Allowed

Vaddapalli Madhusudhan and Another v. the State of Telangana and 9 Others

Telangana HC11 Dec 2024WP/17700/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged revenue tribunal orders that allegedly deleted petitioners' names from land records and issued new pattadar passbooks to other parties. The High Court held that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide inter se title disputes, set aside the orders, and remitted the matter for appropriate civil litigation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Revenue Special Tribunal dated 05.11.2021 and 06.02.2021 were set aside. Revenue authorities were directed to mutate names in accordance with a competent civil court order.

Vaddapalli Madhusudhan and Another Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t^32e6I

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17700 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

VADDAPALLI MADHUSUDHAN, S/o. Yallaya, Aged about 39 Years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Veliminedu Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District. Presently residing at Building No.^'13, 1st Floor, lll Marine Street, Dhobitalao, Mumbai - 400002

¶9

VADDAPALLI SRINIVAS, S/o. Yallaya, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Veliminedu Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District. Presently residing at Building No. 13,^'l st Floor, lll Marine Street, Dhobitalao, Mumbai - 400 OO2.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat (Telangana), Hyderabad.

¶13

THE REVENUE SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, Nalgonda Reddy District, At Nalgonda.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶16

SMT.PINNINTI KAMALAMMA, W/o. Anji Reddy, Aged about not known to Petitioners, Occ. Housewife, Veliminedu Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶17

SMT.ARRURI PAPAMMA, Wo. Narasimha Aged about not known to Petitioners, Occ. Housewife, Veliminedu Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶18

YAMINENI UPPALA RAO, S/o. Yakaiah Aged about not known to Petitioners Occ. Not known, Veliminedu Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶19

L SMT.VELIMINETI MALLAMMA, Wo. Srinivas Reddy, Aged about not known to Petitioners, Occ. Not known, Veliminedu Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶20

ARRURI NARSIMHA, S/o. Sarvaiah Aged about not known to Petitioners, Occ. Not known, Veliminedu Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶21

l0.SMT.VADDEPALLY KETHAMMA, W/o. Yellaiah Aged 72, Occ. Housewife, Veliminedu Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶22

I r I

¶23

lIffi;io""t Nos o to io are Made as proforma parties to the present

¶24

...RESPONDENTS petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Orders calling for the records pursuarit to the lmpugned Orders Dated 0511112021 in case No. F2lSpr.Trib unar/0753r2021 0n the fire of the Respondent No'2 and consequen'y to sET-A-srDE the orders Dated 05111/202.1 in case No'F2/Spl rribunar/ 0753t2021 0n the fire of the Respondent No.2 thereby SETTTNG AS.DE the orders Dated 0610212021 in case No.F2lSpr.Tribunar/ 075312021 on the file of Respondent No.2 being arbitrary, unlaMul, unjust, contrary to principles of naturar justice and against to Law and consequenry to restore the names of the petitioners in the relevant revenue records in respect of Subject property (i.e., land admeasuring Ac.01_36 Gts., in Sy.No.296, Ac.01_00 Gts., in Sy. No.297 and Ac.O1_25 Gts., in Sy.No.298 together admeasuring Ac 04-21 Gts" situated at Veriminedu Virage, chityar Mandar, Nargonda District).

¶25

IA NOi7 OF 2022

¶26

petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suppo( of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspEND the orders Dated 05t11/202.t in case No. F2l spr.Tribunar/,7 53t2021 on the fire of the Respondent No.2 thereby suspending orders Dated o6t02t2021 in case No'F2/spr.TribunartoT53/202,r on the fire of Respondent No.2 and consequen'y direct the Respondent No.4 Nor ro ENTERTATN any transactions in respect of Subject property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.O1_36 Gts., in

¶27

¶28

Sy.No.296, Ac.01-00 cts., in Sy.No.297 and Ac.01_25 Gts., in Sy.No.298 together admeasuring Ac.04-21 Gts., situated at veriminedu Viilage, chityar Mandal, Nalgonda District pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶29

lA NO:1OF 2023

¶30

Between:

¶31

Smt.Housewife, Veliminedu Vifiage, Pinninti kamalamma, Wo.. Chitydt Manddt: .fnji Reddy, tta-tgondi Aged about Ditrict.65 years, Occ.

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

VADDAPALLI MADHUSUDHAN, S/o. y-afiaya, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, Fi/o. Veliminedu .Viitage, Cnityai' UinOaf,^{-frfifgondl-'EiisI;i.} Presentty ESjgLns at Buitding No. ri3,'rst n6or, rii r'raririe S#;i, Dh"5i6ffi; Mumbai - 400002

¶35

VADDAPALLI SRTNTVAS, s/o. !.a]raya, Aged about 35 years, occ. Business. Ri/o. Veriminedu viilage, chityar n,lariodt, tiargono; oiid"-t. Fi.e.".ir, i"liJiiii at B uitd ins No. 1 3, 1 si Ftoor, iri rr,rin'"ettieEil Diliit';i*; Mtffi i'f i06tbi:

¶36

THE srATE oF TELANGANA, Represented bv its princioar Sec r etarv Revenue Department, Secretariai (Telingana), Hyd;raOro.'^'- '-^vvvvasr''

¶37

THE REVENUE SPECTAL TR|BUNAL, Natgonda Reddy District, At Natgonda.

¶38

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, Nalgonda Division, Natgonda

¶39

District.

¶40

THE TAHSILDAR, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶41

SMT.ARRURI PAPAMMA, Wo. Narasimha Aged about not known to Petitioners, occ. Housewife, Veriminedu vittige,"chityar-rr,tiiiir,^{'i.rJriii,"o""} District

¶42

Y. AMINENI UPPALA RAo, S/o. yakaiah Aged about not known to petitioners. Occ. Not known, Vetiminedu Viilage, Chityail rr,lanaar, N;is;il;'disiri;i*'*'"'

¶43

sMT.vELlMlNETl MALLAMMA, wo. srinivas Reddy, Aged about not known to. Petitioners, occ. Not known, Verimineou vitrage,thiti,i] lra"i,iii,'ivrrgi""tl' District

¶44

10'ARRURI NARSIMHA, S/o. sarvaiah Aged about not known to petitioners. ucc. Not Known, Veliminedu Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶45

ll.SMT.VADDEPALLY KETHA.i.IMA, Wo. yellaiah Aged 12, Occ. Housewife, Veliminedu Viilage, Chityat tvtanOai, Nrigondi Ddtriii

¶46

(Respondent Nos.7 to 11 are Made as proforma parties to the present petition)

¶47

...RESPONDENTS

¶48

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 vacate the interim order dated 08/04/2022, inW.P. No.17700 of 2022.

¶49

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MAHENDER REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR M/s. RESU LAW OFFICE

¶50

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶51

Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: SRI METTU SHANKAR

¶52

The Court made the follcwing: ORDER

¶53

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶54

WRIT PETITION No.1 77OO of 20.22

¶55

ORDER

¶56

This writ petition is Iiled with the following relief:-

¶57

"...to Esue q. Wit oJ Certiorai or anA othet appropriole Wit or Wits, Order or Orders calling for the reards pursuant to the Inpugned Orders Dated 05.11.2021 in Case No.F2/Spl. Tribunal/ 0753/ 2O2I on the frle of the Respond.enl No.2 and. ConsequentlA to SET-A SIDE the Orders Dated 05/11/2021 in Cqse No.F2/ Spl.Tibunql/ 0753/2021 on the fle of the Respondent No.2 tlrcrcby SETTING ASIDE the Orders D:1ted O6/ O2/2O2t in Cdse No.F2/ Spl Tibunal/ O753/ 2021 on the file oJ Responder No.2 being arbitrary, unlauful, unjusL^(Dntrdry to principles of naturol justice and agdinst to Law and con-sequentlg lo restore Ote rantes oJ the Petittoners iL lhe releudnt reuenue records in resryct oJ Sublect Propedlj 6.e., lo\cl admeasunng Ac.O1.36 Gts., in 5A.No.296, Ac.Ol.OO Ats., in SA.No.297 and Ac.O1.25 Ots., in SU.No.298 together admeasuring Ac.O4.21 Gls., srtuoled at Velimied.u Village, ChitAal Mandal Nalgonda Distnct) and pass such other and lurlher order or ord.ers as are deemed. jt and proper h the circtnstances ofthe case and tn the interest ofjustice'.

¶58

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

¶59

It is stated that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.OI-36 guntas in survey No.296, Ac.O1-OO guntas in Survey No.297 and Ac.Oi-25 guntas in survey No.298, total admeasuring Ac.O4-21 guntas, situated at Veliminedu Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed vide document No.36O7 of 1992 dated 21.10.1991 and after due enquiry, the revenue authorities have mutated their names in the revenue records and also issued pattdar passbooks and title deeds in their favour vie patta Nos. 1392 and 1391 respectively. It is further

¶60

,..,.

¶61

¶62

CVBR, J \,p 17700_2022

¶63

stated that apart from^{the aforesaidsubject property,the} petitioners also acquired^{the land admeasuring Ac'O1-30 guntas in} survey No.298/AA. It^{is statedthat the petitioners' mothernamely} Smt.Vaddepatli^{Kethamma alsoacquired land admeasuring Ac'O1-} i5 guntas in survey^{No.29S/AA, Ac.Ol-2O} Suntas^insurvey No.298/A, Ac.OO-27^{guntas in survey No.298/AA, Ac'O1-25 guntas} in survey No.298/E,^{situatedatVelimineduvillage,Chityal} Mandal, Nalgonda District.^{It is stated that the aforesaidlands} were encircled with^{fencing and the petitioners have been in} peaceful possession and^{enjoyment of the same. It is stated that} they are receiving all^{incentivesand investment subsidies'It is} stated that tl-re^{petitionersmoved to Mumbai and startedresiding} there. Whilc so, in the^{year 2019the petitioners havereceived} notices from respondent^{No.3 in hle No.B/473O12018' After that} on their enquiry, the^{petitioners cameto know that respondent} No.S herein filed an^{appeal beforerespondent No 3 and the same} was transferred to newly^{constitutedSpecialTribunal and} renumbered as Case^{No.F2/Spl.TribunallOT53} /2021'^{In the said} appeal, responclent^{No.5 allegedthat her husband had acquired an} extent of Ac.O5-23^{guntas in survey No.296,Ac.03-OO guntas in} survey No.297 through^{registered sale deed vide document} No.2729 of 1974 dated 05.10.1974^{and an extent of Ac.O1-35} guntas in survey No.296 and an extent of^{Ac.01-0O guntas in}

¶64

¶65

CVBR, J wp_17700_2022

¶66

survey No.297 through registered sale deed vide document No. 1I09 of 1975 dated 05.07.1975. Thereby, husband of respondent No.S acquired total an extent ofAc.11-18 guntas. Out of said Ac. 11-18 guntas, an extent of Ac.03-00 guntas in survey No.297 was alienated to one Velimeneti Mallamma. It is further stated that after the demise of the husband of respondent No.S, respondent No.4 granted succession vide proceedings No.B/3471/2O16 in favour of respondent No.S in respect of land admeasuring Ac.O7-18 guntas in survey No.296, Ac.Ol-00 guntas in survey No.297, total admeasuring Ac.O8-18 guntas and issued pattadar passbooks in her favour. It is further stated that after succession, respondent No.s gifted an extent of Ac.04-O0 guntas in survey No.296 in favour of her son namely P.Srinivas Reddy. It is stated that despite the aforesaid transactions made by respondent No.S and her husband, as her name is reflecting for the entire extent in the revenue records, she made an application, for issuance of E-pattadar passbooks, which was registered as aforesaid appeal.

¶67

4 . It is further stated that the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda passed the order in file No.F2lSpl Tribunal/O753/2O21, dated 06.02.2021 holding that respondent No.s is in occupation of the land in survey No.297 admeasuring Ac.O3-OO guntas and in

¶68

¶69

CVBR,^J \Yp-1770o_)022

¶70

Sy.No.296 an^{extentof Ac.O7-18guntas and mutated her namern} the revenue records.^{Aggrieved with the said orders' the} petitioners herein^{filed review petltron}

¶71

5, The grievance^{of the petitionersis though they narratedthe} truth with evidence,^{respondent No'2 - SpecialTriLrunal dismissed} their claim,^{vide impugned order dated 05' 1 l 2O2l in proceedings} No. F2 / Spl.Tribwnal I^{07 53} /^2O21'

¶72

According lo Sri^{Mahender Reddy, learned SeniorCounsel} appearing for^{the petitioners,the petitionersare in possessionand} enjoyment of^{the subjectland purchasedby them and they have} also been issued^{pattadarpassbooksunderthe provisionsof the} ROR Act, 1971.^{He further submittedthat sub-Rule 6 Rule26 of} ROR Act specificatly^{states the personsin possession are entitled} for issuance of^{the pattadar passbooks' Therefore'there is no} dispute for^{enjoyment of the respective lands by the petitionersas} on the date.

¶73

According to^{Sri MettuShankar, learned counsei appearing} for respondent^{No.S, the dispute is that the subject land in} possession of the^{petitioners was purchasedby her in the year} 1974 and without^{taking into account her right and entitlement}

¶74

over the said^{properqy, the same wasmutated}

¶75

¶76

¶77

CVBR, J wp 17700 2022

¶78

in favour of the petitioners and consequently, issued pattadar passbooks.

¶79

Having gone through the counter amdavit hled by respondent No.5, there appears to be dispute among inter se parties with regard to an extent of Ac.O 1_O0 guntas only. Therefore, it is required to be adjudicated, whether the said extent is forming part of the land being purchased by the petitioners through registered sale deed or same will form part of land having purchased by respondent No.S in the year 1924. Further, the issues raised before the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, subsequently transferred to the Special Court are relating to the title, possession, classilication and extent available in survey Nos.296, 292 and 29g; and also to decide, who are in actual possession of the property; and basis for their possession; and whether, the schedule of the said documents shows the boundaries arid the Special Court decided the said issues basing on the schedule of the property clearly mentioned in the registered sale deeds. Either this Court while entertaining the writ petition or the quasi judicial authority, while entertaining the applications or appeals filed under provisions of ROR Act are not supposed to enter into the disputes relating to the nature of the land and its crassification. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that these are the issues, which are

¶80

¶81

¶82

CVBR, J wp._.17700_2022

¶83

¶84

required to be agitated before the competent civil Court with properly constitutcd civil suit

¶85

It is settled law the revcnue authorities are regulating authorities and they are not having any power or authority to decide the title nor declare the titte or record any possession of the either of the 1;arties.

¶86

Apart from the above, admittedly, the observation of the Tribunal in t he impugned order that the names of the petitioners h4ve bee.r1 illcgaliy entered into the revenue records and with _--' i regard to their ownership is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The said observations are nothing but engrossing upon the powers of the civil Court to decicle the title of the inter se parties.

¶87

1 1. In vierv ol the facts and circumstances stated above, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the same is set aside. The parties zrre relegated to approach the competent civil Court, if they are having any grievance with regard to the entries made in the revenue rccords or consequential issuance of the pattadar

¶88

passbooks or the nature of the lands, its classification and boundaries mcntioned therein, or title, possession over the said property, in accordance with law, and after obtainitrg necessary

¶89

¶90

CVBR, J wp-17700 2022

¶91

¶92

orders from the competent Civil Court^{by eitherof the parties,the} revenue authorlties are^directed to^{mutate the namesinthe} revenue records, in accordance^{with the orders passed thereon.}

¶93

With the above obsewations,^{this Writ Petition is disposed of} No order as to costs.

¶94

As a sequel, the miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pendingin} this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶95

SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ttt'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue^{Department, Secretariat (Telangana),} Hyderabad, State Of Telangana.

¶101

2 The Revenue Special Tribunal,^{Nalgonda Reddy District,At Nalgonda'}

¶102

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District.}

¶103

4 The Tahsildar, Chityal Mandal,^{Nalgonda District.}

¶104

5 One CC to M/s. RESU LAW OFFICE,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶105

6 One CC to SRI METTU SHANKAR,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶106

7 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE,^{High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶107

I Two CD Copies

¶108

BSR

¶109

LS g

¶110

HIGH COURT

¶111

DATED: 1111212024

¶112

,.,'=::=1"-.--
-.a 1 ii !- :i f/ :: ..,
,J
ir
O9JAil2M
,,)
Fe.,f\ t

¶113

ORDER

¶114

WP.No.17700 of 2022

¶115

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶116

WITHOUT COSTS (r"r'

¶117

q \ ,{

Vaddapalli Madhusudhan and Another v. the State of Telangana and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaddapalli Madhusudhan and Another v. the State of Telangana and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhikonda Annayya Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Syed Mohsin Sultan Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Pasula Mogili and 4 others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Thakur Kishanpal Singh Vs State of Telangana

G. Surya Prakash Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Punreddy Narender Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others