Allowed

Yaskhi Anasuya v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC11 Apr 2023WP/22682/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue proceedings granting land rights to a respondent claiming to be the deceased father's daughter. The Court found heirship issues were too complex for revenue authorities and rested with civil courts, setting aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings No.B/631/2019 dated 06.05.2019 granted by 4th Respondent set aside; parties directed to pursue remedies in Civil Court.

Yaskhi Anasuya Vs The State of Telangana and 4… — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3168 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO 22682 0F 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yaskhi Anasuya, W/o: Late Yaskhi Pochaiah, R/o 16-9-588/5, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500 036.

¶9

.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, lbrahmipatnam Division Ranga Reddy District

¶14

4 The Tahasildhar, Hayatnagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

5 Smt. U. Padmavathi, W/o U. Srinivas Goud aged about 48 years, Occ. House wife, R/o 1 01 , Spectrum Square Opp. Yashoda Hospital lvlalakpet, Hyderabad.

¶16

... R ES PON DE NTS

¶17

Petjtion under^pr'licle 226 of the Constitution of lndja praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF N/ANDAMUS declaring the order passed by the Respondent No.4 in Proc No. 8/631/2019 dated 06.05.2019 as illegal, arbitrary, irrational unreasonable and violative of Arts.14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndra and rn derogation of the provisions of The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 besides violative of principles of natural^justice and consequently selaside the order dated 06.05.2019 in No. 81631l2o1S passed by the 4th Respondent in the interest of justice.

¶18

(Prayer is amended as per C.O. dt.2510112021 in l.A.No. 112021.1

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2O2O

¶20

Petition under Section 151 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 operation of the order in No. B/637i2019 dated 06.05.2019^passed by the 4th Respondent pending disposal of the writ^petition in the interest of justice.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Between:

¶23

Smt. U. Padmavathi, W/o U. Srinivas Goud aged about 48^years, Occ. House wife, R/o 101 , Spectrum Square Opp. Yashoda Hospital Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶24

..PETITIONER/5T" RESPONDENT

¶25

AND

¶26

Yaskhi Anasuya, W/o: Late Yaskhi Pochaiah, Aged about 75 years, Occ: Housewife, Rl/o H.No. 16-9-588/5. lvlalakpet, Hyderabad.

¶27

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

¶28

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶29

The Revenue Divisional Officer, lbrahnripatnanr Division Ranga Reddy District

¶30

The Tahasildhar, Hayatnagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

¶31

..-RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶32

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders d1.14-12-2020. granted in lA No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.22682 ol 2O2O.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. SHIV KUMAR

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRl. J. AMRUTH RAO, ASSISTANT GP FOR REVENUE (TG)

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRl. D.Y.N.L.N. CHARYULU

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

II{E IIONOUIIAI}I,E SITI JUS tI( I,- I(. t,AKSIIN,I/\N

¶38

wtu'l'Pltl't t'toN No.22682 Ol.'2020

¶39

orrDI,)t:

¶40

Heard Sri P.Shiv Kurnar, lcarrrccl corrnsel lbr the petitioner, Sri J.Amruth Rao, learned Asst.Govt.Pleadcr lbr lLevenue appearing lor respondent Nos.l to 4 and Sri D.'.N.1-.N,C-haryulu, Iearned counsel for appearing tbr 5tl'responclent. I)eruse(l thc lccorcl.

¶41

The present rvrit l)ctiti()n is to tlcclare the Proc.No.B/631l20lg dated 06.05.10 l9 issLru-cl by 4'r' respondent, as illegal and consequently set asitlc tlte sitnrc.

¶42

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

¶43

Originally late Yaskhi Poclraialr^rr us tlte absolute owner^and possessor of land admeasuring^{Ac.0.3()guntas inSy.No.154,} Ac.0.20guntas in Sy.No.l55^{and Ac.()'2'lgutrtas it.t Sy.No'156total} admeasuring Ac.l.34guntas^{situatecl irr tlagh I layatnagar Village'} Hayatnagar Mandal,^{Ranga t{ctlcl,v l)istrict (lbr short' 'the subject} property'). Sri^{YaskhiPochaiah clictlort l-l'0 I l9c)9'}

¶44

Thereafter,^{5tr' respouclcnt clainrirlg to bc the dauglrterand} sole legal^{heir of tate Yaskhil)ochaiult. lpproachecl:l'r' respondeut} seeking succession^{proceeclirrgsh-r' rnakinr-rart irpplicationdated}

¶45

¶46

08.04.2018.^{'l'hereafier..1'r'} rcsl.rondcnt had^{issued notice in Forln} No.Vlll datcd 27.04.20 19 and called fbr rcport^{from MRI and VRO,} Bagh Ilayathnasar \rillasc and basing on the said^{reports, he has} issued procceclings No.Ll^(rl l,l0l9, dated 06.05.2019^granting succession ri-qhts in lavour ol'5'r' r'espondent and he has ordered to effect neccssarv changcs bl arnertding the l{OR Register of the village concerncd and alstr carrv or.l1 necessary changes in the 1-B Register and thc paharri tbr thc vcar' l() l8-l9 in lavour of 5th respondent in respect of sub.icct prtrpurr'. C'hallcnging the same, the writ petitioner has Iilcd thc prcierrt ri rrl Pctitr,'rr.

¶47

CON'IENTIONS O[: I)ll l I I IONI-.lt:-

¶48

Accortlins to tlre petilioner, she is the wife of late Yashki Pochaiah and 5'r' re:pontlcrrt is not thc daughter of late yaskhi Pochaiah. 'askhi l).clrai.h ciictl lea'ing the petitioner as sole legal heir sincc thc pctitiorrcr arrtr Iate Yaskhi pochaiarr had no issues. She has filed a co1t1, ot'llrssport. e lcct()l.al card and death certificate etc., to show rhat she is trrc ri ili' .r'Iarc Yaskhi pochaiah. The clairn made by 5'r' respo.rdcrt tlr.t shc ir rrre trlrushlcr. of'ratc yaskhi pochaiah and his r.r,i1L I:ire ).el/;rrrrr;i rr/r,r 1/ii.11 ,,u 01.05.2004is lalse. l.ltercfOrc,5l/, l_c)-l)o,l.lc,I /r:rs ,1,1i t.rl li;irrtl :rrrrl ..lairrcrl t,e irnpugrred procecdings

¶49

in collusion u,ith the ofllcials of'1g1,s11r. depaltment. She came to knor'v aboul thc said plocccrlings rcccntll,.^'lhereafter, she lias lodged two cornplaints rvith the police and revenue olficials and in view o1the pronrulgation ol'lhc^{'['elan-rltnu} llights in Land and Pattadar l)ass Books ,,\ct. 1010. shc is not havinu anv altcrnative remedv to file an appeal r.rnder the neu' .{ct. I\4oreover. r.vhilc issuing the impugned proceedings. no rroticc ri':rs issueti to tlle pctitioner and therefore, there is violation ol'plinciples ol' rlrtLrral -justice and also contrary to thc proceclurc luirl down unrlcr the .\ct. I97 l.^-l'herefbre, the present rvrit petition is maintainrble.

¶50

coNl'EN] IONS Ol-^jIII R.t-.SI)()NI)t-.Nl':-

¶51

(r. -5'1' r-esponclcnt hus ll Ietl cor.rnler contending that she is the daughtcr ot'iirte Yaskhi l)oclraillr anrl Ycllamn'ra. During the lifetime of her thther. lre hatl irctlr.rilerl s() rlle movable and immovable properlics anrl uiler his death. lhe prtrpcrticq held by him were divided into ts,o sharcs. one shulc u lrs allottetl to the rvrit petitioner and other share to 5'r' rcsponrlcnl. Thc srrlr.icct propefty along with other propertics lc'll to lhc shirre ol hcr tttLrlltct Yellamtna. Therefor-e, being the rlaughter ot'latc I)ochuiult. she lrt:^riqltt ovct the said^propertyancl she has obtained the saitl ptrccctlirtgs.^{.\ccording to her, the impugned}

¶52

¶53

procecdings \/cre issuecl by 4'l' respor-rdent by following thc due pt'ocedulc laitl clorvrr uuder law and there is no error in it. Thcr-cafter, sltc has crccutcd registered gift settlement dced vide documcnt Ntrs.7 I -5-l ol' 20 19, dated 13. t 1.2019 in favour of' her tr.vo daughtcrs narnclv Vutukuri Roja and Vutukuri Deepika to an cxtent ot' Ac.0. lOguntas each out of subject land admeasuring Ac. l.34guntas. 'l-hcir rranrcs lcrc also rnutated in the revenue records and they are in l)()S('\i(^{rn (\l tl)C} l)t'()l)Ct'ty.

¶54

Wheu thc pctitioner and one Ramu tried to intertbrc rvith thc posscssion of her daughters, they have filed a suit vide O.S.No.-s(r2 of 1020 hclorc .lunior Civil Judge, Hayathnagar seeking pcrpettral irr.junction lrrd thc pctitioner herein has filed a suit vide O.S.No.l50 ol' 102() bclirlc lll Additional District Judge, Ranga l{etld1, [)istrict. against 5'r' r'cspondcnl sceking declaration. The petitioncr hcrein ancl arrothcr hld lilcd a petition vide O.P.No.85 of 2021 seeking transl'er ol' the suit O.S No.i62 ol- 2020 filed by the daughters ol 5'r' r.espondcnr and tn,irrg tlrc saitl suits together. The said petition is pcndinr. Therclirrc. lrce ortling lo 5tl' respondent, there is no crrrrr in thc inlptr-trtctl ptocectlittgs and despite there is an altellatiyc rc,rctll ol'

¶55

-i

¶56

lr ling iln appeal, the petitioner herein has filed the l)resent wrir petrtlolr

¶57

F INDING OtT'f I]E COURT:-

¶58

8.^'l-hcle is no dispute that late Yaskhi Pochaina was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject propefty. 1-he petitioncr is claiming that she is the wife of late Yaskhi Pochaiah. 5'r' respondent is clairnin{.1 lhat slre is the daughter of Yaskhi Pochaiah and Yellarnnra. l}rth Yaskhi Pochaiah and Yellamma died.

¶59

According to the petitioner, 5th respondent is not thc claughtcr o1'Iatc Yaskhi l']ochaiah and the petitioner and late Yasklri Pochaiah harl no issues.

¶60

It is rclevant to note that in paragraph No.9 ot'thc countcr allitlar. it, -5'r' rcspondent categorically stated that the pctitioncl is tlrc flrst s,itL'and she is the daughter oflate Yaskhi Pochaiah bonr through thc lcgallv wedded wife of Pochaiah by name Yellanlna r.vho is thc sccond rvil'c. 5'r' respondent is called as Andalu but she rvill be callctl as I'atlrnavattri also. She has also relied upon the fantilv tnetrtbers ce rtilicatc trcaring No.C/9013/2007, dated 20.04.2001^.

¶61

I l . It is relevant to note that Sri D.Y.N.I-.N.Clltarl^{trltt. lcarnecl} courrsel ap1.-rcaring lctr -5'l' rcspondent^{had produccil a colly ol' tltc}

¶62

registered agreelnent of sale cuur-Cencral Porver ol^{Attorney bcaring} No.4546 of 1999 dated 01.07.1999 cxccutcd by Sli^{Yaskhi Anasuya,} thc petitioncr her-ein w/o. Late Yaskhi Pochaiah^{and Sri Yaskhi} Madhusudhar.r sio late Yaskhi Pochaialt in lavour ol'V.^Aravindar Reddy in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.l-5 gutnas in S1'.Nos.23^I and 232 situated at Bagh Hayathnagar Villagc, [[a1,a11o*n, Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5'r' respontlent is the rvitrtess to the said docur.nent. Thus, in the said docunrent. thc pctitioncr- hcrself mentioned that Sri Yaskhi Madhusudhan is st,n ol latc Yaskhi Pochaiah. Therefore, the petitioncr cannot c()ntencl that Sri Yaskhi I)ochaiah is issueless. At the sanrc tinrc. tlre -5'r' rcsponclcrrt cannot contend that she is the sole legal heir ol'latc "asklii l'ochuiuh.

¶63

Therefore, the said issucs are conrplicatcd issucs r.r,hich the 4'r' respondent being the Recording Autlroritv uncler I{OII ,\ct, 1971 cannot decide. It is the competent civil courl rvhich has to dccide the said issues.

¶64

tt is relevant to note that in C.\lijala llhaskar and others

¶65

Vs. Mandal Revenuc Officcr, N,lalropatl Nland:rlr. ir rvls hekl that 1hc issue rclating to legal heirs ol- dcccasccl llers()us has to hc tlccided

¶66

I urrlcportcd decision datcd 0l.0l.lt)01 il \.1) \o.7{-i(}ol'l()()r)

¶67

by the cornpetent Coult of civil .iurisdiction and it is open to lhe parties to pursue remedies available in lau, and ir is not open Io the Mandal Revenue Oflicer /l'ahsilda r to issuc cerlitlcates abor.rt the lbrnily members. The said principle u,as reitcratecl bv lcarncd Juclge ol the then High Courl of A.P. in D.Leclavathv /s. l)ircctor of Mincs and Geology2, Syed Abdul Majeetl Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Iteddy District3 and in Rulika l{cdclr' 's. thc Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy Districta. l-herelbre.^.l'i' rcsporrclent cannot clecidc the said aspect. Therefore, the irlpugncrl plrccedings bearing No.8/63 l/2019 dated 06.05.20 l9 issuctl br,^:l'r' rcsPourlcrtt are liable to be set aside.

¶68

It is relevant to notc that accortling to thc 5'l' responclent, during lifetime of late Yaskhi Poclraiirh. Irc ltas itccluired somc movable and immovable properlies ancl alier his cleatlr. the ploperlies held by him were divided into tr.vo sliares antl otrc suclt share rvas altotted to the petitioner and the othcr shitre to tlte t)t()ther ol'the^5tl' respondent. The subject properly itlong u'itlr othcr^propcrlics t-ell to the share ol her mother ancl therclirre. lrcin {r thc sole lega Ihcir',5'r'

¶69

I Ordcr dated 25.04.20 I I in W.l'.rio. I l l j I (\l¹¹ I I il

¶70

'^(:orx;) s ,r.LD 148

¶71

Irrr.tlcr-daled 08.11.2001 inW.A.No.ll() (,1 l (r'L,l IIr,'lLr ,, r i,'l llrc rl(r) \rr(llrra l'ratlcsh.

¶72

¶73

respondent is entitled lbr thc sub.iect property. The said aspects are again conrplicated issucs *,hich 1hc I{ecording Authority under ROR Act, 197 I cannot clccrclc. I hc riglrt ol'parlics including the share over the sulrject propcrtv havc to bc dec.icled by a cornpetent civil Court, but not by the l{ecorcling.,\utlrority unclcr ROI( Act.

¶74

Aclmittcdly, it is the contcntiou of the 5'l'respondent that she had also executccl a rcgislclctl sili settlement deed vide document Nos.7l54 ol 20 19. darccl l-r.ll.l0 l9 in lavour of her two daughters natnely Vutukuri l{rr.ia antl Vutukr.rri Deepika to an extent of Ac.0. l0guntas each out of sLrb.iect land adr.neasuring Ac. 1.34guntas. Their narues u,crc ulso rntrtatctl rn tlrc reverruc records and they are in possession ol'the propcrtr'- .Arlnrittcdly two suits were filed. A suit vide O.S.No.5(r2 of'1010 rvls lllctl by the daughters of the 5il' respondent against tlrc l)clitioncr ancl one Ramu seeking perpetual injunction and O.S.No..i-5() ol'1010 u'as tlled by the petitioner against the 5'h rcslrnotlent autl othcrs secking declaration are pending. A petition vide O.l'.No.N-5 o1' l0ll liled by the petitioners seeking transl'er anrl clubhing ol lhe rrro suits is also pending. Thus, a courprehensii c suil ir pcrrrling tre lirrc thc conlpctent civil court which has to tlcr'itlt' tlre lrli,r'c:.ritl i::rrt':.

¶75

Vidc ordcr dated^(\9.12.2022, this Court directed learned Asst.Govt.pleader fbr Revenuc to pmciuce copy of proceedings No.B/63t of^i2(ll9 tlatecl 06.05.2019. In courpliance of the same, learned Asst.Covt.l)leacle r lor [tr-vcnuo has^{producedwritten} instructions ol'4'r' responclcr)t, \'hcrein^{it is specificallymentioned that} efforls have beetr ntade^{to trace out tlie originat frles and the sameare} in vair-r and thc sanrc could^{ltot bc traccdout as on the day and the} eflorts are still irr^{torcc. It is lirrthc-r stateclthat on verificationof the} Inward l(egistcr ttrr^{rhc year1019. it is fbundthat the S1.No.63 I is} allotrecl to 5'r'^{resptttrtlentlirr strb.icctnratter of issue of pattadar} passbook in t'cspect^{ot' thc sLrtr.iectlanct' 4tr' respondenthad also} produced il^{copv ol' thc saicl c\tract' 'fhus' the originalcopy of the} impugnecl^{prcrccetlinrls is not availablc ivith the 4tr'respondent which} also^{gives suspicionri'ith rcgartl to thc said proceedings'}

¶76

ln viet'^{ol- thc atorcsaiil discussion' this writ petitionis} allowed.^{Tlre inrpu gnetl proccetlirtrsI iclc Proc'No'Bl63112019 dated} 06.05.2019^{issuccl by 4'r' resptttttlctrtitrc set aside'Both the petitioner} and 5th^{resl'rtlntlcnl arc at libcrt)1() plrtstrcthe atbresaidsuitsand} subject^{to outconlcof tlic saicl >uit:' thc par-ries are at libertyto}

¶77

¶78

apl)r()lch tlrc l(ccolrlins Authority under IIOR Act. 2020 secking

¶79

nrutalion an<l issuiincc of'the patladar passbooks

¶80

('onscclucntly. ntiscellaneous petitions, i1' any, shall stancl

¶81

closctl.

¶82

IITRUE COPYII ,.,ffirHlT,Jfi To, 1 SEci|bN oFFIcER 2 3 Department, Secretariat, The State of 4. 5 6 District 7. TJ B, Two iD copres the of lelangana " ..\

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110412023

ORDER

WP.No.22682 of 2020

\Cl +
./z s.'
't,)
.$
**
.t)
fls!!<br>

¶88

ALLOWING THE WRIT PET!TION WITHOUT COSTS.