Disposed

Jillella Narsimha v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Telangana HC28 Oct 2024WP/6059/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging mutation proceedings by directing the petitioner to file a comprehensive civil suit to decide title, noting that revenue entries do not confer title. The Court maintained status quo for eight weeks and allowed liberty to approach civil court and subsequently revenue authorities based on the decree.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained for 8 weeks; direction to file comprehensive civil suit for declaration of rights.

Jillella Narsimha Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^32s6 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD} (SPecial Origindl Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER}

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶8

WRlT PETITION NO: 6059 OF²⁰²²

¶9

Between:

¶10

Jillella Narsimha, S/o chandraiah,^{Aged about 48 years, occupation._Agriculture,} nlo H. No. 8-32, Chennaram^{VillageoiThalakondapally Mandal, Ranga ReddyDist.}

¶11

..PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its PrincipalSecretary, Revenue} Department Secreiiriat of^{TblanganaSt'ate, Hyderabad.}

¶14

2 The Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar^{Office of Tahsildar, Thalakondapally} Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. :

¶15

J The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Kandukur Division,Ranga Reddy District'} 4 The District Collector,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict.} 5 Jillella Yadaiah,^{S/o Chandraiah,Age 52 years,Occupation.-Agriculture, R/o} Chennaram village Thalakondapally.Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District'}

¶16

6 Kanoula Venkataiah, S/o Ramulu,^{Age 53 yearsOccupation' Agrlculture,R/o} Ven(atraopet Village Thalakondapally^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article^{226 of the} constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfibd therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order^{or direction particularlyone in the nature of writ of} Mandamus, declaring^{the mutation proceedingdaled.141o912021issuedby the} Respondent no. 2 Tahsildar,^{mutating/ enteringthe name of the Respondentno 6} in the Dharani Portal^{vide transactionnci.ZlOOZZlOl0,in respect of the land S.} No. 70 (shown as 70/A)^admeasuring Ac.4-04gts.,^{of chennaram Villageof} Thalaondapally^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict, without issuing any notice to the} petitioner, as arbitrary, against^{the principles of natural justice,unconstitutional'} illegal and void and consequently^{set aside the same.}

¶19

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitlon, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the mutation^proceedings dated. 1410912021 issued by the Respondent no. 2 Tahsildar, mutating/entering the name of the Respondent no. 6 in the Dharani^{Portal vide transaction} no 2100231010,^{in respect of the land S. Nq. 70} (shown as 70lA\ admeasuring Ac.^;4-Q4gts., of Chennaram village of Thalakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,^pending disposal of the wril petition.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

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 accept the annexed document as additional material^papers and which may be read as^part and^parcel of the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents No. 5 and^6.

¶24

A O:1 OF 2024

¶25

Between:

¶26

Jillella Yadaiah, S/o Chandraiah, Age 52 years, Occupation. Agriculture, R/o Chennaram village Thalakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶27

2 Kangula Venkataiah. S/o Ramulu, Age 53 years Occupation. Agriculture, R/o Venkatraopet Village Thalakondapa$y Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶28

...PETITIONERS/REEPoNDENT No.5&6

¶29

AND

¶30

Jillella Narsimha, S/o Chandraiah, Aged about 48 years, Occupation. Agriculture, R/o H No 8-32, Chen(aram Village of Thalakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist

¶31

,..RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶32

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

¶33

The Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrgr Office of Tahsildar, Thalakondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶34

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division, Ranga Reddy District.

¶35

5 The District Collector Ranga Reddy District.

¶36

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶37

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court may be pleasedto} vacte the interim order^passed by this Hdn'ble^{Courtdt.08-02-2022 W.P.No.6059} of 2022.

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.SREENIVAS

¶39

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : Op FOR REVENUE

¶40

Counsel for the Respondents No.5&6 : SRI S.ARJUN^KUMAR

¶41

The Court made the following:^ORDER ,

¶42

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

¶43

WRIT PETITION No.6O59 of 2O22

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

This Writ Petition, uncler Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶46

India, is filed seeking the following relief

¶47

"...1o is-sue a Wnt, Order or direction particalarlg one in the nature of Wit of Mand.amus declaing the mutation proceeding dated 14/09/2021 tssued bg the Respondent No.2, Tahsildar, mutating/ enteing the neme of the Respondent no 6 in the Dhnrant Porlal uide transaction No.21OO23lO10 in respect of the land S.No.70 shown as 70/A ad.nleasuing Ac.4o4gts of Chennaram Viltagte of Thalaondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddg Distict Luithout issuing ang notice to the petttioner as arbitrary ogainst the pinciples of natural justice unconstihttional illegat and uoid and consequentlA set oside the same and pass.-.,,

¶48

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

¶49

The case of the petitioner is that originally the land to an extent of Ac.4-O4 guntas in Sy.No.7O/A- situated at Chennaram Village, Thalaondapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, belongs to respondent No.5, who is his own brother and the subject land has been purchased by his brother under registered sale deed from the original owner namely Sri Gajula Krishnaiah, but due to family necessities, respondent No.S sold the subject land to him under an unregistered sale deed, dated 10.1O.1999 for a sale consideration and delivered the possession of the subject

¶50

¶51

land to him. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has dug a bore well in the subject land and obtained electricity sanction uide S.C.No. 1 20 and also constructed a house after obtaining permission from the Grampanchayat with approved 'plan and residing in the said house. It is the further case of the petitioner that the unregistered sale deed, dated 10.1O.1999 was validated by the concerned Tahsildar, under Section 5_A of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, 1971 (for short the Act, l97l,) uide File No.B/632 /2008, dated 3O.O3.20i0. While the things stood thus, when disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No.S, the said validation proceedings are challenged by respondent No.5 by liling an appeal before the Revenue Divisiona-l Officer (R.D.O.), Mahabubnagar in case No.B/ROR/23 32 /2O1O and the same was allowed by ex parte order, dated 25.05.2011; aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Revision Case ujde No. case No.Dl/35/2Oll under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and by order, dated 17.06.2011, the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar granted interim stay of bperation of case No.B/ROR/23g2/2OtO, dated 25.05.2011 passed by the R.D.O. and the same was extended from time to time; the said Revision Case was allowed on

¶52

¶53

01.06.2013 setting aside the order passed by the R.D.O. and remitted the matter back to the R.D.O. for fresh enquiry, but in view of reconstitution of the Districts by the State Government, the matter was transferred to the R.D.O., Kandukur^Division, Ranga Reddy District and the same is^pending for adjudication. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter, respondent No.2-Tahsildar validated unregistered sale deed,^dated 10.10.1999 under Section 5A of the Act, 1971 and l3-B proceedings were also issued in his favour. While so, respondent No.5 created a registered sale deed document bearing No.1993 of 2017, dated 17.O3.2017 in favour of respondent No.6, as if the subject land has been sold to respondent No.6 and on knowing about the said alleged sale deed, he liled an objection petition, dated 02.05.2017 before respondent No.2 not to mutate the name of respondent No.6 on the basis of alleged sale deed, d,ated 17.03.2017. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.5^preferred an appeal vide No.A2/2382/2OlO before respondent No.3 questioning the proceedings No.B/637/2008, dated 30.03.20f 0 passed by respondent No.2 and the same was a,llowed by setting aside the said proceedings, dated 30.03.2010. It is the furthei case of the petitioner that later respondent No.6 filed a suit uide

¶54

O.S.No.47 of 2Ol7 on the Iile of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kaiwakurthy for perpetual injunction by suppressing the facts and obtained ex parte injunction order, dated 06.O5.20|Z; thereafter, respondent No.2 mutated the name of respondent No.6 in the revenue records and entered the same in the 'Dharani Portal uide transaction dated 14.O9.2021, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and ignoring the pending objeclion petition filed by him and basing on the said mutation proceedings, respondent No.6 is illegally interfering into his possession over the subject land and also making efforts to a,lienate the subject land and also trying to create third party interest over the subject land. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not taken into consideration of his possession over the said property on the sada bainama and also the permissions obtained by him and mutated the name of respondent No.6 in the Dharani Portal and as such, he prays this Court to set aside the mutatign proceedings, dated L4.O9.2O21 issued in favour of respondent No.6.

¶55

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 vehemently contended that respondent No.5 has purchased the said property through a valid registered sale deed and therefore, the petitioner is not having any right over the subject property and

¶56

p9 ---"4*d>-'U'---

¶57

-')

¶58

denied the execution of sada bainama and consequential possession of the petitioner over the subject property Learned counsel for responcrent No.5 further submitted that the petitioner has instituted a suit urde O.S.No.7S of 200g for speciflc performance claiming right over the property which is subject matter of the registered sale deed

¶59

Be that as it may, since there are serious disputes over the inter se parties and as mere issuance of pattadar passbooks or entries made in the revenue records or updation of revenue records does not confer any title to either of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that, ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner is directed to file a comprehensive civil suit before the competent court seeking declaration over the rand to an extent of Ac.4-O4 guntas in Sy.No.7O/A situated at Chennaram Village, Thalaondapalry Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, if he is having any claim to dispute the registered sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.6 and after deciding the rights of inter se parties in the said suit instituted by him or in the pending suit filed by him for declaring the rights of parties, the parties are at liberty to make appropriate apprication under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, 2O2O (for short Act, 2O2O) seeking mutation or updation of the

¶60

I I

¶61

revenue records over th€ subject lands in terms of the decree passed by the Civil court. In the event of filing such application, the revenue authorities are directed to mutate the names of the decree holder in accordance with law. Since it is the case of the petitioner that he has been enjoying the said property and .orders^{passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer without} assigning any valid reasons, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo for a period of eight (8) weeks to enable the petitioner to avail remedy to approach the competent civil Court for instituting comprehensive civil suit and for filing application seeking relief as he entitled in the said suit.

¶62

6 With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs-

¶63

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶64

closed

¶65

SD/.T.^{TIRUM ALA D} VI ASSISTANT^R ts R ,TRUE^COPY// SECTIO FFICER

¶66

¶67

to",. ' ,n" Principal^{Secretary', Revenue Department Secretariat of Telangana State'} State^{of T6langana'HyderaDao'}

¶68

z The Tahsildar^{and Joint Sub-Registrar Officeof Tahsildar' Thalakondapally} ' iii;;d;i' R,nsa ReddY District

¶69

The^{Revenue DivisionalOfficer'KandukurDivision' Ranga Reddy District'}

¶70

The District^{Cqllector'Ranga Reddy:District'}

¶71

One^{Cg to SRI K'SREENIVAS'AdvocatelOPUCl}

¶72

6 Two^{CCs to GP FORREVENUE'High Court for the State of Telangana'} lourl

¶73

Two^{CD CoPies} (+

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2Bt1OtZO24

1 H E 14 14:
I
r(
7 0 N I I02 4
a
l
t)F-s (

¶80

ORDER

¶81

WP.No.6059 of ZO22

¶82

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶83

r),* :

¶84

rl 2a 7+ \oc4_rs)

Jillella Narsimha v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jillella Narsimha v. The State of Telangana and 5 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

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

Nuthalapati Madhu Vs The State of Telangana

P.Jaipal Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration