Dismissed

Paindla Chinna Mallaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Nov 2024WP/9717/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the petition by upholding the revisional authority order deleting respondent entries from revenue records. The court ruled the order was well-reasoned and no interference is needed, while directing civil courts to decide pending suits on merits without being influenced by revenue observations.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of by upholding the impugned order; revenue authorities directed to implement the revisional authority's order unless restrained by a Civil Court.

Paindla Chinna Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011112024

ORDER

WP.No.9717 of 2022

1 l4
ii
o r('
<br>)
L)
2trum
\totz
i

c6f,. o

¶6

.^{DISPOSING OF THE W.P}

WITHOUT COSTS.

\u, €f(€a
#,r*

Bt;1,

<br>

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any,

¶16

shall stand closed. No costs.

¶17

SDL K.SREERAMA^MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

.1, q,.

SECTION OFFIGER

The Principal- Secretary^{to Govemment, Revenue Department,Secretariat,} State of Telangana^{at HYderabad.}

¶23

The District Cdlector,^{M'ahabubabad District,T.S'}

¶24

The Joint Collector,^{Mahabubabad District,T.S'}

¶25

;: irr; nur"n*^{otri"ionat officer,Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District,T.s.}

¶26

The Tahsildar,^{Thorrur Mandal Mahabubabad District,T'S'} 6: i;; Ccs to GP^{FoRREVENUE,High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶27

z. oire cc to SRI^{S.LAKSHMI KANTHAdvocate [oPUC]}

¶28

6: on" CC to^{SRI G.L.NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶29

S. On. CC to SRI^{H.VENUGOPAL' Advocate (OPUCI} - iO.On" CC to SRI^{N.ANAND KUMAR,Advocate (OPUC)}

¶30

11.Two CD Copies

Taking into consideration the submissions made by both the parties, s;ince it is the case of the petitioner that the revisional authority, while exercising the powers undt:r Section 9 of the Act, 197 1, has con{irmed the order of the appellate authority and directed the respondent-authorities to carry out necessary corrections in the pattada_r passbooks for deletion of the extents ad,led to the khata of respondent No.6, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the revisional authority is a well reasoned order, which does not wa-rrant any -rl interference o1' this Court in a summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inciia. Accordingty, ends of justice would lte met if the civil Court is directed to decide the pending suit on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the revisional authrtrity, duly considering the evidence adduced by the either of the parties.

¶35

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of by upholding the impugned order passed by the revisional authority. The revenue authorities are directed to take appropriate steps for'implementation of the order passed by the revisional authrtrity, if there is no restraint order issued by the competent Civil Court for implementation of the same.

¶36

¶37

::3::

¶38

revision ulde Rc.No.Esll2O4 l2ol1 under^{Section9 of the Act,} l97l and the revisional authority,^{uide order, dated Ol.O7.2Ol7} had dismissed the said revision by confrrming^{the orderpassed} by the appellate authoritY.

¶39

On the other hand, learned^{counsel appearing for} respondent No.6 submits that^{pendingadjudication of this writ} petition, the petitioner had filed a comprehensive^{suit seeking} declaration and consequential^{injunction againstthe} respondents. Be that as it may, unlike^{the revision provided in} other enactments, the revisional^{authority under the provisions} of the Act, 1971 is having^{power to modify and anull the entries} in respect of any record of^{rights prepared or maintainedon} being satished as to the^{regularity,correctness,legality or} propriety of any decision taken,^{order passedor proceedings} made in respect thereof and if it^{appears to the revisional} authority that any such^{decision, order or proceedings should be} modified, annulled or reversed^{or remitted for reconsideration,} he may pass orders accordingly.^{The powersunderrevisionalso} confer on the revisional^{authority to exercise the powersof the} original authority^{with regard to the modifrcationor annulling} the entries in^{the revenue records'}

¶40

)

¶41

name is recorded^{in the revenue records and pattadarpassbook} and title deed^{has also beenissued in respectof the subject} property uide^{Passbook No.201305and Khata No' 782' ltis} furtherstatetlthathehasreceivedvariousin<:entivesas investment subsidies^{sanctioned by the StateGovernment' The} case of the^{petitioner is that when the nameof respondent No'6} has been incorporated^{in the revenue recordsby deleting his} narne in respect of^{the subject property, the petitioner was} constrained to^{file an appeal uide Rc'No'A l425l2Ol1before the} Revenue Divisrional^{officer under section 5-B of the Telangana} Rights in Land^{and PattadarPassbooks Act, lgTl (for short' Act'} 197 1) and the^{RevenueDivisional Officer, being the appellate} authority, duly^{taking into consideration of the entriesmade in} the revenue records^{and also the saledeeds producedby the} petitioner anrl respondent^{No.6, had passed an order' dated} 17.O2.2011 directing^{the respondent-authoritiesto canceland} delete the name^{respondentNo.6 in respectof the subject} property.

¶42

Sri L. R;evi^{Ch'ander,learned Senior Counsel appearing for} the petitioner submits^{that aggrieved by the orders passedby} the Revenue Divisional^{Officer, respondent No'6 had filed a}

¶43

i i

¶44

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶45

WRIT PETITIO^{N No.9717 of 2022}

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

This writ petition is^{frled seeking to declare the inaction of} the ofhcial respondents^{inimplementingthe orders dated} 17.O2.2O11^{passedby respondent No.4 in Rc'No'A/425/2OlLby} cancelling and^{deleting the name of respondent No'6 from entry} in the passbook^{of respondent No.6 in respectof land to an} extentofAc.O.3ggts.,inSy.No.3g,situatedatThorrurVillage and Mandal,^{MahabubabadDistrict, which was upheldby the} respondent No.3^{inrevisionRc.No'ES/ l2O4 /2oll'} dated OI.O7.2O|7, as^{illegal and arbitrary and for other appropriate} reliefs.

¶48

Considered the submissions^{of the. learned counselfor the} respective^{parties and perused the record'}

¶49

It is stated that the^{petitioneris the owner and possessor} of the land to^{an extentof Ac.O.39gts', in Sy'No'39, situated at} Thormr Village^{and Mandal, MahabubabadDistrict'having} purchased the same^{under a registeredsale deed uide docurlrerrt} No.1134 of 1980,^{dated'22.08. 1980' It is further stated that his}

¶50

,:l

¶51

r.A.NO: 40 F 2022

¶52

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mav be pleased to direct the Respondents No.B to '10 not to d isturb/dispossess the petitioner from the peacefur posses:sion and enjoyment of by interfering in the rand in sy.No.3g extent Ac.0-39 gts., s;ituated at rhorrur Viilage and tvrandar, IVrahabubabad District (erstwhile warangal District) pending disposal of main writ petition in the interest of justice

¶53

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI S.LAKSHM| KANTH

¶54

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Gp FOR REVENUE

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI G.L.NARASIMHA RAO

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI H.VENUGOPAL

¶57

Counsel for the implead Respondent Nos.8 to 1O : SRI N.ANAND KUMAR

¶58

The Court made the following OROER

¶59

¶60

Rc'No fu425l2011 by cancering and dereting the name of the respondent No.6 from entry in the passbook of respondent No.6 to the extent of Sy.No.3g extent Ac.0-39 gts., situated at rhorrur Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District (erstwhile warangar District) which was upherd by the Respondent No.3 in Revision Rc No.E5/120412011 dated 01to7t2o17 as iilegar, arbitrary, capricious and violation of arr canons of fair play and naturar justice and consequenfly to direct the officiar respondents to cancer and derete the name of the respondent No'6 from entry in the passbook of respondent No.6 to the extent of Sy.No.39 extent Ac.0-39 gts., situated at rhorrur viilage and Mandar, Mahabubabad District (erstwhile Warangal District)

¶61

(Prayer amended as per C.O. dt. ZO.1Z.2O24 in lA.No.1/2023) LA.NO:I OF 2022

¶62

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 preased to direct the officiar respondents not to entertain any sare transactions in favour of any third parties in respect of land in Sy.No.39 extent Ac.0-39 gts., situated at Thorrur Village and Mandar, Mahabubabad District (erstwhire warangar District) pending disposal of main writ petition in the interest of justice. !.A.NO:2 OF 2022

¶63

Petition Under Section 1s1 cpc prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondents not to disturb the peacefur possession and enjoyment of the petitioner by interfering in the rand in Sy.No.39 extent Ac.o-39 gts., situated at rhorrur Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District (erstwhire Warangal District) pending disposal of main writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶64

[^32e6 J

¶65

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

¶66

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶67

PRESENT

¶68

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶69

WRIT PE TITION NO: 9717 0F 2022

¶70

Between:

¶71

Agricutture, R/o.H.tJo.5-11, Paindla Chinna Mallaiah, rnorrurvii[se;;;M;"i;i S/o. Kunti Muthaiah, Aged MrniorLolobili.:tt.about 65 vears. Occ

¶72

.....PETITlONER

¶73

AND

¶74

1 . The State of Telangana-, rep. by its principal Secretary to Government,

¶75

_^{Bevenue Department,Secretaiiat,Hyderabad.}

¶76

? ]|"^{Districl Coilector, Mahabubabad District,T.S.}

¶77

9 Ih"^{Joint Coltector, Mahabubabad District,} i.S.

¶78

4' The Revenuer Divisionar officer, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District, T.s.

¶79

The Tahsitdar, Thorrur Mandal fvfafraouOaOaJ6isiiict, f.S.

¶80

6' Karne somaiah, S/o. Somaiah ngeo about 7i y""i., o"". Agricurture, Rl/o.

¶81

_^{ThorrurViltage and Mandal,Mahibubabad} Dislri;i

¶82

Tekuta.Yadagiri Reddy, llo _Bixam neaOy, ngeJ ;bout 69 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2_37, peddanagari, Vi,rg;, Narsimhulapet n,andat, Mahabubabad District.

¶83

Superintendent of porice, Mahabubabad District, Mahabubabad, T.s.

¶84

!, !9nutv^{Superintendent of potice,} M"h;a;;;l District, T.S.

¶85

10.The Station House Officer, p.S. ihorrur, fUut uUrO.f"O District. (Respondent Nos.8 to 10 are impread"a'"i p"idorrt order dared 20-122024 in l.A.No.3 oI 20221

¶86

.....RESPONDENTS

¶87

Petition- Under Arlicre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances staterd in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the inaction of the offbiar respondents in implementing the orders dared 17/0212011 passed by the 4th respondent in

Paindla Chinna Mallaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paindla Chinna Mallaiah v. The State of Telangana

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

Bollam Dayakar Vs The state of Telanagana

M/s. Manikya Homes Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Ca Bala Srinivasa Rao Namburi Vs Union of India

Mohammad Socihara bi and another Vs The state of Telangana and 5 others

M.Sattaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Madapa Nikhil Vs The State of Telangana