Allowed

Kalle Siddappa v. Tahsildar

Telangana HC27 Jul 2012WP/1162/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a Tehasildar cannot decide disputed questions of fact or unilaterally alter revenue records without notice. The impugned panchanama issued to the 3rd respondent, which affected the petitioners' possession, was set aside as illegal and ultra vires. Remedial action via civil court was mandated for possession disputes.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings and the memo dated 09.11.2010 are set aside; the petitioners are entitled to appropriate orders after notice is issued.

Kalle Siddappa Vs Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.1162 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners state that their father was protected tenant, in respect of Acs.11.16 guntas of land, in survey No.180 of Ramajipet Village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Nalgonda District, and that he was issued certificate in Form No.6-A under Section 38-E of the (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’), on 10.05.1960. The petitioners are said to have succeeded to the property and that they were issued pattadar pass books and title deeds. The petitioners filed O.S.No.49 of 2010 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, against the 3^rd respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of part of the said land. In the said suit, the 3^rd respondent is stated to have taken the stand that an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas of land was delivered to him under a panchanama, dated 09.11.2010, issued by the Tahasildar, Yadagirigutta, the 1^st respondent herein. Petitioners submit that the memo dated 09.11.2010, was issued without notice to them and it is not referable to any provision of law. They submit that the 1^st respondent exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing the said memo and challenged the same.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶6

The petitioners claim rights over Acs.11.16 guntas of land, on the basis of succession from their father. A certificate under Section 38-E of the Act is said to have been issued to their father in the year

¶7

1960.

¶8

The 3^rd respondent approached the 1^st respondent with a complaint regarding possession over part of the land in survey No.180. The

¶9

1^st respondent is not conferred with the power to decide the disputed questions of fact. His jurisdiction is confined to correction of entries in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds.

¶10

If an individual feels aggrieved ay any acts of dispossession, over any piece of land, he has to work out his remedies by approaching a civil Court.

¶11

A perusal of the memo, dated 09.11.2010, discloses that unilateral action was taken, on the strength of a representation submitted by the 3^rd respondent. Since the course indicated therein needs alteration of entries and change of ground situation, the 1^st respondent ought to have issued notice to the persons who are affected.

¶12

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is left open to the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to the parties, in case the subject matter is within his jurisdiction.

¶13

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶15

Dated:27.07.2012 Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶17

Writ Petition No. of 2012

¶18

Date:.07.2012

¶19

Kalle Siddappa v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalle Siddappa v. Tahsildar

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

The Depot Manager, Vs Labour Court

Sri. Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Temple Association, Reg.No5/19 Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

K. Nawaz Vs The Apsrtc

A.Gopal, Vs The Joint Collector

Yandra Venkata Lakshmi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Adapa Shivaji Naidu Vs The Thasildar Lingasamudram Mandal