Dismissed

Pandala Lingamaiah v. The Joint Collector-I

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023WP/12952/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a revenue order that regularized a disputed settlement deed. It held that the Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction under Section 5(A) of the Telangana Rights in Land Act as no registered transfer existed and the order was illegal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs; respondent No.4 is open to agitate claims before the competent civil court.

Pandala Lingamaiah Vs The Joint Collector-I — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12952 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pandala Lingamaiah, S/o. Rajaiah R/o Naganpally Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. The Joint Collector-|, Rangareddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Rangareddy District, at Gohsamahal, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Mandal Revenue Officer, (Tahsildar), lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District.

¶14

Palem Laxmamma, Wo. Venkataiah Naganpally Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia 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 Certiorari by calling for the records of the 1'r respondent in proceedings No. D5/6193/2007 dated 20.12.2OO8, and quash and set aside the same, being erroneous, unsustainable and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Right in land and pattadar pass books Act, 1971

¶17

l.A. NO: I OF 200I {WPMP. NO: 167s9 OF 2009)

¶18

Petition under Section^'t 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings of the 3rd respondent / primary authority in proceedings No. D/907/2003 dated 1O.11.2OO5, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 3201 OF 2016)

¶20

Between:

¶21

Smt Palem Laxmamma, Wo- Venkataiah Naganpally ViHage, lbrahimpatnarn Mandal, Rangareddy Dstrict.

¶22

.,.PETITIONERY 4TH RESPONDENT AND

¶23

1 . Pandala Lingamaiah, S/o. Rajaiah Rt/o. Naganpally Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District.

¶24

....RespondenU Writ Petitioner

¶25

The Joint Collector-1, Rangareddy District,^{Lakdikapool,Hyderabad.}

¶26

The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division,^{RangareddyDistricl.,at} Gohsamahal, Hyderabad.

¶27

The Mandal Revenue Officer,^(Tahsildar), lbrahimpatnam Mandal,

¶28

Ranqareddv District

¶29

...RES'.NDENTS/ RES,.NDENTS

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstancos statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmay be pleasedto} vacate the order dated: 01-07-2009 in WP No. 12952 ol 2009^{in the interestof} justice

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent NO.4 : M/s INDUS LAW FIRM

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. L2952 of 2OO9

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This writ petition is filed questioning the proceeding vide No.DS/6193/07, dated 20.12.2OO8 issued by respondent No.1 in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in land and pattadar Pass Books Act, l97l.

¶39

The brief facts that are relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are hereinunder:_

¶40

The respondent No.4 herein had approached respondent No.3 for amendment of revenue records in respect of the land situated at Sy.Nos.19, 20, 24, 25, 26, and, 2Z admeasuring Acs.17.2l gts, situated at Naganpally village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, contending that the lands stated above are their ancestral lards and by placing reriance on the settlement deed, dated 17.12.1989. The said settlement deed was shown to have been entered into by all the family members including the petitioner and respondent No.4 herein. The petitioner herein on receipt of a notice from respondent No.3, he denied the execution of such settlement deed before

respondent No.3 and disputed the genuineness of t-he said document. However, in spite of such objections ra.ised by thc petitioner, respondent No.3 proceeded to pass an order in proceeding vide No. D /9O7 /O3, dated 10.1 1.2001i under Section .5 (A) of the Act, 1975 purporting to regularize, validate the said settlement deed and ordered for mutation in terms of the said settlement deed.

¶45

Aggrieved by the said order, dated 10.11.2005 the petitioner herein filed an appeal before responderrt No.2 and respondent No.2 by an order, dated 20.08.2007 in case vide No.A2 / 4099 / 05 confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 20 .OA.2OO7 the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 9 of the Act, 197 I before respondent No. I and respondent No.I by an order, dated 2O.12.2OOa in ca:;e vide No.DS I 6l I 2007 rejected the said revision petition while relegating the petitioner to approach competent civil (tourt.

¶46

Heard Sri Siddhrarth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K Vrjay Bhasakar, learned counr;el for respondent No.4. Firstly, whether the settlement deed or partition deed can be regularized under Section 5(A) cf the

¶47

¶48

Act, 197 I^{is doubtful.Under Section5(A) of the Act' 1971it} is only^{where a personwho is in occupationby virtueof} alienation^{or transfermadeaffectedotherwise thanby} registered^{documentmay apply to the MandalRevenue} officer for^{a certificateof declarationon suchalienation to} be treated^{as valid. In the instant case there is no such} transferoralienation.Intheabsenceofanysuchtransfer or alienation^{the questionof respondentNo 3 exercising} power under^{Section 5 (A) of the Act' 1971 does not arise'} But for^{the reasonsbest known,the respondentNo'3} exercisedsuchpowerwhichisnototherwisevestedinhim. 5. Then^{the next question whichcomes for consideration} is whether^{respondentNo 3 is entitled to act upon the} settlement^{deed which is disputed by one of the parties' As} is evident^{from the orders passed by respondentNo'3 as} confirmed^{by respondentNos. Iand 2 and it is seen that} thepetitionerhasdeniedtheexecutionoftheSettlement deed in^{question, but respondentNo'3 insteadof refusing} to exercise^{power under Section 5 (A) or 5(3) erroneously} accepted^{the settlementdeed on the ground that no other} signatories^{have raised any objection' Oncean objection is} or validity of such raised^{about thegenulneness}

Y-E

.j4

documents, respondent No.3 is not entitled to act upon such document and ought to have relegated the parties to the competerrt civil Court for establishing their rights but respondcnt No.3 in an erroneous manner exercise<l his jurisdiction rvhich is not vested in him and passecl the order, dated I0. I 1.2005 and the same was confirmed by respondent Nos.l and 2 without application of mind. In fact respondent No.l while passing the impugned order has rightly identified the disputes and expressed the view that the parties have to approach the competent civil Court but respondent No.l tailed to show that such course would have been adopted by respondent No.3 while exercising his power at the initial stage.

¶54

For the above reasons stated, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.3 had exercised his jurisdiction r.,,'hich is not conferred upon him and failed to relegate the parties to civil Court and has erroneously issued proceeding No.D5/6193/07, dated 20.12.2OOg which is erroneously confirmed by respondent No. 1 through the intpugned order.

¶55

¶56

7 . In the light of the above the impugned order is wholly unsustainable under law and accordingly the writ^petition is dismissed. However, it is open for respondent No.4^to agitate his claim basing upon the settlement deed^or otherwise before respondent No.3 and pursue the sameⁱⁿ accordance with law. There shall be no^{orderas to costs.}

¶57

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any^pending,

¶58

shall stand closed

¶59

SD/.MOHD.^TSMAIL ASSIS1ANT^REGISTRAR /TTRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶60

¶61

ip;:ES"6;,;,;y,"jr;E11HF;','Itt'"u:r"tfl{[€'i''"''"ganaroUr]

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/09/2023

ORDER

1 e SlATE o
l: ('
I t oil 2[tt t,': I
n
+
I OESr l- A1 c<br>

¶66

WP.No.12952 of 2009

¶67

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS.

¶68

#
' $'tf

Pandala Lingamaiah v. The Joint Collector-I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandala Lingamaiah v. The Joint Collector-I

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

Munnur Vittal Vs Soor Reddy

Gopu Sagar Pavan Kumar Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Lavudya Dev Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Jakeer Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Nenavath Kishti Vs The State of Telangana

Mehmood bin Mohammed Vs State of Telangana