Dismissed

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

Telangana HC12 Dec 2013WP/36391/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition seeking mandamus to declare the substitution of petitioners' names in the record of rights as illegal, the Court found no merit. It held that statutory remedies under the relevant Act were available and not exhausted, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies under the Act.

Yelchala Yadi Reddy, S/o Durga Reddy, Aged 58 years, Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.36391 of 2013

¶3

Date:12.12.2013

¶4

Between: Yelchala Yadi Reddy, S/o Durga Reddy and another.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

And:

¶7

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

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Challa Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in substituting the names of the petitioners with the names of respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the record of rights in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.02 guntas in Survey No.558 and Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.568 of Nadargula Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the subject property’), as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to record their names as the pattadars and possessors of the subject property.

¶12

The petitioners pleaded that they are the owners and possessors of the subject property; that they were

¶13

issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the subject property; that suddenly their names were substituted with that of respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the pahani for the year 2005; and that the substituted names have been continued in the pahanies since then. The petitioners have relied upon interim orders, dated 09.10.2009 and 25.04.2012, in Writ Petition Nos.21631 of 2009 and 12322 of 2012, respectively, for seeking similar direction as was given by this Court in the said two interim orders.

¶14

Under Section 5(5) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), against every order of the recording authority, either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed within a period of 30 days from the date communication of the order. If a person feels aggrieved by the order passed under Section 5(5) of the Act, he is entitled to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 9 of the Act.

¶15

If the names of the petitioners were removed from the pahanies as far back as the year 2005, there was absolutely no reason for the petitioners not to have availed the remedy of the appeal. It is not even the pleaded case of the petitioners that at least from the date of their knowledge, in the absence of communication of the order, substituting the names of respondent Nos.4 to 6, they have attempted to file an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. The petitioners have not even pleaded that at least a representation was made to respondent No.3 seeking redressal of their grievance. If the petitioners failed to avail the remedy of an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, they are still not remediless.

¶16

Under Section 8(2) of the Act, if any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights, he is entitled to institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny such right, for declaration of his right under Chapter-VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and if he succeeds in such suit, the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with such declaration. The petitioners have not pleaded any reason as to why they have not availed the above-mentioned remedies available to them under Sections 5(5) and 8(2) of the Act.

¶17

Reliance on the above-mentioned two interim orders of this Court does not help the petitioners. A perusal of these two interim orders shows that they are not speaking orders, besides the fact that the said orders have not dealt with the remedies available to the petitioners therein under the Act.

¶18

For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition.

¶19

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies under the Act in the light of the observations made herein before.

¶20

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.45231 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

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

J.Vasanthamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh