Legal Opnion
Legal Opnion
LEGAL OPINION
I have perused the documents handed over to me by Sri. Prathap Reddy S/o Sri. Rama
Reddy ,R/o: H.no 1-102, Motighanpur village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahbubnagar district, TS –
509202 the documents are;
Endorsement from Thasildhar that the land doesn’t fall under S.C & S.T Grant or Inam
category (PTCL Certificate)
(a) Particulars of the documents scrutinized serially and chronologically.
(b) Nature of documents verified and as to whether they are originals or certified copies
or registration extracts duly certified.
S.No
As seen from the contents of document No. 1 that pahanies for the years 1980-81 it
is evident that the land in Sy.No 418 Dry admeasuring extent Ac. 0-30 Gts & 580 Dry
land admeasuring extent Ac. 1-04 Gts situated at H.no 1-102 Motighanpur village,
Balnagar mandal, Mahbubnagar district TS – 509202 is patta land. The names of Late
Smt. K. Sulochana Reddy W/o Late Sri. Rama Reddy shows as pattadar and possessor
of the said land.
That Smt. Late Smt. K. Sulochana Reddy W/o Late Sri. Rama Reddy was the absolute
owner of the land admeasuring Ac. 0-30 Gts in Sy No 418 situated at 580 Dry
admeasuring extent Ac. 1-04 Gts situated at H.no 1-102 Motighanpur village,
Balnagar mandal, Mahbubnagar district TS – 509202.
As seen from the contents of that, Pahanies issued by Naib Tahsildar, Kadthal shows
that is the pettedar of land
2. Background: Sy no 418 Dry extent Ac. 0-30 Gts and 580 Dry extent Ac. 1-04Gtd, Mothi
Ghanpur Village, Balanagar Mandal, District Mahabubnagar was purchased by Late Smt. K.
Sulochana Reddy W/o Late Sri. Rama Reddy the same was mutated on her name.
3. Our comments/ opinion
Sy no 418 Dry extent Ac. 0-30 Gts and 580 Dry extent Ac. 1-04Gtd, Mothi Ghanpur Village,
Balanagar Mandal, District Mahabubnagar.
Mahbubnagar District and with some of the Dam, Industry etc is developing economy for
Telangana. 1553 revenue villages, 1347 village panchayats 64 Mandalas and 5 revenue
division after formation of Telangana for first time altering the boundaries of existing
District(s), i.e., as specified in Section 3 of the Central Act No. 6 of 2014 and its Revenue
Divisions and Mandal’s and Villages, notified, the new District, Revenue Divisions and
Mandal’s and Villages as specified in the Schedules, with effect from 11.10.2016 Section 3 of
the Central Act No. 6 of 2014 till the new ZPs, MPs and GPs are constituted, in accordance
with law.
Conclusion
580 Dry land admeasuring extent Ac. 1-04 Gts situated at H.no 1-102 Motighanpur village,
Balnagar mandal, Mahbubnagar district TS – 509202 therefore it is clear title of K.Pratatp
Reddy who is also paying the property tax and as well as electricity bills on his name in
which H.no 1-102 Motighanpur village, Balnagar mandal, Mahbubnagar district TS – 509202.
However the third parties may encroach in any part of the Sy.No 580 since there is no
proper fencing. It is advisable to construct compound wall to the total area of 1.04 gts in
Sy.no 580 it is also necessary to get valuation to the open land and house immediately.
Advocate
Reference
Judgement of Hon’ble High Court.
According to Sec of the land law ___a individual who has occupied land from the time of the
promulgation of the land law in 19--, and was able to fulfil the requirements, would be
regarded as legal possessor and be entitled to request legal ownership of that land, those
requirements include occupying the land unambiguously, non-violently, publicly known,
continuously and in good faith.
By seeing document provided by official confirmation from the local authority (such as the
cadastral officer), or village, commune, or district chief, that the land was in the legal
possession of the occupants. In the urdu letter, the commune and village chiefs, by the
handwritten remarks, only confirmed that the land was located in their commune and only
certified the identity of the persons signing the transfer documents. Neither did they certify
the legality of their possession of the land nor sis they have the authority to do so. They
would still have required the official confirmation from the Chief of the District Agriculture
office, which was empowered to be in charge of land transfer at that time.
The transfer of possessory rights by way of the urdu letters would been in practical
procedure for transferring possessory rights over unregistered land in TS, to effectively
transfer freehold title in land, the land transfer and sale would need to be made before and
verified by the relevant competent authority, followed by the registration of the land
certificate (i.e certificate of possession or Certificate of Ownership).
Based on the forgoing and subject to assumption and qualifications set out I am of the
opinion that
-------------------------is the absolute owner
MAHADAPPA SANGAPPA BHANGE AND OTHERS V. SHIVAJI NARSU DHOR (Maharashtra)
Appellant Mahadapaa (defendant No. 4) was declared as tenant-purchaser under the
provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act (“The H.T and A.L Act” for
brevity’s sake) and was put into possession of the suit property along with his brothers as
per the provisions of section 38-E(1) of the H.T and A.L Act. However, regarding the same
writ petition had been filed in the High Court and the same was pending.
Civil court cannot extinguish tenancy rights section 38-E(1) of the H.T and A.L Act which
stands in the way and civil court cannot surpass it. It was therefore, held that giving
possession of the suit property was beyond jurisdiction of the civil court as is evident from
observations.
In view the finding that the Appellant is to be protected tenancy of the Appellant, which had
remained unchallenged, and as such final and binding.
That though original mortgage was not written and registered as required under the
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act,
Defendants were refered in Pahani Patrak in year 1954 A.D
Respondent no 1 as shikmidar is defined in sub-section (12) of section 2 of the Land
Revenue Act of His Exalted Highness the Nizam’s Dominions, 1318 Fasli (no.8 of 1317 Fasli)
In the case of Lachmi Narain v. Kalyan AIR 1960 Rajasthan 7, it is held that by virtue of
section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the limited right of mortgagee can be acquired by
adverse possession. The provisions of section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act are not in
any way affected on account of acquisition of rights by prescription. The rights of the parties
can be regulated by law in no valid agreement exists. In the said case, there was an
unregistered document and delivery of possession. It was held that the suit for redemption
of mortgage created by operation of law is governed by Article 148 of the Limitaion Act and
the period will run after the expiry of 12 years from the date when possession was taken
under such mortgage deed. In the said case, authorities of the Supreme Court and of Privy
Council were relied upon. Similar view is taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Balkrishn
V. Mohsin Bhai, AIR 1999 M.P 86.
Shri Halkude, learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon Ram Kumar v. Jagdish
Chandra, 1952 SC 23, wherein the same principle was applied to the agreement of lease.
Another case on the same point relied upon is of Collector of Bombay v. Municipal
Corporation of the City of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 469. In that case, grant in favour of
Municipal Corporation, though invalid; was held to have acquired status of legal grant by
virtue of adverse possession.
Sec 38-E of the H.T and A.L which is regarding ownership of lands held by protected tenants
to stand transferred to them from a notified date, lays down that notwithstanding anything
in chapter IVA or any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage, decree, or
grant to the contrary, the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare in
respect of any area and from such date as may be specified therein that ownership of all
lands held by protected tenants which they are entitled to purchase from their landholders,
in such area under any provisions of Chapter IVA shall stand transferred to and vest in the
protected tenants holding them and from such date the protected tenants shall be deemed
to be the full owners of such lands. So, it is statutory presumption in respect of protected
tenants whose names were declared in the official gazette and it does ni=ot depend upon
terms of contract or even decree to the contrary.
There is a copy of register of protected tenants from village Harwadi
As per sub-section (3) of section 38-E, within 90 days from the date specified in a
notification under sub-section (1) every landholder of lands situated in the area specified in
such notification shall file an application before the Tribunal for the determination of the
reasonable price of his interest in the land which has been transferred to the ownership of a
protected tenant under subsection (1).
Section 99 of the H.T and A.L Act. It reads: “99(1). Bar of jurisdiction [Save as provided in this
Act] no civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question [including
a question whether a person is or was at any time in the past a tenant or protected tenant
and whether any such tenant or protected tenant is or should be deemed to be the full
owner of the lands] which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt
with by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or collector or by the [Commissioner] or Government.
(2) No order of the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or of the [Commissioner] or Government
made under this Act, shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court”.
The tenant, who is in lawful possession of the property and in whose favour declaration of
ownership under section 39-E of the H.T and A.L Act is issued and who is declared owner of
the property, could not have been dispossessed by order of the civil court as held in the case
of Ramu Gavade v. Ramchandra Kulkarni.