Dismissed

Kodoor Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Dec 2023WP/6453/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the mutation of names in revenue records as the decree in an underlying suit was set aside. The court held the revenue entries contrary to law as the decree no longer existed and set aside the order and entries.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2 dated 12.11.2014 and revenue entries made on 02.03.2005 are set aside. The matter is remanded to be worked out as per provisions of the Act.

Kodoor Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMEER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6453 OF 201s

¶7

Between:

¶8

(90o91 .Ran1. [e.!dy, S-/9. Gopanna, aged about 60 years, Occ Agricutture, Rt/o. Oblaipally Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and Disirict_

¶9

2 Kodoor Ramulamma, (died per LR) who is the 1st petitioner herein_

¶10

.,-PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

2 The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar.

¶14

3 The Thasildar, Mahabubnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District,

¶15

4 K. Pedda Yella Reddy, (died per LRs) who are respondents 5 to 9.

¶16

5 K. ChinnaYella Reddy, S/o. Chandraiah, aged about 74 years, Occ Agriculture.

¶17

6 K. Venkat Ram Reddy, S/o. Chandraiah, aged about 67 years, Occ Agriculture.

¶18

7 K. Hanmanth Reddy, S/o. Pedda Yella Reddy, aged about 4t years, Occ Agriculture-

¶19

I K.Satyapal Reddy, S/o. Pedda Yella Reddy, aged about 34 years, Occ Agricullure.

¶20

I K. Kousalya, W/o. Pedda Yella Reddy, aged about 34 years, Occ Agricutture. Respondents 5 to 9 are R/o. Oblaipally Village, firiahabubnagar Mandal and District.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l,landamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned

¶23

proceedings in case No. D117112006 in file No- D1ts97sl2oo6, dated 12-11-2o14 in dismissing the revision of the petitioner as against the mutation of the names of the respondents 5 to 8 in ROR in respect of the land in Sy. No. 3/1 , admeasuring Ac. 4-38 gunlas at Oblaipally village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District as per the decree in O.S. No. 11t1994, dated 21-O2-2000, as illegal, unlaMul and contrary to law and same may be set aside consequently direct the 3rd respondent to restore the name of the petitioner as pattadar and possessor in the ROR of the above land.

¶24

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPM P. NO: 8585 OF 2015)

¶25

Petition under Section 15-r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peti on. the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in case No_ D't/7112006 in file No. D1/5g75i2006, dated 12-11-2014 and continue to record the name of the petitioner in the RoR in respect of the land in Sy. No. 3/1, Adm. Ac. 4-38 guntas at oblaipally village, Mahabubangar Mandal and District, pending disposal of main Writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGp FOR REVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.s to 9: SRt C.UPENDRA, REp. FOR SMT T.V.SRI DEVI

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.6453 OF 2()15

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶34

Constitution of India, seeking the foltowing reliel

¶35

".--..to issue a Wit, Order or direcdon more paiicularlg one in the nature of Wit of Ifiandamus declaing the action of tte 2"d respond.ent in issui4g the impugned proceedings in case No.Dl/71/2006 in file No.Dl/ 5875/ 2006, dated 12.11.2014 in dismissing the reuslon of the petitioner as <zgainst th.e mutatton of the names ofthe respondents 5 to 8 in ROR in respect oJ the land tn Sg.No.3/ 1, admeasuing Ac.4-38 gantas at Oblaipally Village, Mahabubnagar M<tndal and District, as per tlv decree in O.S.N,.11/199a, dated 21.02-2OOO as illegal, unlawful and contrary to lau and same maA be set o'side conseElentlg direct the 3'd respondent to restore the name of the petitioner as pattadar and possessor in the ROR oJ the aboue land-

¶36

Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri C.Upendra, Iearned cor-r.nsel representing Smt T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 9.

¶37

Leamed counsel appea-ring on behalf of unofEcial respondents submits that during pendency of this Writ

¶38

¶39

JS RJ W P No 6453 ot20l5

¶40

Petition, respondent Nos.5 and 6 died and he filed memo to that effect. Inspite of the same, leamed counsel for the petitioner has not taken any steps to bring the legal representatives on record. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that legal representatives of respondent Nos.S and 6 were already on record as respondent Nos.7 to 9. Hence, no furtlrer legal representatives are required.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 is the absolute owrrer and pattedar of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.4_3g gts in Sy.No.3/ 1, situated at Oblaipally Vlllage, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District and he acquired the same by way of succession. While the things stood thus, respondent Nos.S to 9, who are legal heirs of respondent No.4 filed suit vide O.S.No. ll of 1994 on ttre hle of the Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, seekirrg declaration of title and perpetual injunction claimirrg that they have purchased the suit schedule property by way of private (sada) sale deed dated 11.O5. 1954 frorn

¶42

¶43

JSRJ W.P.No.645l of20l5

¶44

the father of the petitioner^{No.l and the said suit was} decreed on 2L.O2.2OOO. Questioning^thesarne, petitioner No.1 filed Appeal Suit^{vide A.S.No.22 of 20OO} on the frle of the II Additiona-l^{District Judge,} Mahabubnagar, and the said^{appeal was allowed on} O1.02.2005. Aggrieved by the^{same,respondentNos'S} to 9 lrled Second Appeal^{vide S.A.No-497of 2005 before} this Court and this Court^{was pleased to grant interim} order in S.A.M.P.No.1O52 of^{2OO5 on30'12'2OO5,} directing the parties to maintain^{sta-tus-quo as on that} date with regard to the^{possession ofthe subject} property.

¶45

Learned counsel^{vehementlycontended that} respondent No.3 mutated the^{names of unofhcial} rdspondents in the revenue^{records as patttedars on} O2.O3.2OO5, basing upon the^{agreement and decree} passed in O.S.No.11 of 1994,^{dated2L'O2'2OOO' He} further contended that as on^{the date of entries made} by respondent No.3 in the^{revenue records, the} judgment and decree passed by the^{trial Court in}

¶46

¶47

JSRJ w P \o 6Jjl of2015

¶48

O.S.No.11 of 1994 was already set aside by the appellate Court in A.S.No.22 of 2000 on O1.O2.2OOS. Respondent No.3 incorporated the names of unoffrcial respondents basing on non-existing decree and the same is contrary to law. He also submits questioning the said entries petitioner filed revision invoking the provisions under Section 9 of the Act before respondent No.2 and the revisional authority without properly appreciating the contentions of the petitioner dismissed the revision petition only on the ground of pendency of Second Appeal before this Court and in view of sta,tusquo order granted by this Court, and the same is contrary to law.

¶49

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for unoff-rcial respondents submits that unofficial respondents f-rled S.A.No.497 of 2OOS, questioning the decree and, judgment passed by the trial Court in A.S.No.22 of 2OOO dated 01.02.2005 and the same was admitted and this Court grante d status-quo and the said second appeal is

¶50

¶51

JSRJ W.P.No 6453 of20l5

¶52

pending and the petitioner is not entitled for the^relief as sought in this Writ Petition.

¶53

Having considered the rival submissions made^by respective parties and after perusal of the^material available on records, it reveals that respondent^No.3 mutated the names of unofhcial respondents in^the revenue records i.e., t(B) Namuna on 02.O3.2005^{as per} the decree passed in O.S.No.¹ 1 of 1994,^dated 2|.O2.2OOO. Admittedly, as on the date of^making revenue entries by respondent No.3, the above^said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 1 1 of 1994 dated 2|.O2.2OOO was set aside by the lower appellate^Court in A.S.No.22 of 2OOO, dated 01.O2.2OO5.^{Hence, the} impugned proceedings issued by respondent^{No.3 dated} 02.03.2005 is contrary to the decree of^{lower appellate} Court.

¶54

It is relevant to place on record that^{this Court while} admitting S.A.No.497 of 2005, granted statusguoⁱⁿ respect of the possession of the subject^{property.In so} / far as revenue entries made by respondent^No.3is

¶55

¶56

JSR.J W.P-No.6-1il of20l5

¶57

concerned, he had made revenue entries basing on the non existing decree, dated 2L.O2.2OOO and the same is not permissible under law.

¶58

As per Section 7 of the Act, the entries made by respondent No.3 pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law.

¶59

In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 dated l2.ll.2Ol4 and, revenue entries made by respondent No.3 on 02.03.2005 are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. It is needless to observe that if any revenue entries are made pursuant to this order, the same is subject to the outcome of the Second Appea_l No.497 of 2OO5 pending before this Court and the parties are entitled to work out their remedies as per the provisions of Section 7 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2O2O and rules made thereunder.

¶60

¶61

JSRJ W.P.No 61iJ oi20l5

¶62

1 1. With the above directions, the Writ petition is

¶63

disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶64

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶65

any, shall also stand closed.

¶66

SD/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECT OFFICER

To,

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

¶71

2 The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar.

¶72

3 The Thasildar, Mahabubnagar [t4andal, tVlahabubnagar District.

¶73

4 One CC to SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

¶74

5 One CC to SMT T.V.SRI DEVI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶75

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

¶76

Two CD Copies BSR GJP *

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2711212023

ORDER

1 e STATE o
-12
/-
tfo I g ttB ?[?l a)
t)
,L
t

¶81

WP.No.6453 of 201S

¶82

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

Kodoor Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kodoor Ram Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badiga Potharaju, Vs The joint Collector

Ms.N.Ramakantham, and 39 Otehrs Vs the Stateof a.P., and 7 Others

S.Ravi Kumar Vs The Tahasildar, Mandal Revenue office

Smt. D. Rajeshwari Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Vallemchetla Krishnaiah, S/0. Late Hanumaiah, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt Sreepada Sada Laxmi Vs The District Collector