Partly allowed

Tadaboina Narasimha v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC11 Jan 2023WP/26474/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the issuance of pattadar passbooks to a respondent violative of Special Tribunal orders and natural justice due to pending civil appeals. The companion petition seeking survey was dismissed with liberty to apply for mutation post-disposal of pending suits.

What did the court decide?

Pattadar passbooks and title deed in favour of respondent No.5 set aside. liberty granted to respondent to apply for passbooks post-disposal of pending civil appeal. Survey petition dismissed.

Tadaboina Narasimha Vs The State of Telangana and 4… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

t³¹⁶⁸ l

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOS: 26474 AND 44387 OF 2022

¶8

W.P.NO: 26474OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Tadaboina Narasimha, S/o Jagannadham, Aged about 66 years, Occ. Retd. Employee, R/o Plot No.104, RTC Colony, Chitalkunta Check Post L.B.Nagar, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District.

¶11

..,PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

The District Collector, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda Division, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶17

Tadaboina Krishna Murthy, S/o Late Galaiah, aged about 46 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ri/o Narayanpur Village And [\ilandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, Telagnana State.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing^pattadar passbook and title deed bearing. No.T301 1 006'l 196, Khata No.60348 in respect of the Ac.4-30 guntas situated in Sy.No.427lA5, Narayanpur Village and Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District in favour of the respondent No.5. contrary to the orders of the Special Tribunal dated 281011202'l in File No.F21205712021 and Special Tribunal Revision Case File No.F21843612014 dated 2610612021 , as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Telangana R.O.R. Act, 2021. lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 direct the 4th respondent to suspend the^{pattedar passbook} and title deed bearing No.T301 10061 196, Khata No.60348 forthwith issued in respect of the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.4-30 guntas situated in Sy.No.427lA5, Narayanpur Village and Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.LAXMAN RAO Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: M/s. N.V.R.RAJYA LAXMI

¶22

W.P.NO: 44387 OF 2022

¶23

Between:

¶24

Tadaboina Krishna lVlurthy, S/o Late Galaiah, Age- 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o Narayanapur Village & Mandal, yadadri Bhdngir District. ...PET|T|ONER AND

¶25

The Tahsildar,l',Jaraanapur IVlandal, Yadadri Bhyanagiri District. 2. The Revenue Divisional officer,.Nalgonda Division, Yadadri Bhongiri District. 3. The District Collector, Yadadadri Bhonoiri District.

¶26

4- The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶27

Tadaboina \9ra9imh.q, S/oJagannadham, Aged 66 years, Occ: Retd., Employee, Ryo.^plot No.1041,RTC Colony, Chitalkuirta Cfrectipoii-^' L. B. Nagar, Saroornagar tVlandal, R. R. Distiict.

¶28

(R5 is impleaded as per Court Order dt..15.12.2022 in t.A.No.2l2O22)

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

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, order, or Direction, more pa(icularly one in nature oiwrit of writ of CERTIORARI calling for records pertaining to impugned Memo vide Lr.No.B/840/2022, dated 26-11-2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 and euash the same as bad in law and violative of Section 9 & i 0 of rhe Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act 1923 as there is no embargo on survey in wp.No.26474 of 2022 and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to survey and demarcate the land in sy.No.427lA5, to an extent of Ac.4.30 guntas situated in Narayanpur Village and Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, in view of my F-line application o"i"o 12-2-2022, in the lnterest of Justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶31

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 direct the Respondent No-1 to survey and demarcate the land in Sy.No.427lA5, to an extent of Ac.4.30 guntas situated in Narayanpur village and Mandal, yadadri Bhongir District, by suspending the Memo vide Lr. No. B / 840 t 2022, dated 26-11-2022 on the file of the 1st Respondent, in the interest of Justice, pending Disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.V.R.RAJYA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI M.LAXMAN RAO

¶33

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶34

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.26474 AND 44387 OF 2022

¶36

COMMON ORDER:

¶37

Lis involve<i in these writ petitions is one and the same, therefore, the same heard together and decided by way of this common ordel

¶38

W.P.No.264l4 of 2022 is fited to declare the action of 4th respondent in issuing pattadar passbook and title deed bearing No.T30110061196, Khata No.60348 in respect of Ac.4.30 guntas situated in Sy.No.427lA5, Narayanapur Village and Mandal, yadadri Bhuvanagiri District (for short, 'subject property') in favour of 5th respondent contrary to the orders of the Special Tribunal Dated 28.01.2021 in File No.F21205712021 and Special Tribunal Revision Case File No.F21843612014 dated 26.06.2021, as illegal.

¶39

W.P.No.443 87 of 2022 is filed to call for rhe record pertaining to impugned Memo vide Lr.No.B/840/2022, dated 26.11.2022 issued by l't respondent and quash the same as violative of Sections 9 and 10 of Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 as there is no embargo on survey in W.P.No.26474 of 2022 and consequently direct l" respondent to survey and demarcate the subject land.

¶40

¶41

Heard Sri M.Laxman Rao,^{learr-red counselfor the petitionerin} W.P.No.26474 and 5'h^{respondent in W.P.No.44387, Smt.NVR} Rajyalakshmi, leamed counsel^{for petitioner in W.P.No.44387 of 2022} and 5th respondent in W.P.No.26474^{of 2022 and learned Gor't.Pleadcr} for Revenue for official^{respondents in both the writ petitions.Perused} the record.

¶42

(For sake of convenience, Tadiboina^{Narasimhais hereinafter} referred as Petitioner and^{TadiboinaKrishna Murthy is referredas5th} respondent as referred^{in W.P.No'26474 of 2022).}

¶43

The petitioner^{in, W.P.No.26474of 2022 i.e. Tadaboina} Narasimha, is claiming^{that he has purchasedthe subjectpropertyfrorn} late Tadaboina Galaiah, father^{of5'h respondentTadaboina} Krishnamurthy long back^{and his name was also mutated in the revenue} records. Pattadar^{passbooksand title deedswere also issueC in his} favour. Name of Tadaboina^{Jaganandhamwas deleted from the records} instead of name of^{Tadaboina Galaiah. It is onlya clericaleror. He is in} possession of the aforesaid^{property. Therefore, he has filed an} application u,ith 4'h respondent^{seeking correction of entries in revenue} records. But 4rh respondent directed^{the petitionerto frle appealbefore}

¶44

3d respondent. Therefore, the^{petitioner had filed an appealbefore 3'd} respondent. 3'd^{respondent, who} in^{turn,sought report from4th}

¶45

respondent on conducting enquiry. Accordingly, 4tr' respondent had conducted enquiry drawn panchanama in respect of subject land and submitted his report vide proceedings No.3/8006/2008, dated 30.06.2012 stating that the petitioner herein is in possession ol the subject property. [t is also further stated that the said Tadaboina Galaiah died prior to 2005. After his death, his son i.e. 5'h respondent appeared before 3'd respondent and filed counter stating that his father never sold the subject property in favour of the petitioner. His name was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar in respect of the subject property.

¶46

On consideration of the entire facts and material available on record, 3'd respondent vide order dated, 26.07.2014 allowed the said appeal setting aside recording of name of Tadaboina Galaiah as pattadar of the subject property and directed 4m respondent to record the name of the petitioner herein as pattadar.

¶47

Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 26.07.2014,, 5th respondent had filed a Revision under Section 9 ol the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, l97l before the Joint Collector and the same was transferred to Special Tribunal after promulgation of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books 4ct,2020 (for short, 'the Act'), in terms of Section 16 of rhe Act. Vide

¶48

¶49

order^{dated28.01 '202 i} '^{Special Tribunal dismissedthe saidRevision} filed by^{5th respondent'Review filed by 5'h respondentwas dismissed} vide order^{dated26'06'2021'}

¶50

g. It is relevant to note^{that 5th respondent did not challengethe} aforesaid^{order dated 28'01'2021and review order dated26'06'2021 of} Special^{Tribunal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District' The said p'o"""iingt} attaineci^{finality' Even then' 4th respondent had issuedpattadar} passbooks^{in favourof 5th respondentin respectof the subjectland'} Questioning^{the same' the petitionerherein had filed the presentwrit} petltlon-

¶51

5th^{respondenthad filed a suit vide O'S'No'265 of 2012 against} the^{petitioner and two others for declaration of title and for perpetual} injunction^{and the samewas decreedon 03'07'2019' Feeling aggrieved} by the^{said Judgmentand Decree'the p-etitionerherein had filed an} appeal^{vide A.S'No'79 of 2019 and it is pending on the file of the} Additional^{District Judge, yadadri_BhuvanagiriDistrict. He has also} filed an^{interlocutory application to suspend the aforesaid Judgment and} Decree^{in O.S'No'265 of2012dated30'07'2019and the said} Interlocutory^{Applicationis pending for consideration'During pendency} or the^{aforesaid appear and aforesaidInterlocutory Application,5th}

¶52

)

¶53

respondent had filed F-line application with 4'h respondent/Tahsildar with a request to conduct survey and demarcate the aforesaid land by fixing boundaries. Vide impugned memo Lr.No.Bl84Ol2022 dated.

¶54

26.1I .2022,4th respondent rejected the same on the following grounds:-

¶55

l. The petitioner raised objection in conducting survey.

¶56

Writ petition vide W.P.No.2 6474 of 2O22is pending.

¶57

There are disputes between the petitioner and 5th respondent with regard to the aforesaid land.

¶58

On the aforesaid grounds, 4e respondent informed 5th respondent that conducting of suruey is not possible. Challenging the said memo, 5'h respondent had filed the present writ petition vide W.P.No.443B7 of 2022.

¶59

The above stated facts would reveal that according to the petitioner, he has purchased the subject property from the father of 5th respondent i.e. Tadaboina Galaiah. Mutation was effected in'his favour and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued. But instead of deleting the name of Tadaboina Galaiah, revenue officials have deleted the name of Tadaboina Jagannadham i.e. father of the petitioner herein. Therefore, he has approached 4th respondent for correction of wrong entries. On the advise of 4th respondent, the petirioner has filed appeal

¶60

¶61

before 3'd^{respondentand the same was altowed vide order dated} 26.07.2014.1n^{the said order, 3'd respondent gave a categorical finding} that the name^{of the petitioneris requiredto be recordedas pattadar in} respect of^{the subject land as held by TadaboinaGalaiah'btrt it is} recorded against^{the holding of Tadiboina Jagannadham' Thus the then} Village Revenue^{Officer error andthe sameis continued'}

¶62

I 1. Subsequently,^{5'h respondent got mutationof the sametaking} advantage^{of the continuanceof his father's name in revenuerecords'} Since his^{fatheris ceased to be a pattadarof the subject land by virtue of} amendment,^{mutation of the same in favourof 5'h respondentis not} valid. The 3'd^{respondent furtherreferredthe reportsubmittedby 4'h} respondent^{in Lr.No.B/8006/2008,dated 30'06'2012 that the petitioner} had purchased^{the subjectland from the fatherof 5th respondent and he} is in physical^{possession of the same' With the said furdings' he has} allowed^{the aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner' setting aside the} entries in revenue^{records in respect of the subject land of Tadaboina} Galaiah. He^{has directed4'h respondent to recordthe name of the} petitioner as pattadar^{in respect ofthe aforesaid land'}

¶63

It is trite to^{note that 3'd respondenthad alsoconsidered} validity of the amendment.^{Thesaidorder was conflirrnedby the Speciai}

¶64

¶65

Tribunal vide order dated 28.01.2021 in a revision filed bv 5tl' respondent under Section 9 of the Act.5th respondent had frled a review before the Special Tribunal and the same was also dismissed on 26.06.2021. 5th respondent did not chailenge either the aforesaid order dated 28.01'2021 or rhe order dated 26.06.2021 of the Special Tribunar. Therefore, the aforesaid orders attained finality. while the aforesaid orders are in subsistence, 4th respondent cannot issue passbooks in favour of 5'h respondent.

¶66

It is also relevant to note that 5th respondent had filed the aforesaid suit vide o.S.No.265 of 2012 against the petitioner and two others seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction over the subject property. The said suit was decreed on 03.07.2019 by leamed Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein had preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.79 of 2019 and he has also filed Interlocutory Application seeking suspension of the aforesaid Judgment and Decree. The aforesaid Interlocutory Application and Appeal are pending before the Additional District Judge yadadriBhuvanagiri.

¶67

It is trite to note that while the proceedings in the aforesaid appeal are pending, 5th respondent obtained pattadar passbooks in his

¶68

¶69

favour on 29.12.2021. He has submitted F-line apptication with 4'h respondent with a request to conduct survey and demarcate the aforesaid land by fixing the boundaries. The same was rejected by 3'd respondent vide memo dated 26.1 1 .2022.

¶70

As discussed supra, 41h respondent himself in his report dated 30.06.2012 specifically stated that the petitioner being the purchaser of the subject property from the father of 5th respondent is in physical possession and enjoyment of the same. He has issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour ol the petitioner. During the pendency of the appeal, he cannot issue pattadar passbooks in favour of 5th respondent in respect of the very same propefty without issuance of notice, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and without following the procedure laid down under the Act.

¶71

As per Section 7 of the Act, 5th respondent is entitled to seek mutation of his name basing on the Decree in O.S.No.265 of 2012. There is no dispute that there is decree in his favour in O.S.No.265 of 2012 dated 03.07.2019 and at the same time, it is also relevant to note that 5th respondent had filed an appeal vide A.S.No.79 of 2019 against the said Judgment and Decree and also an Interlocutory Application seeking suspension of the said Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.265 of

¶72

¶73

The said proceedings are continuation ol the proceedings

¶74

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no officer in appellate Court and due to COVID-19 he could not pursue the aforesaid Interlocutory Application. However, there is no dispute that the aforesaid Interlocutory Application is filed by the petitioner to suspend the aforesaid Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.265 of 2012 is pending. Thus, the action of 4th respondent in issuing pattadar passbooks in favour of 5th respondent daled 29.12.2021 in respect ol subject propefty is in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of the procedure laid down under the Act. Therefore, the said proceedings are set aside.

¶75

In view of the findings given by this Court in W.P.No.26474 of 2022, there is no error in the Memo dated 26.11.2022 issued by 4th respondent refusing to conduct survey in view of the dispute between the petitioner and 5th respondent.

¶76

i 8. In view of the above discussion, i) W.P.No.26474 of 2022 is allowed. The Pattadar passbook and title deed bearing No.T30l10061196, Khata No.60348 in respect of subject land issued in favour of 5th respondent are contrary to the orders of the Special Tribunal Dated 28.01.2021 in File No.F2l205712021 and Special

¶77

¶78

Tribunal Revision Case File No.F2l84i6l20 l4 dated 26.06.202r and the

¶79

same are declared as illegat and the same are accordingly set aside.

¶80

ii. W.P.No.44387 of 2022 is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to 5th respondent/Tadaboina Krishnamurthy to approach 2nd respondent with a request to issue pattadar passbooks in his favour after disposar of the aforesaid appeal vide A.S.No.79 of 2019 filed b; the

¶81

petitioner/Tadaboina Narasimha.

¶82

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶83

SD/. K. AMMAJI //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(lu \ SECT]ON OFFICER

¶84

To,

¶85

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

¶86

The District Collector, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶87

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda Division, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶88

The Tahsildar, Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶89

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. One CC to SRI M.LAXMAN RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶90

One CC to M/s. N.V.R.RAJYA LAKSHMI, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies PSK. GJP $w

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 1101t2023

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.26474 AND 44387of 2022

¶96

I ('
I
!?t tll i
)ory t1
.,,/
\ {' !,:.:'t,".'
-r-:=,:;?^

¶97

ALLOWING THE W.P.2647 412022 AND DISMISSING THE W.P.4438712022 WITHOUT COSTS.

Tadaboina Narasimha v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tadaboina Narasimha v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

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

M Narsimharamaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

R.J.R.M.Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana

Gandikoti Venu Vs The State of Telangana and 3others

Bgs Members Association Muthangi Vs The State of Telangana

G.Manohar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Panchajanya Enterprises Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl)