Chinthala Kotaiah v. The state o_f Telangana

Chinthapalli Muthamma, W/o.Bhadraiah, Aged-65 years, Occ-House wife, Rl/o.Ballepalli Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District Konakanchi Varaprasad, S/o.Satyam, aged-51 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o.Ballepalli Village, Khammam town and District Alasyam Srinivivasa Rao, S/o.Panakala Rao, Aged- 47 years, Occ- Agriculture,_Rl/o. H.No. 15-13-30112, Bank Colony, KhanapJram Haveli, Khammam Town, Khammam Urban lVlandal, Khammam Distirci ...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, to declare the impugned orders dated 21412024, passed in File No.F2lDharani/RC22000012023, by the 2nd respondent in rejecting the dharani application sought for issuance of new electronic pass book to the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.1.02 gts in Sy.No. 2701E1 , situated at Mallemadugu village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam district, in-spite of having submitted copy of judgment and decree dated 5-9-201 7, passed in i O.S.No. 68 of 2O14 on the file of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge at Khammam, wherein the learned civil court declared that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land and the 2nd respondent rejected the dharani application with a direction to approach the civil court on the ground that the 6th respondent is not the party in O.S.No. 68 of 2013 is as being illegal, arbitrary, and u ncon stitutio nal and violation of article 21 and 300-4 of constitution of lndia anti consequently set aside the impugned orders dated 2-4-2024, passed in File No.F2lDharani/RC2200OOIZOZS, by the 2nd respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pass orders forthwrth directing the 2nd Respondent to issue new electronic pass book to the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.1.02 gts in Sy.No. 2701E1 ,.situated at Mallemadugu village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam district by suspending impugned orders dated 2-4-2024, passed in File No.F2lDharanilRC22OOlOl2O23, by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the marn case. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 :AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.4to6 : The Court made the following: ORDER .// - HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12O6l of 2o24 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 ol the Constiturion of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "....1o issue an appropiate Wit, Order or Drection more parttcularlg one m the nature of Wit oJ mandamus to declare the impugned ord.ers dated. 2/4/2024 passed in File No.F2/ Dharani/ RC22OO0O/ 2023 bg the 2^a respondent in rejeding tte dharoni application sought for issuance of neu electronic pass book to tlle petitioner's land to an erte of Ac.1.O2 gts in Sy.No.27O/ Dl situated at Mallemadugu uillage, Khammctm Riral Mandal, Khammam disti.ct in spite of hauing submitted copg of ludgment and decree dated 5.9.2O17 passed rn OS No.68 of 2014ontheftleof the Pnncipal Junior Ciuil Judge at Khammam wherein the learned ciuil court declared that the petitioner is the ouner of the subject land. and the 2"d respondent rejected the dharani o4tpLication utith a direction to approach the ciuil court on the ground that the 6th respondent is not the partA in OS No.68 of 2013 is as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutlonal and. vrolation of Articles 21 and 300A of constitution of India and consequentlV set qsid.e tLte impugned orders .doted 2.4.2024 po-ssed. in Ftle No.F2/ Dharani/ RC220000/ 2023 bg tlle ?d respond.ent...."

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 1.02 gts in Sy.No.270lE situated at Mallemadugu Village, Khammam Rural Mandal and District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 2l.O1.lgg2 vide document No.3O8/ 1982. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record.s and he was also 2 issued pattadar passbook ald title deed vide patta No.9O3 dated 26.06.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that when his sister i.e, respondent No.4, interfered with his possession and enjoyment over the subject land, he instituted a suit vide O.S.No.6g of 2014 on th_e file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, seeking declaration of title and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated O5.O9.2017 declaring him as owner of the subject land. It is further case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.4 alienated the subject land in favour of respondent No.5 under sale deed dated 2g.06.2014 bearing document No.4454 l2Ol4 and the respondent No.5 in turn sold the subject land in favour of respondent No.6 under registered saie deed dated ll.06.2019 bearing document No.76og/2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that seeking implementation of the judgment and decree dated 05.O9.2017 passed in O.S.No.6g of 2014, he submitted an application on the file of respondent No.2 but the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 02.04.2O24 in File No.F2lDharani/RC220oo04679 / 2023 directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court by filing Execution petition. Hence the writ petition.

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. J

4. A perusal of the impugned order dated O2.O4.2O24 passed in File No.F2lDharanilRC22OOOO4679 12023 by the respondenr No.2, it is seen that the petitioner's application seeking implementation of the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.68 of 2Ol4 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, and issuance of pattadar passbooks, was rejected. The reasoning given by the respondent No.2 is that respondent No.4, who was a parfy to the suit, had already sold the subject land to respondent No.5, and later respondent No.5 sold it to respondent No.6, whose name is now shown as pattadar in the Dharani portal. It was further'stated in the impugned order that since the respondent No.6 was not made a party to the civil suit, and no execution petition was filed against him, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to approach the civil court by filing an Execution petition.

5. It is well-settled law that the revenue authorities do not have the power to.decide ownership or title disputes over immovable property. Their duty is only to maintain and update the revenue records based on valid documents and Court Orders. In the instant case, the petitioner has already obtained a declaration decree from the competent civil court in O.S.No.68 of 2014, declaring him as the lawful owner of the subject land. The said decree has become linal and has not been stayed or challenged by anyone in any Appeliate 4 Court. Therefore, the respondent No.2, being a revenue authority, is legally bound to act as per the civil court's decree. The reason given by the respondent No.2 in the impugned order that the petitioner must file an Execution petition "i.,". .."po.rdent No.6 was not a party to the suit, is unsustainable. When the civil court has already declared the petitioner as the owner, and there is no stay, the respondent No.2 cannot refuse to implement it. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is liabte to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated O2.O4.2O24 passed by respondent No.2 in File No.F2lDharani/RC22OOOO46Z9 /2023 is set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application in accordance with the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Books Act, 2O2O or the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2024, whichever is applicable. If there is no stay on the judgment and decree dated O5.O9.2O17 passed in O.S.No.6g of 2Ol4 by the learned principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, then respondent No.2 shall implement that judgment and issue pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. )

7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as [o costs. As a scquel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAB SECTIO OFFICER To, \ '1 . The Principal Secretary for Revenue department, Secretariat, state of Telangana, Hyderabad

2. fhe District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District 3. The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District 4. One CC to SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI, Advocatg. [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. louTl

6. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1 510412025 ,1- i' .: t,; .. i, " ORDER WP.No.12061 of 2024 -,2-\- ,i I b(a , :1 .s J, .\ $* J\H * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,/