Disposed

Smt. T.Pushpaneela @ Pushpaleela v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Feb 2025WP/6697/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross writ petitions by rival claimants to agricultural land in Palata Village over mutation of revenue records and pattadar passbooks. The High Court set aside the Special Revenue Tribunal's orders passed without notice and directed the District Collector to hold a fresh enquiry after hearing both sides on their entitlement to mutation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. T.Pushpaneela @ Pushpaleela Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOs: 6697 and 23737 of 2024

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 6697 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. T.Pushpaneela @ Pushpaleela, Wo. Mr. T.Nagabhushanam, aged about 39 years, Occupation. Agriculture and Tailor, R/o. Palata Village, The then Toopran I,4andal, presently l\rlanoharabad Mandal, Medak District, Presently at H.No.'17-2-778l9, t/adannapet, Near Pochamma Temple, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana. Rep by lts Principal Secretary, Revenue Depadment, Secretariet. Hyderabad

¶13

2 The Specral Revenue Tribunal Cum the District Collector, Revenue Depanment ltledak Distrrct.

¶14

3 The Revenue Drvisronal Officer and Appellate Authority, The then Siddipet, presently Toop ra n, IVedak District.

¶15

4 The Tahsjldar Cum Joint Registrar, The then Toopran lt/andal, presently I/anoharabad Mandal, Medak District.

¶16

5 Mrs. lt/othkuri Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo. It/r. Narotham, aged about 44 years, Occupation, Household, R/o. N.C.No.50, Sector l, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

¶17

6 Mrs. Koppula Vijaya Laxmi, Wo. Mr. Venkateshwarlu, aged about 39 years, Occupation. Household, R/o N.C. 10, Vithal Nagar, Goda,vari Kh ani, Karimnagar District.

¶18

[t/rs. Vatti Leelavathi, W/o. Venkateshwarlu, aged about 35 years, Occupation. Household, R/o. H.No.147. Alakapuri. Puppalguda, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

IVrs. Gajji Rajani Kumari, Wo. tvlr. G.V.M.Kiran Babu, Aged about 33 years, Occupation Household,R/o Bayyaram, Khammam District

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndra praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF N,4ANDAMUS to declare the action of the respondent No. 2 i.e., The Special Revenue Tribunal, Cum the District Collector Revenue Department, Medak District, in passing rejection orders without putting any notices to this petitioner in Spl. Tribunal/F3/S98t2O21lCase No.F3/B4B/2017 dated 08-02-2021 with regard to petition scheduled proper{y and alsg failure to take action on the representation of the petitioner dated 23-04-2021 Qonsequently calling the entire reaord from the Office of the respondent No.2 by declare the action of respondent No.2 as totally illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural^justice and against law and violation of ultra-virus and also violation of Article 19.21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of ln d ia.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 direct the respondent No 2 to reopen the case No. Cpl. Tribunal/F31 598120211 Case No.F3/84812017 by put a notice and hear the petitioner's case, pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶24

Counsel for the Petitiorrer: SRI BANDI SAI VAMSHI

¶25

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

¶26

Counsel fo1lhe Respondent No.6 & 8: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SMT D.VENKATA PADMAJA

¶27

RIT PETITION NO: 237 7 0F 2024

¶28

Between:

¶29

Mrs. Mothkuri Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo. Mr. Sarotham, Aged about 55 years, Occupation. Employee, R/o. O. No. A3, Power House Colony, Godhavarikhani, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District.

¶30

lVlrs. Koppula Vilaya Lakshmi, W/o. Mr. Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 54 years, Occupation. Household, R/o GM Bunglow No.2 Singareni Bunglows, Centenary Colony Ramagiri lVandal, Peddapalli District

¶31

Mrs. Vatti Leelavathi, W/o. Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 48 years, Occupation Household, R/o. 403, Ahwan Elite Park. Vinayak Nagar Colony, Nizamabad Distr ct

¶32

¶33

4 lvlrs Gajji Rajani Kumari, Wo. Ir/r G,V.M.Kiran Babu, Aged about 47 yearc, Occupation. Household, R/o Plot No.39 and 40, VI\4 Residency, Vinayaka Nagar Colony. Puppalaguda, Hyderabad-500089

¶34

...PETITIONERS

¶35

AND

¶36

1 The State of Telangana Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. Secretarjat, Hyderabad

¶37

2 The District Collector. Revenue Department, I,4edak District.

¶38

3 I he Revenue Divrsronal Officer and Appellate Authority, The then Siddipet, Presently Toopran, lVledak District

¶39

4^'Ihe Tahsiidar Cum Joint Registrar, The then Toopran ltrlandal, Presently lvlanoharabad Mandal, Medak District.

¶40

5 Smt T.Pushpaneela @ Pushpaleela. W/o, Ii,4r. T,Nagabhushanam, Aged about 39 years, Occupation. Agriculture and Tailor, R/o. Palata Village, The then Toopran Mandal, presently Manoharabad Mandal, Medak District, Presently at H No. 17-2-77819, Madannapet, Near Pochamma Temple, Saidabad, Hyderabad

¶41

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶42

Petition under Artiqle ?26 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumglanc,e$ stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Or{9r or dlrectigq pa(iculqly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No. s 2 to 4 in not mutating the names of the petitioners in respect of land Ac. 0-29 gts in sy.no 5B/A, Ac. O-33 gts in sy.no 64/4, Ac. 0-03 gts in sy.no 65/4, Ac. 0-26 gts in sy no 6B/A situated at Palata Village, Tupran Mandal, Medak District, village, Tupran lviandal. N/edak District, admeasuring Ac 2-19 guntas in Dharani portal, E-passbooks as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles^'1 9 and 21 of the Constrtution of lndra, provisions of the The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020, and issue a consequential set aside the proceedrngs No D1120212024, dated 29.10.2024 & the rejection order rn App No Rc2300010566 Rc2300010575 & Rc 23000'1 0577 & further directing the Respondent Nos 2 to 4 to mutate the names of the petitioners in Dharani Portal 1n respect of the aforesaid lands.

¶43

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶44

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 tg

¶45

direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider and^pass appropriate orders in respect of the application Nos.RC.23000105575, RC.2300010566, dated 26t1012023.

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI D.VENKATA PADMAJA

¶47

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

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI R.R,KALYAN

¶49

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶50

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

¶51

WRIT PETITIONNos. 5697 and, 23737 of 2024

¶52

coMMON ORDER:

¶53

The issue involved in both the writ petitions is intrinsically lnterconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order

¶54

2 W.P.No.6697 of 2024 is filed seeking following relief:

¶55

"...to issue a issue a writ,order or direction more pafticularly one in the narure of writ of Mandamus, d;;i;;t;;"ffi action of rhe respondcnt No.2 i.e.. Thc, Special RJ;;;;" rrir.rrr"i Cum the District Coilector Revenuc Dc_partment. lA"J* Oi],.i., in passing tiis petitioner in rc'jccrion ordcrs .ithout .gyTilg ,"y ";;;.'i, Spl,rribrrnal/F3/ss}/2o2Ucr"-"^-- "liiiao"s);o,z dated 08 O2.2A 21 with reeard r.,r.."-,., i,1..',;,;;:":; ll"^{t'^l..,ll-::fedured,propertvand arso} 2 3 o 4 2 o 2 t " ". ; ; ; ; ;";; L:, ;"d' I; :":j?, J: H:,$.": t r I i:J fr.l"i."l the.respondent rvo.z uy d."t;;^{-th.;i;.;;il;ren} totally illegaj, arbitrary, against principf." of ,r.iir."l justice No.2 andas agarnsr law and violation oi ,tt."-ri.r"^-aoa J""'iilir,ion of Article 1e, 21 and 300-A of the consritutio; "ir"ai"lri;;;""...,

¶56

3 W.P.No.23Z37 of 2024 is filed seeking following relief:

¶57

".,.to issue an ord.er or direction more parTianlarlg one in the nature of writ of Mandarruts decraing th;";i";;;;;;' /"lpli'raent uo".z to 4 in not mutatins the namei of tf* i.uii.i^"idiespea o7 bnd Ac.o.2e sts in ss.no.s8/A, ac.o.ss idi'il.,i.Ziii,'a".o.os s* in sA.no.65/A, Ac.o.26 cns in .sy..ne.6-6ya, siuat"a 'it-' iatata Village, rupran Mand.at, Meiak oisiict,..;;L;;;;;-;.i) e sunto" in Dharani portat, E-passbooks as i egal,_ "ltilr"i,',iiiiiir. of Articles 1e and 21 of the constitution 6f naii, iikjri, ,f the The !3lyyo"""^{Rishts tn_Landand patiaaar iisls';;;;'';",} 2020 and. rssue a consequentlLt set aside the proceedings ii.nllZOZ|ZOZc, doted 29. t O.2O24 "nd . -,!9 rejection Ji"/ "i, App No. RC2so001as66, RC 2s0ooj\szs * niC zsio|i'osii ana further direct the Respondent Nos..2. to c * *iiil- tiJ names oy the petitioners in Dharani portal in n"p"i, ij:ri"" i"i'""'oia und" ona pass... "

¶58

.,),.

¶59

The petitioner in W.P.No.6697 of 2024^ts the^unofficial respondent in W.P.No.23737 of 2024^{and unofficial respondentsin} W.P.No.6697 of 2024 are the^{petitionersin W.P.No.23737 of 2024.}

¶60

For the sake of convenience, W.P.No.6697 ol^{2024 is taken up} as leading case^{to decidethe lis in these cases.}

¶61

It is stated that the^{petitioner is} the^{ownerand possessorof the'} agricultural land admeasuring^{Ac.O.26 gts., in Sy.No.2/a,Ac.0.29} gts., in Sy.No.58/a, Ac.0.33 gts., in Sy.No.64la,^{Ac.0.03 gts., in} Sy.No.65/a, Ac.O.26^gts., in^{Sy.No.68/a, total admeasuringAc.2.37} gts., situated at Palata Village, Manoharabad^{Mandal,MedakDistrict,} having succeeded the same^{throughWill Deed,datcd04 O1.2Oi2,} executed by her late mother and the^{revenue authoritieshave} recorded her name in the revenue^{records and also issued pattadar} passbooks and titie deeds in her favour in^{respect of the subject} property. it is further stated that the^{petitionerhas filed an appeal} under Section 5 of the^{Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar} Passbooks Act, \971 (for short "the^{ROR Act, 1971") before} respondent No.3, aggrieved by the^{mutationproceedings issued by} respondent No.4 uide^{proceedingsNo.B/3581/2013'Respondent} No.3, by an order, dated 05.O7.2016,^{disposed of the same observing} that the subject matter under appeal is^{pending before the VI} Additional District Judge, Siddipet in A.S.No.26 of.20lL^{and as such}

¶62

¶63

::3::

¶64

interlerence at this stage is not correct as the subject rnatter of the appeal is sub .judiced before the civil Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision application under Section 9 of the RoR Act, 197 l before respondent No.2. By an order, dated 0g.02.202 1 in Case No. spl.Tribunar/ F3l sg8/2o2r respo,dent No.2 had dismissed the revision petition and thc partics are advised to agitate their grievances in pending case before the civil Court.

¶65

7 ' It is further stated that during the iife time of the petitioner,s mother, she had instituted a sult uid.e o.s.No.62 of 2ooz on the 1ire of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, seeking declaration and consequential injunction on the very same subject property and the said Court has disrnissed the suit uide judgment arrd decree dated

¶66

09.06.2011 . A counter claim filed by defendant No. 1 seeking for cancellation of sale deeds was also rejected. It is Iurther stated that questioning the said judgment and decree dated 09.06.201 1, the pctitioncr filecl first Appeal vide A.S.No.2 3 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak and the same was also dismissed uide judgment, dated 13.Og,2023 confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.06.20I 1 passed in O.S.No.62 of 2OO7. Thereafter, the petitioner and the unoificiar respondents herein have made an application for correction of the revenue entries and consequential issuance of the pattadar passbooks. The applications

¶67

¶68

frled by t}le^{petitioner as well as the unofficialrespondents have been} dismissed^{on the groundof pendency of the civil suit as well as first} appeal. While^{dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner'the} appellate^{authority has given a findingthat the subject matter of the} appeal is^{sub judicedbeforethe civil Court'}

¶69

Considered^{the submissionsof the learned counsel for the} respective^{parti€'s and rvith their consent' this u-rit petilr{)nis being} disposed of^{at the admission stage'}

¶70

g. Sri J. Prabhakar,^{learned Senior Counsel appearing for the} unofficial^{respondents has submittedthat pending adjudicationof the} first appeal^{fiied by the petitioner, they have also filed an appiication} seeking mutation^{of theirnames in respect of the subject lands in the} revenue records^{and the said applicationhas been rejectedon the} ground of pendency^{of the suit and first appeal'}

¶71

Leamed^{counsel appearing for the parties has fairlysubmitted} that^{pendingadjudicationof the writ petition'appeal institutedby the} petitioner against^{the Judgment and Decree in O S No 23 oi 2007has} been dismissed

¶72

The^{above said facts and also lhe fact s'ith regardLo the} applications^{filed bv either of the partiesseeking for mutation of their} names in^{the revenue records have not been brought to the notice of}

¶73

,r .. :!!!!lr!

¶74

¶75

the special Tribunal. since the fact of disposa.l of the appeal suit filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.62 of 2OOZ and the rejection of the applications for mutntiorr of their names in the revenue records arrd the counter claim made by the motl_rer of the petitioner have not been brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority, thc Appellate Authority has dismissed the craim of the petitioner.

¶76

12, In the said circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside thc impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions i.e,, Case No. Spl.Tribunal/ F3 / Sg8/2021, Case No.F3/848/201,7, dated OB.O2.2O2| and the proceedings Proc.No.D 1 /2 02 / 2024, dated, nil-O7.2024.

¶77

Accordingiy, both the writ petitions are disposed of relegating the. petitioners to Ille fresh apprications seeking for mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject property ald on such applications being filed by the parties, the District Collector is directed to conduct enquiry after issuing notice to the parties. After conducting enquiry, taking into consideration the documents fi1ed by the petitioners as well as the respondents and their entitlement for mutation of names in the revenue records and findings arrived by the trral Court in O.S.No.62 of 2OO4 with regard to entitlement of the respective parties for mutation of their names in the revenue records

in respect of the subject^{property,the District Collector is directedto} pass appropriate orcicrs lor issuance of^{pattadarpassbooksin} accordance with law. If^{the parties are not othervrise entitled'pass} appropriate reasoned orCer and^{communicate the same to the parties.} The entire exercise shall be completed^{within a period of eight (08)} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy^{of this order.}

¶82

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications^{pending if any,shall}

¶83

stand closed. No costs.

¶84

//TRUE COPY//

¶85

SD/-N. SRIHARI REGISTRAF - rK'_11 OFFICER

¶86

¶87

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶88

The Special Revenue Tribunal Cum the District Collector Revenue Department, ltiledak District.

¶89

The District Collector, Revenue Department. tUedak District I

¶90

The Revenue Dlvisronal Officer and Appellate Authority, The then Siddipet, presently Toopran, Medak District.

¶91

¶92

The Tahsildar Cum Joint Registrar, The then Toopran l,4andal, presently lvlanoharabad It4a ndal, Medak District.

¶93

One CC to SRI BANDI SAI VAMSHI. Advocate IOPUCI

¶94

One CC to SRI D VENKATA PADIVAJA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶95

B. One CC to SRI R.R.KALYAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶96

9 Lwg Cqs 19_Gl_ FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUT]

¶97

¶98

10.Two QD Copies BSR BS W

¶99

HIGH COURT'

¶100

DATED:1110212025

¶101

, ..1 i r\ a- STA 7S
(
()
t) 3 J irlfi flHf t-)
I
'Sipri-i C{

¶102

COMMON ORDER

¶103

WP.Nos.6697 and 23737 of 2024

¶104

DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS,

¶105

WITHOUT COSTS

¶106

S
0i
@ <br>+c

Smt. T.Pushpaneela @ Pushpaleela v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. T.Pushpaneela @ Pushpaleela v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gowra Jangaiah Vs State of Telangana

Sapavath Ramulu, Vs The State of Telangana

Mir Jalaluddin Ali Khan alias Mohammed Jalaluddin Akbar Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. BanalaNagesh Vs the State of Telangana

Sri. Sunkari Venkatesh @ venkataiah Vs State of Telangana

Gouni Beesireddy @ Beesanna Vs The State of Telangana