Writ Appeal dismissed. Single Judge held that once land was acquired via 1981 award, it could not be sold despite non-mutation. High Court agreed, declining admission to stay proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRASHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 261 OF 2021
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters PatentPrefered against the order dated 30/04/2021passed in WP No1178012021on the file of the High Court.
Between:
Uppala Santhosh Kumar, S/o Lakshmikantham,Agedq8. y99rq, Occ.Employee' Rio H.No.9-97, Choppadandi, Choppadandilt4andal KarimnagarDistrict Telangana State
.,,APPELLANTMRIT PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
IA NO :1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the HighCourtmaybe pleasedto stay all further proceedings in Memo No B/prjavani/ 1412021 daled2510212021of the 2nd respondent and consequential order dated 30.4.2021made in W.P. No' 11780of 2021 .
Counsel for the ,Appellant: SRl. S. RAVINDERREDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FORREVENUE
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.261 of 2O2l
JUDGMENT: (Pet tl,Le Hoi ble the Chiel Justrce Salish CLnrulra Sharrrtu)
The present writ appeal is arlsing out of order dated 30.04.2021 passed in W.P.No.11780 of 2021 by the learned Singie Judge
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant/ w,rit petitioner has purchased land admeasuring Ac.2.39 guntas in Sy.No.240/4 situateci at Katnapally Gram Panchayat, Choppandandi Mandal, Karimnagar District from one Thallapalii Srinivas and Pochampally Ma1laiah. The petitioner's contention is that at the time of purchase, he has verified the rerrenue records as to whether the vendors are having valid title or not. Subsequently, pattadar pass book and title deed nere issued on 19.06.20i9. The petitioner has further stated before the learned Single Judge that later on he has verified the record and he came to knor,v that the land in question was reflected in Dharani Web Portal as Canal/ Kaluva. In those circumstances, he came up before this Court. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the rvrit petition on the ground that the land i r-r question u,as acqurred on 02. 10. 198 1 for SRSP irrigation project and taking advantage ol the fact that in the revenue records the name of the Government rl,as not mutated, it was sold even though it
1n ,vas an acquired iand.The learned SingleJudge
paragraphs 4 and 5 heldas under:
"4. It appears fromthe materialplaced on record that the petitioner and hisvendorsa-re taking advantage of wlong reflection of nameof the original vendor inthe revenue records,though the la:rd wasacquiredby the Government bypassinganawardas early ason 02.10.198 1. Merelybecause the name of vendors andthe original pattadarwas reflectedin revenue recordsdoesnot mean that land isnotvested in theGovernment' subsequent to acquisition,inaccordalcewith the Land Acquisition Act, toclaim that petitioneris owner of the 1and. If petitionerwas not informedby his vendors about the acquisition, it isfor the petitioner to work out his remedy against hisvendorfor misleadingthe statusof land in the revenue records,
5, Further, what ischallenged in the writ petition is the information furnishedto the petitioneron the statusof larrd and acquisitionproceedingsof the year 1981 Ifthe petitioner disputes the claimof the revenueauthorilieson the acquisition oflar.rd, it is for tl'cpetitionerto substnntiate hisclaim in appropriatc proceedingsl do not see arty error inthe proceedingscommunicated tolhe petitioner informing thestatus as reflecled in thc revcnuc records. By thiscommunicationnodecision istal<en affecting the right ofthepetitioner'The inlormation furnished by the Tahsildarcannot give rise to a cause of action to thepetitionerto institutewrit petition axdseeka declaration ol suchaction as il1ega1 ald to ask for mutation of his name in therevenuerecords l therefore do notsee any merit in the writpetitionand the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissedin liminiPending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall standclosed"
In the.considered opinionof this Court,oncean award was passed on 02.10.i981,the land could not have been sold by the predecessorin title of the appellant/writ petitioner and therefore, this Courtalso does not find any reason to interfere with the orderpassedby the learned Single JudgeThe admission is declined.
Accordingly, thewrit appeal stands dismissed'
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There sha11 be no order as to costs.
sD/.cH.vEEmFil',tTHhH
//TRUECOPY//
SECTIONOFFICER
To, 21 . . One Two CC CCs to Sri.to GP S.for Ravinder Reddy' Advocaten"*t'",f]igi,l Co"t fo' the State [OPUC]of Telangana[OUT]
J. Two CDCoPles. 4. One SPareCoPY. PNI
,--
HIGHCOURT
DATED:031121202'l
JUDGMENT
WA.No.261of 2A21
1 se S aAI'{:
Q: za
-)a
$ $ Efi?t?l .i,
-4..
-'.--:,-,r-
Dismissingthe WA Without costs.
\7 $
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court could interfere with the Single Judge's observation that succession to title is barred once an acquisition award was passed.
Whether the Writ Appeal was maintainable in light of the Land Acquisition Act and the non-mutation of names in revenue records.
Whether the Lower Court erred in dismissing the respondent's petition under Section 151 CPC.
Uppala Santhosh Kumar
State of Telangana
Satish Chandra Sharma
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
