Dismissed

M/s. Mahmood Builders Private Limited v. the State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC5 Jan 2023WP/35551/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the arbitrary entry of a random person (Respondent No.5) as the pattadar of land in the Dharani Portal. Relying on the respondent's admission and no objection, the Court directed the deletion of the incorrect entry and mutation of the petitioner's name.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of Respondent No.5's name from the Dharani Portal, mutation of Petitioner's name, and issuance of an E-Pattadar Passbook within eight weeks of filing an online application.

M/s. Mahmood Builders Private Limited Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35551 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. MAHMOOD BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, a company registered under the lndian Corhpanies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Mahmood Complex, Suite A, ll Floor, No.1-7-347 to 349, Parklane, Secunderabad-soooo3, represented by its lvlanaging Director cum Authorized Signatory ADNAN MAHMOOD. Age 61

¶9

...PETITIONERYPETITONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,SecretariatBuildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad,Telangana State

¶12

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶13

TtlE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State

¶14

THE TAHSILDHAR (M.R.O.), Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶15

MOHAMMED SAMAD, son of Mahboob Ali, aged about 61^years, . Occupation. Agriculture, resident of H. NO.2-31, Nazdik Singaram Village, Yacharam lv1andal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to grant a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in incorporating the name of a random person i.e. Mohd Samad son of Mahboob Ali as the Pattadarⁱⁿ Dharani Portal in respect of land in Survey No. 24413^(Old Survey No.244le), admeasuring Acres 5-00 Guntas, situated at Nazdiksingaram Village,^Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative

¶18

of Articles 19, 21 and 300-4 of the Constilution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to delete the name of the Respondent No.5 i.e. tvlohd. Samad by incorporating the name of the Writ Petitioner in the revenue record in respect of land bearing Survey No.24413 (Old Survey No. 244le), admeasuring Acres 5-00 Guntas situated at Nazdiksingaram, Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana in the DharaniPortal and also issue E-Pattadar Organization Passbook to the Writ Petitioner forthwith.

¶19

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 suspend the entry on the Dharani Portal showing the name of Mohd. Samad son of t/ahboob Ali as Pattadar in respect of Survey No.24413 (Old Survey No. 2441 situated at Nazdiksingaram Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶22

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 Respondents not to entertain the registration of any deed of transfer, lease or mortgage by whatever nomenclature it may be described in respect of land in Survey No. 24413 (Old Survey No. 244l situated at Nazdiksingaram Village, Yacharam lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶23

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶24

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.2 to take action/conduct an appropriate enquiry into the representation dated 06.06.2022 given by the Writ Petitioner and submit an action taken report, in a tirne bound manner before this Hon'ble Court.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. ZEESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.s : SRI JUNAID AHMED KHAN The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICTi K. LAKSHMAN

¶27

WRIl' PETITION No.35551 oF 2022

¶28

ORAL ORDER:

¶29

Heard Mr. Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Iearned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revcnue appearing on behallofrespondent Nos.l to 4. Even today, there is no rcpresentation on belialf of respondent No.5.

¶30

l. l'he pctitioner hcrein is claiming that it is the absolute orvncr and possessol o1' the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 Cuntas u1 Survcv No.2:14/i (Old Survey No.244les), sitLrated at Nazdiksingararn Village, Yaclrnranr Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on the strength ol tlr,o registcrctl sale decds bearing document Nos.6303 ol' 2009, dated 09.12.2009 and 3272 of 2010, dated 15.06.2010. It had purchased the atbresaid propefiy from one Mr. Andekar Ravinder. In prool' of the same, the petitioner had filed copies of the aforesaid sale deeds, link documents. mutation proceedings issued in favour ol its Vendor's Vendor, Old Pattadar Pass books and title deeds etc. I herealter. thc pctitioner submitted representations dated 19.01.2010 and 10.03.20 l6 to respondent No.4 requesting to mutate^jts name in the revcnr.re records. I)e spite rcceiving arrd ackrowledging the same, respondent No.4 did not

¶31

)

¶32

KI ,,] \ l, \i, iji: | (,1:01:

¶33

act upon the same. Therefore, the petitioner hacl filed a u,rit petition vide w.P' i''1o.22285 of 2020 before this courr and the same is pe,ding. After introduction of Dharani Portal, all of a sudden, the narne ol'responcent No.5 herein is shown as pat.radar of tlie subject land. In lact, the petitioner's vendor's Vendor had purchased the suhject lani fi.om thc father of respo,de,t No.5, and now respondent Nio.5 herein is nothing tc do wirh tlre subject land. Therelore, the present rvrit |eti{ion.

¶34

3' Respondent No.5 here!n had fired coilrrL'r srating tirat his name has been wrongly incorporated in the l)harani portal in respect of the subject property by including the same in his holding. The subject land has been wrongly included in Khata No.4 l7 and wrongil.issued pass book bearing No.T05270080206 in his name. i-re lras no objection for deleting the subject land from the atbresaid Khata and canceiling the aforesaid pass book. He further stated that he has also no objection in allowing the present writ petition by incorporating the nanre of the petitioner in respect of the subject land in the re.,,enue records.

¶35

On the other hand, leamed Assistant Covernrnent pleader fbr Revenue' on instructions, would submit that as per cCI-A's circular No. 1/2021, dated 15-01-202r, the petirioner herein has to subrnit online

¶36

K L,J W P. No.l555l of2022

¶37

\ \

¶38

¶39

application to respondent No.2, who in tum, will consider the said online application submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶40

As discussed above, the petitioner herein had filed copies ofall the documents to show that it is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land. It has filed copies of sale deeds, link documents, mutation proceedings, old pattadar pass books and title deeds. As srated above, in the sale deed bearing document No.2458 ol 19g7. daterl 22.12.19g7 under which the father of respondent No.5 herein had sold the subject land to the petitioner's Vendor's Vendor, respondent No.5 hcrein signed as one of the witnesses. Therefore, he has lbirly admitted that his name was wrongly entered in the Dharani Portal and that he has no objection in deleting his name and incorporate the name of the petitioner in respect ofthe subject land.

¶41

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition ls disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner 10 submir online application in tems of the aforesaid Circular to regpondent No.2 with a request to r-nutate its name in the revenue records and issue e-pattadar pass book by deleting the name of respondent No.5. C)n receipt of the said online application, respondent No.2 shatl consider the same and pass

¶42

¶43

¶44

K L..1
W P No l5-5.i I of20ll

¶45

appropriate orders strictly in acc.rda,ce with law mutating the name of

¶46

the petitioner in the revenue records by i.ctuding its name in the Dharani

¶47

Portal and deleting the narne of-respondent No.5 in respect of the sublect land. He shall cornplete the entire exei'cise within a period of'eight (g) weeks from the date ol filing of online application. I lo..vever, there shali beno order as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel. nriscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ

¶49

Pefition shall stand closed

¶50

SD/.T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPYII \e/ SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, State Of Telangana, Hyderabad,Telangana State

¶53

The DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶54

The REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State

¶55

The TAHSILDHAR (t,4.R O.), Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶56

One CC to SRl. ZEESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶58

One CC to SRI JUNAID AHMED KHAN, Advocate.[OPUC]

¶59

Two CD Copies

SB eJSW

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510112023

1i
(
!.!
I g lLll ?si] ",',
cr)
r:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

WP.No.35551 of 2022

¶66

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶67

1, 7

M/s. Mahmood Builders Private Limited v. the State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Mahmood Builders Private Limited 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

Sitaram Spinners P. Ltd. Vs The Government of India

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal

Vankayala Kamalamma Vs The State of Telangana

Deshpande Ragavender Rao and another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Gaurav Daga Vs Government of India Ministry of Education

Sampath Karthikeya Busa Vs University Grants Commission