Allowed

Smt.Paturi Saritha W/o.Dhanunjaiah Goud v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Bibinagar Mandal

Telangana HC16 Feb 2015WP/2039/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged the cancellation of land mutation regarding agricultural properties purchased from him. The court found that the cancellation order erroneously included land in survey numbers 158, 159, and 160 which were not subject to the dispute with the fourth respondent, ruling to set aside such orders and remanding the matter.

What did the court decide?

The Orders passed by Respondents 2 and 3 are set aside for survey Nos. 158, 159 and 160; the matter is remanded to the 2nd Respondent for a fresh consideration.

Smt.Paturi Saritha W/o.Dhanunjaiah Goud Vs Mandal… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2039 of 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶5

The petitioner purchased agricultural land admeasuring Acs.8.14 guntas situated in survey Nos.156, 158, 159 and 160 of Nemragomula Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District, through registered sale deeds, dated 13.12.1999 and 11.02.2000. Originally, the said land belongs to one D.Atchaiah and O.Pentaiah. After purchase of the lands, the 1^st respondent mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. It is alleged that the 4^th respondent purchased an extent of Acs.4.20 guntas in survey No.156 from Sri K.Mohan Reddy, GPA Holder, through registered document No.624/98, dated 28.01.1998. In pursuance of the request of the 4^th respondent, the revenue records were mutated by order, dated 06.07.2001 by the

¶6

2^nd respondent. While ordering mutation of the name of the

¶7

4^th respondent in respect of the land in survey No.156, the

¶8

2^nd respondent passed an order even in respect of survey Nos.158, 159 and 160 also. Based on the said order, the

¶9

1^st respondent passed an order on 12.07.2001 cancelling the mutation made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the lands purchased by him on 13.12.1999 and 11.02.2000. Challenging the order of the 2^nd respondent, dated 06.07.2001, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, before the 3^rd respondent. However, the 3^rd respondent confirmed the order of the 2^nd respondent, vide order, dated 06.02.2003. Challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent relates to the land in survey No.156 and the 4^th respondent is not concerned with the lands in survey Nos.158, 159 and 160 purchased by the petitioner.

¶11

Learned counsel for the 4^th respondent also fairly agrees for the same.

¶12

In view of the above, it appears that respondents 2 and 3 have committed an error in ordering for cancellation of mutation made in favour of the petitioner, in respect of land in survey Nos.158, 159 and 160 also, while ordering mutation in the name of the 4^th respondent in respect of land of an extent of Acs.4.20 guntas in survey No.156, purchased by him under registered sale deed, dated 28.01.1998.

¶13

In the circumstances, the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2^nd respondent for consideration of the case afresh, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in recording of names of the petitioner or the 4^th respondent in the revenue records based on the sale deeds executed by them. However, the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 does not affect the rights of the parties to be agitated in the civil Court, if they are otherwise entitled to.

¶14

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 16.02.2015

¶16

Smt.Paturi Saritha W/o.Dhanunjaiah Goud v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Bibinagar Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Paturi Saritha W/o.Dhanunjaiah Goud v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Bibinagar Mandal

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

Chintala Govindu, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Sri T.China Venkata Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary

P.Veerabhadra Swamy Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Swarna Akkamma, Vs The District Collector

Rayalacheruvu Diguvinti Subramanyam Reddy Vs The Joint Collector/Settlement Officer

Palemm Venkat Rao, Vs The Dist.Collector