Dismissed

Medak Siddiramulu and 3 others v. Chintha Ranamma and 3 others

Telangana HC25 Jan 2023WP/27259/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to set aside orders regarding land mutation and rejection of regularization proceedings. Court held that prior order had attained finality and current challenge is devoid of merit, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Medak Siddiramulu and 3 others Vs Chintha Ranamma and 3… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

3168 I

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:272 59 0F 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ir/edak Siddiramulu, S/o Pentaiah Aged about 63 years, Occ. Agriculture,R/o Ramayampet Village & Mandal.Medak District.

¶9

IMedak Suresh, S/o Siddaramulu Aged about 38 years, Occ. Agricuture R/o Ramayampet Village & Mandal, Med-ak District.

¶10

Medak Chandra Shekar, S/o Siddiramulu Aged about 52 years. Occ. Agriculture R/o Ramayampet Village and Mandal-_[/edak District.

¶11

Medak Rukawa, W/o Siddiramulu Aged about 55 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o Ramayampet Village and Mandal,Meriak District.

¶12

(Petitioner No.4 is not a necessary party)

¶13

...PET|T|ONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

'1. Chintha Ranamma, Wo Sangaiah Aged about 54 years, Occ. House hold R/o Lakshmapur Village, Ramayampet Mandal, Dist. I/6dak.

¶16

2, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak Divrsion, Irrledak District.

¶17

The Tahasildar, Ramayampet lvlandal, tvledak District.

¶18

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

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for records pertaining to cryptic order of the Special Tribunal in New Case No. F3/Spl.Tribu na|327 t20Z1 , dated 2216t2021 (old case No.F3l 1666/2019 (Old Revenue Court-Joint Collector-Medak District as being illegal, perverse, arbitrary, without application of rind, contrary to law and in violation of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar^pass Books Act, 2O2O and consequently to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside set-aside Orders of RDO, Medak in flle No.Gl279l20'19, directing the Tahsildhar, Ramayampet to implement the Orders passed by the then RDO in File No. E/3101/'1999, dated 20t412001 in respect of Land in Sy.No.4415 and 45 admeasuring an extent of Ac..1.04 guntas and 1 . 16 guntas situated at Laxmapur Village, Ramayampet Mandal, Medak District.

¶21

il2ll

¶22

IA NO:¹ 0F²⁰²¹

¶23

Petition under Section^{15'1 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the^{operation of ordersof RDO, Medak in file .G127912019,directing the} Tahsildhar,^{Ramayampetto implement the Orders passed by the thenRDOin File} No. E/3101/^{1999, dated2Ot4l2XO1 in respect of Land in Sy No 4415 and45} admeasuring^{an extentof Ac.104 guntas and1 16 guntas situatedat Laxmapur} Village'RamayampetMandal,MedakDistrictintheinterestofjustice,pending disposal^of the^{aboveWrit Petition.}

¶24

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRl.P. SHASHI KIRAN}

¶25

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.1:SRI SUJITH JAISWAL}

¶26

Counsel forthe^{RespondentNos.2to 4: AGPFOR REVENUE}

¶27

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶28

¶29

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.27259 OF 2021

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard Mr. P. Shashi Kiran, leamed counsel for the petitioners, leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Mr. Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.l.

¶33

This writ^petition is filed to call for records in New Casc No.F3lSpl.Tribunall327 12021, dated 22.06.2021 of Special Tribunal (Old Case No.F3/1666/2019 of Joint Collector, Medak Distrrct) as illegal by setting aside the order of respondent No.2 in file No.Gl279l20l9 directing respondent No.3 to implement the order passed by respondent No.2 in File No.E/3 l0ll1999, dated 20.04.2001 in respect of land in Survey No.44l5 and 45 admeasuring Acs. I -04 guntas and Acs. 1 - i 6 guntas, situated at Laxmapur Village, Ramayampet Mandal, Medak District.

¶34

3. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS:

¶35

i) The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Acs. 1-0u1 guntas ln S urvey

¶36

¶37

J\L.i W.P"No 27)59 af)a:1

¶38

No.44l5 and Acs. l-16 guntas in Survey No.45, situated at Laxmapur Village, Ramayantpet Mandal, h{edak District. Their names have been incorporated in revenue records and latest pass books rvere also issued in their fhvour.

¶39

ii) Vide representation dated 15.12.2017, respondent No.l requesied respondent No.3 to mutate herl name in thc revenue records in respect of Acs.l-16 guntas in Survey No.45 of Laxmapur Village arrd issue e-pattadar pass book. On receipt of the said application. respondent No.3 sought report from the Village Revenue Officer, dated 10"01.2018. Basing on rhe said repolt, respondent No.3 vide endorsement RC.No.B/7390/2017, dated 24.Ol.2OlB, infonned respondent No.1 to approach the Court stating that petitioner Nos. I to 3 herein and one Mr. Mangali Siddaiah are in physical possession of the property in Survey No.45, 13B proceedings No.F/5237l90 of April, 1990 were issued in their favour.

¶40

iii) Challenging the said endorsement, respondent No.l had filed an appeal under Section - 5(B) of the A.p. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, l97l (for short.ROR Act, 1971,) before respondent No.2, who in tum vide order dated 27.09.2019 in appeal

¶41

¶42

KL,J W P.No27259 of 2021

¶43

No.Gl279l20l9 allowed the said appeal directing respondent No.3 to implement the order passed by it in file No.E/3 101/1999, dated 20.04.2001. Respondent No.2 also advised the petitioners herein to approach proper competent authority for redressal of any grievance with regard to the subiect land.

¶44

iv) Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein have filed a revision under Section - 9 of the ROR Act. 1971 before the Joint Collector, Medak District, and on promulgation of New ROR Act, 2020, vide order dated 22.06.2021, the said revision was transfened to the file of the Special Tribunal, Medak, which in turn dismissed the said revision confirming the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by respondent No.2.

¶45

v) Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition. Thus, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein are claiming that they are the owners of the subject property on the ground that respondent No.l and her three (03) sisters have sold the aforesaid propefty under an unregistered sale deed in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein. On the strength of the said unregistered sale deed, they have also obtained regularization proceedings and l38

¶46

¶47

¶48

KL.J W.P.lto.2z259 oI?021

¶49

Certificate. Therefore, according to them, the aibresaid orders paqsed by respondent No.2 dated 27.09.2019 and the impugned order ciated 22.06.2A21 are contrary to the record and also the thcts.

¶50

vi) It is relevant to note rhat though the petitioners have filed the present rvrit petition challenging the order dated 22.06.2021 paSsed by the Special T'ribunal. MeCak District irr Neu, Case No.F3iSpl.Tribunall 327 I 2021 (Old Case No.F3/ I 666/20 I 9), thr"y have not made the Special Tribunal as pafty.

¶51

4. CO]\TENTI ONS OF RESPONDENT No.l:

¶52

i) Respondenl No.l clains that she is the absolute owner zrnd

¶53

possessor of the land adrreasuring Acs.l-16 guntas in Surv.ey No.45 of Laxmapur Village.

¶54

ii) Petitioner Nos.l to 3 have obtained unregistered sale deed saicl to have executed by her and her three (03) sisters and it is a fabricated document by forging their signatures.

¶55

iii) Basing on the said fabricated documenr, petitioner Nos.l to 3 have obtained regularization proceedings including 13B Certificate. Therefore, one of the sisters of responclent No.l, Smt. Chiragpally

¶56

¶57

KL,J lt/.P.No 21259 oJ 2021

¶58

Taramma Wo Narsaiah had approached respondent No.3.^Vide orders dated 20.04.2001 in File No.Ei3^{101/1999, respondentNo.2} allowed the said appeal and l3B Certificate^issuedby respondent^No.3 in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is cancelled. Respondent No.3^was also directed to make necessary changes in^{revenue records} accordingly. There is no challenge to the said^{order dated 20.04.2001} of respondent No.2 and it attained finatity.^{Even then, the petitioners} are trying to grab the subject property belonging to respondent^No.1 by illegal means. In the said course of^{action, they have filedthe} present wnt petltlon.

¶59

ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF^THE COURT:

¶60

i) Perusal of the record and also the^{rivalsubmissionswould} reveal that originally one Mr. Medak^{Pentaiah, the fatherof petitioner} No.l and respondent No.l, was the^pattadar of^{the land} in^Survey Nos.44, 45, 55 and 222 of Laxmapur Village. According^to respondent No.l, her father divided the aforesaid^{property into equal} shares among his son^{(petitionerNo.1} )^{and his four (04) daughtersi.e.,} i) Smt. Latitha W/o Viual, ii) Smt. Ranamma Wo Sangaiah (respondent No. I herein) iii) Smt. Siddarama Wo Krishna Murthy

¶61

¶62

¶63

KI J w.P".No ) 7259 o.l2t: I

¶64

and iv) Smt. Tharamma Wo llarsimulu. Therefore, respondent No. i is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.1-16 guntas in Survey No.45 of Laxmapur Village and it is her ancestral property. whereas, the petitioners are clain.ri,g that they are the absolute owners and possessor.s of the land admeasurirg Acs.5-22 gulltas in Surv.ey No.45 on the strength of unregistered sale deeds said to have executerl by respondent No.l herein and her three (03) sisters in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

¶65

ii) It is relevant to note that Smt. Cherakpaily Tharamma, one of the sisters of petitioner No.l and respondent No.l, had filed an appeal before respondent No.2 to cancel the 138 certificate obtained by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 'r,ide proceedings No.Fi5237190, dated 05.04.1998 on the strength of unregistered sale deed said to have executed by respondent No. I and her three (03) sisters. Vide order dated20.04.2001 in file No.E/3 l0l/99, respondent No.2 has allowed the said appeal, l38 Certificate issued by respondent No.3 in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 has cancelled. Respondent No.3 was directed to make necessary changes in revenue records.

¶66

¶67

KL,J W.P.Na27259 of 2021

¶68

¶69

iii) It is relevant to note that in the said order dated 20.04.2001, respondent No.2 gave a categorical finding that perusal of the record pertaining to respondent No.3 therein shows that no notice was served on the sellers and that no opportunity was provided to them for representing their case. Form I 1 and l2 were signed by the purchasers and respondent No.3 therein but not by the Vendors. The statements of Mr. Raula Sathaiah S/o ChirLna Mallaiah, Mr. Raula Maisaiah S/o Yellaiah and Smt. Sirge Bhadramma Wo Narayana were recorded as witnesses swom statement, in which the aforesaid three persons stated that at the time of writing of Ramamma, they have signed as witnesses. But, on examination, the aforesaid three persons have stated that they have not signed bainama as witnesses, and the witnesses statements were fabricated. With the said findings, respondent No.2 has allowed the aforesaid appeal filed by Smt. Cherakpally Tharamma, one of the sisters of petitioner No.l and respondent No.l and 13B Certificate issued in favour of petitioner Nos.Z and 3 was cancelled. The petitioners did not challenge the aforesaid order and it anained finalitv.

¶70

¶71

Kt.,j W.P.No.272:9 oJ )021

¶72

iv) Thereafter, respondent No.l has^{approached respondent} No.3 with a request to mutate her natne artd issue^{e-patladarpass book} in respect of the aforesaid land. Vide endorsement^{dated 24.01.2Q18} in Rc.N<r.B/739012017 , respondent No.3 without referring^{to the order} dated20.A4.2001 in Case No.E/3 101/99 o1'respondent^{Nc.2, informed} respondent No.1 to approach Civil Court on the^{ground that in respect} of the land in Survey No.45 of Laxmapur^{r,/illage, the petitionersand} others are in possession and l38 Certificate^was also^{issuc.d to them.} Therefore, respondeni No.t had filed^ar.r appeal before^respondent No.1 vide Appeal No.G127912019 who in turn, vide order^dated 27.09.2019 allowed the said appeal setting aside the said endorsernent dated 24.01.2018 of respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 also^directed respondent No.3 to implement the orders of respondent No.2 in^File No.E/3i01/i999, dated20.04.2001 and further advised the^petitioners to approach appropriate competent authority for redressal of any grievance with regard to the subject land. The said order was confirmed by the Special Tribunal, Medak vide order^dated 22.06.2021 in a revision filed by the petitioners under Section - 9 of the ROR Act, 1971.

¶73

¶74

¶75

KL.J w.P Nd27259 o.[ 202 t

¶76

v) At the cost of repetition, as discussed above, vide order dated 20.04.2001 in case No.E/3 l0l/1999, respondent No.2 has cancelled the aforesaid regularization proceedings issued in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 vide proceedings F/5237/1990, dated 05.04.1998 which was obtained basing on the sada bainama said to have executed by respondent No.l and her other three sisters. The said order attained finality. Without considering the said aspects, respondent No.3 vide his endorsement dated 24.01.2018 advised respondent No. I herein to approach Civil Court which is factually inconect and contrary to the aforesaid order dated 20.04.2001 of respondent No.2 in fite No.E/3 101/99. On the said ground, respondent N.2 vide order dated 27.09.2019 in the appeal filed by respondent No.l herein vide appeal No.Gl279l20l9, set aside the endorsement and directed respondent No.3 to implement the order dated,20.04.200i by effecting mutation proceedings and pattadar pass book in favour of respondent No.1 herein. The same was confirmed by the Special Tribunal vide impugned order dated 22.06.2021 .

¶77

vi) Though the said order dated 22.06.2021 of the Special Tribunal, Medak District is under challenge in the present writ

¶78

10 Ki.t tY.P.*o )7:59 o{ 2A2l

¶79

¶80

I t. ll

¶81

pelition, the petitioner:s did not make the Special Tribunal as par.ty to this writ petition. However, in view of the aforesaid orders,^,.tre petitioners herein cannot claim that thev are the ou,rrers of the aforesaid propefty. Thus. having considered all the afbresajcl faots, the Special Tribunal has passed the intpugned order dared 2?.06.2021 , and there is no irregularity or illegalii.v-- in it.

¶82

6. CONCLUSTON:

¶83

i) In view of the afor.esaid discussion, the petitioners lail to make out any case to interf'ere u,ith rhe order dated 22.0r;.202i passed by the Special Tribunal, Medal< District. The present writ petitior.r is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶84

ii) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Florvever, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶85

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closcd.

¶86

Q.N'.P.PADMANABHA --' Asstsrerur REGPTRAR^REDDY

¶87

'lt / //TRUE^COPY// SECTIO}i^OFFICER

¶88

"' 1 ?I3 33J?""3', 8ia'J#lxl,#nffiJ?t'?:.?31""^{or reransana at} Hvderabad ' [OUT]

¶89

: 6'"1'cCiJ^{s'i Su1itn} 'taiswat'^{Advocate [oPUC]}

¶90

Two^{CD Copies}

CHR

Bs t/

I i I

tI! I I l I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510112023

ORDER

W.P.No.27259^{of 2021}

¶100

t;
lr - 02 !?3ff8 .i.r
:
,,1

¶101

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶102

"69
€)

Medak Siddiramulu and 3 others v. Chintha Ranamma and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medak Siddiramulu and 3 others v. Chintha Ranamma and 3 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

Golusula Ramulu Vs State of Telanga and 4 others

M/s Chaitanya Residential High School Vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal

N. Anji Reddy Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Sabavath Neelavathi Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

G. Narsimha Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangna and 8 others

Smt.Keesara Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana