HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.

RAMACHANDRA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.22032 of 2019

ORDER:

Heard Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, counsel for petitioners,

and Sri Harendra Pershad, Special Government Pleader attached to the

Office of the learned Advocate-General, for respondents.

2. One Pilli Balaiah, S/o. Danaiah, according to the petitioners,

was the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Acs.81.00 in

Survey No.1007 of Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, erstwhile

Ranga Reddy District, which falls presently in the Medchal Malkajgiri

District created in 2016.

3. The petitioners, who are six in number, claim that Pilli Balaiah

purchased the same under an unregistered sale deed dt.04.04.1974

from one Fazlath Hussain. They contend that they were in possession

and enjoyment of his land since 1962 when there was an agreement of

sale in respect of this land and it was also mentioned in the

unregistered sale deed referred to above.

4. The petitioners claimed to be the surviving legal heirs of Pilli

Balaiah and to have inherited the said land on his death along with

other legal heirs.

5. According to the petitioners, Pilli Balaiah, during his lifetime,

as occupant of the subject land and purchaser under unregistered sale

 ::2:: MSR,J
wp_22032_2019

deed dt.04.04.1974, applied for regularization of the sale transaction

under Section 5-A of the Telangana Record of Rights in Land and

Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 and on 09.06.1995 Form 13-B

Certificate in proceedings No.B/5509/90 under Section 5-A (4) of the

Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971

(for short, ‘the Act’) was issued by the 1st respondent in the name of

legal heirs of Pilli Balaiah after they deposited the registration and

stamp duty costs.

6. On 02.04.2012, in proceedings R.C.No.B/1336/2011, the 1st

respondent also directed mutation of the names of the legal heirs of

Pilli Balaiah in the Revenue Records for an extent of Acs.74.30 gts. in

Survey No.1007 of Kukatpally Village and directed the Village

Revenue Officer of the said village to mutate their names in the

Revenue Records as per the Act.

7. The Pahani for 2015-16 and 2016-17 showed that they were the

pattadars of the said extent of land in Survey No.1007/A of

Kukatpally Village.

8. According to the petitioners, O.S.No.1121 of 2012 was filed

before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District by

Gorudotla Mongulamma and Golla Gangamma against Pilli Balaiah

and others claiming to be the grand-daughters of Pilli Balaiah for

partition of the above land and allotment of 1/30th share therein; that a

preliminary decree was passed on 20.03.2015 decreeing the suit and

 ::3:: MSR,J
wp_22032_2019

directing that the above property should be divided into six shares,

and one share should be allotted to 1st defendant therein and in that

share, the plaintiffs were to be allotted 1/5th share each, i.e., the

plaintiffs should be given 1/30th share therein.

9. It is also contended that an application for passing of final

decree was filed and an Advocate-Commissioner was also appointed

to demarcate the respective shares; that M/s. Prime Properties

claiming 346 acres filed a claim petition which was dismissed and

was also confirmed by the High Court and later in the Supreme Court;

that the claim of the said entity was also rejected by the High Court in

a Review Application in C.R.P.No.6697 of 2004 on 23.02.2018, that

this was challenged in the Supreme Court and on 01.10.2018, the

Supreme Court directed maintenance of status quo with regard to

possession.

10. According to the petitioners, regularization orders

RC.No.B/1336/2011, dt.02.04.2012 were passed by the 1st respondent,

confirming the patta rights and also mutation was made of the names

of the petitioners certifying that they are in possession of the property

from the date of its purchase; that the pahani for 2015-16 also showed

that they are the legal heirs of Pilli Balaiah and were pattadars and

possessors of the extent of Acs.74.30 gts.; but till date, consequential

regularization certificate as contemplated by Section 5-A (4) of the

above Act, which is a mandatory requirement, was not issued to the

petitioners, seriously prejudicing them. They also contended that they

 ::4:: MSR,J
wp_22032_2019

executed Development Agreement-cum-General Powers of Attorney

on 02.08.2012 bearing Document Nos.5175 to 5184 of 2012 in favour

of M/s.Aditya Constructions Company for valuable consideration; but

a communication was received in File No.B1/674/2015 on 23.04.2016

taking a stand that the subject land had become urban land and had

ceased to be an agricultural land and that the Act itself was therefore

not applicable.

11. Petitioners contend that this stand of the respondents is arbitrary

and illegal; that the order passed on 02.04.2012 by the 1st respondent

under Section 5-A had attained finality; that the relevant date for the

purpose of regularization is 04.04.1974 and 02.04.2012; and the

respondents cannot avoid issuance of regularization certificate to the

petitioners on the ground that now it has become urban land.

12. The counsel for petitioners also relied upon order dt.04.06.2019

in W.P.No.22896 of 2018 and batch wherein certain documents

executed by M/s. Prime Properties, Hyderabad in respect of lands in

Survey No.1007 of Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Malkajgiri

Medchal District were not permitted by this Court and a finding was

recorded therein that the land in Survey No.1007 of Kukatpally

Village continued to be agricultural land and did not cease to be

agricultural land.

13. He also relied upon order dt.25.05.2013 in Case

No.D5/4908/2012 passed by the Joint Collector (J), Ranga Reddy

 ::5:: MSR,J
wp_22032_2019

District, who initiated suo moto Revision proceedings under Section 9

of the Act, to revise the order passed by the 1st respondent on

02.04.2012 granting mutation for Acs.74.30 gts. in Survey No.1007 of

Kukatpally Village to the legal heirs of Pilli Balaiah. The said officer

had closed the suo motu Revision after recording that the said land is

patta land, that the Government is not claiming any right in the said

land, and that certificate in Form 13-B had been issued in File

No.B/5509/1990 dt.09.06.1995 by the then Mandal Revenue Officer,

Balanagar Mandal regularizing the private sale deed in respect of

Acs.81.00 in Survey No.1007 by collecting stamp duty and

registration charges of Rs.16,200/-. He noted that the said order had

not been challenged by anybody till today, and without such

challenge, it cannot be said that they were passed illegally. He

directed respondent nos.10 to 13 therein / 3rd parties to establish their

right and title over the land in question in separate proceeding before

appropriate Forum.

14. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents by the

Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal, Malkajgiri District he stated

that after the formation of Medchal-Malkajgiri District in 2016, the

erstwhile Balanagar Mandal was divided into two Mandals, i.e.,

Balanagar and Kukatpally Mandal, and that the subject land fell

within limits of Kukatpally Mandal and so the petitioners should have

impleaded him as a proper and necessary party.

 ::6:: MSR,J
wp_22032_2019

15. In view of the said submission, the Tahsildar, Kukatpally

Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District is suo moto impleaded as 5th

respondent in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition need not be

dismissed on the said ground because the said fact had come to light

only after the counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents.

16. It is the contention of the respondents that Mir Fazeelath

Hussain, the vendor of the petitioners’ father Pilli Balaiah, had

suffered a decree dt.22.11.1973 in O.S.No.122 of 1973 at the hands of

one Hashim Ali; that O.S.No.219 of 1980 was filed by Mir Fazeelath

Hussain before Munsif Magistrate, West and South, and a Written

Statement was filed therein by Pilli Danaiah and others admitting the

possession of the plaintiff; but no material is filed before this Court in

support of the said pleading. Therefore, the said plea of the

respondents has to be ignored.

17. According to the respondents, between 1988 and 2009 an extent

of ACs.286.00 in Survey No.1007 is custodia legis and that any

transaction over the property which is subject matter of Court custody

is null and void. In which proceeding, this property is custodia legis,

is not mentioned by the respondents.

18. A further plea is raised that Pilli Balaiah claimed under an

unregistered sale deed dt.04.04.1974 and that the said sale deed is non

est in law. It appears that the Tahsildar, who filed the counter, is

ignorant of Section 5-A of the Act which permits purchasers under

 ::7:: MSR,J
wp_22032_2019

unregistered sale deeds and in occupation of the land, to get a

certificate declaring that such transfer is valid. Therefore, this

contention of the Tahsildar is without any merit.

19. It is then admitted that the 1st respondent in proceedings

R.C.No.B/1336/2011 dt.02.04.2012 had granted mutation for an

extent of Acs.74.30 gts. in Survey No.1007 to the petitioners under

the Act and the suo moto revision proceedings initiated by the Joint

Collector (J), Ranga Reddy District in Case No.D5/4908/2012

dt.25.05.2013 against the said order were also dropped directing

aggrieved parties to approach proper Forum to appeal.

20. Having said so, it is stated that the Joint Collector, Ranga

Reddy District came to know that Pilli Balaiah and others suffered a

decree in O.S.No.219 of 1980 during the pendency of the Revision.

No document is filed by the respondents to support this plea.

21. It is then contended that M/s. Prime Properties was claiming

title to Hashim Ali, who had succeeded allegedly against Mir

Fazeellath Hussain in O.S.No.122 of 1973 on 22.11.1973 before the I

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and there was a

compromise between them. Again, no documents were filed by the

respondents to prove this contention.

22. According to the respondents, the Tahsildar issued an

endorsement B1/674/2015 dt.23.04.2016 rejecting the claim of the

 ::8:: MSR,J
wp_22032_2019

petitioners for issuance of pattedar pass books and title deeds on the

ground that the land in Survey No.1007 falls in urban agglomeration.

23. Admittedly, the pahanies for 2015-16 and 2016-17 filed by the

petitioners shows that the land of Acs.74.30 gts. in Survey No.1007 of

Kukatpally Village, is agricultural land for which mutation is made in

the name of the petitioners. When the Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act, 1976 got repealed in March, 2008 by the Urban Land

(Ceiling and Repeal) Act, 1999, and there is a finding recorded by this

Court in its order dt.04.06.2019 in Writ Petition No.22896 of 2018

that the land in Survey No.1007 of Kukatpally Village is not proved to

be converted into non-agricultural land and that it is still agricultural

land, it is not open to the respondents to take the plea that the land is

in urban agglomeration, thereby implying that it has become non-

agricultural land (for which there is no basis), and seek to contend that

the Act does not apply to it.

24. In page No.6, at para no.6(vii), a table is given showing the

names of the petitioners as having been recorded for Acs.74.30 gts. in

Survey No.1007/A of Kukatpally Village; but again in para no.6(viii),

it is stated that there are no sub-divisions in the said survey number.

Both these statements in the counter-affidavit are inconsistent with

each other.

25. In para no.6(ix), it is stated that there is an order of the Special

Officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, but

 ::9:: MSR,J
wp_22032_2019

the said order F1/6360/76 dt.23.04.1982 is not filed. Who was the

declarant in the said proceeding and how it applies to the petitioners

particularly when the land in survey No.1007 is a large extent of

Acs.347.00 is not explained. In any event, it is admitted that

possession of the land in Sy.No.1007 of Kukatpally Village was not

taken prior to its repeal under the Urban Land Ceiling and Repeal Act,

1999 in March, 2018 and that the said land is not covered by the

Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. Therefore, the

reference to the order passed under the said Act is meaningless.

26. In para no.7 and 9 of the counter-affidavit, details of other

persons making claims of land in Survey No.1007 of Kukatpally

Village are mentioned, in para no.10 order dt.04.06.2019 in

W.P.No.22896 of 2018 and in para no.12 other Writ Petitions are

referred to.

27. These facts are not at all relevant, since admittedly petitioners

are not parties to the said Writ Petitions and in his order dt.25.05.2013

in Case No.D5/4908/2012, the Joint Collector had already affirmed

the order dt.02.04.2012 in File No.B/1336/2011 dt.02.04.2012 passed

by the 1st respondent granting mutation to the petitioners in regard to

the Acs.74.30 gts. in Survey No.1007 of Kukatpally Village by

dropping the suo moto revisional proceedings specifically recording

that the land is patta land and the Government is not claiming any

right in it. Thus, the respondents are estopped from mentioning the
 ::10:: MSR,J
wp_22032_2019

above facts or taking a plea that the land falls in the urban

agglomeration.

28. I reject the plea of the respondents that unless all the above Writ

Petitions referred to in the counter-affidavit of the respondents are

finally disposed of, it is not possible or feasible to issue regularization

certificate to the petitioners under Section 5A(4) of the Act.

29. In view of the order dt.09.06.1995 in proceedings

No.B/5509/90 of Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal,

Chevella Division of Ranga Reddy District and issuance of Form13-B

Certificate in exercise of power under Section 5A of the Act to the

petitioners, who are legal heirs of Pilli Balaiah after collecting the

stamp duty and registration charges; and after the 1st respondent

directed mutation of the names of the petitioners under the Act in

RC.No.B/1336/2011 dt.02.04.2012 and such mutation was done as is

admitted in para no.7(vii) of the counter-affidavit of respondents,

(which the 3rd respondent was not inclined to interfere in his order in

Case No.D5/4908/2012 dt.25.05.2013); it is the statutory duty of the

5th respondent and the other respondents to issue to the petitioners

certificate under Section 5A (4) of the Act declaring the transfer in the

name of Pilli Balaiah as valid.

30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring the action of

respondent no.5 in not issuing the ‘Regularization Certificate’ under

Section 5A(4) of the Act to the petitioners pursuant to the

 ::11:: MSR,J
wp_22032_2019

regularization proceedings vide order dt.09.06.1995 of Mandal

Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, Chevella Division of Ranga

Reddy District in proceedings No.B/5509/90 and Form13-B

Certificate issued thereunder and also vide R.C.No.B/1336/2011

dt.02.04.2012 of 1st respondent as arbitrary and illegal, violative of

Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and a consequential

direction is issued to the 5th respondent to issue ‘Regularization

Certificate’ to the petitioners within a period of four (04) weeks from

the date of receipt of copy of the order, in respect of land admeasuring

Acs.74.30 gts. in Survey No.1007, Kukatpally Village, Kukatpally

Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and also update the manual and

electronic Revenue Records accordingly.

31. No order as to costs.

32. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ

Petition shall stand closed.

____________________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
Date: 24.01.2020
Ndr