The High Court · 2025

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 I I I I I t2- ,'t' pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction, preferably in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Endorsement issued by The Respondent No.3/The District Collector, Vrkarabad ln File No. D1323612022 daled 30-0'1-2023 and upon perusal of the same be pleased to set aside the impugned Endorsement issued by The Respondent No.3/The District Collector, Vikarabad ln File No. D1323612022 dated 30-01-2023 and consequentially declare the succession granted in favour of the Respondents No 7 and 10 based on the Endorsement issued by The Respondent No.3/The District Collector, Vikarabad ln File No. D1323612O22 dated 30-01-2023 to an extent of Aues 2j .32 guntas in Survey Number sy no 11'1 (sub-division number 1 i1l1l1l1, j11ljl112, 1111113 and 1111111/4) of lvlomrnkhurd village, Dharur lr4andal, Vikarabad District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14,21 a d 300-A of The Constitution of lndia, contrary to the natural principles of justice and further direct the Respondent No.3 to restore the names of the Petitioners over an extent of AcIes 21 .32 guntas in Sy. Nos 1111111, 1111112 and 11111/3 (present sub-vision numbers 111t11111, 111111112, 1111113 and 111111114) of Mominkhurd village, Dharur Mandat, Vikarabad District as originally stood patta in the name of the petitioners in the interest of Justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petltion, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Endorsement issued by The Respondent No.3/The District Collector, Vikarabad ln File No. D 1323612022 dated 30-01-2023 pending disposal of The Writ Petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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. 6,Tahasildar, Dharur [,,landal not to register any sale deed, or enterlain any transaction in respect of the agriculture land in sy no numbers 111111111, 111111112, 111111113 and 111111114 of lvtominkhurd village, Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District pending disposal of The Writ petjtion in the interest of justice. I ) lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between:

1. Mohd Abdul Mannan, S/o Late Mohd Abdul Gafoor Aged about 62 years Occ . Private Service R/o 4-7-163, Subhas Nagar, Vikarabad - 501101

2. Mohd Abdul Wahed, S/o Late tr/ohd Abdul Gafoor Aged about 40 years Occ . Private Service R/o 4-7-163, Subhas Nagar, Vikarabad - 501 101

3. Mohd Abdul Raoof, S/o Late Mohd Abdul Gafoor Aged about 66 years Occ . Currently None R:/o 4-7-16611, Subhas Nagar, Vikarabad - 501 101

4. Mohd Abdul Rasheed, S/o Late lVohd Abdul Gafoor Aged aboul42 years Occ . Private Service Rl/o 4-7 -163, Subhas Nagar, Vikarabad - 501101 ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS No.Ttol 0 AND 1 Harijan Bheemaiah, S/o Late tt4alkaiah about 80 years Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No 4-16, Mominkhurd Village, Dharur lvlandal, Vikarabad District. Harijan Kishtanuna, W/o Chandraiah about 74 yea.s Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o. 4- 13, Mominkhurd Village, Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District. Harijan Lakshmamma, W/o Laxmaiah about 60 years Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No 4-14, Mominkhurd Village, Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District. 2 J

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Department, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS its Principal Secretary, Revenue

2. The Chief Commissioner, of Land Administration Telangana. 3. The District Collector, Vikarabad District. 4. The Addl Collector, (Revenue) Vrkarabad District. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad. 6. The Tahasildar, Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order Dt 27-04-2023 passed in WP 12120 of 2023. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.V.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1to6 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.7to10 : SRI T.SHARATH The Court made the following: ORDER + -<.* .) ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1212O of 2o23 -- This writ petition is filed seeking following relief "For the reasons stated in the accompanying alhdavit, the petitioners herein pra]-ecl that this Honourable Court may be pteased to Lssue appropriate writ, order, direction, preferably in the nature of Writ of Ccrt iorari, calling for the records relating to the Endorsement issued by The Respolrdent No.3/The District Collector, Vikarabad In File No. D13236/2022 dated 30-01-2023 and upon perusal of the same be pleased to set aside the impugned Endorsement issued by'lhe Respondent No.3/The District Collector, Vikarabad In File No. D/323612022 dated 30-01-2023 and consequentially declalt' the succession granted in favour of the Respondents No 7 and 10 based on tl']e Endorsement issued by The Respondent No.3/The District Collector, Vikarabad In Fite No. D1323612022 dated 30-O1-2023 to an extent ofAcres 21.32 guntas in Survey Ntrmber st no 111 (sub division number 111 / l l 1 l 1 , l l1 l 1 l 1 /2, 111, /l /3 & 111/l/114l. of Mominkhurd village, Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District as illegat, arbitrary and violative of Article 14,21 and 300-,{ of 'lhe Constitution of India, contrary to the natural principles of justice and lurther direct the Respondent No.3 to restore the names of the Petitioners over an extent of Acres 21.32 guntas in Sy. No's llllill,111/ll2 and 1l 1/ 17 3 {present sub vrsion numbers lll/l/1/r, &, I11l'l/ll4) ol 1tl/r/112, Mominkhurd village, Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District as originally stood patta in the name ofthe petitioners in the interest ofJustice and pass such other and further order or orders as this Honourable Courl deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." lrtlrl3

2. It is stated that I "t petitioner's father Late Malkaiah purchased land admeasuring to an extent of Acs. 2l .32 guntas in Snrvcy No.111 (OId number 103), situated at Mominkhurd Village, Dharur Nilandal, Vikarabad District from one Abdul Gafoor S/o. Abbas Ali and he q,as also owner of other lands in Survey Nos.83/A and 192/2, situated at Momimkhurd Village and Survel' Nos. 192/A and 189 12, situated at Rirjapur Village and I .$ 2 CVBR, J W.P.No.1212O of 2O23 the name of his father was recorded in the revenue records and he has also filed a declaration in File CC.No.V 12OO811975 showing all the land belonging to him in the said villages on his behalf and also on behalf of his other joint family me mbers under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the ActJ and the 1st petitioner aiso filed a separate declaration under the Act. It is further stated that the 1"t petitioner's father was issued pattadar passbook with entries from the year 1965 onwards and also issued Ryot Passbook in the year 1980-81. It is further stated that thc 1"r petitioner's father died about 25 years back and during his lifetime, his name was recorded as pattadar and possessor in the revenue records. It is further stated that during the course of Land Records Updation and Purification Program of the Revenue Department, initially the land in Survey No.1 1 I of Mominkhurd Village was not includcd in the names of the petitioners and subsequently, correction was made by the TahsiSldar, Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District through proceeding bearing No.B/BLl2019 dated 03.09.2019 and the same was incorporated in the name of the petitioners as successors of Late Sri Malkaiah and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were issued new pattadar passbooks cum title deeds and have been receiving the Rythu Bandhu financial assistance from the State Government. It is further stated that respondent Nos.7 to iO made a false claim as if they are the successors-in- interest of the original pattadar Late Sri Abdul Gafoor S/o. Abbas Ali, but /:.' ,-l 3 CVBR, J W.P.No.1212O of 2023 according to the endorsement issued by the 3'd respondent uide File No.Bl3236/2022 dated 30.01.2023, one Abdul Gafoor S/o. Abed Ati, who was the lather of respondent Nos.7 to 10 died on 27.O8.1!)73 while rvorking as Peon (Dafedar) in the office of the Tahsildar, Vikarabad. It is lurther submitted that \ rrong entries of the name of Abdul Gafocr S/o. Abbas Ali was made while making online entries in Dharani Portal against Survey Nos.92, 111/1, 1lL/1/2,l1llIl3 ar.d 72311 and respondent Nos.7 to 10 having come to knorv about the same colluded with the rcvenue authorities and madc online application bearing No.22OO7 62857 dated Ol.Otl.2022 tor succession of thr: entire extent of land mentioned in thc abovc survey numbers and they also filed W.P.No.4O123 of 2022 belore this Court and this Court uide order dated 0 1 . 1 1.2022 disposed of the said '*,rit petition directing 3'd respondent to consider the online application of respondent Nos.7 to 1O. It is further stated that in compliance of th,: above said order dated O1.11.2022, the 3rd respondent has passed an order in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 1O without hearing the petitioners uide endorsement in File No.D I 3236 I 2022 dated 3O.Ol .2023 . The grievance of the petitioners is that 3.d respondent may be directed to restore the names of the petitioners ovcr an extent of Acs. 21.32 guntas in Survey Nos. 1 1 1/ 1/ 1, lll/ll2 and lll/ll3 (present sub-division numbers Illll/l/I, Llllllt12, rrtlll3 and llrllllla) d Mominkhurd Village, Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District and the 6th respondent may be directed not to 4 CVBR, J W.P.No.1212O of 2O23 rcgister any sale deed or entertain any transaction in respect of the said agricultural land.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently contended that late Sri Abdul Gafoor, who is the original pattadar expired in the year 1975 and thereafter, respondent Nos.7 to 10 have not taken any steps for grant of succession either approaching the revenue authorities or instituting an appropriate suit on the file of the competent civil Court seeking declaration that they arc the legal heirs/ successors of the original pattadar and consequently entitleci for mutation of the land, u,hich stands in the name cf the original pattadar in revenue records. It is further contended that after a period of 40 years, relying upon the entries being made in the service Register, respondent Nos.7 to 10 have filed an online application bearing No.22OO76287 dated 01.08.2022 seeking for succession of the cntire extent of land and acting on Lhe said application, the 3'a respondent uide impugned endorsemcnt in F ile No.D / 3236 /2022 dated 30.01.2023 granted succession certihcate in favour ol respondent Nos.7 to 1O and their names were also entered in the revenue records/Dharani Portal and pattadar passbooks-cum-title deeds were issued in the ir names.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 has submitted that the revenue authorities are 5 CVBR, J W.P.No. I 2120 of 2023 not conferred with any power for grant of succession certihcate for an cmployec and thc ltrmilv members certificate issued in favour of the deceased employee u,ould enable the successors-in intercst for receiving of the pensionary and othcr service benehts, the said certificate does not decide the rights of th'e inter se parties, more particularll, rights over the immovable properties.

5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and peruscd the record

6. The parties to this writ petition are inviting this Court to adjudicatc upon the issues relating to right, title, and possession of the subject property. [n view of the serious disputes with regard to right, title and possession o1- thc subject property, a \,\,rit petition is not the appropriate remedy to rcsolve the inter se disputes betrveen the parties, especially in the abscnce of examination o[ the documents rel:rting to tille and possession o[ the respective parties. The questions as to who is the rightful on,ner o[ the land rn question; who is in possession of the subject properly, and if so, since when, how, and under what circumstances they claim to be in possession; rvhether such possession can be regarded as legal vis-a-vis the true owner, etc., are material questions that arose for consideration in rhis writ petition. [n my view, these are pure questions of fact, which can onlv be appropriately addressed by a civil court in a prdfle?Iy institr.ricd- civil suit, based on the evidence adduced by the 6 CVBR, J W.P.No.12120 of 2023 t'-l parties, and not in a writ petition fired under Article 226 of the constitution of India. It has been consistentry held by this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a regular civil suit is the proper remedy for the adjudication of disputes relating to property rights.

7. In Mohan Pandeg as. [Jsha Rani Rajgariar the Hon,ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "6: xxxx..... It has repeatedLg been held bg this Court as atso bg uanous High Courts that a regular suit is the appropiate renedg for settLenrcnt of disputes relating to propertA ights betueen piuate persons and. that the remed!] under Arhcte 226 of the Constitution shall not be auailqbLe except where uiolation of some statutory dutg on the. part of a statutory authoritg is alleged. And in such a case, the Court u.)ill issue aE propiate direction to the authoitg concerutecl. If the real gieuance of tlrc respondent is against E tnitiation of ciminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps tdken thereon, she must auail of the remedg under th.e general law includinq the Ciminc proceclure Cotj.e. The Hiqh Court can not allou the constitutional iu isdiction to be used for decidino disnutes. r uhich remedies, under the qene raL Law, ci uil or cirninaL are auailable. It is not inte nded to reo lace the ordinaru rernedies bu uolt of o suit or application auailabl e to 0 lttiqant. The iuisdiction is speciql and extrao rdinata and should not be exercised casuollu or hqhtlu " (emp hasis supplied).

8. In Duarka Prasad. Agarual u. B.D. Agq.rurd.I2, lihe Hon,ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "The High Court .uthile exercising a pouter of judicial reutero is concerned uilh illegatitg, itrdtionalitg and procedural impropietg of an order passed bg the State or a stcLtutory duthoitV. Remedy under Articte 226 of the Constitution of '1rsez1 + scc ot '1zoo31 o scc 230 ':'a. 7 CVBR, J W.P.No.1212O of 2023 Indio cannot be inuoked for resolution of a priuote Law dispute as contra dtstinguished from a dispute inuoluing public lalu choracter It is cLLso utelL settled that a tunt remedg is not aualable for resolution of a propertg or ct titLe dispute."

9. It is well settled law that this Court is not having jurisdiction to delve into the disputes and come to a conclusion with regard to right, - title and possession of the parties in respect of the subject properry in the ./ absence of determining the validity or otherwise of their entitlement being I I decided at lhe lirst instance. In the lnstant case, the respondent Nos.7 to 1O are claiming that they are successors.in-interest ol the said late Sri Abdul Gafoor. Whereas the petitioners are seriously disputing that respondent Nos.7 to 10 are not the successors-in-interest/ 1cga1 heirs of the said Late Sri Abdul Gafoor. These issues are required to be adjudicated by competent Civil Court but not in a writ petition hled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order datcd 30.01.2023 passed in File No.D/3236 of 2022 by the respondenl No.3 is sel aside. It is left open to the petitioners to approach the competent civil Court and seek appropriate declarat.ion on the subject lands that the respondent Nos.7 Lo 10 are not the legal heirs/ successors- in-interest of the original pattadar late Sri Abdul Gafoor, in accordance with law. In the event of obtaining declaration decree, if any, the 8 CVBR, J I W. P. No. t 2 120 of 2023 petitioners are entitled to make appropriate application on the fi1e of revenue authorities seeking amendment of entries in the revenue rccords. Miscellaneous applications pending, if ahy, shall stand closed There shall be no order as to costs. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJAY PAUL, on this Wednesday, The Nineteenth Day Of March Two Thousand And Twenty F,ive //TRUE COPY// sD/- L. LAKSHMT PABU DEPUTY REGTgTRAR -rl sEcTloN oYrrcrn To,

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

2. The Chief Commissioner, of Land Administration Telangana. 3. The District Collector, Vikarabad District. 4. The Addl Collector, (Revenue) Vikarabad District. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad. 6. The Tahasildar, Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District. 7. One CC to SRI D,V.SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate. [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana.

9. One CC to SRI T.SHARATH, Advocate. [OPUC] 10. Two CD Copies. BSK TJ HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 -_:::- - - i t', i 5 1.,. ;- e.o( e o i(-) 2? JUtl il6 , ,i u1: S OATC AgC * ORDER WP.No.12120 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS