Vootla Krishna Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

Oi.. Agiictltri", nib. Cfroutta Ramaram Village, Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District- (R7 is Not Necessary Party) "'RESPONDENTS 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 direction, order or writ particul"riy on" in fft" nature of Writ oi Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herien not to register and mutate any conveyance deed presented by the 6th respondent in respect of land to an extent of Ac.7.15 guntas (comprising of Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No'64, Ac'1'11 guntas in Sy.No.47, Ac.1-22guntas in sy.No.48, Ac.1-28 guntas in Sy.No.74, and Ac'0-37 guntas in sy.No.75) situated in choulla Ramamram Village, Addagudur [t/andal, ! 'l i:1,-, ' , :r.,:l Yadadri-Bhorrgir District, based on the order passed by 4th respondent in case No.F2l36g 4t2012, dated 12t0512o17 and consequently set-aside the order passed by the 4th rer;pondent in case No.F21369412012, dated 1210512017 ' IA NO: 1 OF :2021 petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit tiled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleabed to direct the 2ncl respondent herein not to register and mutate any conveyance deed presented by the 6th respondent in respect of land to an extent of Ac.7.15 guntas (comprising cf Ac.2- 00 guntas in Sy.No.64, Ac.1.11 guntas in Sy'No'47, Ac'1-22 guntas in Sy. \o.48, Ac.1-28 guntas in Sy.No.74, and Ac.0-37 guntas in Sy'No'7S) situated in Ohoulla Ramamram Village, Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, pend ng disposal of the above writ petition' lA NO: 2 OF 1!021 petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the, operation of order passed by 4th respondent in case No.F2l369 412012, dated 12tO512017, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Gounset for tlhe Petitioner : Ms.N.KRISHNAVENI, rep., SRI S.SRIDHAR Counsel for tlre Respondents No.1to5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for tlre Respondents No.6&7 : The Court made the following: ORDER c) THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI 2 1 ORDER: This writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue ct direction order or wit particularlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandamu.s directing the 2nd respontlent herein not to register and mutate anA conueAance deetl presented bg the 6th respondent in respect of land to an ertent of Ac'7'15 guntas (comprising of Ac.2-00 guntas in'Sy-No'64, Ac'1'11 guntas in Sy.No.47, Ac-1-22 guntas in Sg'No'48 Ac'1-28 guntas in Sg.No.74, and Ac.O-37 guntas in Sy'No'7S) situated irt Choulla Ramqtnram Village, Addagudur Mandal, Yad.adri-Bhongir District, based on the order passed by 4th respond.ent in case No-F2/3694/2012, d.ated 12.05.2017 and conseqptentlg set-aside the order respondent in passed by No.F2/ 3694/ 20 12, d"ated 12.05.2017 andpass"' " the 4th

2. Petitioner seeking a direction from this court not to register and mutate any conveyance deed presented by respondent No.6 (Vootla Mohan Reddy (died)) in respect of land to an extent of Ac.7.15 grrntas (comprising of Ac.2.0o guntas in sy.No.64., Ac.1.11 guntas in sy.No.47, Ac.1 .22 gtnLas in Sy.No.48, t.l.28 guntas in Sy.No.74 and Ac.o.37 guntas in Sy.No.7S) situated at choulla 2 JAK, J W.P.No.1827 of 2021 Ramamram Village, Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. Petitioner further seeks a direction to set aside the o::der dated L2.O5.2017 passed by respondent No.4

3. ,Jn a perusal of record, it is observed that petitioner, respo"ndent No.6 and respondent No.7 are brothers and it is a dispute with regard to properties. Respondent No.7 filed an appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, under Section 5 (5) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land rrnd Pattadar Pass Books Act, I97 t and Amended Rules, 1989. The appeal was dismissed by order datecl

19. 1 1 .zOLl. Aggrieved by dismissal of the appeal, respondent No.7 filed a revision under Section g of Andhret Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Books Act, L971. The Joint Collector, Nalgonda (present Yadadri-Bhongir) by order dated r2.os.2oL7 dismissed the revision preferred by respondent No.7. 3 JAK, J W.P.No.1827 of 2O2l

4. The dispute is in narrow compass, in paragraph No.1 of the order of Joint Collector, the Joint Collector recorded as follows: "This case is filed by the revision petitioner through Sri B. Ram Reddy Advocate Nalgonda against the orders passed by the R-D.O Bhongir in case No.D /72Ol2OO9 Dt 19-OL-2011 on the ground in brief that the subject land in Sy.No.7, 8, 47, 48, 64,74,75,76,77,78 & 79 for an extent of Ac 16.30gts was self acquired property of his father Late Vootla Somaiatr @Somi Reddy and he settled property during his life tirne in favour of his three sons and transferred the same by executing registered gift deed No.1295/2OLS e 129612015 in favour of him and respondent No.2 for an extent of Ac 6.09gls & AclO.lOgts respectively and that respondent No.1 got Ac 3.32gts' in Sy.No.68 which was already transferred in his name and that he was a greedy person, taking advantage of his status as V.R.O, he hled several legal proceedings, manipulated the records and managed to get mutation from the Tahsildar Mothkur which is against the gift deeds executed by their father and the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal and therefore requested to set aside the lower court orders."

5. The relevant portion of the order of Joint Collector is as follows: ''1 4 JAK, J W.P.No.1827 of 2021 "... The cases filed by respondent No.1 shown at Sl.No.l to 3 above are dismissed in default but not on merits. The I.A. filed by the son & daughter of the petitioner against respondent No.2 for the Iand in Sy.No.74 is dismissed on meri[s vide order dated 02.O5.2012. None of these cases are precluded the Tahsildar from sanctioning fouthi mutation u/s 5 of Telangana Rights in Land & Pattedar Passbooks Act, 197 L read with general rules of succession under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act as confirmed by the R.D.O. in the appeal.

4. The further complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order without following the procedure prescribed under law on the influence of respondent No.l who is working as V.R.O. Admittedly the petitioner & respondent I & 2 are own brothers and coparceners in the property being ancestral and each is entitled for 1/3rd share therein. The Tahsildar sanctioned mutation for an extent of Ac.6.27 gts., Ac.6.38 gts., irnd Ac.7.00 gts., respectively in the name of lretitioner and respondent L & 2 after conducting l?anchanama about physical possession and after l.aking legat opinion from the A.G.P.O. In view of the above facts I do not see any rnerits in the revision and therefore it is dismissed ets devoid of merits."

6. B,-'that as it ffiay, Ms. N. Krishnaveni, learned counsel representing Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel for petitior:er, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. 5 JAK, J W.P.No. 1827 of 2O2l 7 No interim orders are passed in the Writ Petition' Permission is accorded for withdrawal' S.Accordingly,theWritPetitionisdismissedas withdrawn. No order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending' shall stand dismissed SH /TRUE COPY/ OFFICER to",. one cc to sRt S'SRIDHAR' Advocate' [oPUC] ' 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for

3. Two CD CoPies' BSK BS s? L i I l i I I i I ! the State of Telbngana' / / / HIGH COURT DATED i2110812025 \ ORDER WP.No.'1827 of 2021 't ii: (. L' jit, t \ o 0 6 ttB 2026 v ?:. * *, DISMIS:SING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOIJT COSTS

Oi.. Agiictltri", nib. Cfroutta Ramaram Village, Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District- (R7 is Not Necessary Party) "'RESPONDENTS 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 direction, order or writ particul"riy on" in fft" nature of Writ oi Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herien not to register and mutate any conveyance deed presented by the 6th respondent in respect of land to an extent of Ac.7.15 guntas (comprising of Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No'64, Ac'1'11 guntas in Sy.No.47, Ac.1-22guntas in sy.No.48, Ac.1-28 guntas in Sy.No.74, and Ac'0-37 guntas in sy.No.75) situated in choulla Ramamram Village, Addagudur [t/andal, ! 'l i:1,-, ' , :r.,:l Yadadri-Bhorrgir District, based on the order passed by 4th respondent in case No.F2l36g 4t2012, dated 12t0512o17 and consequently set-aside the order passed by the 4th rer;pondent in case No.F21369412012, dated 1210512017 ' IA NO: 1 OF :2021 petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit tiled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleabed to direct the 2ncl respondent herein not to register and mutate any conveyance deed presented by the 6th respondent in respect of land to an extent of Ac.7.15 guntas (comprising cf Ac.2- 00 guntas in Sy.No.64, Ac.1.11 guntas in Sy'No'47, Ac'1-22 guntas in Sy. \o.48, Ac.1-28 guntas in Sy.No.74, and Ac.0-37 guntas in Sy'No'7S) situated in Ohoulla Ramamram Village, Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, pend ng disposal of the above writ petition' lA NO: 2 OF 1!021 petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the, operation of order passed by 4th respondent in case No.F2l369 412012, dated 12tO512017, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Gounset for tlhe Petitioner : Ms.N.KRISHNAVENI, rep., SRI S.SRIDHAR Counsel for tlre Respondents No.1to5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for tlre Respondents No.6&7 : The Court made the following: ORDER c) THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI 2 1 ORDER: This writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue ct direction order or wit particularlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandamu.s directing the 2nd respontlent herein not to register and mutate anA conueAance deetl presented bg the 6th respondent in respect of land to an ertent of Ac'7'15 guntas (comprising of Ac.2-00 guntas in'Sy-No'64, Ac'1'11 guntas in Sy.No.47, Ac-1-22 guntas in Sg'No'48 Ac'1-28 guntas in Sg.No.74, and Ac.O-37 guntas in Sy'No'7S) situated irt Choulla Ramqtnram Village, Addagudur Mandal, Yad.adri-Bhongir District, based on the order passed by 4th respond.ent in case No-F2/3694/2012, d.ated 12.05.2017 and conseqptentlg set-aside the order respondent in passed by No.F2/ 3694/ 20 12, d"ated 12.05.2017 andpass"' " the 4th

2. Petitioner seeking a direction from this court not to register and mutate any conveyance deed presented by respondent No.6 (Vootla Mohan Reddy (died)) in respect of land to an extent of Ac.7.15 grrntas (comprising of Ac.2.0o guntas in sy.No.64., Ac.1.11 guntas in sy.No.47, Ac.1 .22 gtnLas in Sy.No.48, t.l.28 guntas in Sy.No.74 and Ac.o.37 guntas in Sy.No.7S) situated at choulla 2 JAK, J W.P.No.1827 of 2021 Ramamram Village, Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. Petitioner further seeks a direction to set aside the o::der dated L2.O5.2017 passed by respondent No.4

3. ,Jn a perusal of record, it is observed that petitioner, respo"ndent No.6 and respondent No.7 are brothers and it is a dispute with regard to properties. Respondent No.7 filed an appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, under Section 5 (5) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land rrnd Pattadar Pass Books Act, I97 t and Amended Rules, 1989. The appeal was dismissed by order datecl

19. 1 1 .zOLl. Aggrieved by dismissal of the appeal, respondent No.7 filed a revision under Section g of Andhret Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Books Act, L971. The Joint Collector, Nalgonda (present Yadadri-Bhongir) by order dated r2.os.2oL7 dismissed the revision preferred by respondent No.7. 3 JAK, J W.P.No.1827 of 2O2l

4. The dispute is in narrow compass, in paragraph No.1 of the order of Joint Collector, the Joint Collector recorded as follows: "This case is filed by the revision petitioner through Sri B. Ram Reddy Advocate Nalgonda against the orders passed by the R-D.O Bhongir in case No.D /72Ol2OO9 Dt 19-OL-2011 on the ground in brief that the subject land in Sy.No.7, 8, 47, 48, 64,74,75,76,77,78 & 79 for an extent of Ac 16.30gts was self acquired property of his father Late Vootla Somaiatr @Somi Reddy and he settled property during his life tirne in favour of his three sons and transferred the same by executing registered gift deed No.1295/2OLS e 129612015 in favour of him and respondent No.2 for an extent of Ac 6.09gls & AclO.lOgts respectively and that respondent No.1 got Ac 3.32gts' in Sy.No.68 which was already transferred in his name and that he was a greedy person, taking advantage of his status as V.R.O, he hled several legal proceedings, manipulated the records and managed to get mutation from the Tahsildar Mothkur which is against the gift deeds executed by their father and the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal and therefore requested to set aside the lower court orders."

5. The relevant portion of the order of Joint Collector is as follows: ''1 4 JAK, J W.P.No.1827 of 2021 "... The cases filed by respondent No.1 shown at Sl.No.l to 3 above are dismissed in default but not on merits. The I.A. filed by the son & daughter of the petitioner against respondent No.2 for the Iand in Sy.No.74 is dismissed on meri[s vide order dated 02.O5.2012. None of these cases are precluded the Tahsildar from sanctioning fouthi mutation u/s 5 of Telangana Rights in Land & Pattedar Passbooks Act, 197 L read with general rules of succession under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act as confirmed by the R.D.O. in the appeal.

4. The further complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order without following the procedure prescribed under law on the influence of respondent No.l who is working as V.R.O. Admittedly the petitioner & respondent I & 2 are own brothers and coparceners in the property being ancestral and each is entitled for 1/3rd share therein. The Tahsildar sanctioned mutation for an extent of Ac.6.27 gts., Ac.6.38 gts., irnd Ac.7.00 gts., respectively in the name of lretitioner and respondent L & 2 after conducting l?anchanama about physical possession and after l.aking legat opinion from the A.G.P.O. In view of the above facts I do not see any rnerits in the revision and therefore it is dismissed ets devoid of merits."

6. B,-'that as it ffiay, Ms. N. Krishnaveni, learned counsel representing Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel for petitior:er, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. 5 JAK, J W.P.No. 1827 of 2O2l 7 No interim orders are passed in the Writ Petition' Permission is accorded for withdrawal' S.Accordingly,theWritPetitionisdismissedas withdrawn. No order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending' shall stand dismissed SH /TRUE COPY/ OFFICER to",. one cc to sRt S'SRIDHAR' Advocate' [oPUC] ' 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for

3. Two CD CoPies' BSK BS s? L i I l i I I i I ! the State of Telbngana' / / / HIGH COURT DATED i2110812025 \ ORDER WP.No.'1827 of 2021 't ii: (. L' jit, t \ o 0 6 ttB 2026 v ?:. * *, DISMIS:SING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOIJT COSTS