Dismissed

Sri. S. Surendhar Goud and 9 others v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC9 Jun 2023WP/14/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking rectification of revenue records. It held the Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction under the 1971 Act, no mechanism existed for rectification under the 2020 Act, and pending civil litigation precludes this remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no relief granted for rectification of revenue records or deletion of third party names.

Sri. S. Surendhar Goud and 9 others Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 14 OF 2021 AND |.A.NO.2 0F 2021

¶8

wP NO.14 0F 2021:

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri. S. Surendhar Goud, S/o. S. Ramalingam, aged about 70 years, Occ. Legal practitioner, R/o. Plot No.4, Sree Nilayam, Avanth Housing Society, Secunderabad.

¶11

Smt. S. VUaya laxmi, W/o. Late. S. Venkateshwar Goud, aged about 60 years, Occ. House hold, R/o. Block, No.17, Plot No.4, SHIG-ll, Housing Board Colony, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad.

¶12

Sri. S. Jeevan Ram Goud, S/o. Late. S. Venkateshwar Goud, aged about 33 years, Occ. House hold, R/o. Block, No.17, Plot No.4, SHIG-ll, Housing Board Colony, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad.

¶13

Ms. S. Navya Sree, D/o. Late. S. Venkateshwar Goud, aged about 35 years, Occ. House hold, Fi/o. Block, No.17, Plot No.4, SHIG-ll, Housing Board Colony, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad.

¶14

Sri. S. Ramesh Goud, S/o. Ramalingam, aged about 63 years, occ.Business, R/o. H.No.B-28, F/3, Vignanpuri Colony, Housing Board Colony, Nallakunta, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.

¶15

Smt. S. Rajamani, Wo. Late S,Shankariah, aged about 85 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o- H.No.5-4-2, Old Palamoor, Mahabubnagar

¶16

Sri. S.Rajeshwar Goud, Wo. Late S.Shankariah Goud, aged about 68 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. H.No.5-4-2, Old Pala4oor, Mahabubnagar.

¶17

Sri. S. Ravinder Goud, S/o. Late S. Shankaiah Goud, aged about 66 years, Occ. Buisness, R/o. H.No.7-5-106, Flat No.306, Vandana Apartments, Block No.C, Venkateshwara Colony, Mahabubnagar.

¶18

Sri. S. Rajender Goud, S/o. Late S. Shankaiah Goud, aged about 64 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.2-2-6471274, near Ayyappa Temple, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶19

'l0.Sri. S. Ramesh Goud, S/o. Late S.Shankaraiah, aged about 60 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No.5-2l1,OldPalamoor, Mahabubnagar. ...pE,TtoNERs

¶20

ANO

¶21

The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary for Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶22

The Dist Collector, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶23

The Tahsildar, Jedcherla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶24

S. Kistaiah Goud @ Satturi Kistappa S/o. Late Narayana Goud, R/o.Flat No.404, Chanikya Residency,^'l-9-5/AB & 64, Ram Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶25

(R4 is impleaded as per court order dated 0e.06.202r,"t.1$&3fr1#^ril

¶26

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 a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direclion declaring the inaction of the respondents in not considering the^petition filed before the third respondent namely the Tahsildar, on 1311112019 and another application filed before the 2nd respondent namely The Joint Collector Mahaboobnagar District on 7l8l2O2O for rectification of the Revenue records by deleting the names of third parties and incorporate the names of the petitioners in respect of the lands in Survey .Nos.612, Ac.07-07gts, 613, Ac 10-17gts, 614, Ac.11-'1 1gts, 690, Ac.1321gts, situated at Gangapur, Revenue Mandal Jedcherla, Dist Mahaboobnagar^as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to entertain the application filed by the^petitioners on 13111/2019 and^7l8l2O2O respectively

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to dispose of the applications date. 13-11-2019 and^07- 08-2O2O seeking for rectification of the Revenue records by deleting the names of third parties and incorporate the names of the^petitioners in^respect of the^land bearing survey No. 612, Ac.7-07^gts, 613 Ac. 10-17^gts 614, Ac.^{11-11gts, 690,} Ac. 13-21 gts situated at Gangapur, Revenue Mandal Jedcherla, District Mahaboobnagar pending disposal of main writ^petition in the interest of^justice Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI T. P. ACHARYA

¶29

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

¶30

Counsel for Respondent No. 4: SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY CHEEDELLA

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

F.i..;;

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶36

ORDER

¶37

WRIT PETITION No. 14 of 2O2L 9... \ . J.A'No. Z- * r.r-l

¶38

This Writ. Petiriorr is lllcd seeking a Writ of Mandamus to dcclarc thc action of the rr:spondents in not considering the pe tiiion, dated 13. I L20 l9 submittcd b_y rhc petitioners before rhe ?r<i rc'spondcnt and anor.hcr application dated OZ.O8.2O2O I submitted before: the'2.,r rcsponclcnt sceking rectification of entries in tl-re rcvenue rccords b_v dclcting thc names of third parties and for irrcorporatlon of thcir namcs in respect of the subject lands sltuated at Gangapur Villagc. .Jcdchcrla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar i)rstrict. as illegal and arbitrarr'.

¶39

O')-. It:s thc casc of thc pclitioncrs thzrt the sul-rject lands originaliy bclongs i() Sat()or llamanna and Satoor Sayabanna and '.heir narnes u'crc shortn -is pattadars and possessors in rhc l<hasra pahani. The petitioners herein claim to be the successorsrn intcrest of the said Satoor [lamanna arld as such claim right a-n d titlc over lhe sr-rb.jcct lands. lt is the furthcr case of thc petitioners that after the demisc of the said Satoor Sayabanna, the si.rb.jec[ lands u,ere ntui.rtl.d in Lhe namc ol his wife namely Satoor (lhcnrrzrmma in rhc -r,car 11166 b7 ar-rd by the year i9Z3-74, Lhc n i;rnc ol thc said Chcnnamma rvas continued as patiadar anC

\ lfi
<br>

MSK, wp-14-242 i

possessor excepI in respc('r oi Iancl :idmeasurrng Ac.1-09gts situated in Survel, No.637. The said extent ol Ac.1-O9gts IS concerned, the same \'as recorded in the name ol Satoor Ranganna and Satoor Narsimulu. According to the pctitioners, the said two nalnes we rc el1t,crc-d in thc rt:i,cttue rccords by u'ay ol tampering of the records

¶44

It is the further case of the petitioners that the name of the said Chennarrma ra,as dr:lcte d from the^possessor column and the name of one Sattur Ramesh u'as incorpot-atecl in the^possessor column in resper:t of the larrd admeasuring Ac. 10-^{I Tgts situated} in Survey No.613 and thereal'tt:r the name of the said^Rameshn,as also entered in the pattada:' column in respecL o[ the said^1and. Thus, by the year 1995-96 the name of the said Chennamma stood deleted and the namcs of some third parties have been entered in the rel'enue recorcls in respecf of the subject lands

¶45

The pr:titioners ht:rein claiming to be the successors ln interest of the sard Chenn:rmma claims to have submitted^a representation dated I 3. 1 1.2O I 9 before the 3'd respondent seeking rectilication of entries in the records of rights. Complaining non consideration of the said rel)r€r sen tation, the petitioners claim to have got issued a lega1 notice dated 07 .O8.202O to the 2"a respondent herein requesting the 2".r respondent 1o forward a copy

Effi--.*rr.r

MSK, J wp_14_2021

ol the re presentation seeking rcctification of entries in the revenue records to the 3,d respondenL

¶50

But, the petitioners having submitted the representation before the 3.a respondent and got issued a legal notice to the 2nd responderrt, having failed to get any response from the respondents 2 and 3, approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition seeking the relief as noted herein above.

¶51

It is contcnded bv Sri T.p.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners that in tcrms ol the provisions contained in the Telangana State Rights in Lzrnd and pattadar passbooks Act, 192 I (for short "the Act, 1971") and the provisions of the Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks AcL, 2O2O (for short^,,the Act, 2020,'), |ne respondents 2 and 3 are under obligation to consider the request made by the petitioners lor rectilication of entries in the revenue records but they iailcd to drschargc thcir statutory obligation and as such the petitioners are entitled for issuance of Ma;rdamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the request of the petitioners. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a Judgment of . a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sannepalli Nageswara Rao v. District Collector, Khammamr in support of his contealion. Thc,ugh, the petitioners sought ' 2oo2⁽⁴¹ ALD 492

lil

---E ;rfr

lt45K wp_14- 20.

rectification ol er'rtries in thc rc'i'enr.te rccords and deIetion of the narnes of some third partics, none of the saicl third^{parties is} impleaded as respondents to^t liis Writ Petition.

¶57

One S.Kistaiah Goud filed an application^seekingto come on record as responder-rt No.4^{throughI.A.No.2 ol 2021} claiming right, title and^{possession over the lands u'hich are the} subject matter of the^{presentWrit Petition.Through the said} app[cation, it is brought^{to the notice of this Court b-v- the learned} counsel for the^{proposedimpleadpetitioner that on an earlier} occasion the petitioners^{herr:ir-rfilcd an appeal ur-rdcrScction 5(5)} of the Act, 1971 before^{theRevenue Divisional Officerat} Mahaboobnagar against^{the very same entrie s ir-r the revenue} records which are now^{sougltt to be rectilied by them by filing the} representations, in^{question:rnd in the said appeal the proposed} respondent was shown^{as respondentNo.7. The saidcontention} is not disputed bv lcarned^{counsel for petitioner'}

¶58

in view of the^{same, the proposedrespondent is a} proper and necessary party to^{this Writ Petition Accordingly,} I\ t.n.uo.Z of 2021 is ordered^{and the proposed respondentls} \ impleaded as respondent No.4 in the main Writ^Petition.

¶59

¶60

MSK, J wp_14_2021

¶61

[t is a]so brought to the norice of this Court by Sri Cheedella Srinivasa Murthl , learned counsel for Lhe 4,h respondent that the suit in O.S.No. IOO ol 2022 is already pending on the file of the Court of the learned Principal District Judge at Mahaboobnagar seeking declaration of title inter-se parties arrd the claim of the petitioners, if arry, can be agitated before the said co urt

¶62

Fronr the pcrusal of the avcrments contained in the affidavit liled in support of the Writ Petition as well as from the contents of the representation dated 13.1 1.2019 submitted by the petitioners before the 3*r respondent, it is noticed that the entries in the revenue records were altered long back i.e., prior to the year 1995-96. Seeking correction of the entries that were made prior to the year 1995-96, the petitioners herein have submitted their representation in the year 2019 i.e. almOst alter a lapse of 25 years.

¶63

I 1. Under the pro'.,isions ol the Act, 197 I, the 3.d respondent is not conferred rvith any power to consider any request for rectification of entries or deletion of the names of any persons lrom the revcnue records. It is only the Revenue Divisional Officer t:onccrned anci the Districr Collcctor oI the concerned District are conft:rrcd rvith for such potver to conside:-

¶64

¶65

¶66

the request^{lirr rectilicatiotl ol cntries or correction ol rcvc nLlc} records^{u,hrle exercising tlrt:ir pou'er of appellatc alrd revlsional} jurisdiction under^{Section 5(5) and Section9 respectivclr ol thc} Act, 1971.^{llence, lhe re preset'r tatio n dertcdi 3 1 l20 1() said to} have been^{submittedbr thc petilioners cannot bc <:ot-tsitlcred}ll} the 3*r respondent^{lor want oljurisdiction'}

¶67

Then^{comingto thc rcpresentation dated O7 08 2020} said to^{havc been submitted before the 2rr'r reqpondentis} concerned,^{the same is not a representationbut it is infact thc} legal notice^{got issued b1' the petitioners rcqucstingthc 2.ri} respondent^{to foru,ard to the 3"1 respondentthe iretitiorrsaid to} have been^{enclosed along u,ith documents for taking n(:cessar]'} action in^{the matter'Therefore'the very request ol thc 2'd} respondent^{rvas to forward the petition to thc 3r 'r reapondent} seeking^{rectification of entriesin the revenuerecords'}

¶68

As alrcady^{noted herein above' the 3'd rcspondcnt} lacks^{jurisdictionto consider arly such requcst l'hc pctitionthat} is said to^{han'e been filed before the 2'd respondent dated} 07 .Oa.2O2O^{cannot be consideredeither as an appeal} orasa revision petitlon^{under Sectlon 9 of the Act, l97 l} f-Iad it bet:n^a petitlon or representatiorl^{satisfying the basic requirements of a} revlslon petition under Section 9 of^{the Act, i97 1, this Court}

MSK, J wp_14_202L

would have been in a position to direct the 2"a respondent to consider the said representation/ petition but that is not the case herein.

¶73

L4. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Judgment of the Hon,ble Division Bench in Sannepalli Nageswar Rao v. Dlstrict Collector, Khammam (cited supra) is concerned, the same has no application to the facts on hand as the same was dealt with under the provisions of Act l97l prior to its repeal.

¶74

Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioners for

¶75

consideration of tl.e representations dated l3.ll .2olg and 07.O8.2O2O cannot be granted by this Court.

¶76

. 16. The Act, 1971 was repealed by the Act 9 of 2O2O i.e. Act 2O2O and under the provisions of the Act, 2O2O, there is no internal mechanism that was provided for considering any request for rectilication of entries in the revenue records. The said Act provides for changes in the revenue records only under rimited circumstances as provided under Section 6 of the Act, 2O2O. The case of the petitioners herein does not fall under any of the three (03) circumstances or situations provided under section 6 of the' Act, 2020. Therefore, the only remedy that is available to the

,=-

rtzs( i ''wp_14-2021

petitioners to^{seek rectification of entriesin the revenue records or} correction^{of entriesin the revenue recordsby deleting the names} of third^{parties is only by approachinga CompetentJurisdictional} Civil Court^{or by approaching this Court seeking such relief if} they are^{so advised'}

¶83

17 . In the^{light of the above, the petitionersare not entitled} for grant of^{relief as sought for in the present Writ Petition and} accordingly^{this Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the} petitioners^{to pursuethe remediesas may be avajlableunder law'}

¶84

There shall^{be no order as costs'}

¶85

As a sequel,^{miscellaneous petitionspendingin this petition}

¶86

if any, shall^{stand closed'}

¶87

SdI. T.^SRTNIVAS DEPUTY^REGISTRAT( /ffRUE^COPY'/ ,9 sECTloN^drrtceR

¶88

To,

¶89

MBC^{ii;lEEd:,;5iri*1il#:ltn"1i!["]:rlr':*iJro$;65""n"""'ou''}