Disposed

Rafiya Fathima v. The State of Telangna

Telangana HC5 Aug 2021WP/13537/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sale-deed registration was allegedly refused without reasons. The court disposed of the petition with liberty to present the documents after completing registration formalities and directed their receipt and processing subject to statutory compliance. Any refusal required reasons communicated to the petitioners; land status was left undecided.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to present documents; authority directed to receive and process compliant documents and communicate reasons for any refusal.

Rafiya Fathima Vs The State of Telangna — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 17163 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

W.H. Vijay Anand, S/o. Late W.S. Hanumantha Rao, Aged 64 Years, Occ Business, Ryo.H. no.12-1-1 573, Shantinagar, North Lalaguda, Secunderabad^-50001 7

¶8

W .V . Karthik Raj, S/o. W.H. Vijay Anand, Aged 30 Years, Occ Pvt. Service,

¶9

W.V. Deepak Raj, S/o. W.H. Vijay Anand, Aged 28.Years, Occ Pvt. Service

¶10

W,V. Akhil Raj, S/o. W,H. Vijay Anand, Aged 27 Years, Occ Pvt. Service, No.2 to 4 are R/o. H.no.11-'1-268, lrlylargadda, Secunderabad - 500061

¶11

W.H. Shashidhar, S/o. Late W.S. Hanumantha Rao, Aged 59Years, Occ Pvt. Service

¶12

W.S. Sandeep, S/o.W.H. Shashidhar, Aged 22 Years, Occ Student, No.5 and 6 are R/o. Flat no,402, 4th Floor, Sri Venkateshwara Apa(ments, Mirjalguda, lValkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500047

¶13

Smt. W.S. Syamala Devi, W/o. Late W.V. Seshagiri Rao, Aged 78 Years, Occ Housewife,

¶14

W.S.V. Koteshwar Rao, S/o. Late W.V. Seshagiri Rao, Aged 59 Years, Occ^Pvt. Service,

¶15

W.S. Venkatesh, Sio. Koteshwar Rao, Aged 21 Years, Occ.Student, No.10 to 12 are R/o. Flat no.211, Prajay Ashray Apartment, Opp. Survey of lndia, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 500039.

¶16

10.10. W.S. Deva Raj, S/o. Late W.S. Seshagiri Rao, Aged 51 Years, Occ Govt. Service, R/o. Flat no.403, Prajay Ashray Apartment, Opp. Survey of lndia, Uppal, Medchal-Malka.igiri District - 500039.

¶17

11.Smt. W.B. Sharada Bai, Wo. Late W.V. Babu Rao, Aged 69 Years, Occ Housewife

¶18

12.W.8. Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. Late W.V. Babu Rao, Aged 53 Years, Occ^Pvt. Service,

¶19

1 3. W.V. Karthik, S/o. W.B. Venkateshwara Rao, Aged 24 Years, Occ Pvt. Service,

¶20

14.W.8. Narsimha Rao, S/o. Late W.V. Babu Rao, Aged 50 Years, Occ Pvt. Service, No.15 to 18 are Rl/o. H.no.5-125l11A, .Shantinagar Colony, Hydershakote, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District-500091.

¶21

15.W.S. Shashi Kumar, S/o. Late W.S. Seshagiri Rao, Aged 45 Years, Occ^Pvt. Service, R/o. Flat no.G-5, Prajay Ashray Apartment, Opp. Survey of^{lndia, Uppal,} Medchal-Malkajgiri District- 500039,

¶22

16.W.S. SridharRao, S/o. LateW.V. Seshadri, Aged^5'1 Years, Occ^{Pvt. Service,}

¶23

17.W.S. Manish Ra.i, S/o. W.V. Sridhar Rao, Aged 21Years, Occ Student No.7 and^B are R/o. H.no,30-4915, Mughal Colony, Old Safilguda, Hyderabad^- 500056

¶24

1B.W.S. Seshandhar Rao, S/o. Late W.V. Seshadri, Aged 47 Years, Occ Business, Fl/o. H.no.11-15-130111302, Sapthagiri Nivas, Road no.6, Doctor's Colony, Saroornagar, R.R,District - 500 035

¶25

19.P. Bhaskar, S/o, Late P. Pandu. Aged 45 Years, Occ^{Business,Ri/o. H.no.1-10-} 28123018, Indira. Nagar Colony, Kushaiguda, ECIL Post, Medchal-Malkalgiri District - 500062

¶26

N//s. S.S. Builders, Rep. by its Partner, S. lndrasena^{ReddyS/o. S. Bal Reddy,} aged 61 Years, R/o.H.no.12-13-1085172, Sri Shiridi Sai Nagar,^Tarnaka, secunderabad - 500017

¶27

...pETrroNERS

¶28

AND

¶29

1, The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and^Registration Department, B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶30

The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps,^5-3-953, Registration Bhavan,4th and sth Floor, Nizam Shahi Road, Osmangunj, M.J.Market, Hyderabad^-500001 The District Registrar, Hyderabad District, Red Hills, Hyderabad

¶31

4 The Sub-Registrar Office, lVarredpally, Sikh Village, Secunderabad -^500009.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith,the HighC ourt may be pleased} to^pass an order or orders^{one in the nature of wRlT oF IVANI)AMUS declaring the} action of the 4th Respondent in^{not receivingand registerirg the 4 Sale Deed} documents executed by the Petitioner.^{no.'1 to 19 in favourof t'le Petitioner no.20in} respect of land in Sy.no.123, in Ward^{n.12 and Block no.13, .o an extent of 2'000} sq.Yards, situated at Lalaguda^{Village, secunderabadas barl arbitrary illegaland} u nco nstitutiona I and consequently^{direct the Respondents No 2 to 4 to receiveand} register the 4 Sale Deed documents^{in respectof land in Sy. to.123, in Wardn.12} and Block. no.13, to an extent of^{2,000 Sq.Yards,situated at LalagudaVillage'} Secunderabad in favour of the Petitioner^no.20.

¶34

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the cir,;umstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court ma} /^{be pleasedto dirett} 'the Respondents No 2 to 4 to receive and^{registerthe 4 Sale Deed documentsin..} respect of land in Sy.no.123, in Ward, n.12 and^{Block no.13,to an extentof 2'000} Sq.Yards, situated at Lalaguda Village, Secunderabad^{in favourof the Petitioner} no.20 and^pass

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI^{K. BUCHIBABU}

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

¶40

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶41

WRIT PETITION No.17163 of 2O2l

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

Heard Sri K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶44

The main grievance of the petitioners is that the SubRegistrar -4th respondent is refusing to receive, register and release the subject documents submitted by the petitioners for registration in respect of land to an extent of 2000 Sq yards in Sy.No. 123, Ward No.12, Block No.13 of Lalaguda Village, Secunderabad without assigning any reasons. However, no proof is fi1ed in support of their claim of presenting the documents for registration. 3. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader coupled with the provision in Section 711 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, without expressing opinion on status of the land the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to present the documents in compliance of the registration formalities. If the documents are presented for registration, the Registering Authority shall receive and process the subject documents, if they are

¶45

I S.71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded :

¶46

(I) Every Sub-registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situated within his sub-district shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No,2, and endorse the words "registration refused" on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.

¶47

(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered,

¶48

-J-

¶49

complying^{with the provisions of the Indian Registrati:nAct' 19O8'} and Indian^{Stamp Act, 1899 It will be open to the Registering} Authority to refuse^{to receive/to register the docume::rtspresented} before him, if^{he has any objection,by duly assignirrg reasons in} support of^{such decisionand communicate the saidc ecisionto the} petitioners. It is^{made clear thatmere registrationcf documents} does not confer^{titie to the property'Pendingrrisceilaneous} petitions, if anY,^{sha11stand closed.}

¶50

//TRUE coPY/' ^,38i[ffiRIEi[fiiH .="rrofrt#tt"e*

¶51

¶52

ll u'^nu' " I hsl;"ntsgffi ffi$g;Effiffif,il dfi

¶53

.Y'.tsil#:.l#331'4l:#[",[#$,1s,{E,ydr3;:**k.50000e 4 The Sub-Registrar^u s. One CC^{to Sri K Bu} 6 Two CCs to GP^{for t} - at HYderabad lOUTl

¶54

Two^CDCopies

¶55

B. One^{SPare CoPY} smJ ./

HIGH COURT

DATED:.2810712021

ORDER

WP.No.17163 of 2021

1t1E
e
v
6 AUCillll
*

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

5
.-=

¶64

¶65

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶66

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF^AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶67

PRESENT

¶68

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN^RAO

¶69

WRIT PETITION Nos.1 3504 &^{13537 of2020:} 16655 & 16666 of 2021

¶70

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 13504 OF²⁰²⁰

¶71

Between:

¶72

Rafiva Fathima. w/o. Sved Mehadi^{D/o. lateGafoorunnisa Begum,R/o. H-No.17-8-} t'OZi.il, nt<O,a1 e;gh, ryaidkp"t. Hyderabad.^{Rep by its GPA Syed Muzammil} .Uddin^S/o. f_aG SveO H,tuz#ar Uddin,^{ageb about . 42. O6cupationBusiness,RJo.H.No.18-8-} 589/50, Kumarwadi Colony,^{EdiBazar,Hyderabad.}

¶73

...,ET'T'ONER

¶74

AND

¶75

The state of Telangna, Rep^{by its Principal secretary (Revenue Department)} Secretariat, at HYderabad.

¶76

The Joint Collecior,^{Ranga reddy District. at Lakdikapool}

¶77

The Revenue Divisional^{Officer,'Kandukoor Division, R'R District'}

¶78

The Tahsildar, Saroornagar^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District} - 5. t/ukta Anjaiah, S/o.^{late lvl.PentaiahgSed.q? years, occ. Busrness' K/o} H.No.3-6-505, Street No.6,^{Himayat Nagar,Hyd.}

¶79

k.Vara Laxmi'@^{Anjamma[,luktd Anjairh,.S/o.late M'Pentaiah}

¶80

Wlc.k.v"nt<atiiaf,, 6geO . 55 years, Occ. Housewife' R/o. H.No 12-11-1438, Boudha Nagar, Warasiguda,^{Secunderabad.}

¶81

z. Ararigrj, 57o. iate^{Ir/.P6ntaiah,W/o. A.Prasada Rao' Aged about54 years, occ}

¶82

. Housewife, R/o:^H. No.14-2^{-33711311,Ghoshamahal, Hyderabad'}

¶83

1. IV.P;dm;, W/o. late^{Ir/.Raju,aged. 53 years, Occ. Housewife,R/o H No 3-6-} 505, Street No.6, HimaYat^Nagar,HYd.

¶84

s. tM.kiiinna lt/ohah,^{S/o.-latetM.Raju;aged. 34 years, occ Business,}

¶85

Fi/o.H.No.3-6-505, Sireet^{No.6, Himayat Nagar, Hyd'-}

¶86

f O. H,f'.krantfri Xumar,'S/o.^{late M'iaju, aged . iZ years, Occ} '^{Business, R/o H No 3-}

¶87

6-505, Street No.6.^{Himayat Nagar, Hyd}

¶88

11.1V.-lri;ga;;Ju, Slc.^{tite lV.Raju, a[ed 3i} vears'^{Occ Business, Flio'HNo 3-6-505'} Streea No.6, Himayat^Naqar,HYd.

¶89

I z. V.VJnisree, wlo.^{iate nl.l]aisihgRao,aged. 47 years,Occ Housewife'}

¶90

R/o.H.No.17-2-1 165,^{Rain Bazar,Hyd.}

¶91

f S. M.Shiva Kumar, S/o.^{late lV.Narsing Rao,aged} '^{28 years, Occ Business'} Fl/o.H.No.¹ 7-2-¹ 165,^{Rain Bazar, Hyd.}

¶92

r+.l,i.Uirutfri Kumar, Slo^{late M.Naising Rao,aged 25 years, Occ Business'} Rl/o.H.No.17-2-1 165,^{Rain Bazar, Hyd.}

¶93

ls.c".neenj, blo.tat" M.Narsing^{Rao W/o. G.BhaskerRao, aged 30 years, occ '} - Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.8-2-6874-5. Karmanghat, Hyderabad ^^

¶94

10.M.Tina, D/o. late^{tvl.Narsing Rao,W/o.Rahul,agedabout29 years'ucc}

¶95

flousewite, R/o.H.No.17-2-1 165, Rain Bazar, Hyderabad '

¶96

...RES'ONDENTS

¶97

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to lssue an order, direction^{particularly one in the natureof wRlT oF cERTIORARI} call for the records^{pertaining the Proceedingsvide case No.A2l715/2019Dated} 22l6t2o2oofthe3rdrespondentandSET-A-SIDE/Quashthesaidorders Proceedings vide case^{No.A2l715l2O19 Dated2216J020of the 3rd respondentas} parallel proceedings by the revenue^{courtsare not maintainablefollowingthe} citation ALT 2003-1-615^{V. GouthamRaoVs. Revenue Divisional officer, Jagityal}

¶98

¶99

and ooNSEQUENTLY^{directthe 4th respondentto not to :hangethe revenue} records basing on the impugned^{order/ proceedings in case No.A2171512019Dated} 22t6t2O2O of the 3rd^{respondentwhile protectingthe Petitioner rightsand the} possession over subject lands involved^{in impugned Proceedingsvide case No.A2l} 71512019 Daled 221612020^{of the 3rd respondent.}

¶100

lA NO: 3 OF 2020

¶101

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the cir(:umstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} suspend the^{proceedingsA2171512019 Dated. 221612020 of the 3rd respondent} pending disposal of the writ^petition.

¶102

COUNSEI for thE PEtitiONET: SRI^{G.L.N. NARSIMHA RAO FOR SMT. SEEDA SRIDEVI}

¶103

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE}

¶104

Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.S to 7: SRI M. DHANANJAY IiEDDY}

¶105

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.8to 11: SRIT. BALA MOHAl'l REDDY}

¶106

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.12 to 16: SRI S. NAGESH REDDY}

¶107

WRIT PETITION NO: 13537 OF²⁰²⁰

¶108

Between:

¶109

Rafiva Fathima. W/o. Sved Mehadi D/o.^{late Gafoorunnisa Begum, Fl/o. H.No.17-B-} 702i1 , Akbat Bagh, Maldkpet,^{Hyderabad. Repby its GPA Syed 1/uzammil} .Uddin^S/o Late Sved Muzdfiar Uddih, agdd^{about.42, OCcupation Business,R/o.H.No.'18-B-} 589/50;Kumarwadi Colony, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶110

...pETtTtoNER

¶111

AND

¶112

The State of Telangna, Rep by^{it's Principal Secretary(RerenueDepartment} ) Secretariat, at Hydera bad.

¶113

The Joint Collecior, Ranga^{reddy District. at Lakdikapool.}

¶114

The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Kandukoor Division, R.R l)istrict.}

¶115

The Tahsildar, Saroornagar lvlandal,^{Ranga Reddy District}

¶116

tr/.Ravi Kumaii, W/o.M.Anjaiah,^{aged63 years, Occ. Hour;ehold,R/o. H.No.3-6-} 505, Street No.6, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶117

...RES'ONDENTS

¶118

Petition under'Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndill prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Ccurt may be pleasedto} issue an order, direction^{particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF GERTIORARI call} for the records^pertaining the^{Proceedingsvide case No.A2l''1612019Dated 22-6-} 2020 ol the 3rd respondent SET-A-SIDE/^{Quashthe said orcers Proceedingsvide} Case No.A2l71612019 Dated.22-6-2020^{of the 3rd respon'jent by declaring as} arbitrary, illegal, without^{jurisdiction, when the comprehensivereliefs of declaration} suit filed pending vide o.s.No.446 of^{2019 on the file of the H XIV AdditionalDistrict} Judge Court RR District^{parallel proceedings by revenue court{i are not maintainable} following the citation ALT 2003-1 615 V.^{GouthamRaoVs. RevenueDivisional} Officer, Jagityal CONSEQUENTLY^{direct the 4th respondentto not to change the} revenue records basing on the impugned order/^proceedirgs of^{Case No.A2l} 71612019 Daled 22-6-2020 of the 3rd respondent.

¶119

¶120

lA NO: 3 OF 20

¶121

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto suspend the} proceedings A217161201 Dated^{22-6-2020of the 3rd respondent pending disposal of} the writ^petition

¶122

IANO:4OF20 20

¶123

Between:

¶124

tt/.Ravi Kumari, W/o.lvl.Anjaiah,aged^{. 63 years, Occ Household,F/o' H No 3-6-505'} Street No.6, Himayat^{Nagar' Hyderabad.}

¶125

...Vacate Petitioner/Respondent^No'5

¶126

AND

¶127

1 RafivaFathima,W/o.SyedMehadiD/o'lateGafoorunnisaBeoum.R/o.H.No.17b:10'zji, iriUri'elsn,-i./rrjiii"t,"Hvo"iro"o^{nep ov its-GP"A Sved tVluzammil} uiii"' 31". Lii"-svtcj^{rvruritta,Ud6in, aged} .about^{.42, occupation . Business,} ilHH.N;.i8-B-5asi5o,^{kumiruadicolonvl Edi Bazar, Hvderabad'}

¶128

...ResPondenVWrit^Petitioner

¶129

2 The State of^{Telangna, Repby it's PrincipalSecretary (Revenue Department )} Secretariat, at^HYderabad.

¶130

J ih;'i;;;t c"ll"cioi;^{Ranga reddv District. at Lakdikapool'} 4 iil R;;;il^{bivisionit "onicer,kand ukoor Division, R' R' District'} tr ih" fJn"itoir, Saroornagar^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District}

¶131

...Respondents

¶132

PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the} interim orders^{dated 25.08.2020passed in W P'No'13537 ol 2020 and dismissthe} Writ Petition.

¶133

CounselforthePetitioner:SRIG'L'N'NARSIMHARAOFORSMT'SEEDASRIDEVI

¶134

Counsel for^{the Respondent Nos'1to 4: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶135

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'S: SRI M' DHANANJAY REDDY}

¶136

WRIT PETITI ONN^{O: 16655 0F 2021}

¶137

Between:

¶138

RafivaFathima,W/o,Syedl/ehadiD/o.lateGafoorunnisaBequm,R/o.H.No.17-87o2i1 , Akbil^{Bash, Malakpet,"'ivi"*o"O R;p b-t iis GPA Sved-Muzammil Uddin S/o'} late sved Muzaffar uaoin]'as;'J1;;;i-^{4idccupation- 'Business'R/o H No 18-8-} Eabjs6lxi,riii,loi^{coronv, Eoi Bazar, Hvderabad} ...pE,,oNER

¶139

...pE,,oNER

¶140

AND

¶141

The State of Telangna,^{Rep by its Principal Secretary (Revenue Department)} Secretariat, at^HYderabad

¶142

z. ini oiittici^{cottector, Ransa reddy District at Lakdiklpool-.} e. iii; R;;;;r"-olvi.ioniibfricer,^{KantkoorDivision'R R District'}

¶143

i. rriu rjriiirour,-Saroornagar^{tr/andal, Ranga Reddv District}

¶144

lvl.Ravi^{Kumari, wrc.rr'r.iY'T.i;i,lg"i- 6C"v;u'i'occ- Household'Fl/oH No'3-6-} 505, Street No.6,^{Himayat Nagar, HyderaDao} ...RESPONDENTS

¶145

...RESPONDENTS

¶146

¶147

PetitionUnderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesStatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto issue an order,^{direction particularly one in the nature of WRITOF: CERTIORARI call} 12021 old for the records^{pertaining the unnumbered Proceedingsvide ST/ I} revisionCaseNo-D5/12oot2o2oDated.08/02/202laswellastheordersin A2lTl6t2olgDaled22l6t2020ofthe3rdrespondentwithoutassalinganyreasonsor contra to the^{settledlaw is liable to SET-A-SIDE/ Quash, while (leclaringthe orders} unnumberedProceedingsvideST/ll2O21oldrevisionCaseNoll5l1200l2020Dated oElozl2o2lof2ndrespondentaswellasProceedingsvideCaseNoA2/716/2019 Dated.22t6l2O20ofthe3rdrespondentisasarbitrary,illegal'withoutjurisdiction, whenthecomprehensivereliefsofdeclarationsuitfiledpending.lideo.S.No.446of 2019 on the^{file of the Honble xlv Addl District Judge court RR District.parallel} proceedingsbytherevenuecourtsarenotmaintainablefollowngthecitationALT 2003.1-6l5V.GouthamRaoVs,RevenueDivisionalCrfficer,Jagityaland CoNSEQUENTLY^{direct the 4th respondent to maintain / restorethe entriesin} subject lands^{in the revenue records prior to the orders / proceerlings of case No-A2/} 71612019 Daled^{22tG12020of the 3rd respondent'}

¶148

IA NO: 2 0F 2021

¶149

Petition under^{section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighcourtmaybepleasedtodirectthe 4th respondent to^{maintain / restore the entries in subject l;lnds in the revenue} records^{prior to the orders / proceedings of case No A2l716/2C19 Dated. 22-6-2020} of the 3rd respondent^{pendingdisposal of the abovewrit petition'}

¶150

lA NO: 3 o F²⁰²¹

¶151

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circunlstances stated in the} affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleasedto suspend the} orders unnumbered^{Proceedingsvide ST/ I 12021 old revision case No.D5/120012020} Dated08.02-2O2lol2ndrespondentconfirmingProceedinilsvideCaseNo.A2l 716t2o1gDated22-6-2020ofthe3rdrespondentpendingdisposaloftheabovewrit petition.

¶152

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRIG.L.N. NARSIMHARAo FoR I;MT. SEEDASRlDEvl} Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos.1to 4: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶153

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.S: SRI T' BALA MOHAN REDDY}

¶154

WRIT P ETITION^{NO:16666 0F 2021}

¶155

Between:

¶156

Rafiva Fathima, W/o.^{Sved Mehadi D/o. lateGafoorunnisa} Bequm, Ri/o.^H.No.17-8- veC^-Muzammil Uddin^S/o. |ozih". nio,at Baqh, Maldkpet,^{Hvderabad.Rep by its GPA S} f-iG SveO Muzlffar^{Uddin,ag-ed about43, Occupation,} Br siness, RJo.^{H. No.'18-8-} 589/50.- Kumamadi Colony.^{Edi Bazar' Hyderabad'}

,...PETITIONER

AND

1 The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary (Revenue Department) Secretariat, at Hyderabad

¶161

2 The District Collector. Ranga reddy District. at Lakdikapool

¶162

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukoor Division, R.R. District. 4 The Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranqa Reddv District

¶163

5 [/ukta,Anjaiah, S/o. Iate t,4.Pentaiah aged.65 yedrs, Occ. Business, Rt/o. H.No.3-6-505. Street No.6, Himayat Nagar, Hyd.

¶164

o K-Vara Laxmi @ Anjamma Muktd Anjairh, 5/6. tate IVl.pentaiah ,W/o. K.Venkatalah, aged . 55 years, Occ . Housewife, Fl/o. H.No.12 -11-1438, Boudha Nagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

¶165

1. A.Lalitha, S/o. late M.Pentaiah, W/o- A.Prasada Rao, Aged about . 54 years, Occ . Housewife, R/ o.H.No.14-2-3371 1311, Ghoshamahal, Fyderabad.

¶166

B. M.Padma, W/o. late M.Raju, aged. 53 years, Occ. Hous-ewife, R/o.H.No.3-6505, Street No.6, Himayat Nagar, Hyd.

¶167

1. IV.Krishna N/ohan, S/o.'late VlRalu,'ageA . 34 years, Occ . Business, R/o.H.No.3-6-505, Street No.6, Himayat Nagai, Hyd.

¶168

1. [,4Xranthi Kumar, S/o. late tV.Raju, aged.32 yeais, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.36-505, Street No.6. Himayat Nagar, Hyd.

¶169

M.Nagaraju, S/o. late lt4.Raju, aged.31 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.3-6505, Street No.6. Himayat Nagar, Hyd.

¶170

IVl.Vanisree, W/o. late [t,4.Narsing Rao, aged . 47 years, Occ . Housewife, R/o.H.No.17-2-1 165, Rain Bazar, Hyd.

¶171

lM.Shiva Kumar, S/o. late [t,4.Narsing Rao, aged .28 years, Occ. Business, Rio, H.No.17-2-1165, Rain Bazar, Hyd,

¶172

Ir/ Maruthi Kumar, S/o. late lt/,Narsing Rao, aged .25 years, Occ. Business, Ri/o.H.No. 1 7-2-1 1 65, Rain Bazar, Hyd.

¶173

G.Reena, D/o.late Ir/.Narsing Rao W/o. G.Bhasker Rao, aged . 30 years, Occ . Housewife, R/o. H. No.8-2-68/4-5, Karmanghat, Hyderabad.

¶174

M.Tina, D/o. late lvl.Narsing Rao, W/o. Rahul, aged about.29 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.H.No.17-2-1165, Rain Bazar, Hyderabad

¶175

...RES'ONDENTS

¶176

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI call for the records pertaining the orders vide ST/D5 1117612021 (D51119912020) Dated 8-2-2021 , as well as the baised illegal orders in A2171512019 Daled 22-6-2020 of the 3rd respondent without assailing any reasons or contra to the settled law is liable to SET-A-SIDE/ Quash, while declaring the orders vide STiD5/1 17612021 (D51119912020) Dated 8-2-2021 , of 2nd respondent as well as Proceedings vide Case No.A2l71512019 Dated 22-6-2020 of the 3rd respondent is as arbitrary, illegal, without^{jurisdiction,} when the comprehensive reliefs of declaration suit filed pending vide O.S.No.445 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble XIV Additional District Judge Court RR District, parallel proceedings by the revenue courts are not maintainable following the citation ALT 2003 -^'1 - 615 V. Goutham Rao Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagityal and CONSEQUENTLY direct the 4th respondent to maintain / restore the entries in subject lands in the revenue records prior to the orders / proceedings of Case No A2171512019 Dated,22-6-2020 of the 3rd respondent.

¶177

lA NO: 2 OF 202'l

¶178

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to maintain / restore the entries in subject lands in the revenue records prior to the orders 7 proceedings of Case No.A2l715l2O19 Dated 22-6-2020 of the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶179

¶180

IA NO | 3 0F 2021

¶181

Petition under section^{151 cPc prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High court maybe pleasedto suspend the} orders vide sT/^{D5 11176t2O21(D5l 1199t2O20)Daled8-2-2021of 2ndrespondent} confirming the illegal^{baised ordersvide case No.A2171512019t)ated 22-6-2020ol} the 3rd respondent^{pendingdisposal of the abovewrit petition'}

¶182

COUNSEI fOr thE^{PEtitiONET:SRI G.L.N. NARSIMHA RAO FOR SM T' SEEDA SRIDEVI} Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.1to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE}

¶183

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.s to 7: SRI M. DHANANJAYREIDDY}

¶184

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.8to 11: SRIT. BALA MOHANIIEDDY}

¶185

Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.12 to 16: SRI S. NAGESH REDDY}

¶186

The Court made the^{following:COMMON ORDER}

¶187

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO ON Nos. 13504&, 1353 7of 2020 16oc5 &16 t2021

¶188

coMM ON ORDER:

¶189

Heard Sri G.L.N, Narsimha Rao, learned counsel representing Smt. Seeda Sridevi, iearned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned counscl lor respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.No. 13504 of 2O2O and, respondenr No.S in W.p.No.13537 of 2020, and Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 8 to 1l and Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, learnecl counsel for respondents I2 to 16 in W.p.No.135O of 2O2O, respectively, and learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue.

¶190

2 In all the lour writ petitions, petitioner is the same and the tssue involved in the writ pctitions being the same, they disposed of by this common order.

¶191

In W.P.Nos.13504 and 13537 of 2020, petitioner challenged two orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division, dated 22,06.2020 in the appeals preferred against the decision of the Tahsildar, Saroornagar, dated 24.03.2018 granting mutation in favour of unoflicial respondents. ln W.I).Nos. 16655 and 16666 of 2021, petitioner is assailing the orders of the Special Tribunal dated 08.02.202 I in two revisions prelerred under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and [)attadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (the Act 26 of 1971) challenging the dccision of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division, dated 22.06.2020. The two revisions were placed before the Special Tribunal constituted under Section 16 of the Act 9 ol^'2o'2a.

¶192

W.P.Nos'13504^{and 13537 of 2O2O are filed immediateiy} Section^{9 of the Act 26 of 1971 on}

¶193

after Preferring^{revisions under} on the^{orders of the Revenue}

¶194

the aPPrehension^{that based} Divisional^{Officer, there may be an endeavourto charlge the entries} 1n the revenue^{records cvenbefore the revisions are decided} and that^{the order of the} appellate^{authoritYis per se i11ega1} and therefore^{the orders} of the appellate^{autholitycannot be} acted uPon.

¶195

On account of^{the subsequent developmenLsn the litigation} culminating in^{the finalorderspassedby the Spet:ial Tribunal in} the revisions^{preferred under Section 9 of Act 26 of 1971' cause in} these two writ^{petitlons does not survivefor furthel consideration'} W.P.Nos. 13504 and 13537^{of 2O2Oare accordingly <lismissed.}

¶196

In W.P.Nos. 16655 and 16666 ol^{2021,learloedcounsel for} the petitioner contends that the order of the revisional authority^is not sustainable on the solc ground that when c.vil litigation is pending, the revenue authorities cannot decidt: the inter se disputes. In support of the said contention, learrred counsel for the petitionci placed reliance on the decision ol this Court in W.P.No.16922 of 2002, date<l 31.12.2OO2.

¶197

Shorn of details, to the extent relevant, frcts on record disclose that based on a General Power ol Attorne', sale deed was executed in favour ol Sabrha Khatoon and others.^'lhe said sale deed was challenged in O.S.No.654 of 2075 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. The suit was decreed ex parte. Based on the decree granted by the

¶198

'B--

¶199

Court of Principal Junior^{Civil Judge, Ranga Reddyl)istrict at} L.B. Nagar, application^{was made for mutation'The Tahsildar,} Saroornagar Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District,orderedmutationas} per the decree granted^{in O.S.No.654 of 20i5 vide his orders dated} 24.O3.2OIa. This^{order of the Tahsildar grantingmutationwas} challenged belore^{the Revenue DivisionalOfficer' Applicationto} set aside Ltle^{ex parte decree was allowedby the trial Court'} Aggrieved thereby,^{petitioner preferred C'M'ANo 43 of2O19} pending in the Court of^{VIll AdditionalDistrict and Sessions} Judge, Ranga Reddy^{District at L'B. Nagar' ln l'A No 573 of 2019'} the first appellate^{Court passed ordcrs on 19 '06'2019 staying all} further proceedings^{in O.S'No.654 of 2015 Basedon the decree} granted by the Court^{of Principal Junior Civil Judge in O'S'No'654} of 2015,^{petitioner and another person executedregistered} development agreement^{in favourof Padmavathi LandDevelopers} and Builders.^{This deveiopment agreementischa llengedin} O.S.No.446 of^{2019 pending in the Courtof XIV Additional District} Judge, Ranga^{ReddyDistrictat L B Nagar'}

¶200

¶201

Having regard to^{setting aside the decree in O S No'654 of} 20 15 and reopening^{the suit for trial, the appellate authority} allowed the^{appeals,prelerred against che decision of the Tahsildar} granting mutation,^{vide orders dated 22 06'2020' Challenging the} same, petitioner^{preferred revisions underSection9 of the Act 26} of 1971.^{The appellateauthoritvas} '"vell^{as rhe revisional authority} observed that^{since civil lirigationis pending' the parties have} to pursue the^{civil Iitigation}

¶202

¶203

Thus, there is a registered sale deed standing in the name of unofficial respondents or their predecessor in interest, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.654 of 2015. As fairly submitted by learned counsel for petitioner Sri G.L. Narsimha Ra,t, based on the decree in O.S.No.654 oi 2015, petitioner's name vras mutated in the revenue records. The said decree was subseqrrently set aside and the suil is restored. Once the basis of mutation goes on account of setting aside the ex parte decree and the suit is pending trial, the order of the Tahsildar granting mutation s also no more valid. in view thereof, I do not see any error in the decision of the Revenue Divisional Olficer in setting aside the order of the Tahsildar as affirmed by the Special Tribunal. Ihus, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶204

10, W.P.Nos. 16655 and 16666 of 2O2I are accordingly dismissed. However, it is needless to obser.ve that since O.S.Nos.654 of 2015 and 446 ol 2Ol9 are pending, where the subject property is in issue, it is open to the petitioner to apply to the Tahsildar for change of the entries in the revcnue records, if she succeeds before the trial Court.

¶205

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶206

SD/.K.ONESIM T.SSISTANT REGISTRAR i/TRUE COPY// \SECTION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to Smt Seeda Sridevi, Advocate [OPUC] z Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State cf Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 4. One CC to Sri T. Bala Mohdn Reddy, Advocate'topuil 5. One CC to Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, Arivocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies 7. LJ e Spare Copy CHR

HIGH^COURT

DATED:051081202'l

COMMON^ORDER

i 6E 5I.1116'
(o
e
'-)
{ oo 16 AUC202I .bo
\',,)
'4*
,.{
oF.3 or,.1c

¶212

W.P.Nos.13504^{& 13537 ot 2020;} 16655 & 16666^of2021

¶213

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITIONS} WITHOUT COSTS

¶214

Rafiya Fathima v. The State of Telangna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafiya Fathima v. The State of Telangna

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

Hamed Bin Salam Vs The State of Telangana

Kondam Dashmanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Vandana Narender Vs The State of Telangana

Rafiya Fathima Vs The State of Telangna and 15 Others

Marne Janga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Rafiya Fathima Vs The State of Telangana and 15 others