Thavidaboina Sainath Vs State of Telangana and 3 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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or orders' Direction or Directions to declare the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Endorsement No'B/$286t201g dated 18t02t2o20, as illegal and unsustainabte and to issue a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to decide afresh the application of the 4th respondent seeking mutation in respect of the tands in sy'Nos'416lllA and 41$11t{A,of Gandamvarigudem village. Nalgonda Mandal and District, after giving reasonabte opportunity to the petitioner.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 1!020

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to suspend the order of the 3rd respondent in Endorsement No.13t428612019 dated 18.O2.2O20, pending disposat of the Writ Petition.

¶16

counsel for the Petitioner: sRl VEDULA sRlNlvAS, sENloR couNSEL . counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 3: sRl RAKESH, AGP FoR REVENUE Counsel for tlre Respondent No.4: --

:,

I

I I I l i

THI IIOIOI'RABLE SRI JIISTrcE E.V.VEIIUGIOPAL

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This writ petition, under Articre 226 of the constitution of India, is filed seeking the foltowing relief:

¶23

".-.pleased to bstte a writ of Mandamus or ana other appropriatE writ Mer or ordirs ariJii" or Diredbns tn dedare typ.::fptnqs of ttw Sra respiient in End.orcement No.B/4286/2019, aatea 18/02/iO2O as iilegat and unsttstainabre and, to isste a @flsequentiar direction to file 3rd respondent to decide lfreslt tG:iiiii.tion oj trc iin respondent_ .:rgrw matation in n"p6it of the rands in sv-rYos.4r 6/r/A and. 416/ l/aA oy ciiai^uaigudem vittase, Nalgonda Mandal qd Dbtrict - in i- "iUrrW opporfrinitg to the petitioner artd. pass'..."^r rea,snable

¶24

2- The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is owning different extents of rand in sy.Nos.4 12 and 4r3, situated at Gandamvarigudem vilage, Nargonda Mandar and District. The petitioner purchased Acs.4.I4 v2 guntas in sy.Nos-412/AA and 413/AA from Banda Mohan Reddy under registered sale deed bearing document No. 1264g of 2ol2 and he also purchased a further extent of Acs.4.rs guntas in sy-No-4L2/AA and 413 /AA of the very same village along with B.Mohan Reddy under registered sale deed bearing No.r1939 of 2o08, dated 2o.Lr.2oog from Maragoni Lingamma through AGPA No'1064s of 2oog, dated 13.ro.2oog. From then, the

¶25

..r.. ..L..

¶26

petitiont:r is in peaceful possession of the subject property and r€venue authorities has also issrred patta passbook No.T2820O22O69O, Ktrata No.3629. Respondent No.4 has applied to respondent No.4 for mutation in his favour in respect^,rf land in Sy.No .4L6, admeasr:ring Acs.2.21 guntas of Gandamvarigudem village claiming to have purchased the same urrder document No.2 L238 of 20'19, dated 23.Og.2OLg from Bobbala Anjaiah, Kakkala China Maraiatr and Jald<ala Picchi Maraiah.

¶27

Respondent No.3 called for objections in Form No.8, dated 16.1 1 .2}lg and the petitioner filed the objections within time opposing the mutation. The petitioner have pointed out that though respondent No.4 is showing the land as sihrated in Sy.Nc'.416 is existing in Sy.Nos.4L2 and 413 belonging to tlle petit.ioner. The vendors of respondent No.4 have filed a suit for perm€rnent injunction in O.S.No.348 of 2OO8 against .Maragoni Shankaraiah and others on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda in respect of the property in Sy.No.4 161 1l A and 416l L /AA of Gandamvarigudem village and the suit was decreed on OL.O2.2OLL. T?rere are variations in tJle boundaries shown by respondent No.4 herein in respect of the land purchased by him from Jakkala Chinna Maraiah

¶28

::3::

¶29

and others in Sy.Nos.4L6/LlA and 4L6|L/AA and tl'e boundaries shown by the very same Jakkala Chinna Maraiah and others in O.S.Nb:348 of 2OO8 in respect of the sErme propert5r. Thus, tl,e application filed by respondent No.4 for mutation cannot be accepted and ought to have been rejected.

¶30

The petitioner has clearly pointed out this to respondent No.3 in his objections, dated 22.Il.2OLg and L2.l2.2OLg. Respondent No.3 failed to examine the petitioner's objections. Respondent No.3 rejected the objections and granted mutation in favour of respondent No;4 by endorsement dated 18.O2.2O2O in No.B/428612OL9; Respondent No.3 appears to have obtained a report from Mandal Surveyor before passing the impugned order but the said survey was not conducted after glving notice to the petitioner and in the^presence of petitioner. Petitioner has already liled O.S.No.3 4 of 2Ol2 in the Court of Junior Civil iudge, Nalgonda for permanent injunction against the vend.ors of respondent No.4 in respect of the petitioner's property in Sy.No s.4L2 / 1/A and 412 I L / AA. The said suit was decreed on 05.02.2018 and the Court found that the petitioner is in possession of tJle subject property and ( accordingly granted injunction against the vendors of t .esponleht No.4. The action of respondent No.3 in^granting

¶31

4

¶32

mutatio n in favour of respondent No.4 in proceedings No.B/42186/2O19, dated LB.O2.2O2O is illegal and unsustainable. Hence, tlee present writ petition.

¶33

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing fcir the petitioner and Sri Rakesh, learned Assistant Governnrent Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.l to 3 and penrsed the record.

¶34

k:rrned Senior Counsel appearing for, the petitioner would s-rbmit that respondent No.3 without considering the objectiorrs of the petitioner has grated mutation in favour of respondent No.4 uide endorsement No.Bl4286/2O19, dated I8.O2.2O2O, which is illegal and unsustainable, hence seeks indulgence of this Court.

¶35

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revcnue, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on instructions wotrld submit that the objections raised by the petitioner has been examined and it is found that the claim of the petitioner in respect of the boundaries shown to Sy.No.416 in sale deed are not the boundaries of land in Sy.Nos.412 and, 413 and also upon veriffing the decree in O.S.No.34 of 2OL2, the respondent

¶36

.o{o.

¶37

authorities issued proceedfngs No.B/42g6/2olg, dated L8.O2.2020.

¶38

In the laht of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal challerrging the impugned order dated L8.o2.2o20 passed by respondent No .3 uideproceedings No.B/428612oL9, before Appellate Authority Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to take all the grounds and contentions, which he has raised in the present petition, before tlle Appellate Authority, and. it is for the Appellate Authority to consider the sarne. on liling of such appeal, Appellate Authority shall dispose of the same in accord.ance with [aw. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶40

M. JAWAHAR //TRUE COPY// To OFFICER 1. Hyderabad, State 2. 3 4 5 Telangana, at 6. PSK. MP sK

/

,

t

li i