Allowed

Nuthalapati Madhu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Oct 2024WP/13751/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Tahsildar certificate that altered the survey number on a registered sale deed favouring respondent 4, enabling further transfers. The court held the Tahsildar had no authority to issue such a certificate absent a rectification deed and set it aside, relegating parties to civil court remedies.

What did the court decide?

Impugned certificate dated 18.06.2007 set aside; parties relegated to competent Civil Court; miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Nuthalapati Madhu Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY^{OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.^BHASKARREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13751 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nuthalapati tvladhu, S/o. Ranga Rao,^{Age: 46} .years, .^OcQ: ^^Business, Fl,to. H. No. 1 -1 -96/1 01, Laxmi Residency,^{ltlanikonda, Hyderabad, 500089.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Principal Secretary,Revenue} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The District Cotlector, Khammam, Khammam^District.

¶13

3 The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal,^{KhammamDistrict.}

¶14

4 Kurapati Vasantha, W/o. Venkatarathnam,^{Age- 49 years, Occ: Houlewife,} R/o. budidhampadu Village, Raghunathapalem^{Mandal, Khammam District.}

¶15

Kommisetty Kotaiah, S/o. Lakshmaiah,^{Age: 69 years, Occ: Business,} R/o. H.No.6-+-199/1 , Venugopal Nagar,^{Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam} Urban [/andal, Khammam District.

¶16

Garlapati Nagamani, Wo.G. Srinivasa^{Rao, Age:57-years,Occ:Housewife,} R/o. H. No. 6-4:1 6 2, Vijay anagar Colony,^{Khammam City and District.}

¶17

7 Yannam Sakkubai, W/o. Y. Lakshma^{Reddy,Age: 67 years, Occ: Household,} R/o.Old Club Road, Khammam Town,^{Khammam District.}

¶18

a Thummatla Ramayya, S/o. Gopaiah,^{Age: BB years,} - - Occ: Agriculture Rl/6.Khanapuram^{Haveli, Khammam Urbar Khammam} District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of lhe^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction^{more particularlyone in the natureof} wrlt of Mandamus, declaring the arbitrary^{actionof the 3'd respondent in issuance} of certificate L.Dis.No.8/485^{4l2OO7, dI.18lOOt2OO7,in favourof the 4th respondent}

¶21

¶22

by changing the survey^{numberi.e., Sy.No.302in the placeof Sy No 319 of plot} No.17, admeasuring 311.11^{Sq.Yardsof KhanapuramHaveli, KhammamUrban} Mandal, Khammam^District, of^{7th respondent,vide Doc.No.460of 2005'} dt.19.01.2005, on^th€, file^{of the Joint sub-Registrar-ll, Khammamisr without power} of authority and is illegal,^{voidand opposedto Articles 14 19,21and 300-4of} constitution of lndia, and consequently^{to set aside the impuglned certificate} issued by the 3'd^{respondent dI.18tO6l2OO7including to set aside all} consequential registrations^{in respect of the sy.No.302 in the place of SY.No.310} in question.

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstirnces statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the opera.ion of the^{certificateissued by the 3'drespondentin} L.Dis.No.8/485 4l2CO7,^{dl.18lOOl2OO7,in favour of the 4th respondentby changing} the survey number i e., Sy.No.3O2 in^{the place of Sy.No.319of plot No.'1 7,} admeasuring 311.'1 1 Sq.Yards of^{Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban ll,4andal,} Khammam District,^pending disposal^{of the aboveWrit Petition}

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MUMMANENI^{SRINIVASA RAO}

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to^{4: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.6:^{SRI ARAVAPALLI SURYANARAYANA}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5, 7 and^8: --

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

'' a-im$*.r .' lr'-i. ./

¶31

¶32

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.13751 of2024

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This Writ Pe tition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief:

¶36

"....to issue a Wit, order or Direction more^panticularlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the arbitiary action of the 3.d respondent in issuance of certtftcate L.Dis.No.B/ 4854/ 2007, dt.18.06.2007, in fauour^{of the 4th respondentbg changing the surueg numberi.e.,} Sg.No.302 tn the pLace of SA.No.319 of plot No.17, admeasuing 311.17 Sq. Yards of Khanapuram Haueli, Khammam Urban Manda[ Khammam Dstrict, of 7h respondent, uide Doc. No. 460 of 2005, dt.19.O1.2O05, on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar-Il, Khammom is u,ttthout pouer of authoitg and is illegal, uotd & opposed to Atticles 14, 19, 21 & 300-A of Constitution of India, ond consequentlV to set aside the impugned cettificate issued bg the 3a respondent dt. 18.06.2O07 including to set aside all consequential registrations in respect of the Sg.No.302 in the place of Sg.No.319 in question...."

¶37

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record

¶38

It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased land admeasuring 311.1 1 square yards in Plot No.28 in Sy.No.3O2, situated at Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.1290/2O08 dated 08.02.2008 from the lawful owner i.e, respondent No.8. Subsequently, the original owner executed rectification deed bearing document No.2005/2008 dated 27.O2.2OOa, corrccting certain clerical errors in the earlier

registered doc:ument, without altering the survev number or plot number. It is further case of the petitioner that he cor Lstructed a tin-sheet she<1 on the subject property and has been ;.n peaceful possession of thc same wiLhout any interference. It is f.rrther case of the pctitioner that respondent No.7 without an5- va lid title or possession over the property, sold Plot No.17 in Sy.No.319 to the respondent No.4 under a registered sale deed dated I9.01.2005, who in turr, executed a General Power of Attorney dated 05.OT .2OOT in favor of respondent No.S misrepres,:nting the property as ['lot No.17 in Sy.No.302. Thereafter, the respondent No.S sold the property to the respondent No.6 under zr registered sale deed datcd 09 .OT .2OO7. It is the specific casc of thr: petitioner that these <:htain of transactions occurred in view of fraudulent certificate vid<: Lr.Dis.No.B 14854 l2OO7 dated 18.06.2OO,7 issued by the responde:et No.3 Tahsildar, who altered the survr:y number from Sy.No.3,19 to Sy.No.302. It is further case of Lhe petitioner that when the respondent No.4 tried to interfere with his poss,ession over the subject l)roperty on 08.10.2013, he instituted zr suit vide O.S.No.544 ol 2013 on the file of Principal Junior^(livil Judge, Khammam, and the said CoLlrt also granted ad inteir, injunction uide order dated 29.7O.2013 in i.A.No.ll09 /2013. After oontest, the said suit u'as dismissed on 04.06.2018. Challenging th(' same, the petitioner hlerl A.S.No.44 of 2078 on the hle of Princioal District

¶43

¶44

Judge, at Khammam and the same was also dismissed on 13.09 .2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Second Appeal No.358 of 2022, wherein this Court admitted the appeal and initially granted an interim injunction on 26.7O.2022, later modified to sratus quo on 19.12.2022.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the title claimed by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 is baseless as they arose out of fraudulent transaction initiated by the respondent No.7. It is further submitted that in view of impugned certihcate dated 1,8.06.2007 issued by the respondent No.3, in fraudulently altering the Survey Number to 319 in place of 320, the present dispute arose. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to set aside the impugned certilicate dated 18.06.2007 issued by the respondent No.3 and allow the writ petition as prayed for.

¶46

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has submitted that the respondent No.6 has purchased the subject property from the respondent No.4 under registered sale deed basing on the certificate issued by the respondent No.3. It is further submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the frrst appeal liled challenging the same was also dismissed. Therefore, at this length of time, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner questioning the certihcate issued by the respondent

No.3 is not rnaintainable and ultimately prayed to drsmiss the writ petition.

¶51

The petitioner claims right in respect of I'rouse Plot No.28 admeasuring 311.11 sq.yds in Sy.No.302, situated at Klranapuram Haveli, Khamrlam Urban Mandai, Khammam District, v,'hereas the respondent Nos.4 to 7 clarrr. that their house Plot No.17 falls in Sy.No.3O2 but nol in Sy.No.319. Admittedly, there is a serious dispute bet.v,:en the parties with regard to identih,.:ation and localization^,r1' subject Plot Nos.28 and 17 i.e, whether they form part of Sy.Nc.302 or Sy.No.319. The respondent No. li-Tahsildar, Khammam (tlrban), issued impugned certificate vrde Lr.Dis.No. Bl4854l2OO7 dated 18.06.2007 certifying that the respcndent No.4 has purchased the house site in Sy.No.302 admeasur ing 3 1 1 . 1 1 sq.yards lrorn the respondent No.7 vide documcr rt bearing No.46O/ 2005 and that while registering the house 1.rlot it was mentioned in the Sy.No.319 instead of Sy.No.302. I n the said certihcate, it 'ras also mentioned by the respondent Nc.3 that the Mandal Surveryor, Khammam (Urban) has inspected th e site and reported that the plot No. 17 is covered in Sy.No.302. It r s pertinent to state that in the absence of arry rectif,rcation deed, the respondent No.3 has no luthority to issue a certificate correcting the survey number of the registered sale deed executed in favour of respondent

¶52

¶53

No.4. The proper remedy for the parties is to approach the competent Civil Court and establish their rights over their respective plots, whether they form part of Sy.No.3O2 or Sy.No.319, in accordance with iaw. Therefore, the impugned certihcate dated 1,8.06.2007 issued by the respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the execution of registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.4, he is at liberty to institute a suit for declaration of cancellation of sale deed by adducing independent evidence.

¶54

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned certificate dated 18.06.2007 issued by the respondent No.3 is set aside and the parries are relegated to approach competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief, in accordance with law. It is needless to say that the observations made by this Court in this order are confined only for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition and shall have no bearing on any proceedings between the parties.

¶55

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶56

stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶57

SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFI CER

¶58

To, 1 . The Principal Secretary,^{Revenue Department, Secretariat, The State of} Telanoana. Hvderabad.

¶59

1. The Districi Cdllector, Khammam,^{KhammamDistrict.} 5. tn" tan.itOar, Khammam^{Urban Mandal, Khammam District'} +. One CC to Sii Mummaneni^{SrinivaiaRao, AdvocatetOP-Ugl} 5. iil CCs to Cp for^{Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶60

1. One CC to^ArvaP lli Suryanarayana,^{Advocate[OPUCI} 7. Two CD CoPies

¶61

¶62

--G.&&;".;..;a"ll"-*.,

i t I I I i

HIGH^COURT

DATED:28110t2024

ORDER

WP.No.13751^{of 2024}

¶68

t STArE
1tl
q
q
oo 3 O JIN N?5 o
*
t o
DgspqlC

¶69

ALLOWING^{THE WRIT PETITION}

¶70

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶71

\e
w

Nuthalapati Madhu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nuthalapati Madhu 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

Banoth Vidya Sagar, Vs The State of Telangana

Sujatha Shriramoju Vs The State of Telangana

Nazeer Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana

P.Jaipal Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Jillella Narsimha Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

P.Jaipal Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration