T.Yadagiri v. The State of Telangana

Smt- Anusuia. Wo: Late Srisailam, aqed maior Occ. Housewife, R/o Subashhigar Colony Vikarabad village ind Mandal, Vikarabad District. Md. Shakeel Khan, S/o: Mohd Burhan Khan, Aged about 55 years, Occ: .. . Business and Agriculture, R:/o H.No.19-3-2631N40, Achi Reddy Nagar, Bibi Ka Chesma, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.S is impleaded as per C.O. dt: 8.04.2025 in l.A. No.2/2025) ...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 an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent herein in taking steps to issue the mutation proceedings ior mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land in sy.No.136/1/5, 136t1t6, 136fin, rcil1/8 and 136/'119, total admeasuring Ac. 5.06 gts', situated at Narayanapur village of Vikarabad Mandal and District, in view of allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner by the 2nd respondent in case nlo. c/g43l2006 dt.2011212014 setting aside mutation proceedings No. 6/548i2006 dt. s_11_2005 issued by the 3rd respondent, inspite of the personar visits folcwed by written representations dt. g-5-2019 and 20-3-2024, as being iilegar, arbitrary, unjust and colourabre exercise of powers and consequenfly direct the 3rd respondent to issue the mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioner in respecl 0f the above mentioned lands, in compliance of the above said orders. IANO:1OF2 025 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 preased to direct the respondent No 3 herein to consider the representations dt. 9-5-2019 and 20-3-2024, pending disposar of the main writ petition, in the interestof justice Counsel for the petitioner: SRI K. SANJEEVA KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and S:___ The Court made the following: ORDER HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2695 of 2o25 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief: "....to issue an appropiate Wit, Order or Drection more particularly one in the nature of Wnt of Mand.amus declaing tLLe inaction of the 7d respondent herein in taking steps to issue tlle mutation proceedings for mitation of the name of tlrc petitioner in the reuenue records in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.136/ 1/ 5, 136/ 1/6, 136/ 1/7, 136/1/8and 136/1/9 total admeosuring Ac-5.06 gts situated at Naraganapur villoge, of Vikarabqd. Mand<tl and District in uiew of allowing the appeal filed bg the petitioner bg the 2"d respondent in Cose No.C/843/2006 dt.2o/ 12/ 2014 setting aside mutation proceedings No.B/ 548/ 2006 dt 5' 11-2005 issued bg the 3'd respondent inspite of the personal uisits follou,Ed. bg uritten representations dt.9.5.2)19 and 2O.3 2024 os beittg -itlegal, aibitrary, unjust and colourable exerctse of pouers and coiequentlg direct the 3'd respondent to tssue the mutation proceedirlgs in fauiur oj the petitioner in respect oJ tle aboue mentioned lands in complionce of the qboue sqid orders. . - . "

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and 3. possessor of .agricultural land admeasuring Ac'5'06 gts in Sy.Nos.136/ 115,' 136ltl6, t36lt/7, 136l1l8 and t36lrl9, situated at Narayanpur Village, Vikarabad Mandal and District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated

23.11.1998 vide Document No.5555/1998' The petitioner submits that to meet his hnancial necessities, he borrowed money from Sri ;i E R. Srisailam, husband of respondent No.4, by mor-gaging the subject property. Upon failure to repay the loan, Sri F:.. Srisailam filed a suit lor recovery of money, which was pursuanQe <>f the same, the subject property was sold in a court decr,:ed and in auction ancl tt Sale Certilicate dated 0 i .05.2O05 u'as; issued in favour of Sri ll. Srisailam. Consequent to the said sal,r, mutation proceedings rvere initiated vide Proceedings No B/548/2OO5 dated

05.10.2005. Aggrieved by the same, it is stated that tL.e petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 and thrl same was allowed on iZ0.l2.2Ol4 setting aside the said mutation 1'roceedings' The grievarrce of the petitioner is that despite sul>mission of representations dated 09.05.2019 and 2O.03.2O24 recuesting the respondent No.3 to mutate his name in the revenue records, till date, no actiorL has been taken.

4. The learned counsel for the impleaded respo ndent No.5 submitted th,rt the respondent No.5 is the lau'ful o'"vner and possessor of the subject lands, having purchased the same under registered -sale deed dated 29.1O.2O1O vide document No.3O71l201(). It is further submitted that initially, th': petitioner, who was thr: owner of the subject lands, had mortgaged the same to the husband of the respondent No.4. The husb:rnd of the respondent No.4 filed a suit for recovery of the loarr .rimount vide I -) O.S.No.34 of 2OO2 on the h1e of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, which was preliminarily decreed on 30.10.2002 and a hnal decree' was passed on 21.10.2003 in I.A.No. 190 of 2003. Thereafter, the husband of .the respondent No.4 filed Execution Petition No.6 of 2OO4 an:d the same was allowed on 17.17'.2004, resulting in issuance of Sale Certifrcate dated 03. l2.2OO4 in favour of Sri R.Srisailam. Subsequently, the husband of the respondent No.4 sold the subject lands under registered sale deed dated 10.04.2006 vide document No.2O91/2O06 to Syed Omer and Mohammed Asif, who in turn sold the same to the respondent No.5 vide registered sale deed dated 29.10.2010. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed I.A.No.694 of 2OO5 in O.S.No.34 of 2OO2 seeking to condone the delay of 1010 days in filing an application to set aside ex patte decree, in which respondent No.S filed I.A.No.351 ol 2Ol9 seeking to implead him as party and the same was aliowed on ll.O2.2O2O' It is further submitted that even though the respondent No.5 and legal heirs of Sri R. Srisailam raised objections, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed I.A.No.694 of 2005 vide order dated 15.02.2024 ' Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.5 hled C.R.P.No'869 of 2024 on the hle of this Court, wherein this Court set aside the order dated 15.02.2024 vide order dated 19.09.2024. It is vehemently contended that suppressing these material facts and the orders passed in the earlier proceedings, the petitioner has frled the 1 present writ petition and therefore, the writ petitror is dismissed rvith exemplary costs. liable to be S. In K.,Jagqrq.m and. others us. Bangalore Deoelopment Authorit!! and. otherst, the Hontrle Supreme Court held that it is imperativr: that party approaching the wfit court m.st come with clean han d s and put forward all facts before the ( tourt without concealing; ,rr suppressing anything. It was further observed that a litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevan- to litigation and if he v/ithholds some vital or relevant material in :rrder to gain advantage orzel o,n.. side then he would be guilty of 6:laying fraud with Court as well as with opposite parties which cannot be countenance(i. In the instant case, it is evident that the petitioner has deliberatr:ly suppressed the fact that the decree obtained by the husband of the respondent No.4 has attained finality and that the sale and successive transfers based on the Court salc fu.,1y6 already vested title and possession is in favour of the respondent No.S. 6. Admitteclly, the petitioner has not.whispered about the final proceedings in r).g.11o.30 of 2OO2 and the subsequent alienations, and the dismissal of I.A.No.694 of 2005 u pon chaLrenge in c.R.p.No.g69 of 2o24.u /hen the property was sold through Court auction, a Sale rlertifrcate was issued, and third-party riElhts were t (2022) t2 scc 8js I I ,, .nfl ,,-',::rri:, .:-$'t,: created through registered sale deeds, the petitioner, who lost title long back, cannot now seek mutation of his name in the revenue records ignoring the judicial findings and legal transfer of title. This Court, therefore, finds no rnerit in the writ petition' The petitioner' having suppressed material facts, abused the process of law' and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs' In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of 7. Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be deposited in Account No.62423627 327 (Library), Telangana High Court Advocates' Association, Hyderabad, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. A copy of the receipt evidencing payment of costs shall be filed in the Registry As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any' shall stand closed. tf$*"m't*r,fld;*i*tl#at'.m date oI order. TOTAL /TTRUE COPY" Rs. Ps 10,000{0 --io:66655- ,P'"{i+iHA8?[ik SECTION OFFICER State of Telangana' To, 1 The President' Advocate Association' High Court Advocate IoPucl at HYderabad Cto S Court for the toG eva Kumar' nue, High P for Reve ri K. Sanie

2. One C 3. Two CCq State of Telangana, at Hvderabad touTl Two CD CoPies

4. TJ PSK .s .l , '. ,.,t'tt3*ldi ; .',.'.,1.;. ; ,,..ir:.--,;.;il I i,: .. HIGH COURT DATED:0810412025 ORDER WP.No.2695 of 2025 DISMISING THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS ti iTAfei c+ J rl: lN 2$6 . gt! * [) ":'>.+ iI ,t / /