eshwarappa have played fraud upon the
authorities and got mutated their names in the revenue
records without knowledge of the original pattadar and
the said illegal entries have required to be rectified at
any point of time and there are no proceedings of ORC
in their favour with respect to the land in Sy.No.330.
The respondent Nos.4 and 5 also filed a petition under
Rule 15 of ROR Act for rectification of entries and
subsequently filed revision petition and there is no time
12
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
limit for filing Revision Petition under Section 9 of ROR
Act, 1971 and the question of filing delay petition does
not arise. He further submits that without availing the
appeal the parties can file Revision Petition under
Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 as per settled law.
11. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5
further submits that the respondent No.2 after hearing
both the parties has rightly passed the impugned order
remanding the matter to the Tahsildar for
reconsideration by conducting fresh enquiry after giving
opportunity to both parties. He further submits that the
respondent No.4 and 5 are in physical possession of the
land in Sy.No.330 and neither Gunda Chandrappa and
Gunda Eshwarappa nor after death of them the writ
petitioners are in possession of the said land and
requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
13
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
12. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5
has relied on the following Judgments;
1. Kasu Rayapa Reddy vs. State of A.P.10
2. M. Ramulamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ranga Reddy District 11.
13. After considering the submissions of the learned
counsel for both the sides and perusal of the record,
this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners
are challenging the impugned order passed by the
respondent No.2-Joint Collector in directing the
respondent No.3-Tahsildar to conduct fresh enquiry
and pass appropriate orders as per the provisions of
ROR Act, 1971 pertaining to the land admeasuring
Ac.6.09 gts in Sy.No.330 situated at Singapur Village,
Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
10
2021 SCC OnLine AP 1902
11
2019 SCC Online TS 3455.
14
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
14. The contention of the petitioners is that
originally, one Gopal Rao Deshmukh was the inamdar
of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.330, 335, 338, 339, 340
and 369 admeasuring Ac.6-09 gts, Ac.17.26 gts,
Ac.3.00 gts, Ac.6.03 gts, Ac.2.15 gts and Ac.0.33 gts
respectively, situated at Singapur Village, Shankarpally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The ancestor of the
petitioners namely Gunda Veeranna was in possession
and enjoyment of the said lands as protected tenant
during his life time and after his demise, his two sons
namely Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda Eshwarappa
have succeeded the said lands and the Inams Tribunal
has granted Occupancy Rights Certificates in their
favour in the year 1975-76 and their names were
entered in the revenue records as pattadars of the
above said lands as per their respective shares since
1979 onwards.
15
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
15. At the time of issuance of Occupancy Rights
Certificate, the suit schedule land admeasuring to an
extent of Ac.6.09 guntas in Sy.No.330 was not
incorporated in the said certificate. However, mutation
in respect of the said land in the Revenue Records was
effected in favour of Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda
Eswarappa along with other lands in the year 1978-79.
Thereafter, the petitioners in both the writ petitions
have succeeded the said property with their respective
shares as per the Revenue Records.
16. While it being so, the respondent Nos.4 and 5
have filed revision petition under Section 9 of the ROR
Act, 1971 before the respondent No.2 for correction of
entries in the pahanies from the year 1978-79 onwards
regarding the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.09
gts in Sy.No.330 on the ground that the said land was
not inam land and it is patta land for which neither
16
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
Occupancy Rights Certificate was granted nor any
proceedings have been issued as contemplated under
Section 4 of ROR Act, 1971 and due to fraud, the
names of the family members of the petitioners were
incorporated and the same has to be rectified at any
point of time.
17. The main contention of the writ petitioners herein
is that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed revision
petition before the respondent No.2 after a lapse of 30
years without filing any condone delay petition and
some part of the said property was also sold to the third
parties and the nature of the land was converted from
agriculture to non-agriculture, the question of filing
revision petition under the ROR Act, 1971 does not
arise. Further contended that the respondent Nos.4 and
5, without availing the appeal provision and also
without filing any condone delay petition, have
17
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
approached the respondent No.2-Joint Collector by
filing revision petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act
and the same cannot be taken into account.
18. In support of their contention, learned counsel for
the petitioners has relied on the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joint Collector‘s case
(1 supra). The facts in the said case are with regard to
suo moto revision powers of the revisional authorities.
The facts of the instant case are different from the facts
of the said case. In the instant case, the respondent
Nos.4 and 5 have filed revision petition and contended
that taking advantage of the other survey numbers of
the same village in ORC proceedings, the ancestors of
the petitioners have played fraud and obtained pattas
for suit schedule land in Sy.No.330 along with other
survey numbers and the void orders can be questioned
18
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
at any stage. In view of the same, the said Judgment is
not apply to the instant case.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied
upon the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Ram Kali Devi‘s case (2 supra), Ragho Singh’s case (3
supra), and Kosaraju Balaji‘s case (4 supra) and also
the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
Niadu Sambasiva Rao‘s case (5 supra) with regard to
filing of delay petition and the delay aspect. In fact, for
filing a revision petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act,
1971, there is no time limit. Once there is no limitation
for filing a revision petition, the question of filing of
condone delay petition does not arise. In view the same,
the said Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioners are not apply to the facts of the instant
case.
19
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
20. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied
upon the other Judgments of this Court in P.
Anjaneyulu Gupta’s case (6 supra), Pratap Jungle
Resorts Private Limited’s case (7 supra) and Vanga
Narsa Reddy‘s case (8 supra) and submits that the
respondent No.2 has no power and jurisdiction under
the ROR Act to entertain Revision Petition without
availing the appeal provision by the respondent Nos.4
and 5.
21. In fact, subsequent to the above Judgments, this
Court has considerably held in Ramaswamy
Satyagoud vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Hyderabad 12 at para No.12 as follows:
“12. On the issue of preferring revision without availing remedy of
appeal the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner do not come to the aid of petitioner. In Bhupathi
Varalamma while dealing with the power of revision, learned
single Judge of this Court has not ruled, as sought to be
contended that revision is not maintainable when remedy of12
Un-reported Judgment of this Court
in W.P.No.12748 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019.
20
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015appeal is available. Learned single Judge held that ordinarily if
remedy of appeal is available, revision should not be entertained.
However, learned single Judge held that in exceptional situations
where the authority which passed the order patently lacked
jurisdiction to pass order and to prevent abuse of power exercised
by such an authority and miscarriage of justice being caused to
the aggrieved party, revision can be entertained. Kola Satya Rao
was also decided by learned single Judge who decided Bhupathi
Varalamma. In the said case, revisional authority satisfied that it
was not feasible or practicable to the aggrieved party to file an
appeal or that the subordinate authority has passed an order,
which is ex-facie contrary to the procedure prescribed under the
Act or in violation of the principles of natural justice, it can
exercise its revisional jurisdiction to step in and correct such
procedural illegality or impropriety. Learned single further
observed that “If the facts of the case justify, an aggrieved party
can be allowed to bypass the appellate remedy and seek
intervention of the revisional authority.” Said view of the learned
single Judge is followed by another learned single Judge in T.
Santosh Kumar. Decision in Yelangani Papaiah is also on similar
lines. On a plain reading of provision in Section 9 and as
considered by this Court in several decisions, merely because a
person has not availed remedy of appeal, it cannot be said that
revision is not maintainable.
In view of the above Judgment, without availing
the remedy of appeal, the parties can invoke to file the
Revision Petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act and
recently, another learned Single Judge of this Court
also taken same view in W.P.No.24046 of 2004
dated 28.03.2024. In view of the same, the respondent
No.2 has rightly entertained the revision petition filed
21
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 under Section 9 of the
ROR Act, 1971.
22. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on
the other Judgment of this Court in P. Ghousia
Begum’s case (9 supra), wherein it was held that the
title dispute has to be decided by the competent Civil
Court. In the instant case, the revisional authority has
not decided the title dispute and the matter was
remanded back to the respondent No.3 for conducting
enquiry by giving opportunity to both sides as there is
no record available for ROR proceedings. In view of the
same, the said Judgment is also not apply to the facts
of the instant case.
23. On the other hand, the contention of the learned
Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 is that the
ancestors of the petitioners have played fraud on the
authorities and got mutation their names in the
22
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
revenue records without the knowledge of the original
pattadars and the said illegal entries have to be rectified
at any point of time and there are no ORC proceedings
in favour of ancestors of the petitioners with respect to
the suit schedule property. Their further contention is
that the authorities, without verifying the records, have
removed the name of the original pattadar Sri Gopal
Rao Deshmukh and inserted the names of the
ancestors of the petitioners in the pahanies along with
the other survey numbers and the orders of mutation
have not communicated to the original pattadar. In view
of the same, the aspect of delay does not arise. It is
settled law that once there is no communication, the
date of knowledge has to be taken into account for the
limitation.
24. The other contention made by the Learned
Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 is that once the
23
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
fraud was established, it can be questioned at any point
of time as the petitioners have obtained pattas by
playing fraud.
25. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5
has relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Kasu Rayapa Reddy‘s case (10 supra),
wherein at para No.42 held as under;
“In view of these principles referred in the above
judgments, normally, the writ courts would not interfere with the
administrative order, unless the procedure followed by quasi-
judicial authorities or administrative authorities lack jurisdiction
and decision is perverse. But, in the present case, the fourth
respondent/Tahsildar did not follow the mandatory procedure, as
discussed above and thereby, the second respondent/Joint
Collector interfered. But, the defect or wrong done cannot be
remedied by allowing the revision, directing to delete the names of
this petitioner, since the principle of natural justice was not
complied by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar. If, a notice in Form-
VIII is published, there may be several claims or objections against
mutation of the name of this petitioner. On account of failure to
comply with the mandatory procedure by the fourth respondent/
Tahsildar, setting aside the same by the second respondent on the
ground of non-compliance of procedure may result in future
litigation. Therefore, in such case, the second respondent ought to
have set-aside the order and remanded the matter to the fourth
respondent directing to follow the procedure prescribed under the
Act and Rules framed thereunder. Instead of doing so, the second
respondent allowed the revision, setting-aside the order passed by
the fourth respondent and affirmed by the third respondent.
Therefore, the procedure adopted by the second respondent to
issue a direction to delete the name of this petitioner while
mutating the names of rival claimants is again contrary to the
procedure, since Form-VIII notice was not published as mandated
under Rule 19(1) of the Rules to avoid any further complications,
the second respondent ought to have remanded the matter with a
24
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015direction to follow the Rules by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar.
Thus, the second respondent/Joint Collector committed an error
and in such case, this Court can interfere with such order with a
view to put an end to litigation for mutation of names of the
petitioner and rival claimants and other interested persons”.
In the instant case also, while mutating the records with
regard to the subject properties, without following due
procedure, the authorities have mutated the names of
ancestors of the petitioners along with the other survey
numbers. In view of the same, the respondent No.2 has
directed the respondent No.3 to conduct fresh enquiry
by giving opportunity to all the parties and the
aforesaid Judgment squarely apply to the facts of the
present case.
26. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5
has relied on the other Judgment of this Court in M.
Ramulamma‘s case (11 supra), wherein this Court held
at para Nos.62, 63. 64 and 65 as under:
“62. It is not the case of respondent nos.3 to 6 that any notice was
given to the petitioners at the time when the order H/206/
1976 dt.19.02.1982 was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
25
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015Hyderabad (East) Division granting Occupancy Rights to Thota
Balakrishna Reddy. It is also not their case that the said order
was served on the petitioners.
63. Therefore, the limitation for challenging the said order would
commence only from the date of knowledge of the order and not
from the date of the said order.
64. In Bipromasz Bipron Trading Sa v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.6,
the Supreme Court declared that an official order takes effect only
when it is served on the person affected.
65. In State of W.B. v. R.K.B.K. Ltd.7, the Court declared that
unless an adverse order is communicated, it does not come into
effect (2012) 6 SCC 384 MSR,J ::19:: crp_3848_2018 and the
person affected cannot be blamed for not preferring appeal within
the specified time when it is not communicated to him. It held:
“35. … … … the words used in Para 10 are “date of the order”.
In the scheme of the Control Order, the order comes into effect
from the date of receipt by the agent or the dealer. Once that
becomes the decision, the commencement of limitation of 30 days
for the purpose of Para 10 would be the date when the order is
effective. The High Court in Rani Sati Kerosene Supply Co. has
opined that if the order of cancellation is not served on the
affected person and the appeal period expires, there is the
possibility that the adverse order would become unassailable. The
reasoning is totally fallacious. An appeal can only be preferred
when the order is effective. The ineffective order, that is to say,
uncommunicated order cannot be challenged. Therefore, the
reasoning given by the Court in earlier judgment is erroneous and
hence, the reliance thereupon by the impugned order is faulty.
There has to be a purposive construction of the words “from the
date of order”. To place a construction that the date of an order
would mean passing of the order, though not made effective would
lead to an absurdity.”
The aforesaid Judgment squarely apply to the
instant case as the mutation proceedings were not
26
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
communicated to the pattadar of the land and
limitation starts from the date of knowledge.
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa
vs. Brundaban Sharma 13, it was held at para
Nos.16 and 18 as under:
” 16. It is, therefore, settled law that when the revisional power
was conferred to effectuate a purpose, it is to be exercised in a
reasonable manner which inheres the concept of its exercise
within a reasonable time. Absence of limitation is an assurance to
exercise the power with caution or circumspection to effectuate
the purpose of the Act, or to prevent miscarriage of justice or
violation of the provisions of the Act or misuse or abuse of the
power by the lower authorities or fraud or suppression. Length of
time depends on the factual scenario in a given case. Take a case
that patta was obtained fraudulently in collusion with the officers
and it comes to the notice of the authorities after a long lapse of
time. Does it lie in the mouth of the party to the fraud to plead
limitation to get away with the order? Does lapse of time an
excuse to refrain from exercising the revisional power to unravel
fraud and to set it right? The answers would be no.
18. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Board of
Revenue exercised the power under Section 38B after an
unreasonable lapse of time, though from the date of the grant of
patta by the Tahsildar is of 27 years. It is true that from the date
of the alleged grant of patta 27 years did pass. But its authenticity
and correctness was shrouded with suspicious features. The
records of the Tahsildar were destroyed. Who is to get the benefit?
Who was responsible for it? The reasons are not far to seek. They
are self-evident. So we hold that the exercise of revisional power
under Section 38B by the Board of Revenue was legal and valid
and it brooked no delay, after it had come to the Board’s
knowledge. That apart as held by the Board of Revenue, the order
passed by the Tahsildar without confirmation by the Board is
nonest. A nonest order is a void order and it confers no title and13
1995 Supp (3) SCC 249
27
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015its validity can be questioned or invalidity be set up in any
proceeding or at any stage.
The findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
above Judgment in aforesaid paragraphs squarely apply
to the instant case as it is admitted fact that as on this
date, no Occupancy Right Certificate is granted with
regard to suit schedule property in favour of the
petitioners and without following any procedure as
contemplated under ROR Act, 1971, the respondent
authorities have mutated the names of the ancestors of
the petitioners as it amounts to fraud. The respondent
No.2 has rightly remanded the matter to the respondent
No.3 to conduct fresh enquiry with regard to
ascertaining the rights of the parties as per ROR Act,
1971.
28
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
28. In Smt Munganda Venkataratnam vs. Joint
Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru14, this Court
held at para No.15 as under:
“Since in para 25 of K. Rattamma v. G. Kotaiah 1975(2)
An.WR 122, it is held that B.S.Os are only executive instructions
for the guidance of the revenue officials and nothing more, Prima
facie BSO 15(180 relied on by the petitioners does not confer any
right on them to cling on to the assignments made because it is
well known that fraud vitiates everything. Recently the Apex
Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. T.Suryachandra Rao, after
discussing the entire case law on the subject of fraud, held that no
order obtained by fraud can be sustained. It is also well known
that in case of fraud the period of limitation would commence
from the date of discovery of fraud. Therefore, merely because a
person could successfully shield the fraud played by him in
obtaining assignment of Government land for several years, he
cannot be heard to say that in view of the lapse of time the
assignment in his favour cannot be cancelled. When power is
vested in an authority to do an act, and if that authority exercises
that power erroneously due to the fraud played on it, that
authority has the implied power to undo its earlier act, performed
by it as a result of the fraud played on it. First respondent
without correctly appreciating the law and facts seems to have
erroneously set aside the order cancelling the assignments but
since that part of the order of first respondent, setting aside
cancellation of assignments, became final, I do not wish to
interfere with that part of the order of the first respondent”.
In the instant case, the writ petitioners have accepted
that there is no Occupancy Rights Certificate over the
subject property and relied on the mutation of the
records in the year, 1978. Once, the fraud played by the
ancestral of the petitioners and mutated the records by
14
2006(2) ALT 44 (S.B.)
29
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
deleting the name of original pattadar and inserting the
name of the ancestors of the petitioners in the pahanies
for the year 1978-79 along with other survey numbers,
the respondent Nos.4 and 5 being the successors of the
original pattadar have agitated in their appeal before
the Land Reforms Tribunal and also before this Court
with regard to suit schedule property along with other
properties. This Court allowed C.R.P.Nos.4017, 4018
and 4019 of 1993 and remanded the matter to the Land
Reforms Tribunal for conducting fresh enquiry in
accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity
to both parties. In view of the same, the above
Judgment squarely apply to the instant case and the
respondent No.2 has rightly directed the respondent
No.3 to conduct fresh enquiry.
29. The contention of the petitioners is that after
mutation of the records, some portion of the land was
30
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
sold to the third parties and thereafter, the nature of
the land was converted from agriculture to non-
agriculture. In view of the same, the proceedings under
ROR Act cannot be continued.
30. The respondent No.2, in the impugned order, has
only recorded the contentions of both the parties with
regard to the nature of the land and remanded the
matter to the respondent No.3-Tahsildar for conducting
fresh enquiry. Only after conducting fresh enquiry by
the Tahsildar concerned, the nature of the land and the
rights of the parties have to be decided. Merely basing
on the entries in the records, the writ petitioners cannot
take advantage and state that the settled things cannot
be unsettled. The entries in the revenue records do not
create any title or confer right on the persons whose
names were entered in the revenue records.
31
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
31. The competent authority has to conduct proper
enquiry as to whether the nature of land comes
agriculture or non-agriculture and also comes under
ROR Act or not. Without conducting any proceedings
and merely basing on the entries in the revenue
records, any party cannot get title over the property.
32. The writ petitioners have failed to produce any
document with regard to the mutation of the names of
their ancestors by following the procedure as
contemplated under ROR Act, 1971. Therefore, the
matter has to be enquired into by the competent
authority and the respondent No.2 has rightly
remanded the matter to the respondent No.3 for
conducting fresh enquiry by giving opportunity to both
sides and there is no irregularity committed by the
respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order.
32
SK,J
W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015
Hence, there are no merits in the writ petitions and the
writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
33. In view of the above findings, both the Writ
Petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits. There shall
be no order as to costs.
34. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in
these writ petitions, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SARATH, J
Date:10.01.2025
sj
Note: LR copy to be marked.
[ad_1]
Source link