* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.21966 of 2007 % 06.12.2014 Between:
E.Kasturamma.
… Petitioner AND Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, Rep.by its Vice Chairman, Governorpet, Vijayawada, And another.
…Respondents Counsel for petitioner: Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A.Satyanarayana Smt.K.Mani Deepika (SC for VGTMUDA) < Gist:
> Head Note:
? CITATIONS:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.21966 of 2007 ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent had acquired an extent of Acs.97.425 cents at Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District, under the Integrated Development of Small and Medium Township (IDSMT) Scheme and prepared a layout consisting of A, B and C Blocks, having 1351 plots of different categories i.e., E.W.S/L.I.G/M.I.G. The petitioner was informed by the first respondent by letter dated 29.05.1984 that she was selected on the basis of drawal of lots for M.I.G plots conducted on 05.05.1984 under the said Scheme for Plot No.B.156 of M.I.G on an outright sale basis. The first respondent directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5034/- as security deposit by letter dated 23.07.1988. The cost of the M.I.G plot was tentatively fixed at Rs.61/- per square yard. The petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.5034/- under challan dated 29.04.1989. The first respondent, by proceedings dated 10.03.1992, directed the petitioner to deposit a further amount of Rs.32,571/- towards the additional market value and the petitioner complied with the same. The first respondent issued proceedings dated 01.04.2000 directing all the M.I.G B-Block owners of plot Nos.148 to 173 to attend a meeting on 10.04.2000 and all the said plot owners had attended the meeting. In the said meeting it was informed that due to some technical reasons, M.I.G plot No.156 was changed to M.I.G No.154. The first respondent issued proceedings dated 01.06.2000 directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.10,380/- and the petitioner deposited the said amount. The first respondent executed a sale deed on 19.01.2002 and registered the same in respect of Plot No.154 in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the same plot was allotted and registered in favour of the third respondent on 26.05.1989, prior to the execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner. In spite of several representations when the petitioner was neither put in possession of plot No.154 nor a rectification deed was executed, the present Writ Petition was filed.
3. The first respondent initially filed a counter affidavit justifying its action stating that there were 173 plots of M.I.G category in B-Block and plot Nos.M.I.G.148 and 149 in the said Block were reconveyed to the landowners due to the Court orders and the layout was revised with plot numbers up to M.I.G.B-171. It is also stated that the owner of plot No.M.I.G.153 in B-Block had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Guntur, seeking orders to get his plot registered as plot No.151 so that the plot originally bearing No.153 can be changed as No.151. The District Forum directed the first respondent to register the said plot as 151 (originally bearing No.153), by order dated 04.01.1995 in C.D.No.799 of 1991. The convening of meeting on 10.04.2000 was admitted by the first respondent and it was stated that after the meeting the allottees were shown their plots on ground as per original allotment. The third respondent was allotted M.I.G. B.152 even though sale deed was executed in respect of M.I.G. B.154 and she was issued a notice on 25.01.2001. The Sub Registrar, Tenali, was requested, by letter dated 09.07.2001, to see that plots in B-Block were to be rectified with renumbering in the schedule of the registered sale deeds of the plot holders. The first respondent ultimately stated that plot No.M.I.G.B.154 registered in favour of the petitioner vide document No.194 of 2002 stands good and deemed fit.
4. The first respondent filed an additional counter affidavit stating that plot No.M.I.G.B.154 read as M.I.G.B.152 mentioned in the letter addressed to the Sub Registrar was not the plot of the petitioner and it belongs to the third respondent, which was conditionally registered in the year 1989. Since the registration took place in the year 1988 and 1989 and rectification was needed, the Sub Registrar, Tenali, was addressed to change the numbers of the plots in the schedule attached to the sale deeds. Ultimately, it was stated that Plot No.M.I.G.B.156 should be read as Plot No.M.I.G.B.154 only and they are one and the same on ground position.
5. When the contradiction of the stand of the first respondent in relation to the factual aspect of the matter was seen, this Court, by order dated 10.09.2014 directed the first respondent to explain the reasons for creating this type of confusion and filing contradictory affidavits and also suppressing the material facts before this Court.
6. In pursuance of the said order, the first respondent filed a clarificatory affidavit denying that the first respondent has taken different stands and stating that the first respondent has not played fraud by registering the very same plot to two different persons. It is stated that when a letter was addressed to the Sub Registrar, Tenali, the sale deed was not executed in favour of the petitioner. Since the land acquisition proceedings were pending challenging the compensation awarded to the land owners, the first respondent had executed such conditional sale deeds in favour of the allottees. Plot Nos.148 to 173 were changed as 148 to 171 in view of certain administrative reasons and in view of the orders passed by the District Forum, Guntur. It was further stated that the first respondent was not a party to the suit in O.S.No.134 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, filed by the third respondent against the petitioner and as such the first respondent has no knowledge with regard to the pendency of the suit. Ultimately, it was stated that even though the first respondent registered plot No.154 in favour of the third respondent, in view of the letter dated 09.07.2001 addressed by the first respondent to the Sub Registrar, Tenali, the third respondent is the owner of plot No.152, but not plot No.154. Hence, the first respondent registered plot No.154 in favour of the petitioner instead of plot No.156. Thus, there is no ambiguity in respect of allotments made to the petitioner and the third respondent.
7. It is clear from the above stands taken by the respective parties that the third respondent was registered plot No.154 on 26.05.1989 and the same plot was registered in favour of the petitioner on 19.01.2002. A reading of the sale deed in favour of the third respondent does not disclose it as a conditional sale. In fact there is no concept of conditional sale in the case of allotment and registration of plots by the first respondent. The Sub Registrar, Tenali, to whom a letter was addressed on 09.07.2001 is not under an obligation under the provisions of the Registration Act to change the schedules attached to the sale deed unilaterally on the basis of the letter of the first respondent. The existence of a sale deed in favour of the third respondent in respect of the plot subsequently registered in favour of the petitioner made the third respondent to file O.S.No.134 of 2002. The first respondent, who is a public authority dealing with the lands entrusted to it, should have known the provisions of the Registration Act and the complication that arises out of registering two sale deeds in favour of two persons in respect of the same plot. But, the first respondent, inspite of giving opportunity, stuck to her stand and stated that there is no confusion and plot No.M.I.G.B.156 should be read as plot No.M.I.G.B.154 only and the third respondent is the owner of plot No.152 but not plot No.154. It is not the understanding of the first respondent that makes the law to operate.
8. As already stated above, as on today there are two sale deeds in respect of the same plot in favour of the petitioner as well as the third respondent. The sale deed in favour of the third respondent is prior to the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and hence that sale deed has to be protected. Consequently, the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner has to be rectified from plot No.154 to 152. The said action has to be taken by executing a rectification deed duly and not by any correspondence to the Sub Registrar, who registered the documents. The said action shall be completed by the first respondent at its own cost after issuing notice to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is directed to take departmental action against the persons who are responsible for executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 19.01.2002 in respect of the plot, which was already registered in favour of the third respondent.
9. So far as the stand taken by the first respondent in the three affidavits filed by her is concerned, this Court is compelled to comment that the first respondent is not expected to file such misleading and contradictory affidavits. This Court has to call the concerned Estate Officer and point out the discrepancy committed in the matter of registration of a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. In spite of giving an opportunity to the first respondent, the first respondent has not come out with an effort to take action to rectify the defect and on the other hand justified the action stating that the execution of the sale deeds was proper. But, certain notices issued by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent during the pendency of the writ petition indicate that the first respondent took steps for changing the schedule of the plot executed in favour of the third respondent while asserting her stand before this court. This should not have been done, as the sale deed executed in favour of the third respondent was prior to the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The sketch filed along with the counter affidavit also indicates that there is no impediment for retaining the schedule enclosed to the sale deed in favour of the third respondent as it is and changing the schedule of the land registered in favour of the petitioner. The order in C.D.No.799 of 1991 dated 04.01.1995 also relates to plot No.151 and it has nothing to do with the plots of the petitioner and the third respondent. The first respondent cannot deal with the public property as and it likes and put the citizens in trouble. The petitioner has to face the suit filed by the third respondent purely due to the action of the first respondent. The public authorities are supposed to aid this Court in disposing the cases before it in a just manner instead of supporting their illegal actions. It is not that each and every administrative error has to be rectified by this court. In appropriate cases, when it comes to the knowledge of the concerned authorities, they have to take necessary remedial measures. Authorities exist for exercising that sort of discretionary power in accordance with law. One appreciates a right decision and its justification but not a wrong decision and its support. In the instant case, even after eight hearings in this case, the first respondent did not, on her own, rectify the mistake. The action of the first respondent cannot be appreciated. Though restraint is the hall mark of judicial power, when the said restraint is taken advantage for the purpose of delaying the proceedings or diverting the matter, necessary orders have to be passed by this court. This court feels that this is an eminent case where the first respondent should be mulcted with costs.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed with costs as follows:
(i) The first respondent is directed to execute the rectification deed at its own cost within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order rectifying the plot number indicated in the schedule annexed to the sale deed of the petitioner dated 19.01.2002 changing it from plot No.154 to 152, and the petitioner shall cooperate with the first respondent with regard to the same;
(ii) The first respondent is directed to initiate departmental action against the persons responsible for execution of sale deed in respect of the same plot in favour of two persons; and
(iii) Smt.P.Usha Kumari, Vice Chairman, VGTM Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada, shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) from her own person to the petitioner for not taking timely corrective action in spite of giving sufficient opportunity.
The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed.
(A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 06.12.2014.
Note: LR copy to be marked – Yes.
B/o. vs