HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court’s division bench has upheld the single judge’s order in favour of the buyer of 16 acres of land in Hyderabad in a long drawn-out legal battle between him and the seller’s legal heirs The division bench said: “The proceedings issued under the ULC Act dated August 27, 2001, including the alleged panchanama dated September 4, 2001, after the death of the original owner, are void ab initio and non est in the eyes of the law, and the two appeals filed by the legal heirs, A. Arundathi and others are therefore dismissed.”
Buyer K Karunakar Reddy purchased tracts of property totalling more than 16 acres located at Chengicherla village, Ghatkesar mandal, Rangareddy district from A Narayan Reddy. A dispute arose between the parties when Karunakar Reddy made an application seeking regularisation of the subject land before the Tahsildar, Ghatkesar mandal, who allowed regularisation of the subject land vide proceedings dated February 9, 1996, and issued XIII-B certificate in favour of Karunakar Reddy by the Tahsildar based on documents dated July 23, 24, 1980, followed by receipts dated December 19, 1980.
The legal heirs of the original owner A Narayana Reddy, who died on April 7, 1983, opposed the Revenue officials’ procedures by filing appeals with the RDO (East Division) and the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy, both of which were dismissed. They then filed a writ in 2000, which was dismissed by this court in 2005, setting aside all of the aforementioned proceedings and remanding the matter to the original authority - Tahsildar, for fresh adjudication on the grounds that the legal heirs were not on notice before regularisation was made. After issuing notices to the legal heirs, the Tahsildar affirmed his previous decisions and ruled in favour of Karunakar Reddy.
Unsatisfied with the proceedings, the legal heirs -- Arundathi and others -- filed an appeal with the Joint Collector (JC) and received favourable decisions. It was then the buyer Karunakar Reddy who went to the single judge bench of the HC challenging the JC’s actions. The single judge after hearing the case set aside the JC’s order. Then the legal heirs Arundhati and others filed an appeal before the division bench.
After hearing the lengthy arguments, the division bench concluded, “We are of the considered opinion that the legal heirs have not made out any merit in both the writ petitions and the Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned common order and thus, these appeals are liable to be dismissed.”