P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy and 2 Others Vs State of Telangana and 4 Others

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 Order dated 0110712021 passed in Old Case No.A3/2558/2018 by the Special Tribunal, Sanga Reddy District in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.3-10 Gts in Survey No.567 situated at Ootla Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, as illegal. void, unjust, arbitrary, against the settled principles of law and also is in violation of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia. and consequently set aside the same.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl. may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 0110712021 passed in Old Case No.43/2558/2018 by the Special Tribunal Sanga Reddy District in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.3-1 0 Gts in Survey No.567 situated at Ootla Village, Jinrraram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petilioner: SRI N. VINESH RAJ

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: ASST. GP FOR REtt511195

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETI'I'ION No.17450 of 2021

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition is Iiled to suspend the order dated 01.07.2021 in Old Case No.A31255812018 passed by the Special Tribunal, Sanga Reddy District, in rcspect of the land admeasuring Acs.3.l0 guntas in Survey No.567A, AA, situated at C)otla Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

¶30

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Iearned counsel filr the respondent No.5.

¶31

3.^'the brief facts of the case are that thc father of respondent No.5 has filed a suit in O.S.No.1 of 20 l1 on the llle of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, for perpetual injunction, claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.3.l0 guntas of dry land in Sy.No.567A, AA, situated at Ootla Village, Jinnararn Mandal,

¶32

2

¶33

Medak district. l/ide Judgment and Decree daterl 27.10.2014, the learned trial Court decreed the said suit in r-irvour of the plaintiff there;n i.e., lather of respondent No.5. ,\ggrieved by the said Judgment, the tathers of the petiti.rrLers herein respectively, 'vho are defendants therein, have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.23 of 20 14. Vide ludgment rrnd Decree, dated 27.01.2()17, the lcarned District Judge allcwed the suit by setting asidc the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned trial^('ourt. Aggrieved over the said Jridgrnent and Decree, lhe father of respondent No.5 has preferred Second Appeal vide S.A.No.l059 of 2017 before this Co-rrt, which is pending. l'herc are no interirn ordors,

¶34

Relying rn the Judgment and Decree dated l'-7.01 .2014 in A.S.No.23 of 2014, the fathers of the petitionels respectively, hnvc approached respondent No.4^. Iahsildhar concemed for nutation of their narnes in the revt:rtue recorcl. Respondent \c.4 has rnutated the names of the fithers of the petitioners respectively in the revenue record in respect of the

¶35

3

¶36

subject property. Challenging the said action of respondent No.4, father of respondent No.5 preferred an appeal vide Old Case No.A3i255812018. Vide order dated 0l .07 .2021, Special Tribunal, Sangareddy District, allowed the said appeal setting aside the order dated 01.08.2017 passed by respondent No.4. Challenging the said order dated 0l .01 .202l ,legal heirs of the delendants in the said suit i.e., petitioners herein have filed the present wnt pctrtron.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that vide order dated 13.02.2021, the Special Tribunal, disposed of the Old Case No.A3i255812018, which has been constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.4 Rev (Assn.l) Department, dated 12.01 .2021 , for early disposal of the pending cases. Contrary to thc said order, the said Tribunal passed another order dated 01.07.2021 and allowed the same. As such. the orders of the Tribunal dated 01.07.2021 is devoid of merits and liable to set aside.

¶38

4

¶39

Perusal ol the material placed before this^(lourt rvould depict that respondent No.4 has issued mutation proceedings placing reliance on the Judgment and Decree datt:rl 27.02.2017 passed in A.S,.No.23 of 2014, r.vliereby learned l)istrict .tudge decreed thc suit in O.S.No.l of 2011 filed fi:,r pe4retual injunction. The footing of thc subject matter entirely rests on the suit in OS.No-l of 2011, rvhich was filed only for the relief o1'pcrpetual injunction. Since the rights rt the parties cannot be <lecided in a suit frled fbr perpetual irr.iunction, the mutation prcceeding issued by respondent irio.4 has no sanctity. Theretbre, the order dated 0i.07.2021 ;rassed by the Special^'Iribtrnal is well reasoned and interf'e'cnce ol this Court is unuarranted and this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissctl. However, it is needless to mention that the petitioners are: at liberty to work out their remedies as available under lari' before the ..4 Competent Gvil Court.

¶41

5

¶42

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶43

closed. There shall be no orcler as to costs.

¶44

Sd P.PONNA KRISHNA S ISTANT REGISTRAR

¶45

,TRUE COPY//

¶46

CTION OFFICER

¶47

To, 1. One CC to SRI N. VINESH RAJ, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. touTl 4. Two CD Copies BN P],IK M

t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 2l0gl2025

ORDER

WP.No.17450 of 2021

C ':2
I
0 4 ilor 116 ;<
j... . I
-k