Dismissed

N. Kamalamani v. The District Collector

Telangana HC13 Jul 2009WP/13878/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the issuance of notices by the Revenue Tahsildar regarding mutation of land records. The Court held the plea misconceived, noting the Tahsildar possesses inherent jurisdiction and the petitioner has adequate remedies within the administrative hierarchy and civil courts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate process before the relevant authority.

N. Kamalamani Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 13878 of 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

N. Kamalamani W/o. Late N. Raja Reddy R/o. Flat No.102, Shivasai Apartments, 8-3-690, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 3 The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Mandal, Hyderabad District. 4 M/s. Eeswari Projects Pvt. Limited, Plot No.2, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director M. Siva Ganesh.

¶12

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶13

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 particularly in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings bearing No.C/263/09, dated 29.06.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner allegedly that mutation of records pertaining to the land in Sy.No.73, Yellareddyguda Village, Khairtabad Mandal, Hyderabad is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitional and consequently to set aside the proceedings bearing No.C/263/09, dated 29.06.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent, and pass

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.L.V.RAMANA MURTHY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

ORAL ORDER:

¶18

The writ petition is misconceived.

¶19

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of 8530.50 Sq. yards in Sy.No. 73 of Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad having acquired title to the said property under a registered sale deed No. 935 of 1969 dated 14-4-1969. The petitioner also obtained exemption from the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, qua G.O.Ms.No. 1290, Revenue (U.C-IV) Department dated 7-9-2006. The petitioner along with her son and daughter executed a registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney on 19-8-2005 in favour of the 4^th respondent for development of 75 per cent of the total extent of land i.e., 8530.50 Sq. yards to enable the 4^th respondent to construct a residential complex. The 4^th respondent appears to have applied to the 3^rd respondent, seeking mutation of land of an extent of 920 Sq. meters out of the said land, which is the subject matter of the development agreement between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent.

¶20

Meanwhile,w on 17-7-2007, on the ground that the 4^th respondent is defaulting on the reciprocal obligations under the development agreement, the petitioner cancelled the G.P.A-cumDevelopment agreement by a registered instrument. On 19-3-2009 a notice was issued by the 4^th respondent through one Shiva Ganesh, an agent of the 4^th respondent, and communicated to the petitioner (as the petitioner’s address appears to have been given by Shiva Ganesh for communication). The 3^rd respondent’s notice dated 19-3-2009

¶21

refers to an application of Shiva Ganesh for mutation of his name in respect of the land of an extent of 920 Sq. meters in Sy.No.73 of Yellareddyguda Village. In response thereto, the petitioner addressed a representation on 30-3-2009 stating that the 4^th respondent has no manner of title or entitlement for mutation; that the GPA-cumDevelopment agreement between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent was cancelled by a registered instrument on 17-7-2007; and that in the circumstances neither the 4^{t h} respondent nor Shiva Ganesh are entitled to mutation of their names in respect of the land in question of which the title vests exclusively in the petitioner.

¶22

Notwithstanding the petitioner’s response dated 30-3-2009 addressed to the 3^rd respondent, the 3^rd respondent has addressed another letter dated 29-6-2009 to the petitioner calling upon her to appear with the relevant documents, i.e., the Development Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent on 19-82005 and the proceedings of the Urban Land Ceiling authority, for taking up further enquiry. The petitioner is aggrieved by the 3^rd respondent repeatedly issuing notices.

¶23

The 3^rd respondent is the competent and the primary authority to consider an application for mutation of entries in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed, under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and therefore, is entitled to issue notices to the affected parties. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of all interests in respect of the land in question and therefore, the 3^rd respondent has legitimately issuing notices to the petitioner on the application of the 4^th respondent or Shiva Ganesh for mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. As the petitioner has already addressed a response to the notice, the petitioner may either lodge another objection to the 3^rd respondent on the application

¶24

of the 4^th respondent or any other person for mutation of names or may address the 3^rd respondent stating that no further material is required to be produced and the 3^rd respondent may pass an order in accordance with law on any application filed for mutation of names.

¶25

A writ in the nature of Prohibition interdicting further enquiry or process by the 3^rd respondent is not maintainable, as the petitioner has failed to show that the 3^rd respondent suffers from inherent or patent lack of jurisdiction. The 3^rd respondent is adjudicating upon a matter primarily and demonstrably within the jurisdiction of the said respondent under the provisions of the Act. Inherent in the exercise of such jurisdiction in the respondent to come to a right or wrong conclusion. The petitioner has several remedies in case of any erroneous decision by the 3^rd respondent. He has the remedy of an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, a Revision to the Collector or recourse to the civil court under Section 8 (2) of the Act. In the totality of the circumstances, no order interdicting the exercise of jurisdiction by the 3^rd respondent is either warranted or appropriate.

¶26

On the aforestated analysis, there are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate process before the 3^rd respondent or any other authority. No costs.

¶27

_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶28

13^th July, 2009. GRR

N. Kamalamani v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Kamalamani v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Ram Narayana, Vs District Collector Karimnagar District

Gopathi Shyam Rao, Vs The District Collector

Smt. Munni Bai Vs Prl. Secretary to Revenue

Salapu Ramana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.Govinda Rao Vs Government of A.P.

Indukuri Rangaraju Vs Government of A.P. rep. by The District Collector