Allowed

Rayala Kondala Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Apr 2023WP/22365/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana set aside the joint orders of the Appellate Authority and Maintenance Tribunal which cancelled the petitioner's revenue entries and restored possession to his father. The Court held the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction pending a final decree in a civil suit regarding the same land.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and Maintenance Tribunal; petitioner's rights confirmed; unofficial respondents given liberty to workout legal remedies.

Rayala Kondala Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEJ SREENIVAS RAO}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 22365 OF²⁰¹⁸

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ravala Kondala Rao,^{W/o. Raghavaiah,Age 50 years, Occ. Agriculture,Ryo.} Ve[lanki Village of Veerulapadu^{Mandal, Krishna District}

¶10

...,ET'T'ONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'I . The State of Telangana, rep by its Prl. Secretary, Women Development,Child Welfare and Disabled^{Welfare-(DW)Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad-}

¶13

1. The Appellant Authority^{for Appellanl Tribunal'For maintenance and welfare} of par6nts and Senior Citizens^{Act, 2007and DistrictCollector and District} Maoistrate. Khammam District.

¶14

ThdRevenue Divisional^{Officer andPresiding Officer, Khammam,} Maintenance Tribunal Constituted^{under Section 7 of Maintenance of welfare} of oarents and senior citizens^{Act, 2007,}

¶15

Thb Tahsildar, Madhira,^{Khammam District.}

¶16

Rayala Raghdviah,^{S/o. Venkaiah, Age 75 years,-Occ.Household,FUo.}

¶17

Ralapatnam village of Madhira^{Mandal, Krishna District.}

¶18

O. Raiaia Purna, S/5.^{Rahavaiah,Age 59 years'Occ.Agriculture,Rl/o. Vellanki} villSge of Veerulpadu Mandal,^{KcisninaDistrict.}

¶19

Rayih Rama Rho, S/o.^{Raghaviah, Ag"} 1'!^{years, Occ' Agriculture,Fi/o.}

¶20

Rayapatnam village of Madhira^{Mandal, Krisnna District.}

¶21

Rayaia Anjanee^{Pirasad,S/o. Raghavaiah,Age 1q yegls, Occ. Agriculture,} Raiaoatnim villaqe of Madhira^{Mandal, Krishna District'}

¶22

Ravaia Naqa Malleswara^{Rao' S/o. Raghavaiah,Age 59 years, Occ.} Agficufiurel F/o. Rayapatnam^{villageof Madhira Mandal,Krishna Diskict.}

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Article^{226 of the Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more^{particularlyone in the natureof} iVandamus, declaring the^{impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondentin} Appeal No.D2t1431t2018,^{dt.12lOOl2O18by modifying the impugnedorders} piised by the 3rd respondent in Case^No.05/201 7^{(811151012017), dr'} ogto2t2o18 is contrary to^{the provisionsof the maintenance and welfareof} parents and Senior citizens Act, 2007 is^{illegal and voidand opposedto Articles} '14, 19,21 and 300 A of constitution of lndia in connection with the iands of the p.iit,on". to an extent of Ac.3-'l^{1 guntas out of Sy.Nos. 102, 1O3 and 104/Vu,} Ac.1-16 guntas out of sy.No.503/E12^{and land in Sy.No. 36,83/Eto an extentof} Ac.2-23 guntas of Rayapatnam^{Revenue Village, MadhiraMandal,Khammam}

¶25

I lr li

¶26

¶27

District covered und er Decree and Jud gment in O.S.No.1 14t2007 dt.27_02_2018 on the file of the JEnior Civil Judge, s athupally and orde O.S. No.8/2012 dt. 02-02- 2017 rs in t.A. No.29l201 7in 23104t2O17 and consequenfly set asi extended tiil 03_0 7_2018 by an order dt and 3rd res de the impugned or the law Pondents and direct to pass appropriate o rders ders passed in accordby the 2nd ance with IA NO:1 oF2018

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC prayins that in the circumsta nces stated in the affid avit filed in su pport of the petition, the High Court may be plea sed to suspend the op1 eration of the ord ers passed b v No.D2t1431/20 8, dt.12to6t2o1B by modifyin sthe the tmpugned 2nd respoo rders ndent passein Appealdbv disposal the 3rd resof pondent the above in ma Casein writ No.05petition12017 @1/1 510 12017), dt osto2/20j8, pending IANO:2 oF 20 18

¶29

Between:

¶30

Rayala Raghavi

¶31

iffi

¶32

AND

¶33

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS

¶34

No.5,6,7&9

¶35

' 03,',il?,1,:,?,';i1lflBa#i,l;5?,rl,xxt:i,+gi","rJsfli:, occ Agricu,ture, R/o

¶36

... RESPONDENT/VVRIT PETITIO NER

¶37

; f ii#r, ff flffigffi i,tr",fi..i,fj"*fi,Hffi ll#.

¶38

.ft1[$[1fl[,--?Efilsrlf*Tsrs"?e"si,ff

¶39

.ft1[$[1fl[,--?Efilsrlf*Tsrs"?e"si,ff

¶40

iH]1#;.rwerare

¶41

B iLi"Tx',l'#!H n,i,,piinJil'i,iJdJ:?fl i:Sr}trjfftlflrfff",B,l;ili occ Asricu,ture,

¶42

....RESPONDENTS

¶43

#i:.fu #l,:,lTi,,""#{1,,",,i, j,xilft IIi**il;#Jr+_

¶44

I ,/

¶45

!--

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4: AGp FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE

¶47

Counsel for the Respondents No.5to9: SRl. c.L. NARASIMHA RAO

¶48

Counsel for the Respondents No.3 :Gp FOR REVENUE

¶49

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶50

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶51

W.P.No.22365 of 20l8

¶52

ORDER:

¶53

Thc pctitio ner llled this writ petition que stioning the orders passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.D2l 1431 12018, dated 72.06.2018, by modifying the impugned orders passed hy the respondcnt No.3 in casc^No.5 of 2Ol7 (81 /1510/2017), clated 09.02.2018, is contrary to the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare ol- I'arents and Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 is illegal ancl void and opposed to Articles 14, 19,21 and 3OO A of Constitution of India. in connection with tlle land of the petitioner to an extent of Acs.3 I I guntas out of Suruey Nos. I02, 103 and 104/Vu, Acs.1-16 guntas out of Survey No.503/E/2 and land in Survey Nos.36, 83/E to an extent of Acs.2-23 guntas of Rayapatnam Revenue Village, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District, covered under Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.1 14 of 2OO7, dated 27.O2.2O1,a, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally and -orders in I.A.No.29 of 2Ol7 in O.S.No.S of 2Ol7 , dated 02.O2;2O17, extended till 03.07.2018 and consequently, set aside the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶54

¶55

) JSR. J W.P No 22365 of 2014

¶56

Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa^{Rao, learned} counsel for the^{petitioner,learnedAssistant Government Pleader} for Women Development^{Child Welfare appcaringfor respondent} Nos.l to 4, Sri G.L.Narasimha^{Rao, learned counsel appearing for} the unofficial respondents^{and pemsed the record.}

¶57

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner submits that the} petitioner is owner and^{possessorof the subject iandand acquired} the same in the famiiy partition^{and the petitioner name is} mutated in the revenue records and^{he obtainedthe pattadar pass} books and title deeds. He^{furthersubmitsthat respondent No.6} executed sale deed on 12.07.2017 in^favour of^{Diwela Tripura} Venkata Surendra Nadh, in respect of^{the land to an extent of} Acs.2.23 guntas in Survey No.36, 83/E^{thoughhe is not havin!} aly right over the said property. At^{that stage,the petitioner and} his father/ respondent No.5 hled a suit.in^{O.S.No.1114of 2OO7oo} the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally,^{seekingcancellation of} the sa-le deed and for gralt of^{perpetualinjunctionand the same} was decreed"on 27.O2.2O1a.^{When the respondent Nos.5 to 9 are} trying to interfere with the^{peaceful possessionand enjoymentof} the land, the petitioner filed^{anothersuit in O.S.No.8of 2Ol7 on} the file of Principal Junior Civil^{Judge, Madhiraand the said}

¶58

¶59

I ri

¶60

JSR,J W P No 22365 o12014

¶61

Court grantecl tcntporary in.jrLnction in I.A.No.29 <tf 2017 on 02.O2.2O17 and the sarrre ]S continuing and the said suit is pending.

¶62

He further submrts that while things stood thus, respondent No 5 made an application beflore the respondent No.3 invoking the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act,2OO7 (hereinafter called as^.the Act, for brevity) and the respondent No.3,. without considering the contcntions of the petitioner zLnd also injunction order passed by the Competent Civil Court, passed the impugned order in Case No.5 of 2Ol7 (B/1510/2017), cancelling the revenue entries and also passbooks in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.3.OO, in Suney Nos.102, 1O3, 104/Vu and 1.16 guntas in Survey No.sos/E/2.

¶63

Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal No.D2 11431/2018 before the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 also dismissed the appeal on 72.06.2O7g, without considering the grounds of appeal ald directecl the respondent No.4/Tahsildar to take necessary actions as per the powers vested in him to record the name of respondent No.S in the

¶64

¶65

4 JSR,J W P No 22365 of 2011

¶66

revenue rccords and also^{handed overthe subject propcrty to thc} respondent No.5

¶67

Learned counsel vehemently^{contendedthatthe} respondent Nos.2 and 3 were^{not having authorityor jurisdiction} to pass the impugned orders directing^{the Tahsildar to cancel the} revenue entries and hand over the^{physicalpossessionin favourof} the respondent No.5, especially, when the Competent^{Cirril Court} granted decree recognizing the rights of the petitioner and also the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.8 of 2Ol7 against the unofficial respondents, is pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madhira.

¶68

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unoffrcial respondents submits that respondent No.3 after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, passed the impugned order on O9.O2.2O18 and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders.

¶69

I have considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the

¶70

I I

¶71

--:-1

¶72

.]SR J W.P No 22365 of 2014

¶73

petltioner is clain'ring thc rights ovcr the subject property basing upon Fantrll, Partition betwccn the petitioner anci unofficial rcspondents and his nanlc \,as mutated in the revenue records and revenuc authoritics h:r'e issued pattaclar passbooks and title deecls. The records further reveals that the petitioner ancl his father filed suit in O.S.No.I 14 of 2OO7 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sathupaily, seeking canccllation of the registered sale deed executed bv the respondent No.6 in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.2.23 guntas rn sLrn ey No.36-g3/E and the said suit was decreed on't7.O2.2018 and the same has become final.

¶74

[t also furthcr revcals that the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.S of 2077 for grant o[ perpctual injunction in respect of the subject property against unofficial respondents on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Madhira and the said Court granted temporary injunction in I.A.No.29 of 2Ot7 on O2.O2.2OIZ and the said order is continuing. Respondent No.3 basing on the application filed by the respondent -No.S, who is none other than the petitioner,s father, invoking tl-re provisions of the Act initiated proceedings uide case No.5 of 2Ot7 (I3t / lStO l2Ot7), dated Og.O2.2OtB, passed the impugned order directing the I'ahsildar to cancer the revenue

¶75

6 JSR.J W .P No -22365 ol^{201 4}

¶76

entrics made in favour of^{the petitioner and the said order was} confirmed by the respondent^{No.2 in Appeal No.D2/l43l} /201'8^on 12.06.2018 and directed the^{respondent No.4 to restore the} possession of the property to respondent^{No.5. The respondent} Nos.2 and 3 exceeded the^{jurisdiction and passedthe impugned} orders. As per the provisions of Section^{23 of the Act, in the event} the Senior Citizeo executed any document^{by mentioningcertain} conditions, then he is entitle to seek cancellation of^such documents.

¶77

In the instant case, the respondent No.5 has not executed any document in favour of the petitioner and^petitioner has not violated any terms and conditions of such document. In such circumstances, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not havin[ jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the respondent No.5 and to pass impugned order for cancellation of the revenue entries and cancellation of the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the petitioner and restore the land to respondent No.5.

¶78

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.D2/ l43l /2018, dated 12.06.2018 and the order of respondent No.3 in case No.S of

¶79

JSR,J W.P. No 22365 of 2014

¶80

2017 (Bl llSlO/2017). rlritecl O().02.2018 are liable to be declared as u,ithout lurisdrction. Accor-rlingly, both the orders are set aside and the s,ril petitron is allowcd. Howcver, the unofficial respondents are given libclt.v to workout their remedies as available under- lau'. No costs.

¶81

Miscellaneous petitrons, if any pending, shall stard closed

SD/.V.KAVITHA

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

Two CCs to GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE ,High Court for the State of Telangana,at Hyderabad [OU!

¶88

One CC to SRl. MUMIVANENI SRINIVASA RAO Advocate IOPUCI

¶89

One CC to SRl.G.L. NARASIIVHA RAO , Advocate [OPUC]

¶90

Two CD Copies

/B IV

/BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10412023

ORDER

:; iAft. c
r1
1
(-_, 0 B JUN 2[23 ,l

¶97

WP.No.22365 of 2018

¶98

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶99

z'ltl.>s
9-

Rayala Kondala Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayala Kondala Rao 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jadav Premdas Vs The District Collector

Maskala Laxman Vs State of Telangana

Avula Somaiah Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. Serene Heights Vs Union of India

Chilagani Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Koppula Ramachander Rao Vs State of Telangana