1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. M. Vigneswar Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondents No.1 to 3; Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration Department appearing for respondents No.6 and 7; Mr. Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.10 to 12; and Mr. G.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel appears for respondents No.13 and 14 and perused the record.

2. This Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) instituted, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the proceedings in File No.B/944/2016, pursuant to which a Deed of Conveyance bearing Document No.2134 of 2023, dated 21.03.2023, was executed by the Revenue authorities in favour of respondent No.9 in respect of land admeasuring 330 Sq. Yds, bearing House No.16-1-27 (New No.16-1-27/G), situated in Sy.No.32/1, Saidabad, Hyderabad. The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus declaring the regularization and conveyance of the subject land as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.92, Revenue (ULC) Department, dated 26.05.2016, and consequently seeks cancellation of the said Conveyance Deed as well as the Ratification Deed bearing Document No.2176 of 2023, executed in favour of respondent Nos.10 and 11, together with a direction to the Revenue authorities to take over possession of the subject property.

Factual Matrix (in brief)

3. The subject land admeasuring 330 Sq. Yds, bearing House No.16-1-27 (New No.16-1-27/G), situated in Sy.No.32/1, Saidabad, Hyderabad, formed part of the land declared surplus under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, ( for short ‘ULC Act’) in proceedings bearing CC.No.J/12851/76. Possession of the land was taken over by the Government and handed over to the Revenue authorities. The land was thereafter included in the Government land bank and was earmarked for public purposes, including allotment to the Women and Child Welfare Department for establishment of an Anganwadi Centre.

4. Respondent No.9 had earlier asserted rights over the subject property and instituted W.P.No.43043 of 2015 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be withdrawn on 03.02.2021. Thereafter, respondent No.9 sought regularization of the subject land under G.O.Ms.No.92, Revenue (ULC-I) Department, dated 26.05.2016.

5. Pursuant to the proceedings in File No.B/944/2016, a Deed of Conveyance bearing Document No.2134 of 2023, dated 21.03.2023, was executed by the Revenue authorities in favour of respondent No.9. Subsequently, a Ratification Deed bearing Document No.2176 of 2023 was executed in favour of respondent Nos.10 and 11 in relation to a sale transaction entered into between the parties in the year 2018.

6. Following the execution of the aforesaid conveyance and ratification deeds, representations dated 04.11.2024 were submitted seeking cancellation of the transactions. Information was also sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘RTI Act’). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has instituted the present W.P.(PIL) seeking cancellation of the proceedings in File No.B/944/2016, the Conveyance Deed dated 21.03.2023 and the consequential Ratification Deed, and for a direction to the authorities to resume possession of the subject land.

Submissions of the petitioner

7. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has raised the following submissions:

               i) That the present W.P.(PIL) has been instituted solely in public interest for protection of valuable Government land allegedly alienated in favour of private parties and that the petitioner has no personal or pecuniary interest in the subject property.

               ii) That the land in Sy.No.32/1, Saidabad, Hyderabad, is Government land declared as surplus under the ULC Act in File No.J/12851/76. Possession thereof was taken over by the Government under a panchanama and handed over to the MRO/Tahsildar. The land was thereafter included in the Government land bank and earmarked for public purposes, including allotment to the Women Development and Child Welfare Department for establishment of an Anganwadi Centre.

               iii) That the regularization of the subject land in favour of respondent No.9 under G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 26.05.2016 is contrary to the eligibility conditions prescribed therein, particularly Condition No.10(c), which requires occupation of the excess land supported by a registered document. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No.9 was never in possession of the land and, in this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the counter affidavit filed by the State in W.P.No.43043 of 2015, wherein possession of the land was stated to be with the Tahsildar. It is further submitted that the withdrawal of the said writ petition on 03.02.2021 demonstrates the inability of respondent No.9 to establish any lawful claim over the property.

               iv) That the regularization proceedings culminating in the execution of the Conveyance Deed dated 21.03.2023 are vitiated by fraud, arbitrariness and collusion. It is submitted that despite the Government's earlier stand regarding possession of the land, respondent No.9 secured regularization through the intervention of influential persons. It is further submitted that the conveyance was effected for a consideration of about Rs.28,00,000/-, whereas the market value of the property was approximately Rs.5,00,00,000/-, resulting in substantial loss to the public exchequer.

               v) That the regularization is also contrary to Conditions 10(a) and 10(b) of G.O.Ms.No.92. According to the learned counsel, land which had already vested in the Government and of which possession had been taken over could not have been regularized in favour of respondent No.9, who was not the original declarant in the urban land ceiling proceedings. It is further submitted that the withdrawal of W.P.No.43043 of 2015, though a pre-condition under Condition No.10(b), cannot by itself justify regularization, particularly when the writ petition was withdrawn after respondent No.9 failed to substantiate his claim.

               vi) That during the pendency of the present WP(PIL), respondents Nos.10 to 12 created third-party interests in the subject property by alienating a portion thereof in favour of respondent No.13 and creating a mortgage in favour of respondent No.14, Griham Housing Finance Limited. Learned counsel submitted that the said transactions were effected with undue haste so as to complicate the subject matter of the litigation, necessitating the impleadment of the said parties.

Submissions of respondent Nos.10 to 12

8. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents has raised the following submissions:

               i) That the petitioner lacks locus standi to challenge the impugned transactions and that the writ petition, though styled as a PIL, is not a bona fide public interest action.

               ii) That the subject property originally formed part of a larger extent of Ac.533 Sq. Yds. owned by the Patel family and was purchased by the father of respondent No.9, late Sri P.Satyanarayana, under a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.359 of 1984. Upon his demise, respondent No.9 succeeded to the property as legal heir. It is contended that notwithstanding the declaration of 330 Sq. Yds. as surplus land under the ULC Act, the family had a lawful and marketable title over the remaining extent and continued to assert rights over the property.

               iii) That respondent No.9 was fully eligible to seek regularization under G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 26.05.2016, being the legal heir of the original purchaser and claiming possession under a registered conveyance. According to the learned counsel, the requirement under the scheme relating to occupation supported by a registered document stood satisfied by virtue of the registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.359 of 1984 and the continuous claim of title thereunder.

               iv) That the regularization proceedings were undertaken strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.92. The proposal was considered by the competent authorities and recommended by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) Committee, pursuant to which respondent No.9 remitted the regularization charges of Rs.28,21,500/- and an amount of Rs.2,42,360/- towards the value of the compound wall. Thereafter, a Deed of Conveyance bearing Document No.2134 of 2023, dated 21.03.2023, came to be executed in his favour by the competent authority.

               v) That the subsequent transactions entered into by respondent No.9 were bona fide and for valid consideration. It is stated that the sale in favour of respondent Nos.10 and 11 under Document No.9029 of 2018 was subsequently ratified through Ratification Deed bearing Document No.2176 of 2023 upon completion of the regularization process. It is further submitted that the subsequent alienation in favour of respondent No.13 and creation of mortgage in favour of respondent No.14 were lawful transactions creating valid third-party rights. According to the learned counsel, the impleadment of the said parties became necessary only on account of the subsequent transactions and no interim orders ought to be granted so as to prejudice the development activities undertaken on the property.

               vi) That no element of public interest is involved in the present litigation. It is contended that the Government, in exercise of its policy powers under G.O.Ms.No.92, took a conscious decision to regularize eligible surplus lands on payment of the prescribed consideration and, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek to invalidate the regularization merely on the ground that the land was previously proposed for public use.

               vii) That G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 26.05.2016 was issued as a policy decision to regularize eligible surplus lands vested in the Government after the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said Government Order or the policy underlying it.

               viii) That respondent No.9 had complied with all the conditions prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.92. In particular, W.P.No.43043 of 2015 was withdrawn in compliance with Clause 10(b), while the requirement under Clause 10(c) stood satisfied as respondent No.9 traced his title through the registered Sale Deed of the year 1984 executed in favour of his late father, through whom he claimed.

               ix) That the application for regularization was duly processed by the competent authorities and the Screening Committee. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.9 paid the prescribed regularization charges of Rs.28,21,500/- together with Rs.2,42,360/- towards the value of the compound wall, whereafter the RDO confirmed the allotment and the competent authority executed the Deed of Conveyance dated 21.03.2023.

               x) That respondents Nos.10 to 12 thereafter obtained building permission from the competent authority and completed construction in accordance with law, and therefore, the entire process of regularization, conveyance and subsequent development was undertaken strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.92.

9. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and the material on record.

Consideration by this Court

10. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it is necessary to examine the maintainability and bona fides of the present WP (PIL). The petitioner claims to be a social activist and an Advocate. However, the record discloses that this is the second PIL instituted by the petitioner in relation to the very same subject matter. An earlier PIL, being W.P.(PIL) No.55 of 2024, was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to institute a fresh petition. Though the grant of such liberty is not under challenge, the fact remains that the petitioner has chosen to re-agitate the same cause by filing the present writ petition (PIL). This circumstance assumes relevance while examining the bona fides of the litigation and the nature of the interest sought to be projected as public interest.

11. The record further reveals that the petitioner has been actively pursuing the matter by submitting representations to various authorities and seeking information under the RTI Act. Though such steps do not, by themselves, bar the maintainability of a PIL, they are relevant in assessing the petitioner's bona fides, as PIL jurisdiction is intended to advance genuine public causes rather than personal or collateral interests. Although the petitioner claims to have no personal interest in the subject property, the material on record shows that the subject property is situated in close proximity to his residence and that the petitioner has been pursuing the issue for a considerable period, including by filing an earlier PIL on the same subject. These circumstances create a strong prima facie impression that the petitioner is not acting as a disinterested public-spirited individual.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal((2004) 3 SCC 349), has held as under:

               12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs.

               (Emphasis supplied)

13. The principal challenge in the present writ petition centres around the interpretation and application of G.O.Ms.No.92, Revenue (ULC) Department, dated 26.05.2016. The object of the said G.O. appears to be to provide a mechanism for regularization of specified categories of ceiling surplus lands vested in the Government, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein. The petitioner's principal contention is founded on Clause 10(c) of the G.O., which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

               10. Now, therefore, the Government, while keeping in view the provisions of section 3(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 providing that the repeal of the principal Act shall not affect the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (6) of section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the Government or any authorized person or the competent authority, etc., and also in view of several representations received from the public who have not utilized the benefit of the orders issued in G.Os. from time to time read above and after careful consideration of the issue have decided to formulate scheme for regularisation/allotment of excess lands to the parties who are in occupation by way of registered documents and accordingly, issue the following guidelines for regularisation/allotment of excess lands which were vested with Government and possession of which has been taken over by the Government under the provisions of principal Act 1976 to the parties in occupation; subject to the following conditions:

               a) The allotment shall be considered where the excess land already vested with the Government U/s 10 (6) of the Principal Act, 1976 and possession of which has been taken over by the Government;

               (b) The allotment shall be subject to withdrawal of all litigations filed either by the occupant of excess land, or the excess land holder, or any other interested person and pending, other than those covered under the Repeal Act relating to the excess land as on the date of this G.O.

               (c) Allotment under these orders shall be confined to excess lands in the occupation of parties where such occupation is evidenced by a registered document from the excess land holder or person claiming through him/her. Provided further that the registered transactions of excess lands that took place prior to the date of this Order will be considered for regularization/allotment under these orders.

14. Further, the petitioner’s contention that respondent No.9 was never in ‘occupation’ of the subject land and, therefore, did not satisfy the said eligibility criteria under Clause 10(c) cannot be accepted. Clause 10(c) cannot be read in isolation divorced from the scheme and object of G.O.Ms.No.92. The emphasis of the provision is on the existence of a registered transaction traceable to the excess land holder or a person claiming through him/her prior to the issuance of the G.O. The record discloses that respondent No.9 traces his claim through a registered sale deed executed in the year 1984, much prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.92 and prior to the subsequent conveyance executed by the Government. In these circumstances, the interpretation adopted by the competent authority cannot be said to be ex facie contrary to Clause 10(c) merely because the petitioner disputes respondent No.9's physical possession of the land.

15. Equally untenable is the contention founded on Clause 10(b), which requires withdrawal of pending litigation relating to the excess land. The record discloses that W.P.No.43043 of 2015 filed by respondent No.9 was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.02.2021. Consequently, the requirement under Clause 10(b) stood satisfied. The petitioner's allegation that the withdrawal was motivated or strategic is purely speculative and unsupported by any cogent material. Such conjecture cannot invalidate the administrative action taken under G.O.Ms.No.92.

16. The relief sought by the petitioner includes a declaration that the Deed of Conveyance dated 21.03.2023, the Ratification Deed dated 21.03.2023 and the consequential transactions are illegal and liable to be cancelled. Such relief necessarily involves examination of questions relating to title, validity of registered instruments and allegations of fraud.

17. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is primarily one of judicial review. The Registering Authority performs a statutory function under the Registration Act and, once a document is duly registered, neither the Registering Officer nor the superior authorities under the Act possess the power to cancel its registration. If a registered instrument is alleged to have been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or any other illegality, the appropriate remedy ordinarily lies before the competent civil Court. The writ Court does not ordinarily undertake adjudication of disputed questions of title or act as a fact-finding forum to determine allegations of fraud.

18. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh((2016) 10 SCC 767) has held as under:

               34. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered (see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan [State of U.P. v. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR 1961 SC 787] ). Section 17 of the 1908 Act deals with documents which require compulsory registration. Extinguishment deed is one such document referred to in Section 17(1)(b). Section 18 of the same Act deals with documents, registration whereof is optional. Section 20 of the Act deals with documents containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. Section 21 provides for description of property and maps or plans and Section 22 deals with the description of houses and land by reference to government maps and surveys. There is no express provision in the 1908 Act which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact whether the document was properly presented for registration cannot be reopened by the Registrar after its registration. The power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. In absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the power of the Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of Registration Offices and make rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to cancel the registration of any document which has already been registered.

               (Emphasis supplied)

19. In the present case, the petitioner's challenge rests on allegations of fraud and violation of G.O.Ms.No.92 in the execution of the conveyance and subsequent transactions. These allegations involve disputed questions relating to title, possession and the validity of the transactions, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226. While this Court may examine the legality of the administrative action under G.O.Ms. No.92, it cannot, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, declare the registered conveyance and subsequent instruments void or direct their cancellation.

Conclusion

20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The challenge raised in the present Public Interest Litigation involves disputed questions of fact relating to title, possession and allegations of fraud, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (PIL) is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude any person aggrieved from availing such remedy as may be available in law before the competent authority.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No costs.