SRI K. AJITH REDDY REP Ms v. SANJANA The Court made the following

Counsel for the Appellhnt: SRl. SRINIVASA RAO SIRIKONDA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. AJITH REDDY REP Ms. V. SANJANA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ,. THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF WSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO WRIT APPEALNo.42 of 2025 JUDGMENT: @er the Hon'bte Sri Justi.ce J. Sreeniuas Rao) This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellants invoking the provisions of Clause 15 of the l,etters patent aggrieved try, the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 19549 of 2022, by which the writ petition filed by ttLe appellants was disposed of by setting aside the mutation rrrade in favour of the appellants in respect of the subject property tc ar extent of Ac. 1.00 gts. in Sy.No.253 situated in Pregnapur 'r/illage of Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District.

2. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Sirikonda, learned counsel for the appella:rts, Mr.Muralidhar Reddy Katram, leamed Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.K. Ajith Reddl , learned counsel representing Ms.V.Sanjana, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

3. With t.he consent of both pa_rties, the writ petition has been disposed of at the admission stage. 2

4. Brieffacts ofthe case: 4. 1. Facts giving rise to frling of this writ appeal briefly stated are that the appellants are claiming that they are owners and possessors of the subject property i.e., agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 1.00 gts. in Sy.No.253/9 situated at Pregnapur Village of Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District, and the sarne was purchased through registered sale deed uide doctlir.:nent bearing No.5517 of 2OO4 dated 21.06.2004 from Sri Kolupula Narsaiah, who is none other thal the father of respondent No.4. The appellants further averred that they have purchased total extent of Ac.2O.34 gts' in Sy.Nos.253, 254 and 338 of Pragnapur Village from other vendors as well through registered sale deed. The revenue authorities after following the due procedure issued proceedings on 25'05'2006 mutating the names of the appellalts in the revenue records and pattadar pass book and. tifle deed were issued and they have been in possession of the subject property.

4.2. Tlne appellants averred that they came to know that respondent No.4 and another filed suit in O.S.No.31 of 2014 before the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Siddipet, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the vendor of the appellants without - 6r/ a') | - //I 3 making them as party defendants arld obtained ex parte decree by suppressirLg the material facts. During pendency of the said suit, respondent No.4 frled appea-l before the Revenue Divisional offrcer, Gajwel, qu.estioning the mutation proceedings dated 25.05.2006 issued in frrvour of the appellants in respect of the subject property and the said appeal was dismissed, by its order dated 2g.05.2018 and the sarne has become hnal.

4.3. The appellants further averred that basing on the decree dated 31.01.2018 passed in O.S.No.34 of 2014, respondent No.4 has made zrn application for mutation of her name in the revenue records. l?ursuant to the same, respondent No.3 has issued proceedings; dated 17.09.2019 mutating the name of respondent No.4 in the revenue records. euestioning the above said proceedingsr dated lZ.O9.2Ol9, the appellants have fded W.P.No.19549 of 2019. Learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition by setting aside the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the appellants as well as respondent No.4 and directed respondent No.3 to issue notice to. the appellarrts as well as respondent No.4 and other persons, if any, and pass appropriate orders by duly taking into consideration 4 the judgment in Chinnam Pandurangam v' Mandal Revenue OIficer, Serilingampally Mandal and othersl within a period of three (3) months and till such time, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the subject property in all respects. Thus, the appellants frled the present writ appeal' 5 1 Submissions of learned counsel for the appellants: Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that 5 respondent No.4 is not having any right in respect of the subject property and the appellalts have purchased the same by paying valuable sale consideration through registered sale deed dated 2I.06.2004 and since then they have been in possession of the subject property and the revenue authorities issued mutation proceedings in favour of the appellants on 25'05 '2006 ' Questioning the said proceedings, respondent No'4 hled appeal before the Revenue Divisional Offrcer, Gajwel and the said appeal was dismisse d on 28.06.2006 and the said order has become final'

5.2. He further submitted that suppressing the above said facts' respondent No.4 and. another hled suit in O'S'No'31 of 2014 before the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Siddipet, against the vendor of the ' ltR 2oo8 nP ls ./ I n I i t 5 appellants, namely Sri Kolupula Narsaiah, without making the appellants as party defendants. During pendency of the suit, Sri Kolupula l\arsaiah died on 22.07.2017 and respondent No.4 obtained e:y parte decree by suppressing the said fact. Basing on the ex pafte decree, respondent No.4 submitted application for mutation of her name in the revenue records, though the decree passed in ().S.No.31 of 2Ol4 is not binding upon the appellants.

5.3. He further submitted that respondent No.3, without verifying the recordr; and earlier mutation proceedings dated 25.05.2006 issued in lavour of the appellants and the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Offrcer, Gajwel, dated 28.05.2018, issued proceedingr; on 17 .O9 .2O 19 proposing to mutate the name of respondent No.4 in the revenue records and the same is contra4r to iaw.

5.4. He srrbmitted that the revemre authorities mutated the names of the appellants pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 2LO6.2OO4 ald the said mutation proceedings was confirmed in the appeal and respondent No.4 has not questioned the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Offrcer dated 28.05.2018. In the 6 absence of the same, the learned Single Judge ought not to have set aside the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the appellants.

6. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.4:

6. 1. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the competent civil Court passed decree of declaration of title in favour of respondent No.4 and pursuant to the said decree, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 17.09.2OL9. l*arrted Single Judge rightly set aside the said proceedings and directed respondent No.3 to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2O2O (hereinafter referred to as 'ROR Act') and the appellants are entitled to raise all the objections before respondent No.3 ald there are no grounds in the appea-l. Analysis: 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the appellalts are claiming rights over the subject property basing on the registered sale deed dated I I I I I I i I --3. ,,n 7

21.06.2004 said to have been executed by Sri Kolupula Narsaiah, who is none other than the father of respondent No.4, and pursuant t. the said sale deed, the revenue authorities issued mutation proceedings in favour of the appellants on 25.05.2006. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 had filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the RoR Act before the Revenue Divisional officer, Gajwel, and the sarne was dismissed on 28.O5.201g. It further reveals from the record that respondent No.4 has not questioned the said ordr:r ald the same has become {inal.

8. It furttLer reveals from the record that even prror to hling of the appeal before tJle Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel, respondent 1tro.4 and her son frled suit in O.S.No.31 of 2014 before the Senior Civil Judge,s Court, Siddipet, seeking declaration and perpetual inj unction against Sri Kolupula Narsaiarr, who is the vendor of thr: appellants, without making the appellants as party defendants and the said Court passed ex parte decree in their favour. Respondent No.4 herself averred in the said suit that she came to knorv that the defendant executed sale deed in favour of the third pa.rties and the said averment clearly reveals that respfid?nt No.4 is having knowiedge about the execution of the I 1 8 registered sale deed in favour of the third parties. However, respondent No.4 without making the purchasers, namely the appellants, as party defendants filed the suit against the defendant, namely Sri Kolupula Narsaiah, only and obtained ex parte decree against the dead person. Basing on the satd ex parte decree, respondent No.4 is not entitled to seek mutation of her name in the revenue records in respect of the subject land ald the same is not binding upon the appellants and also not enforceable under law. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought not to have set aside the mutation proceedings dated 25.O5.2006 issued in favour of the appellants and the same is excess of jurisdiction.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and respondent No.4 is granted liberty to work out her remedies by approaching the competent Civil Court to establish her claim in respect of the subject property against the appellants ald thereafter respondent No.4 is entitled to make necessary application for seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records. ./,, 9

10. To the: aforesaid extent, the order passed by the learned Single Judgt: is modified.

11. Accorc.ingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGtSTR4II \ ---- ) SECfION OFFICER One fair copy to the HON,BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE (For His Lordship's Kind perusal) one fair copy to th" HoN,BLISRI JUSTIcE J sREENTvAS RAo (For His Lordship,s Kind perusal) To, Affairs, New Delhi.

1. '1 1 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderrabad 1 If Rf g,eal Secreta c. Ine utstflct Corlector, Siddipet District. Siddioet 6. The Tahsildar, ,3ajwel Mandal, SiOOipet Oistrict. /. one cc to sR sRtNtvA.sA RAO stRtKoNDA, Advocate topucl 9. 9n" CC to tVs. V. SANJANA, Advocate fOpUti 9 Two ccs to GP FoR REVENUE ,High bourt icir the state of rerangana at '10.Two CD Copies ry.(R.eve.nu9), Secletariat, T.S., Hyderabad, Hyderabad [OUTI '- BM FT BS \ I Itrc Sl I JiF 1 / lAl 20li P 7-! c i I o a HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 JUDGMENT WA.No.42 of 2025 t t (, a DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ps'of&A l6 - -6--rrtao