Dismissed

Sri Bagari Anjaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Dec 2024WP/18160/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging orders dismissing a tenancy certificate appeal. The Court held that an observation allowing petitioners to apply for mutation was consequential to the dismissal of the appeal and deleted it, while maintaining the rest of the order. It directed revenue authorities to follow guidelines from Chinnam Pandurangam when considering applications from

What did the court decide?

Deleted the observation allowing petitioners to apply for mutation while maintaining the remainder of the appellate order; directed revenue authorities to examine applications from registered purchase

Sri Bagari Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 I

¶2

I I I l

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:^'18160 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri Bagari Anjaiah, S/o. Late B. Pochaiah, Occupation- Agriculturist, aged about 5'1 Years, Rl/o. H. No. 6-90i7, Nandigama, Patancheruvu Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

¶11

Sri Bagari Govardhan, S/o. Late B. Pentaiah, Occupation- Agriculturist, aged about 38 Years, Rl/o. H. No. 4-32, Nandigama Village, Patncheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

¶12

Sri Bagari Sai Krishna, S/o. Late B. Gopal, Occupation- Agriculturist, aged about 28 Years, Ryo. H. No. 7-12, Nandigama, Patancheruvu Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

¶13

Sri Byagari Narsimhulu, S/o. Late Sayanna, Aged about 76 years, Occ. Agriculturist, Fl/o. H.No. 4-46, Nandigama, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

¶14

Smt. Yerpula Santosha, Wo. Yerpula lt/allesh, D/o. Kistamma, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o. H.No. 2-74, Damergidda, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State. 501 503. (Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are impleaded as per Court Order dt. 30.09.2024 in l.A. No.2l2O24).

¶15

.....PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

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

¶18

The Additional Collector, Revenue, Sanga Reddy District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy Revenue Division, Sanga Reddy.

¶19

The Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. 5. Mirza Mahamood Baig, S/o. Osman Baig, Aged about 52 years, OccBusiness, R/o. 1-76, Chandanagar, BHEL, Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

Yerra Yadaiah, S/o. Late Danaiah, Aged Major, Occ- Agriculture 7. Yerra Aanthaiah, S/o. Late Danaiah, Aged Major, Occ- Agriculture B. Yena Balaiah, S/o. Late Danaiah, Aged Major, Occ-

¶21

Yerra Narsimulu, S/o. Late Danaiah, Aged Major, Occ- Agriculture (Grandsons of Late Yena

¶22

10.S-ayama, W/o. Late Venkaiah, Aged Major, Occ- Agriculture (Grand Daughter of Late Yerra Venkaiah)

¶23

1 1 . Yerra Mallaiah, S/o. Late Venkaiah, Aged Major, Occ- Agriculture

¶24

Pochaiah, S/o. Late Ramaiah Aged Major, Occ- Agriculture

¶25

13.Pentaiah, S/o. Late Ramaiah, Aged Major, Occ- Agriculture

¶26

Gopal, S/o. Late Ramaiah, Aged Major, Occ- Agriculture

¶27

1 5. Yerra Mallaiah, S/o. Late Ramaiah, Aged Major, Occ- Agriculture Respondent Nos. 6 to 15 are all Rl/o. Nandigama Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

¶28

16.Smt. K, Anuradha, Wo. K. R. K. Redfly, Aged about 53 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o. H. No. 8-3-315/9i8, Maruthi Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. Rep. by her AGPA Holder Mis. Sri Biotech Laboratories lndia Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director K.RK. Reddy, O/o. 8-3-167/6 and 7, Fiat No. 211, Il Floor, Bhavyas Sri Arcade, Enagadda, Hyderabad,

¶29

17.M/s. Sri Biotech Laboratories lndia Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director K.R.K. Reddy, Office at 8-3-176/6 & 7, Flat No.21^'1, ll Floor, Bhavya's Sri Arcade, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶30

'18.Smt. K, Anuradha, Wo. K. R. K. Reddy, Rep. by its Managing Direcor K.R.K. Reddy Aged about 53 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o. H. No. 8-3-315/9/8, Maruthi Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

¶31

Smt. Yerra Nagamma, W/o. Yerra Yadaiah Aged Major, Occ- Agriculture,

¶32

Yadagiri, S/o. Late Pochaiah Aged 24 years, Occ- Agriculture

¶33

21 . Suman, S/o. Late Pochaiah Aged 20 years, Occ- Agriculture,

¶34

22.Yerra Agamaiah, S/o. Late Mallaiah Aged 39years, Occ- Agriculture,

¶35

23.Yerra Venkataiah, S/o. Late Mallaiah Aged 36 years, Occ- Agriculture,

¶36

24.Yerra Sreenu, S/o. Late Mallaiah Aged 30 years, Occ- Agriculture,

¶37

(Respondent No.16 to 24 are All Fi/o. Nandigama Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.)

¶38

.....RESPONDENTS

¶39

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 a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in passing the Orders in Case No. F3139212O10-F3l12ffenancyl201o dated 29.04.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise and mis-use of powers contemplated under law and violation of Article 300-4 of the constitution of lndia apart from violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequenfly, set aside the orders in

¶40

Case No. F3139212010-F3l'l2lTenancyl2010 dated 29.04.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2.

¶41

I.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶42

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 Orders in Case No. F3/392/201O-F3ll2lIenancyl2010 dated 29.04.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶43

|.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶44

Between

¶45

Smt. K, Anuradha, W/o. K. R. K. Reddy, Aged about 53 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o. H. No. 8-3-315/9/8, Maruthi Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. Rep. by her AGPA Holder M/s. Sri Biotech Laboratories lndia Lti1., Rep. by its Managing Director K.R.K. Reddy 01o.8-3-16716 and 7, Fiat No. 21 1, ll Floor, Bhavyas Sri Arcade, Erragadda, Hyderabad,

¶46

lrllls. Sri Biotech Laboratories lndia Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director K.R.K. Reddy, Office at B-3- 1 7616 & 7, Flat No.21 1 , ll Floor, Bhavya's Sri Arcade, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶47

Smt. K, Anuradha, W/o. K. R. K. Reddy, Rep. by its Managing Direcor K.R.K. Reddy Aged about 53 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o. H. No. 8-3-315/9/8, Maruthi Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

¶48

.....VACATE PETITIONERS 'l to 3/RESPONDENTS 16 to 18

¶49

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 orders dated 0510612024 in W.P.No. 18160 of 2024 and pass

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI A.P.REDDY

¶51

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

¶52

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.6,7,9 & 10 : M/s. K.JAYASREE

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8, 11, 12, 15, 19, 22 to 24 :^-

¶54

Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.16 to 18 : SRI M.V.PRATAP KUMAR

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.13 & 14 : SRI L.VENKAESHWAR RAO

¶56

The Court made the following ORDER

¶57

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY pBII JETITIQN xe_.!916Q eE 2023

¶58

ORDER:

¶59

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief :

¶60

".....to i,ssue a Wit oJ-Order or Direction more particularlg one in the nahre of Wit of Mandamus declairE the action of respondent No.2 in passing the orders in Case No.F3/ 392/ 201OF3/ 12/Tenancg/ 2010 dated 29.04.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise and misuse of pouers contemplated under latu and uiolation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from uiolatiort of Pr[nciples of Nahral Justice and for other approprtate re|iefs".

¶61

It is stated that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acs.38.26 gts., in Sy.Nos.147, 170 and 171 situated at Nandigama village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. lt is further stated that the ancestors of the petitioners are the protected tenants and they have obtained patta Certificates under Section 38-E of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short "the Act,,) uid_e File No.A3/1231/ 1974 dated 13.O4.t992 arrd in File No.ABl^ten.21l74 dated 04.05.1995. It is stated that the respondent No.5 liled arr appeal to set aside the orders in File No.A3/1231/L974 dated 13.04.1992 and File No.A3/Ten.2S 174 dated 04.05. 199S in issuing Patta Certifrcates under Section 38-E of the Act statiqg lhat the

¶62

¶63

said certificates are issued without following the procedure as contemplated under the Act in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.4.O8 gts., and Acs.2.04 gts., in Sy.No. 147 of Nandigama village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and the same was dismissed uide order, dated 29.04.2023 in Case No.F3/392/2010F3/ 12/TENANCY l2O2O. It is further stated that after receiving the applications from respondent Nos.12 to 17, tJ'e Tahsildar was directed to restore the names of respondent Nos.15 to 17 in the revenue records in their respective extents as.per sale deeds by deleting the names of the appellant therein and third party names. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 made a representation, dated 2O.O4.2O23 to respondent No.2 seeking to mutate their names over the subject lands being the successors of the protected tenants, but the respondent No.2 without giving an opportunity to the petitioners, being the legal heirs of tJle protected tenants, passed the impugned order, dated 29.04.2023.

¶64

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that basing on the certificates issued proceedings vide File No.A3l I23l / 7974 dated 13.O4.1992 and File No.A3/Teal25l7a dated 04.05.1995, the tenancy certificate holders have executed registered sale deeds in respect of part of the property ald they are in possession of the property.

¶65

¶66

Per contra, Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 16 to 18 submitted that while dismissing the appeal, there is no need to make an observation by the appellate authority relegating the respondent Nos. 16 to 18, who are respondent Nos. 15 to 17 in the appeal, to make an application or consequential mutation of their names in the revenue records. It is further submitted that some of the legal heirs of the original pattadar have sold the subject land in favour of the third parties through registered sale deed. Therefore, at this length of time, the petitioners claiming to be alleged legal heirs/ successors of the protected tenants are not entitled to maintain any appeal or writ petition and invite this Court to decide the validity or otherwise of the sale deeds, which have been executed in favour of the respondents. It is also submitted that the Appellate authorit5r while dealing with the contentions raised by the respective counsels, duly taking into consideration of the various civil suits instituted between tlle inter se parties has dismissed the appeal frled by respondent No.S herein.

¶67

This Court has carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. The observation made .tib by the appellate authority is only allowing respondent Nos. 16 to 18 to make an appropriate application

¶68

¶69

¶70

basing on the sale de eds for mutation of their names in the revenue records. The said observation is only a consequential one, which is not having any impact over the frndings being recorded by the appellate authority in dismissing the appeal.

¶71

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the observation to the extent of allowing the petitioners to make an application is deleted and the remaining portion of the orders of appellate authority would maintain. Further, it is needless to observe that the persons, who have purchased the property under registerecl sale deeds, are entitled to make an appropriate application either for seeking amendment or incorporation of their names in the revenue records and if such an application is fi1ed strictly in terms of the^provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 2O2O, the revenue authorities shall examine the same by following the guidelines issued by Full Bench of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Reoenue Officer, Seritingamg>allg Mandal & othersl , in accordance with^law.

¶72

With the above observations, this writ^{petiticnis disposed of'}

¶73

'^{AIR zooSAP 15}

¶74

¶75

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition

¶76

shall stand closed. No costs.

¶77

SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶78

//TRUE COPY// J,

¶79

SECTION OFFICER

¶80

To '1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 2. The Additional Collector, Revenue, Qanga Reddy District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy Revenue Division, Sanga Reddy. 4. The Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for thb State of Telangana. IOUT] 6. One CC to SRI A.P.REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to M/s. K.JAYASREE, Advocate (OPUC) 8. One CC to SRI M.V.PRATAP KUMAR, Advocate^(OPUC) 9. One CC to SRI L.VENKAESHWAR RAO, Advocate^(OPUC) 10.Two CD Copies SA BS c- (y

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811212024

ORDER

WP.No.18160 of 2023

1 tlE s TAre
3 0 JAli 025
.t
.?c )I
I
Es Parci 9O

¶86

DISPOSING OF THE W.P