Disposed

Kathula Yadaiah v. The State of Telangana and 12 others

Telangana HC7 Nov 2024WP/5718/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging mutation of agricultural land based on an alleged fraudulent sadabainama validated in 1991 without notice to the petitioner. The High Court held that the validity of the decades-old document cannot be decided under Article 226 and directed the petitioner to institute a suit.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition disposed of directing petitioner to pursue a civil suit, with no costs.

Kathula Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 12 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

H]GH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH^{DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENry FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE C.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO :5718^{OF 2O23}

¶7

Between:

¶8

KathulaYadaiah,s/o.LateMuthaiah,Agedabout42ye.ars-rOcc'Emptoyee' i{f.'rilyi,. e_i_7isli,^{Roio No.3, RTC eobny,NatsohdaTown and District,} Telangana State.

¶9

...PETlTIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The District Collector,^{NalgondaDistrict,Telangana State'}

¶13

3.TheRevenueDivisionalOfficer,NalgondaDivision,NalgondaDistrict' Telangana State.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Nalgonda^{Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana Statr!'}

¶15

The Director,^{Town and country Planning, Office at Masab Tank' Hyderabad'}

¶16

6' Kathula Maraiah,^{S/o. Late Chinna Kashaiah, Aged 6s years,'occ'Employee,} - Fyo. H.No. 8-1-236, Gollaguda locality of Nalgonda Town and Distnct'

¶17

Kathula Krishnaiah,^{S/o' Late Chinna Kashaiah,.Aggd 65 years' Occ'} ' ffi;i:.;;.;;;-C6. H.rlo. e-1230, Gollaguda localitvof Nalsonda rown and District.

¶18

S.KathulaShankaraiah,s/o.LateChinnaKashaiah,Aged63years'Occ' Emolovee. Fl,/o. H.No. oi-rai,^{vveki"anOJt'tagar,"Hyderabad Road'} ruaborida Town and^District.

¶19

Kathula Rambabu,^{S/o. LateChinna Kashaiah,.Agred} {6^{years' Occ'} , "' ffi;6iee,'C7;. tt.ivo. a-l-230' Gollaguda localitvof Nalgonda Town and District.

¶20

lO.Kathula Durga^{Prasad, S/o. Late Ctrinna Kashaiah,} Aoed 42 vears, Occ. ,^{doflasudalocalitYof}

¶21

'- Emotovee. {/o. H.No. 8-3-23, Dheen Dhayal Nagar Naborida Town^{and District.}

¶22

1 1 . Dudioala Venkat^{Reddy'S/o' Ram Redqy,} 4S.9d^{about 56 )€qrs' Occ'} ' ' Er.-lHJ.i,-i,;". ti.lio. o:2-eto, Behind NG college, srinagar colonv' l,talgonda Post,^{Nalgonda District'}

¶23

"A+!i8g.H8l,,"flr:'f E,??i[?Hy,:dg'r]ff S,ilts:,":.,","80"?i&. co to ny, Road No. 2. rrrear Wate? iin i, ila. n"J5i S ; doinft;;:i;;#", " Reddy District.

¶24

13.The Station House Officer, ll Town Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Consfitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit rirlo in"r"*itt, the Hi;h'c;r.t'Lrv u" pleased to issue Wrt, Orde.r or direction or;;r;th", appropriate order one in the nature of a "r/llrit of Mandamu-s declaring tir" ""tioir'or'tt" +flr-i."piii"n, !".Tns..tt9lloceedings^{vide No.13/B/,ttinigi} iit"a NrL, for mutarion of rand in sy'No'174 admeasuring. A_c.1-o0gG "itrrla at Goilaguda vilrage, !afoo1aa.^{Mandat, NatgondaDistrici *itt"ri} issuing unv--nlti"""lna opportunity to the petitioner as. iflegar, arbitrary ina vioraiio; Jf prin"ipl"J or natural justice and set aside the "im" "nJ iiso airect tne n"sponJJnis- to make corrections in the revenue ,"""ra" o-v issuing digitar pattadar Passbook in favour of- the petitionei' ior ?e above said rand and consequenty to suspend a, the -consequentiar proceedings irsreJ'iyit" Respondents in proceedings vide No.13/dlJlZr9f 'oateo Nlr

¶27

(Prayer amended as per C.O. at. Oz.tt.zoilin lA.No. 3l2o24l

¶28

lA NO: 1 oF 2023

¶29

Petition under section is1..cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in ll:-_rffil3yit^{fited in.-supportof the p"iitio'n,} ir,! iigrr Court may be pteased to suspend the proceedingsNo. 13rBtJti4lsr, i"i"d *ii, issreo by Respondent No.4 Iand in Sy.No.174, actmeasudng .1": 1_oo'g;;i;s,';r:tuated at Go,aguda Vi,ase, Na.lgonda Mandar, Nargonda alstrtct, p"naing'li"p"o."r of the above main rirrt petition

¶30

lA NO:2 oF 2023

¶31

Petition under Section..!;S1 Cl.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of t1e petiti#,1iie"HigI'iorrt may be preased to direct the respondents No.11 and 12 to.itop tn" o"r"r5pr-"nt activities and to direct the official respondents not to_grant the conversion pioceeoings of agricurturar to non agriculturat asper NA|.A nit pr.119 frrO i" iY.f1".174, admeasuring Ac. 1_00 guntas' situated at (ioraguda Virage, Nargo;l; Mandar, Nargonda District, pending disposal of the above main wri-t petitioi-"--

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner:SRl. G ARUN KUMAR

¶33

Gounsel forthe Respondent Nos.l to 5: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.13: GP FORHOME}

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.6 lo 12: --}

¶36

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶37

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

¶38

WRIT PETITION No .571a oF 20/23

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

This wri t petition is hled seeking to declare the action of resporident No.4 in issuing proceedings uid.e No.l3/BlJ/24 l9l, for mutation of land a<lmeasuring Ac. l.0O gts., in Sy.No. 174, situated at Gollaguda village, \algonda Mandal, Nalgonda Distrct, in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 10, without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶41

2 Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respectrve parties and perused the record.

¶42

It is stated th,lt the grandfather of the petitioner was the owner and possessor of the agricultural Iand admeasuring Ac.6_19 guntas, in Survey No. 174 and Ac. I -03 guntas, in Sy.No.2gO, situated at Gollaguda village, Nzrlgonda Mandal and District. It is further stated that the petitioner arong with other brothers succeeded the said property as lineal descendants. The case of the petitioner is that the name of the petiti.ner's grandfather is recorded in the Khasra Pahanis for the year 1954-55, and other pahanies and they are in possession and enjovment of the said land. It is further case of the petitioner that respondents Nos.6 to 12, by creating fraudulent

¶43

¶44

documents^{as if the predecessorsof the petitionerhave executed the} sadabainama^{in their favour, got mutatedtheir names in the revenue} records in respect^{of the land to an extent of Ac'1-OO gts'' in Survey} No. 174, situated^{at Gollaguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District'}

¶45

4.Thelearnedcounselforthepetitioner,vehementlyarguedthat while validating^{the propertyunder Section5 of the Andhra Pradesh} Rights in^{Landand Pattadar Passbooks/lr:t' lg7 | (for short' 'the ActJ} and the^{Rulesmade thereunder,no procedurehas beenfollowed by} the revenue^{authorities. Therefore,the validation proceedings issued} in favour of^{respondentNos'6 to 10 uide Proceeding} No.l3lBlJ 124l9L,^{is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act} and the^{Rulesmade thereunder'Hefurttrercontendedthat the} any notice to^the Persons revenue authorities^{have not issued} interested^{in the matter'}

¶46

S.ThisCourt,uideorder,dated.lT.lo.2o24,permittedt}re petitioner to^{take out personal noticeto respondent Nos'6to 12' It is} stated that^{the persona-I notice was dulyserved only on respondent} Nos. 6 and^{11. Since, this Court is disposing of the writ petition, the} presence of the^{respondentsis not necessary'}

¶47

This writ^{petitionis frled questioning the validation Proceedings} AdmittedlY,^the issued bY^{resPondent No'4'} No.rslBlJ /2a /9r and it has^been sadabainama^was executed in^the Year^198O

¶48

¶49

validated in the ve,ar 1991. Further, the names of respondent Nos.6 to 10 have been mutated in the revenue records basing on the sadabainama, uide^proceedings No. l3 /BlJ/24/gl. The revenue authorities have also issued pattadar passbooks in their favour. However, the case of the petitioner is that the sadabainama is not genuine one and it is a fradulent document.

¶50

7' At this lengttr of time, this court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain the Writ petition and decide the validity or otherwise the sadabainama said to have been executecl in the year l9go. If the petitioner is aggrieved with the action of validation of the sadabainama and consequential entries in the revenue records, he is always having right to question the said entries b1. ;.nstituting appropriate suit before the Competent Court and basing orr the declaration decree, he is always entifled to make appropriate application seeking correction of the entries in the revenue records

¶51

I The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶52

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closecl

¶53

SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSI GISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

To,

OFFICER

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶58

The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Telangana State.

¶59

The Revenue Divisional fficer, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District, Telangana State.

¶60

4 The Tahsildar, Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State.

¶61

¶62

The^{Director,Town and country Planning, ffice at MasabTank'Hyderabad}

¶63

The^{Station l-louseOfftcer'll Town Nalgonda' Nalgonda District'}

¶64

One^{CC to SRl. G ARUN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]}

¶65

¶66

S.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana. touTl

¶67

q Two CCs to GP for Home'^{HighCourt for the State of Telanganaat}

¶68

HYderabad. [OUTI

10.Two^{CD CoPies}

KKS

]r.*---'--ra----'-

'- ; /-.

a,'aa,raa ;l

-{i

: -f^!i't ;:#.'7:.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711112024

\ \

ORDER

I,
t f{6 S Trr tc
) e (
2; JAi,t 2025
L+
*i
.')F,.,, n.It.^,
\1

¶83

WP.No.5718 of 2023

¶84

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS

¶85

Kathula Yadaiah v. The State of Telangana and 12 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kathula Yadaiah v. The State of Telangana and 12 others

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

Alegapally Srinivas Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Younus Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Pathi Vilas Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Sheena Agro Farms (P) Ltd. Vs All India Council for Technical Education

Manuguri Ganesh Vs The State of Telangana

Sultan-ul-Uloorn Educational Society, Mount Pleasant Vs All India Council for Technical Education Chandralok