Dismissed

Dodla Laxmamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC12 Dec 2013WP/36103/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of an Occupancy Right Certificate to a relative based on an unregistered Family Settlement deed. The court held that the deed did not bind non-signatory family members, noting a civil suit is the appropriate remedy for property disputes.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; Interim Relief petition dismissed as infructuous.

Dodla Laxmamma Vs The State of Andhra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36103 of 2013

¶2

Date:12.12.2013

¶3

Between: Dodla Laxmamma, W/o Late Nandamaiah

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

And:

¶6

The Govt of AP, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and eight others.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms K.V.Rajasree Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Revenue Counsel for Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 8: Sri Sudarshan Jishnu

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order in Case No.F1/3625/2012, dated 05.11.2013, of respondent No.2, whereby he has confirmed order in File No.J/3715/2011, dated 30.11.2011, of respondent No.3.

¶12

I have heard Ms K.V.Rajasree, the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana area) for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Sudarshan Jishnu, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6 and 8.

¶13

The petitioner pleaded that her father-Pilli Venkaiah

¶14

was the owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.08 guntas, comprising Ac.1.25 guntas in Survey No.56 and Ac.0.23 guntas in Survey No.60, of Uppal Baghayath Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that respondent No.9 is her brother; and that respondent Nos.5 to 8 are the sons of one of her brothers by name Pilli Ramulu. The petitioner further pleaded that the father of respondent Nos.5 to 8 has abandoned his sons leaving them in the care and custody of her father with the understanding that his share will be given to his four children and that as the whereabouts of Pilli Ramulu was not known, she was taking care of her father. The petitioner further pleaded that a Family Settlement deed was entered into among the family members as per which, Ac.1.00, comprising Ac.0.17 guntas in Survey No.56 and Ac.0.23 guntas in Survey No.60, was allotted to her share and other properties were allotted to other family members.

¶15

The petitioner has filed an application before the competent authority for issue of the Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) based on the said Family Settlement deed. On respondent No.5 approaching respondent No.3, ORC was given to him in respect of Ac.0.23 guntas in Survey No.60. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The appeal was dismissed by respondent No.2, vide his order, dated 05.11.2013. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

¶16

At the hearing, Ms K.V.Rajasree, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2 has failed to consider the Family Settlement deed, under which the petitioner was allotted Ac.0.23 guntas of land in Survey No.60 besides Ac.0.17 guntas in Survey No.56,

¶17

from a proper perspective. She has further submitted that though the document was styled as a ‘Family Settlement deed’, in effect it was a ‘Will’ executed by the petitioner’s father.

¶18

Sri Sudarshan Jishnu, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6 and 8, while opposing the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that a perusal of the purported Family Settlement deed would clearly show that the same is an unregistered one allegedly executed by the petitioner’s father. He has submitted that the petitioner cannot term the Family Settlement deed as a Will and that respondent No.2 has very rightly held that as the purported Family Settlement deed was not signed by any family member other than the executant, the same does not bind them.

¶19

I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The only basis on which the petitioner has claimed ORC for Ac.0.23 guntas of land in Survey No.60 is the purported Family Settlement deed. The recitals in the purported Family Settlement deed would clearly reveal that the same was intended to be a family settlement. Not only in form, but also in substance, all the recitals would clinchingly establish that the document is a Family Settlement deed, but not a Will.

¶20

While this Court refrains from rendering any finding on the admissibility of an unregistered Family Settlement deed, even if the document is taken on its face value, such a settlement deed does not bind the other family members as admittedly none of them have joined in the execution of the Family Settlement deed. Therefore, I do not find any error, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the impugned order of respondent No.2 refusing to interfere

¶21

with the order of respondent No.3, granting ORC to respondent No.5. If the petitioner feels that she has a right over the property for which ORC was granted to respondent No.5, she shall be free to file a civil suit before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction claiming her share in respect of the said property.

¶22

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶23

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.44876 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶24

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 12^th December, 2013 DR

Dodla Laxmamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dodla Laxmamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

Shaik Sharfuddin Saheb Vs Governemnt of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Salma Sultana, W/o. Abdul Hafeez Vs The District Collector

C. Sundararamaiah, Vs The Government of A.P.

Yelchala Yadi Reddy, S/o Durga Reddy, Aged 58 years, Vs The Government of A.P.

Chekuri Kishore Babu Vs The State, rep.by the District Collector, Khammam District

J.Vasanthamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh