Dismissed

Kondam Dashmanth Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Aug 2021WP/15381/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging inaction by revenue authorities regarding mutation based on a 1980 will. The Court held the petition is barred by non-compliance with statutory procedures and the nature of the authority's power. It is open to the petitioner to litigate the substantive property claim.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed leaving the petitioner open to claim property rights via miscellaneous petitions based on alleged registered Will.

Kondam Dashmanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TVONDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15381 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kondam Dashmanth Reddy, S/o. Late K. Ram Reddy, Aged 56 Years, Occ. Govt Employee, R/o.H.No.2-3-210, Road No.2, Adarshnagar Colony, Nagole, Ranga ReddY

¶9

...PETrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, BRK Bhavan, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Jangaon District, Jangaon.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Janagama Division, Janagama^District.

¶14

The Thasildar, Raghunathapally Mandal, Janagama District

¶15

Kondam Raji Reddy, S/o. Yadagiri Reddy Died^per LRs No.6^to I

¶16

Kondam Tirupati Reddy, S/o Late K. Raji Reddy.^{Aged 55 Years,} R/o. Kurchapally (V). Raghunathapally^(lr/), Janagama^(D)

¶17

Kondam Venkat Reddy, S/o Late K.Raii Reddy, Aged 52 Years, Occ^Pvl Employee, R/o. Kurchapally^(V), Raghunathapally^(lV), Janagama^(D)

¶18

B Kondam Srinlvas Reddy, S/o Late K.Raii Reddy,^{Aged 48 Years.} R/o. Kurchapally (V), Raghunathapally^(l,4), Janagama^(D)

¶19

lV. Vilaya Lakshmi, W/o. Not known, D/o Late K.Raji Reddy,^{Aged59 Years,} R/o.Kurchapally(V), Raghunathapally(lt/), Janagama (D)

¶20

...RESpONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith. the^{High Court may be pleased} to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more^{particularlyone in the natureof} writ of MANDAIVUS declaring the action of 2nd^{respondentin not taking any action} on the representation daled 2910412021 for the mutation^{in respect to land in} Sy No.419 admeasuring Ac.1-13cts and^{in Sy No.420 admeasuring Ac.0-28Gts in} total Ac.2-01 Gts situated at Kurchapally^{Village, Raghunathapally lVlandal,} Janagama District having acquired through registered^{will vide No 17l1980 dated} 01l12t19BO as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of^{Article14,21 and 300-A of the} Constitution of lnd ia.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High courtmay be pleased To direct} the 2nd Respondent to initiate^proceedings on^{petitioners representationdated} 2glo4l2o21 and remove the name of the 5th^{Respondentfrom revenuerecords in} respect to land in Sy No.419 admeasuring^Ac.1-1 3Gts^{and in Sy No.420} admeasuring Ac.0-28 Gts in total Ac.2-01 Gts situated^{at Kurchapally} Village, Raghunathapally lt4andal, Janagama District.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRAVEEN^KUMARCHALLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to^{4: AGP FOR REVENUE} Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 9:-----

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

(

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEI;N RAO

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.153 81 of 2O:21

¶32

This writ petition is filed seeking the follor,",i:rg relief:

¶33

to issLle an appropriate writ ordcr or di -ection more partir:ularlr. one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS cleclaririg the acl iorl ol 2,,,1 respondent in not taking an-, a,,rtlon on the r(:prcsentation dated 29 04-2O21 fbr the mutation in respect to litr.rtl in Sr'.No..l 19 admeasuring Ac. l-13 Cts and in Sy. No.420 a<lmcasuring Ac.O-28 Gts ir.r total Ac.2-Ol Gts situated at K urr:hapa1 I-r, Vi) lage. Raghu nathapall-r, Manclal, Jana gama District having acquired tirough registered r.vill vide No.l,'/ 1980 dared 0 l I 2, 1980 as being arbitrarv illegal and violative of Article 14, 21 .ind 300-A ol the Constitution of lndia.,,

¶34

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Challa, learnec. counsel lor the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶35

According to petitioner late Kondam Rar: gamma was the owner and in possession of Ac.6.2g guntas in S5,.No.4g7, Ac.1.13 guntas in Sy.No.419 and Ac.0.2g guntas in Sy.No.420 of Kurchapally Village, Raghunathapally Mandal, Jangaon District. She executed a registered Will deed bearing do,:ument No. 17 ol 1980 on 0i.12.1980. Four years later, she died. ,Ihe said Will was kept in the custody of his father who died on 29.05.2014. Petitioner liled application to murate his name in the revenue records bascd on thc registered will. In sofar as l:rncl in Sy.No.4g7 is conccrncd, pctitioner is prosecuting thc cla.m vis_A-vis, his brothers scparatch,. For the prcsent the issuc for consideration is confine-ci to lanci in S.No.419 to an extent of Ac.1.13 guntas and Sy. No.420 to an exrent of Ac.0.2g guntas. petirioner submitted representation in physical form on o4.og .2012 to the Tahsildar requesting to mutate his name in the revenue records, based on the registered wilr deed executed by his grandmother. petitioner a-lso made representation to the District Collector on 29.04.2021 requesting the same. Alleging inaction, this writ petition is filed.

¶36

-)-

¶37

As fairly^{submitted by learnedcounsel for the petitioner:rtrrl} as seen from^{the pahanieslrom the ycerr 1992-93agairrst} Sy.Nos.419^{and 42o narte ol Sri K Raji Rcdclvq'as recordedin lire} revenue^{records and said name continued subsequentlyalso Sri} K. Raji^{Reddydied survived by his children'}

¶38

Two aspects^{are noticed for this Court to reject the prayer} sought^{by the petitioner' Firstly' name of the executantdoes not} stand in^{the revenue recordsand on the very same extentof land'} late K.Raji^{Reddy name was recorded' atleast from the year L994-} 95. How^{the nameof Sri K'Raji Reddywas recordedand why the} registered^{Will was not enforcedto get the name of petitioner} recorded^{in the revenue records' even though executant died in the} year 1984^{is not statedThe Tahsilclarcannotgo into the validit-v} of mutation^{granted in favour oi Sri KRaji Reddy long ago'} Secondly,^{petitioner has not taken recourseto the provisions of} Telangana^{Rightsin Land and Pattadar PassbooksAct'1971'u'hen} it was in^{force and under the TelanganaRights in Landancl} Pattadar^{Passbooks Acl' 2O2O} '^{but made applicationin ph-v-sical} form. No^{physical applicationcan be made seekingmutationo[} name in^{the revenue records'}

¶39

Thus, the^{relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted'} The Writ^{Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to} assert his^{right to claim the property in issue based on alieged} registered^{Will executedby his grandmother in the year 1980'} Pending^{miscellaneous Petltlons,if any,sha11} --.---=D/.I^standclosed .NAGALAKS^HMI

¶40

ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶41

'o'",^{. ,n" PrincipalSecretary' RevenueDepartmentState of Telangana' BRK} Bhavan. Secretariat.^HYderabao

¶42

1. The Dlstnct^{collector'JangaonljlstrlclJangaurr'}

¶43

The Revenue^{Oi'is'onliOiiaer'Janagama Drvision JanagamaDrstrict'} ; iil; T;;;ild;hugn';ath'p;lv^{N/and'ar' JanasamaDistrict}

¶44

5 One CC to^{Sri p'au#'iiiufrur'ChallaAdvocateIoPUCI}

¶45

Two CCs^{to GP r"r riE""t'"'lHi;hC;;'1for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶46

7 Two CD CoPies B One SPare^CoPY

s l

^}''

HIGH COURT

OATED:02/08/2021

ORDER

WP.No.15381^{ot 2021}

¶53

rrF- sTa
( ,t<br>7.
ti 24 AUGzozl CJ
)i-.
*{=}
r,.r C Sp_O

¶54

DISMISSING THE^WP WITHOUT COSTS

Kondam Dashmanth Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondam Dashmanth Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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

Mr. Rohit Reddy Samala Vs State of Telangana, And 3 Others

Chiluka Bhaskar Vs The State of Telangana And 7 Others

Jangili Sattaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Hamed Bin Salam Vs The State of Telangana

Vandana Narender Vs The State of Telangana

Thangani Laxman Vs The State of Telangana