Dismissed

C. Sanga Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Nov 2024WP/32962/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mutation of names in revenue records and issuance of pattadar passbooks for ancestral agricultural land against which private respondents had allegedly created fraudulent sale deeds. The court held that entries in possessor columns confer no title and that disputed title requires a civil suit; the writ petition was dismissed as misconceived.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

C. Sanga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 32 9620F 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

C. Sanga Reddy, S/o Late C. Ram Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Driver, Rl/o H.No. l -3-133, lndra Nagar, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

C. Malla Reddy, S/o Late C. Ram Reddy, Aged aboul 44 years, Occ. Driver, Rl/o H.No.B-7-135, Padmashalipuram, Kattedan, IVla ila rdevpally, Rajendrangar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

C. Krishna Reddy, S/o Late C. Ram Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Driver, R/o H.No.B-7-12124, Padmashalipuram, Kattedan, Mailardevpally, Rajendrangar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

.....PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

The District Collector, Sangareddy District At Sangareddy.

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Zaheerabad Division At Zaheerabad.

¶17

The Tahsildar, Mogadampally, At Mogadampally, Sangareddy District.

¶18

Tahera Bee, W/o lrrlohammed lmamuddin, Aged 40 years, Occ. Housewife, Rlo Magdampally Mandal, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District.

¶19

tt/ohd. lmamuddrn, S/o Maroof Ali, Aged 55 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o I/agdampally Mandal, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District.

¶20

Smt. N. Satyavathi, Wo N. Ram Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Magdampally Mandal, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District.

¶21

B. Hanmanth Reddy, S/o Thippa Reddy, Aged about 4'1 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Sirisi Aurad, Karnataka State.

¶22

ltrlohammed Neyamathullah, S/o Mohammed Azam Ali, Aged about 21 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl,/o Magdampally Mandal, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District

¶23

tVlohammed Sattar, S/o Mohammed Pasha Miyan, Aged 25 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Magdampally Mandal, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District.

¶24

Mohammed Sattar, S/o l\rlohammed Pasha Miyan, Aged 23 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Magdampally Mandal, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District.

¶25

l/ohammed Pasha Miya, S/o Mahboob Saheb, Aged 48 years, Occ. Ag riculture, Fl/o Magdampally Mandal, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District.

¶26

.....RESPONDENTS

¶27

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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not carrying out mutation in the Revenue Records and not issuing pattedar passbook in respect of the ancestral prope.rty of the petitioners herein in Sy.No.6g/A admeasuring Ac.7.06 gts, Sy.No.67/A admeasuring Ac.7.37 gts and in Sy.No.78/A admeasuring Ac.12-02 gts total admeasuring Ac.27.17 gts situated at lppepally village Mogadampally Mandal, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District as arbitrary, illegal and in violalion of law apart from being violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 2911O12024 in the interest of justice.

¶28

l.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶29

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 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 2911012024 for mutating the names of the petitioners and issue pattedar passbook in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands in Sy.No.69/A admeasuring Ac.7.06 gts, Sy.No.67iA admeasuring Ac.7.37 gts and in Sy.No.7BlA admeasuring Ac.12-02 gts total admeasuring Ac.27.j7 gts situated at lppepally village l../ogadampally t,4andal, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI D.KAVAL KUMAR

¶31

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

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 12: -

¶33

The Court made the following ORDER

¶34

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY IVRIT PETITION No.32962 of 2024

¶35

ORDER

¶36

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not carrying out the mutation in the revenue records and not issuing pattadar pass book in favour of the petitioner in respect of their ancestral property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.7.06 guntas in Sy.No.69/A; Ac.7.37 guntas in Sy.No.67/A and Ac.l2.O2 guntas in Sy.No.7S/A, total admeasuring ac.27.17 guntas situated at Ippepally Village, Mogadampally Mandal, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District.

¶37

It is the case of the petitioners that the name of their grandfather viz. C.Rama Krishna Reddy was recorded as pattadar in the revenue records and he expired on 17.09.1977 and, thereafter, their father had succeeded the said property, who also expired on 17 .O7 .2O2O. It is the further case of the petitioners that the unofficial respondents have created fraudulent sale deeds over the subject property, which is in their possession since long time and relying upon the said documents they are making efforts to mutate the subject property by creating third party interest. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have made a representation, dated 29.10.2024 seeking for mutation of their

¶38

¶39

¶40

CVT}R. J Wp 32962 2024

¶41

names in the revenuc rccords and consequentia-l issuance of the pattadar passbooks. The grievance of the petiLioners is that even after receiving thc said representation the respondent authorities are not considt'ring the same till date.

¶42

Considcrcd thc submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and with their consent this writ petition is disposcd of at the admission stage. In view of the nature of rclief sought in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofficial respondcnts is dispensed with.

¶43

4 . Admittedlv, no documents whatsoever have been filed to establish that pattadar passbooks have been issued in favour of the grandfathcr of the petitioners either under the provisions of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1357 Fasli or under the provisions of the Telangar-ra Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder. The case of the petitioners is that the names of their grandfather and their father were recorded in possessor column as enjo1,sp5. It is settled law that mere entries in the possessor/ cnjoyer column of the pahanies does not confer any title over the property unless, the petitioners approaches the competent civil Court and obtain a decree of declaration relying upon their long possession of the property. In addition to the

¶44

¶45

¶46

C\TBR, J Wp_32962 2024

¶47

above, there are certain transactions over the subject property and registered sale deeds have been executed in the year 1983, i985 ar,d L994. Since there are serious disputed questions involved with regard to the title and possession over the subject property and the petitioners are disputing the sale deeds which were executed in the year 1983, 1985 and 1994, the^proper remedy to the petitioners would be to approach the civil Court seeking for declaration of their rights and for cancellation of the sale deeds executed and after obtaining decree in the said declaration suit, the petitioners are entitled to make an appropriate application seeking for mutation and consequential issuance of pattadar passbooks, therefore, the writ petition filed is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶48