Kona Naveen v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 IVIANDAIUUS declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent i-e. the succession summary dt.08l1Ol2O21 in granting succession of the lands in Sy. No.50/6 to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas and Sy. No.90/1 to an extent of Ac.0-'14 guntas both situated at Jendavenkatpur village, Luxettipet lvlandal, Mancherial District in favor of 5th respondent against the will deed executed by the original pattadar without issuing any notrce or opportunity to the petitioner and without considering petitioners objection dt.0411012021 as illegal, ?rbitrary, in patent viClation of principles of natural .iustice, contrary to the provisions of the Telargana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act and contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act as well that of Indian Succession Act and viol,rtive of Articles 14.21 and 300,4 of constitution of lndia of constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the ehtries in respect of the said land in the sth respondents e-pattadar passbook cum title deed vide number T151200501 1 1 in respe,:t of the said land and direct the 4th respondent to revert the entries in the name of original pattadar in respect of the said land and consequently set aside the same. l.A.NO:1 OF 2022 Petition Under Se':tion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the entries in the name of Sth respondent in pattadar passbook number vide T151200501 1 1 in respect of the lands in Sy. No.50/6 to an extent of Ac,2-00 guntas and Sy. No.90/1 to an extent of Ac.0-14 guntas both situated at Jendavenkatpur village, Luxettipet Mandal, Mancherial District pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petiti,)r :r : SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respon,lent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI HINGOLEKAR RAKESH KUMAR AGP GP FOR REVENUE: Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: SRI L.RAVINDER The Court made the following ORDER t- I l I I I i I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.891 of 2022 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 46 respondent i.e. the succession summary dt.08- 10-202 I in granting succession of the lands in Sy.No.5O/6 to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas and Sy.No.9O/ 1 to an extent of Ac.O-14 guntas both situated at Jendavenkatpur village, Luxettipet Mandal, Mancherial District in favour of 5e respondent against the will deed executed by the original pattadar without issuing any notice or opportunity to the petitioner and without considering petitioner's objection dt.O4-lO-2O21 as illegal, arbitrary, in blatant violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act and contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act as well that of Indian Succession Act and violative of Articles 14, 2l and 3OOA ol constitution of India and consequently to set aside thc entries in respect of the said land in the Sft respondent's e-pattadar passbook cum title deed vide number T15120050111 in respect of the said land and direct the 4e respondent to revert the entries in the name of original pattadar in respect of the said land and consequentlv set aside the same. .- Page 2 of7

2. Ht'ard Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learnecl counsel for the petitioncr an.-l Sri Hingolekar Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government l:'leader appearing on behalf of leirrned Government Plcader lor Rer',:nue

3. The petitioner impugns the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 08. 10.2021, granting succession in respect of land in Sy.No.5O/6 (Ac.2-O0 gts) and Sy.No.9Ol1 (Ac.0-14 gts), situated at Jendavenkatpur Village, Luxettipet Mandal, Mancherial District, in favour of the ;th respondent. The said succession was granted in violation of the will deed dated 29.07.2021 executed by the original pattadar (petitioner's grandmother), without notice to the petitioner and without considering the petitioner's objection dated 04. 10.202 1. The action is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the prir-rciples of natural justice and violalive of the Telangana Rights in Lancl and Pattadar Passbooks Act, the Hindu Succession Act, the Indian Succession Act, and Articles 14, 21 , and 3O0-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the aforementioned lands. The petitiorler's grandmother, Smt. Kona Mallawit @ Mallamma, was the original pattadar, having acquired the larld situated in Sy.No.50/6 by gift deed dated 15.09.1970 from her father and Sy.No.9O/ I through a simple sale deed. Her name was duly rccorded in the revenue records and she was issued pattadar passbook and title .. t'agc 3 ol-7 deed, including e-Pattadar Passbook No.T1512O050115. .The grandmother, being issueless and cared for by the petitioner and his father, executed a notarized will deed dated 29.07.2021 bequeathing the subject lands to the petitioner and handed over the original e- pattadar passbook and title documents. She passed away on O2.O8.2O21 and the petitioner performed her last rites. Due to financial constraints, the petitioner could not immediately apply for mutation. However, on O4.lO .2021 , he submitted a representation to the 4d respondent informing about the will and requcsting not to mutate the lands in favour of any third party. Despite this, thc 4n respondent, without notice or consideration of the objection or u,ill deed, sanctioned mutation in favour of the Sft respondent who falseiy claimed to be a Class-ll legal heir and failed to produce any original title documents. This action is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, particularly the principle that testamenta4z succession overrides intestate succession. It also violates the mandatory requirement under Act 9 of 2O2O for submission of original pattadar passbook by thc applicant. Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, read with Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act, confers absolute right to bequeath property through a will. Testamentary succession prevails over intestate succession. The original pattadar executed a valid will ancl the 4rh respondent, despite being informed, ignored it and granted succession to a person claiming under intestate law. The mutation is therefore illegal and the resultant Page .l of 7 entries in favotrr of the 5th respondent are liable to be set aside. Section 6 of Act 9 of 1lO2O mandates submission of a joint agreernent among legal heirs for rnutation through succession. In the absence of any such agreement, ttre 4h respondent had no authorig- to sanction the mutation. The petitioner had already objected and thus, the mandatory procedure uncler the statute was not followed. The irnpugned mutation is therefore unsustainable. The 4e respondent failed to issue any noticc to the petitioncr despite prior intimation about the will, thus violating the fundamental principles of natural justice. The impugned action of the 4fi responclent infringes upon the petitioner's constitutional right to property under Article 3OO-A and right to livelihood under Article 2 1 of the Constitlltion. The petitioner is in lawful possession of the subject lands upon the demise of the original pattadar. The 56 respondent, having obtainr:d mutation through fraudulent means, is attempting to dispossess th(' petitioner. If the entries in favour of the 5s respondent are not suspended, the petitioner will suifer irreparable harm. In tight of the above, tlle petitioher has no alternative efficacious remedy cxccpt to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The 4tu1 respondent, Tahsildar, Luxettipet Mandal, Mancherial District, f-rled a counter aflidavit deny.ing the allegations made in the writ petition. It is contended that the mutation procccdings Page 5 ol-7 dated O8-1O-2O2 1 were carried out in accordance rvith the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2O2O (Act 9 of 2020), pursuant to the application submitted by the 56 respondent along with requisite documents. The petitioner failed to produce any valid or legally admissible document evidencing his claim at the relevant time. The will relied upon by the petitioner is stated to be an unregistered notarized document, the genuineness and validity of which, according to the 4ft respondent, can only be adjudicated by a competent civil court. The 4h respondent further contends that a ficld level enquiry was conducted through the designated revenue authorities and upon satisfaction with the material placed before him, the succession was I granted. It is stated that mere submission of a representation by the petitioner, without a registered will or succession certificatc, does not entitle him to claim mutation or a hearing under the statutory scheme. It is further contended that there was no vioiation of principles of natural justice or statutory procedure and that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 9 of Act 9 of 2O2O or by approaching a competent civil court. The 4rr, respondent submits that the mutation proceedings are revenue entries and do not confer title or affect possession and that disputes regarding testamentary succession fall within the jurisdiction of the civil Courts. Accordingly, the 4th respondent prays for dismissal of the writ petition as bbing not maintainable. Page 6 oi 7 -

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that as per the provisiorr s of law, upon an application being made on-line, the 4th respondent, upon conducting necessary proceeclings and upon satisfaction has issued succession in favour of tht' Sft respondent. Since the petitioner did not hle the objections on-line as contemplated under ROR Act, the same have not been considered. Stating thus, he sought to clism iss the present writ petition.

6. Havrng considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that [hc petitioner ought to have submitted his objections to the 4e respond,:nt in the manner prescribed by lau'. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had, in fact, submitled objections on

04.lO.2O2l, which were not taken into considerzrtion by the 4th respondent on the ground that the petitioner had failed to adhere to the prescribed procedure for filing such objections. In view of the above, this Court disposes of the present writ petition rvith liberty to the petitioner to s,-rbmit a fresh application before thr: 4th respondent, ventilating his girievance in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. Upon recerpt of such application, the 46 respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law and pass appropria re orders within a period of six months thereafter. I I'age 7 of 7

7. disposed of. closed. With the above observations, the present writ petition is No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, stand //TRUE COPY' SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY S TANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER To Telangana at Hyderabad. .1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secreta 2. The District Collector, Mancherial District, Nrlancherial. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Mancherial District. 4. The Tahasildar and Joint Sub Registrar, Luxettipet mandal, Ivlancherial t, State of District.

5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to SRI P.LAKSHIVA REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 7. One CC to SRI L.RAVINDER, Advocate (OPUC) B. Two CD Copies SA BS 1/ -E: -.- ja' ( :i 1t st1 1tt5 HIGH COUIiIT DATED:0911't912025 ORDER WP.No.891 of 2022 DISPOSING CF THE W.P WITHOUT CO STS. .//

1./3 77 /ta/*