*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +W.P. No.4989 OF 2009 %08.04.2009 #1.M/s. Taurus Homes Private Limited and others ..Petitioners. Vs. $ The Joint Collector, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents. !Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Y.Krishna Mohan Rao ^Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE & Sri D.Prakash Reddy <Gist : >Head Note: ?Cases Referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4989 of 2009 ORDER: That there is decline in the moral and ethical values in the society, is a recognized fact. The unhealthy, unwarranted and unsustained growth in the value of the land, particularly around the city of Hyderabad, has virtually led to disappearance of even the left-over values of life of many, in the area. The instant case discloses that, people are prepared to stoop down to any levels, in their mad hunt for money, and they are prepared to choose any means to reach that end. The case on hand, presents an example, in this regard. The land in various survery numbers of Thattiannaram Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was a Jagir. One Mr.Suryar Jung held an extent of 117 acres of land in survey Nos.63, 68 to 71, 75, 84, 90, 95 to 101, 108, 110, 111 and 118 to 120. From the year 1951 onwards, the name of one Mr.Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy appeared as pattadar of Acs.70.39 guntas of land in survey Nos.108, 109, 110 and 111 of the said village. It is stated that, he submitted a declaration under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as regards the said land and that his name is reflected in various revenue records, in respect of that land. After the death of Satyanarayana Reddy, the names of his legal representatives are said to have been entered in the records. Meer Abbas Ali Khan, and certain others, respondents 4 to 12 herein, represented by their GPA, - B.Mallaiah Yadav, and certain others, filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar, the 2nd respondent, with a request to make necessary entries in the revenue records, in respect of 117 acres of land, referred to above, on the basis of a compromise decree passed in C.C.A.No.30 of 1993 on the file of this Court. The appeal arose out of O.S.No.887 of 1987 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Through his order, dated 15.04.2005, the 2nd respondent acceded to the request and issued pattadar pass books in favour of the applicants before him, under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the ROR Act’). The 1st petitioner is a private Company and petitioners 2 to 6 are associated with the company, in one form or the other. The 1st petitioner is said to have purchased an extent of Acs.70.39 guntas of land through an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA), dated 25.01.2002. On coming to know that the pattadar pass books were issued in favour of respondents 4 to 12 in respect of the said land, the petitioners filed a revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act, before the Joint Collector, the 1st respondent herein. The revision was dismissed through order, dated 12.12.2008. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the decree obtained by respondents 4 to 12 was collusive in nature, and though they did not have title or possession over the land at any point of time, they have approached the 2nd respondent, with an application to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds. He contends that the 2nd respondent did not issue notice to the persons, who held title, possession and interest over the land. He further submits that during the pendency of the revision, respondents 4 to 12, and in particular their GPA, have managed the vendors of the petitioners, and in their anxiety, pleaded several contradictions in the matter. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 12, on the other hand, submit that the petitioners do not have any locus standi, since they did not derive any title to the land, even by now. They contend that the petitioners were claiming title through their vendors viz., Maddi Bhagyamma, Maddi Srikanth Reddy etc., and the latter, in turn, have withdrawn the revision filed by them, accepting that the entries made in their favour, and the pattadar pass books issued to them, are fraudulent. They further contend that the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner himself, filed an affidavit to the effect that the entire transactions are vitiated by fraud. When an application under the ROR Act is filed, with a request to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds, or to make entries in the record of rights, the Mandal Revenue Officer is under obligation to issue notice to the affected parties. A detailed verification is to be undertaken, as to whether the claim is based upon succession or transfer or adjudication by a Court. Irrespective of the basis pleaded by the parties, the persons, whose names were already recorded, must be issued notices, before any new entries are made or pattadar pass books are issued. In the instant case, respondents 4 to 12 submitted application for making entries and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour. They based their claim on a compromise decree. The first and foremost step expected from the 2nd respondent was the verification of the entries in the relevant records, as on the date of receiving the application. If there existed entries in favour of some of the parties to the compromise decree, and alterations are to be made as per the terms of the decree, no difficulty, as such, would have been there. This Court summoned the original records from the office of the 2nd respondent that existed as on 15.04.2005 in respect of the land. The record discloses that the names of Maddi Bhagyamma, Srikanth Reddy etc., were recorded in respect of Acs.70.00 guntas of land, as successors of Maddi Satyanarayana Reddy. Therefore, the basic and fundamental duty on the part of the 2nd respondent, was to issue notices to the persons, whose names figured in the revenue records. He did not choose to take such a step and had simply acceded to the request of respondents 4 to 12, through his order, dated 15.04.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 15.04.2005, passed by the 2nd respondent, Bhagyamma and others, whose names figured in the revenue records, on the one hand; and the petitioners herein; on the other hand, filed separate revisions before the 1st respondent under Section 9 of the ROR Act. It is rather curious and strange that the vendors of the petitioners i.e. Bhagyamma and others have turned around, thereafter. They not only withdrew their revision, but also filed affidavits to the effect that the entries in favour of themselves and their predecessor Mr.Satyanarayana Reddy, were fraudulent and the pattadar pass books issued to them are vitiated by fraud. It appears that honesty and sincerity of highest order dawned upon them and having become sages, they renounced every temporal and material possession, overnight. The memo filed by Bhagyamma and others stated, inter alia, that: “(i) They have no right to claim over the Schedule mentioned lands or any part thereof. (ii) If any claims put forth by first party or their legal heirs or representatives, presently or in future, the same shall be void and bad in law and not maintainable. (iii) They have also undertaken that they will not create any kind of problems or pose threats to the second party or any other person or persons representing the respondents. (iv) They have further agreed that they will withdraw all pending cases either before the Civil Court (s), appellate authorities, Revenue Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals or in any court(s) and have further undertaken to end the litigation for ever. (v) They also agreed and declare that the second party is the owners and possessor of the schedule lands and they further declare that they are not at all concerned or interested persons in respect of the schedule lands, as because Late M.Satyanarayana Reddy himself has no perfect title or right.” If the dawning of wisdom upon the vendors of the 1st petitioner was natural and in the ordinary course of things, this Court would have gone to the extent of congratulating them for the rare gesture on their part, for not only of disowning their rights, but also confessing the fraud, as regards the revenue records, spread over the past half a century. However, the anxiety of the Court is short-lived. The record discloses that having collected huge sums from the petitioners towards consideration for the land, and sided with the petitioners in the pursuit of remedies, vis-à-vis the order, dated 15.04.2005, by filing revision, Bhagyamma and others have resorted to nasty and heinous step of entering into compromise with respondents 4 to 12 herein. The manner in which the compromise is arrived at, is referred in the Memorandum of Withdrawal filed by them, on 24.06.2006 before the 1st respondent. It reads as under: “That the petitioners, in terms of the compromise have categorically agreed that the Respondents No.2 to 8 herein are the only the absolute owners and possessors by virtue of various court decree and other relevant documents and orders. The petitioners also admit that the M.R.O. has rightly passed the orders after due enquiry, perusing all the relevant documents. The petitioners admit that they are bind over by the said orders of Respondent No.1. They also admitted that their names and the name of M.Satyanarayana Reddy was nominally and wrongly recorded in the revenue records even though they are not the owners nor in possession of subject lands at any point of time. However, the petitioners herein admit that, they have received their demanded amounts from the respondent through their G.P.A. holder by name B.Mallaiah Yadav in terms of settlement. Further the petitioners 1 to 3 hereby voluntarily, with their own freewill and consent, without any force or fraud are hereby relinquishing their all kinds of rights in favour of the Respondents 2 to 8 and their G.P.A. holder herein.” The record also discloses that Mallaiah Yadav, the GPA holder of respondents 4 to 12, had flouted a Company - Ammoda Developers and Promotors (P) Limited and that company had entered into “Memorandum of Undertaking” with Bhagyamma and others on 15.05.2006. It is stated that crores have changed hands under the transaction. Serious doubts persist as to, (a) why respondents 4 to 12 have entered into a compromise with Bhagyamma and others, in case the latter have no title at all; (b) why the demanded amount was paid by the GPA of respondents 4 to 12 to Bhagyamma and others; and (c) why Mallaiah Yadav, the GPA of respondents 4 to 12 entered into a separate Memorandum of Understanding, through another Company with Bhagyamma and others. All these aspects were pushed under the carpet by the 1st respondent under the specious plea, that the petitioners do not have locus standi. For all practical purposes, the 1st respondent has only facilitated the fraudulent transactions between the vendors of the petitioners, on the one hand, and respondents 4 to 12, on the other hand. In the process, he failed to verify an important and crucial fact, namely, whether the persons, whose names figure in the revenue records, were put on notice, before they were substituted. Before this Court also, it is strongly urged that, even assuming that Bhagyamma and others have any title or interest over the land, the petitioners ceased to have locus standi, once those individuals have withdrawn their revision. It is also suggested that the petitioners have to work out their remedies vis-à-vis their vendors. Viewed in isolation, the suggestion may appear to be reasonable and correct. However, one must not lose site of the fact that the Specific Relief Act confers rights on the holders of agreement of sale, to compel their vendors to fill the lacuna, if any, and to prevent them from taking any steps that have the effect of defeating their rights. Reference in this context, may be made to Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It reads as under: 13. Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title:- (1) where a person contracts to sell or let certain immovable property having no title or only an imperfect title, the purchaser or lessee (subject to the other provisions of this chapter), has the following rights, namely:- (a) If the vendor or lessor has subsequently to the contract acquired any interest in the property, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to make good the contract out of such interest; (b) Where the concurrence of other persons is necessary for validating the title, and they are bound to concur at the request of the vendor or lessor, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to procure such concurrence, and when a conveyance by other persons is necessary to validate the title and they are bound to convey at the request of the vendor or lessor, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to procure such conveyance. (c) Where the vendor professes to sell unencumbered property, but the property is mortgaged for an amount not exceeding the purchase money and the vendor has in fact only a right to redeem it, the purchaser may compel him to redeem the mortgage and to obtain a valid discharge, and where necessary, also a conveyance from the mortgagee; (d) Where the vendor or lessor sues for specific performance of the contract and the suit is dismissed on the ground of his want of title or imperfect title, the defendant has a right to a return of his deposit, if any, with interest thereon, to his costs of the suit, and to a lien for such deposit, interest and costs on the interest, if any, of the vendor or lessor in the property which is the subject matter of the contract. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall also apply, as far as may be, to contracts for the sale or hire of movable property.” On the strength of the agreement in their favour, the petitioners had acquired valuable rights over the property. They cannot remain oblivious, when their vendors resort to fraudulent, collusive and acts driven by greed for money. The petitioners were entitled to put forward their case before the 2nd respondent, when steps were being taken on the application made by respondents 4 to 12. Another aspect of the matter, which is noteworthy, is that, till a revision was filed before the 1st respondent, the vendors of the petitioners i.e. Bhagyamma and others, sailed with them. It means that, had the notice been given to them in the proceedings before the 2nd respondent, Bhagyamma and others would certainly have opposed the issuance of pattadar pass books. The actual persons that would feel the impact of the proceedings before the 2nd respondent are the petitioners; in as much as they not only got an agreement of sale, but also GPA in their favour. Viewed from any angle, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained in law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings, dated 15.04.2005, issued by the 2nd respondent, and confirmed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings, dated 12.12.2008, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. The petitioners shall be entitled to put forward their contentions, in such proceedings. The 2nd respondent shall take the same into account. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:08.04.2009. Note: L.R. Copy to be marked. (B/o) GJ