Dismissed

Ramanaboylna Venkateswarlu v. The State of Telangana and 8 others

Telangana HC6 Jul 2021WP/8047/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging inaction regarding an E-Passbook issued in favor of another party. The court held that claims of forgery and title must be established via civil remedy, not a writ. Petition dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs; no directives were issued to the revenue authorities.

Ramanaboylna Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana and… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 8047 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ramanaboylna Venkateswarlu, s/o Guravaiah, aged about 50 years, r/o Dammaigudem Village, Tirumalayapalem ltilandal, Kh-ammam District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep. by lt Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Khammam District Khammam.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District.

¶16

Smt. Krishnaveni, Tahsildar, Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District,

¶17

presently working At Yeilandu lvlandal, Khammam District.

¶18

[\i'lr. Ashok, Village Revenue Officer, o/o the Tahsildar, Tirumalayapalem lr/landal, Khammam District.

¶19

Mr. Ramakrishna, Village Revenue Assistant o/o the Tahsildar, Tirumalayapalem IVandal, Khammam District.

¶20

Mr. Sudarshan, Village Revenue Assistant o/o the Tahsildar, Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District.

¶21

Battem Gangamma, w/o Sangalah, aged major, r/o Dammaigudem village, Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the 3rd respondent in taking action against the Respondent Nos. 5 to B for issuing epass book issued in favour of the 5 respondent in respect of the petitioners land in Sy.No. 250lAAl2 situated at Tettalapadu village, Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District, vide Khatha No. 984, Patta No. 72618023055"1 , inspite of the letter of the 2nd respondent dl. 27-10-2020 bearing Rc.No. E4l12425-5012020, followed by the personal visits, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and u ncon stitutio na I and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to conduct thorough enquiry into the matter and to intimate the action taken report to the petitioner in compliance of the letter dt. 27.10.2020 oI the 2nd respondent.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶25

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to give effect to the epass books issued in favour of the 9th respondent bearing Khatha No. 984, Patta No. 726180230551 in respect of "the^{petitioner'sland inSy. No. 250lAAl2 situatedatTettalapaduvillage,} Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KARUNAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 9:----The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.8O47 of 2O21

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliel

¶32

"...to declare the inaction of the 3.d respondent in taking action against the Respondents 5 to 8 for issuing epass book issued in favour of the 5'n respondent in respect of the petitioner's land in Sy,No.250/AA/2 situated at Tettalapadu Village, Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District, vide Khatha No.984, Patta No.T26180230551, inspite of the letter of the 2"d respondent dt.27.70.2O2O bearing Rc.No.E4 I 12425-50/2020, followed by the personal visits, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3.d respondent herein to conduct thorough enquiry into the matter and to intimate the action taken report to the petitioner in compliance of the letter dt.27.10,2O2O of the 2"d respondent, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case,'

¶33

Heard Sri Karunakar Reddy, learned counsei for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶34

According to petitioner, his family acquired land to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.2SO lAl2 ol Tettalapadu Village, Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District from their ancestors. Petitioner alleges that the Battem Gangamma-9e respondent in collusion with respondents 5 to 8 created fake and fabricated documents and obtained e-pattadar passbook. Alleging that illegal transactions were made, several complaints were jiled to various revenue authorities. The District collector directed the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry, but the Tahsildar has not taken up enquiry causing hardship and suffering to the petitioner.

¶35

Petitioner hled copy of pahani issued on 04.06.2OL6 disclosing the name of Ramanaboina Malsoor S/o.Narsaiah who is the grandfather of petitioner. It is not known why the name of grandfather was not changed and name of father and thereafter petitioner, was not mutated.

¶36

submitted^{bY the}

¶37

1. From^{areading of the representa[lon} it.is seen that^{petitioner alleges that}

¶38

petitioner^{on 15.07'2O20,} the signature^{of petitioner and his}

¶39

Battem^{Gangamma forged} family members^{and obtained pattadarpassbookillegallyln other} forging^{the signatureof}

¶40

words, Petitioner^is alleging^thatbY the revenue^{records got}

¶41

petitioner and^his family^members, mutated^{in her nameIn other words, it is not a case of some} wrong entries^{made instead of reflecting the name of petitioner' but} reflected^{the name of some third party' who is unconcernedwith} prove the^{allegation,petitioner is required to}

¶42

the^property.To establish^forgery of signature^{by Battem Gangamma' which} of evidence'^{Therefore,unless and until itis}

¶43

requires^leading proved that^{the documents relied upon by BattemGangamma were} forged,^{by the competentCourt'Tahsiidarcannot reverse the} Tahsildar^{is whollY}

¶44

entrles already^{madein the revenue records'} incompetent^{to decideon the aspectwhetherthere was forgery of} signature^{and other documents to support the claim of petitioner'} Thus,^{petitionerhas to avail civil law remedyto assert his right} and title^{and to prove that by forgingthe signaturesof the family} members,^{Battem Gangamma illegally claimed to have acquired} right and^{title to the propertyand got revenuerecords mutated in} her favour.

¶45

Writ Petition^is accordinglY,^{dismissedPending}

¶46

if anY,^{shall standc1osed} miscellaneous Petitt^ons, SD/.K.ONESI^M

¶47

ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ( V,, //TRUE^COPY//

¶48

SECTION^OFFICER

¶49

To 1 2 ?,l:33Jif^{35?.l[T,1"T:lflLf*1T!:l?'?":]teofrerangana} at Hyderabad^{IOU ll} 3 Two CD^CoPies 4 One SPare^CoPY sl11^-< A'

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/07/202'l

ORDER

WP.No.8047 ot 2021

1 $E SrA r€
'^e
<t
c
o
t_) 2 I ;u 20tl
F
r\l{r - i, ./
\t*;Z

¶55

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

Ramanaboylna Venkateswarlu v. The State of Telangana and 8 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanaboylna Venkateswarlu v. The State of Telangana and 8 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pinjarla Muthyalu Yadav Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Paka Swarooa Rani and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Thipparthi Rajanna , Avusali Rajanna Vs The State of Telangana

Moola Vishnu Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Boge Laxmi Vs State of Telangana and 4 others

Thandra Sudhakar Reddy Vs the State of Telangana