IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26550 of 2007 Between: H.M.T. Employees' Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., (Regd. No. T.B.C. 126) Hyderabad - 500 054. Rep by its Secretary, P. Ramulu ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serlingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings dt. 7-11- 2006 in File No.E1/7306/1999 purporting to declare the land in Sy.No. 52 of Maqtha Mahaboobpet Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District along with the other survey numbers as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 300-A of the constitution of Inida and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SRIKANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO : 13679 of 2001 Between: 1 P.Devanand, S/o Chidanand, R/o Plot No.153, HMT Swarnapuri, Miyapur, Hyderabad. 2 T.V.Vasudeva Rao, S/o T.c.Venkata Rajaiah, R/o Plot No. 312, HMT Swarnapuri, Miyapur, Hyderabad. 3 H.M.T. Employees Co-op.House Building Society Ltd., Rep. by its Secretary K.Panduranga Rao, S/o K.Satyanarayana, T.B.c. No.126, H.M.T. Township, Hyderabad, R/o Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Sub-Registrar-I Registration Office, Moosarambagh, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direcdtion, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent inissuing proceedings in Lr.No.E1/7306/99 dated 29.1.2000 to the 2nd respondent directing notto register any documents of transfer in respect of the land in Sy.No.52(Old) new Sy.Nos.52/1 and 52/2 of Maqta Mahaboobpet Village, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad as arbitrary, illegal, unconstituional and contrary to the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and issue a consequential direction tothe 2nd respondent to register the documents of transfer and release the same according to the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: 1. These two writ petitions are inter-linked and therefore they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. H.M.T.Employees’ Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., represented by its Secretary is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. W.P.No.26550 of 2007 is filed assailing the order dated 7.11.2006 in File No.E1/7306/99 passed by the Joint Collector, R.R. District in a proceeding under section 166-B of A.P. (TA) LR Act, and whereas W.P.No.13679 of 2001 is filed assailing the action of the District Collector, R.R. District in issuing letter No.E1/7306/99, dated 29.1.2000 directing the Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad not to register any documents of transfer in respect of land in Sy.No.52 (old), new Sy.Nos.52/1 and 52/2, of Maqta Mahaboobpet village, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 3. Back ground facts in a nutshell leading to filing of these two writ petitions by HMT Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited are: Mr.Khasim Ali was the owner of S.No.52 admeasuring Ac.10.00 having obtained Muntakeb by Atiyat Court. He sold Ac.6-00 to Kasturi Devi W/o Bhaskar Rao under a registered sale deed dated 12.1.1965. One Radhe Shyam claimed to have purchased Ac.5.00 from Khasim Ali and he in turn sold to Kamala. Kasturi Devi died and her husband Bhaskar Rao succeeded to her estate. Bhaskar Rao initiated proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella under the provisions of A.P (TA) Inam Abolition Act. Kamala who is the purchaser of half of the extent in Sy.No.52 was also made as a party in the proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella. The proceedings initiated under the provisions of A.P. (TA) Inam Abolition Act ended in favour of Bhaskar Rao on 4.3.1983. The relevant portion of the order dated 4.3.83 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer reads as under: “ From the above facts, it is clear that late Mir Kazim Ali was the Inamdar to the extent of 5-0 share in the entire Maqtha land and it is a fact that he has sold 6.00 acres of land to Smt.Kasturi Devi in the year, 1965 and his own brother Mir Osman Ali has also given declaration on the very day of the registration that the land being so sold to the Smt.Kasturi Devi belongs to her brother which was given to him and he was fully competent to sell the land and the very registration itself is a notice to the world at large and his own brother Shri Mir Osman Ali (Objection petitioner) has been a witness to these documents. In view of these facts, the objection of Mir Osman Ali denying of the sale of the lands by his brother is quite strange and does not deserve any consideration. Now coming to the point that the total land purchased by the petitioner is 6 acres of land and out of 10 acres of land in Sy.No.52 whereas in the same sy.No. an extent of 5-20 acres was sold by the same Inamdar to another person Sri Radha Shyam but it was not registered. Shri Radhe Shyam applied on 26.9.1975 under the Inam Abolition Act, for the grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 5.00 acres (subsequently) modified as 5 ½ acres) claiming as purchased on an agreement of sale and his claim was accepted and occupancy rights were also granted on an extent of Ac.5-20 guntas in file No.A1/1452/1975. In the case of Radhe Shyam also Mir Osman Ali, the objection petitioner No.1, has filed an affidavit stating that Shri Panchalal father of the petitioner Shri Radhe Shyam has taken a piece of Maqtha land of 5 acres in Sy.No.52 on lease from his brother late Mir Kasim Ali and Radhe Shyam is in occupation and possession of the said land and he had no objection if the suit land made patta in his name. Thus, the extent of both the cases clubbed it comes more than the extent of Sy.No.52. Therefore, a notice was also issued to Shri Radheshyam. But Smt.Kamala successor in interest of having purchased from Shri Radhe Shyam appeared and filed a petition denying the title of the petitioner but subsequently she had filed another petition stating that she is in possession of half of the extent of the sy.No.52 and on the remaining half Shri Bhaskar Rao is in occupation. Her statement was also recorded on 7th January, 1982. She deposed that she has no objection for deleting 20 guntas from the said certificate issued under the Inam Abolition Act in favour of the successor in interest and to grant occupancy rights on an extent of 5 acres to the petitioner. Since, both the purchasers of the land in Sy.No.52 have agreed that they are in possession to an extent of 5 acres each it will not be a problem to rectify the certificate already issued in favour of Shri Radhe Shyam. Accordingly, it is orders that cetificate bearing No.A1/1452/1975 dt.17.6.1978 be modified to an extent of 5 acres instead of 5-20 guntas in Sy.No.52 and similarly on the remaining 5.00 acres occupancy rights are granted in favour of Shri Bhasker Rao, the petitioner.” 4. Annesunnia Begum filed an appeal under section 24 of A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 assailing the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella. The appellate authority by an order dated 22.3.1984 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella. She challenged the orders passed by the primary authority as well as the appellate authority by filing W.P.No.7303 of 1984. The said writ petition ended in dismissal on 13.9.1986. The petitioner-society purchased Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.52 under a registered sale deed dated 8.6.82 from M.Bhaskar Rao and another Ac.5.00 under registered sale deed dated 20.6.92 from Kamala. While so, the Joint Collector in exercise of powers under section 166-B of A.P. (T.A) Land Revenue Act, 1317 fasli issued show cause notices to various persons including the petitioner- society to show cause as to why the nature of the land cannot be treated as a Government poramboke. The show cause notice came to be issued on the premise that supplementary Setwar in the year 1969 has been obtained by adopting dubious methods. Some of the effected parties assailed the show cause notice by filing writ petitions (WP Nos.4849, 20517, 18374, 18272, 18141, 12915 and 13679 of 2000), which came to be disposed of directing the Joint Collector to conclude the proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Joint Collector after considering the explanations and giving opportunity of personal hearing to the objectors proceeded to order correction of entries in respect of various survey numbers including Sy.No.52 as government lands by order dated 7.11.2006. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “ Another issue for consideration is that whether in exercise of powers u/s 166-B of A.P(T.A)L.R. Act, 1317-F, entry purportedly made in the faisal patti in 1968-69 can be corrected at this distance of time. There is no time limit prescribed for exercise of powers u/s 166-B of A.P (TA) LR Act. Though there is no limitation the Hon’ble High Court in a string of judgments has held that powers under section 166-B should be exercised within a reasonable time. But it is a settled principle of law that fraud knows no limitation. In the instant case the entries in faisal Patti of 1968-69 are purportedly made on the basis of a non- existant Supplementary Sethwar. As such, these entries are vitiated by fraud and are a nullity. The entries in Faisal Patti which are made on the basis of a nonest Supplementary Sethwar have to be corrected and removed. The entries made in revenue records pursuant to the entries made in Faisal Patti also need to be corrected. In view of the above, the entries made in Faisal Patti on the basis of a non-existant Supplementary Sethwar are hereby ordered to be corrected. The original classification of the lands as per Sethwar, Khasra Pahani and pahanies upto 1968-69 as shown below may be restored in respect of these survey numbers in pahanies from 1968-69 onwards.” Assailing the said order the petitioner-society filed W.P.No.26550 of 2007. 5. Two members of the petitioner-society namely viz., P.Devanand and T.V.Vasudeva Rao got plots admeasuring 300 square yards each by being members of the society. They sold their plots and presented the documents for registration. The Joint-Sub-Registrar-1 has not released the documents submitted by P.Devanand while keeping the document submitted by T.V.Vasudeva Rao in abeyance. Therefore, P.Devanand, T.V.Vasudeva Rao and the society filed W.P.No.13679 of 2001 assailing the action of the District Collector, R.R. district in issuing letter No.E1/7306/99, dated 29.1.2000 to the Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad directing not to register any documents of transfer in respect of the land in Sy.No.52(old) new Sy.Nos.52/1 and 52/2 of Maqta Mahaboobpet village, R.R. District. 6. The 3rd respondent in W.P.No.26550 of 2007 has filed counter affidavit. R1 and R2 in W.P.No.13679 of 2001 also filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit of R3 in W.P.No.26550 of 2007 that the order impugned in the writ petition, on an appeal being presented by some of the effected parties, has been set aside remanding the matter back to the Joint Collector to conduct detailed enquiry and arrive at a finding on issues after giving notice and opportunity to the appellants therein. Order copy passed by the Commissioner on the Appeals presented by the aggrieved parties has been placed on record. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner reads as under: “ On a perusal of the orders of the Joint Collector, it is observed that it suffers from the following infirmities: The Joint Collector has not brought out in his order as to how and on what basis he has arrived at a conclusion that the Munthakab and the subsequent entries made in the records are nullity and vitiated by fraud. The show cause notice to the appellants should have brought out the basis for any suspicion in the first instance, and the appellants could have been given an opportunity to represent their case and the Joint Collector should have then conducted a proper and thorough enquiry and arrive at a finding on this issue based on facts and the law. The impugned order does not bring out any basis on which the veracity of the Munthakab is doubted. Further, the Joint collector should have gone through the entire record and verified as to how the classification of the lands has changed from year to year and looked at the various claims being made by the parties to the entries made in the records yearwise. Further, Joint Collector should also have gone through entire history of the status of the land and arrived at a finding whether the land is government, land or not. Without having gone into these issues the Joint Collector’s order holding that the entries in the records are wrong is not sustainable.” Therefore these batch of appeals are remanded back to the Joint Collector to conduct a detailed enquiry and arrive at a finding on these issues after giving due notice and opportunity to the appellants to present their case.” 7. The petitioner-society placed on record reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by R3. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the Joint Collector erroneously included Sy.No.52 in the impugned proceedings dated 7.11.2006. 8. The respondents in W.P.No.13679 of 2001 stated in their counter affidavit that supplementary Setwar allegedly issued on 7.6.1969 is a fake one and there is no such supplementary setwar. In a way, they contended that the subject lands are government lands and therefore the Joint Sub- Registrar-1 is justified in acting upon the proceedings issued by the District Collector, R.R. District. 9. Heard Sri.K.Pratap Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-society and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 10. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the proceedings issued under A.P (TA) Inam Abolition Act reached finality and therefore the Government cannot be permitted to contend that the land bearing Sy.No.52 is not inam land and that it is a government poramboke. Learned Senior Counsel took me to the proceedings No.A2/649/80, dated 4.3.1983 and also proceedings No.B3/10368/83, dated 22.3.1984 and the order of this court passed in W.P.No.7303 of 1984, dated 13.9.1986 to convince that the land bearing Survey No.52 is an Inam Land and occupancy rights certificate has been issued in favour of Bhaskar Rao and Kamala. 11. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the order impugned in the writ petition has been set aside by the Commissioner on Appeals being presented by some of the effected parties and the matter has been remanded back to the Joint Commissioner for fresh enquiry and therefore the petitioners are at liberty to participate in the enquiry and invite orders thereon. 12. I have gone through the order passed by the Commissioner on Appeals presented by the aggrieved parties. The relevant portion of the order has been extracted supra and it is explicit from it that the order passed by the Joint Collector has been set aside remanding the matter back to the primary authority. Such is the situation, the petitioner-society is at liberty to participate in the enquiry pending before the Joint Collector and invite orders thereon. 13. In that view of the matter, both the writ petitions are disposed of reserving the liberty to the petitioner-society to participate in the enquiry, which is being conducted on the matter being remanded by the Commissioner of Appeals. The Joint Collector shall endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9th June, 2009. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J ) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KRD} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS.26550 OF 2007 AND 13679 OF 2001 9TH JUNE 2009.