1. Kontham Jayamma v. 1. The state of.Telangana

Judgment

2. ...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT NO.4 Kontham Jayamma, Wo. Krishna Reddy, Aged Sl years, Occ.House wife, Kontham Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged 31 years, Occ. Agriculture, Both are R/o. H.No..t-23711, Venkateshwara Hills, Chaityala Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District

3. The State of Telanoana, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department. Secretariat. Hydera"bad. ...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS

4. The Speciar rribunar, Nargonda, Terangana state, Rep by District coilector. 5. The Tahsildar, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. 6. Varakantham Anitha, W/o. Anji Reddy, Aged 49 years, Occ. Aqriculture. R/o. R/o. ChrtyatViilase and Mandat,'Natgonoi 6isiiia, TJr;&;'5i;t. ...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 preased to 21.r. vAcATE the order Dated gra-.ro.2021 in r.A. No. .r of 2021 in w.p. No. 19049 of 2021 thereby to dismiss the writ pefition as the same is devoid of any merit. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAMIDI VENUMADHAV, APPEARING FOR SRI K. S. MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. PRADEEP REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER *'i:*;.id. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No .19O49 of 2o.2I. 9EDER: Heard sri Mamidi Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, smt S. sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondent Nos.l to 3, and Sri K.pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.4 and perused the entire material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners jointly purchased a"n agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 1.oo guntas in sy.Nos.47s, 476, 4TB, 4g3 situated at cl-rityal village and Mandal, Nalgonda District from the respondent No.S, through a Registered sale Deed uide Doc.No.5874 /2or7 , dated 28.06.2017 , at the office of the Joint sub-Registrar, Nalgonda and there.after they divided the land into two equal shares i.e. 20 guntas to each and obtained separate pattadar pass Books and .l.itle Deeds in their lavour uid,e proceeding No.B/ 14sg /2olr , - \ \ i*.ir.- \r1 \, \l 1 ,l 2 SKJ wP_19049_2021 - dated 26.09.2019 from the respondent No.3. While it being so, when the respondent Nos.4 and 5 tried to create some problems, the petitioners filed O.S.No.18 of 2O2O on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, seeking for perpetual injunction against the un-official respondents, wherein thc Trial Court granted ad-interim injunction uide I.A'No' 118 of 2O2O dated 30.0 L.2O2O. Thereafter, the un-official respondents have approached the revenue authorities arrd are trying to cancel the mutation in favour of the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that originatly one Maddi Laxma Reddy rd/as the owner and pattadar of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.7 'O4 guntas situated in Sy.Nos.475, 476, 478, 483 at Chityal Village. After demise of the said Maddi Laxma Reddy and through the family arrangement, the land devolved in favour of his wife, daughter and grand-daughter, by virtue of which, the smt.Maddi Dhanamma, w/o Maddi Laxma Reddy got Ac.2.15 guntas, Smt. Ramidi Yadamma (respondent No.4l D/o of Maddi Laxma Reddy got Ac.2.15 3 SK, J wP_l9049_2021 guntas ancl smt. Varakantham Anitha (respondent No.5), granddaughter of Maddi Laxma Reddy got Ac.2.14 guntas out of Ac.7 .o4 guntas and the sarne was also entered into the Pahani pertaining to the year l9g3-94. subsequently, the Tahsildar, chityala Mandal issued proceeding No.B/ lo22l2ol4 dated 04.05.2014 and by virtue of Fouthi their n€unes were reflected in the Revenue Records. After the demise of srnt. Maddi Dhanamma, land to an extent of 4c.2. 15 guntas was mutated in the narne of the respondent No.5, due to which total share of the land belongs to the respondent No.S is become as Ac.4.29 guntas.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.5 has sold land to an extent of Ac. 1.oo guntas out of Ac.4.29 guntas to the petitioners uide Registered sale Deed No.5874 /2oLT, dated,2g.06.20lr and. subsequently the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass Book as well as Titled Deeds wel'e also issued in their favour by the Tahsildar, chityal Manda1. Since the date of purchase, the petitioners were in peaceful pr:ssession and enjoyment of 4 sI( J wP_l9049-2021 the resPondent No.4 in the subject land. Thereafter, collusion with the respondent No.5, raised a dispute before the Tahsildar, Chityal Mandal' seeking inquiry' Subsequently, the Tahsildar, vide Memo No'B/ LO22l2Ol4' dated O4.O5.2OL4, conducted an inquiry and stated that thesubjectlandwasacquiredbytherespondentNo.5from hergrand-motherlateSmt.MaddiDhanammauide Proc.No.Bllo22l2ol4d.atedo4.o1.2ol4anddirectedthe respondent No.4 that if at all she is not satisfied by the Memo dated o4.o5.2o14 issued by the Tahsildar, she is at libertytofileanappealbeforetheRevenueDivisional officer,Nalgonda.Subsequently,therespondentNo.4filed an appeal uid'e No'B 12706 l2olg ' before the RDO' Nalgonda,underSectionSBof.theTelanganaRightsin LandandPattadarPassBookAct,!gT2,seekingtocancel themutationproceedingsdated'26.09.20]-T,issuedin favorrrofthepetitioners.Thereafter,theappealwas transferred to Special Tribunal and the sarne was numbered. as New case No.F2/ Spt Tribunal lo758l2o2l and the sarne was dismissed on 06 'O2 '2021 ' OTt \ J 5 SK, J wP 19049 2021 dismissal of the sarne, in view of the orders in W.P.(PIL)NO.'2O of 2O2l dated 22.LL.2O21. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 filed application for personal hearing and reopening of the case. After reopening, the sarne was allowed in favour of the respondent No.4 on 1O.O7.2O2L. The order passed by the Special Tribunal is contrary to the records as the respondent Nos.4 and 5 being mother and daughter colluded with each other and after selling of the subject property, they have approached the competent authority for cancellation of the mutation proceedings. The impugned order dated lO.O7 .2021, passed by the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda in Case No.F2/ SpI Tribunal / 0758 / 2O2L is contrary to the records and the same is liable to be set aside and requested this Court to allow the rvrit petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that Smt.Maddi Dhanamma, who is the mother of the responclent No.4 is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.2. 15 guntas in Sy.Nos.475, 476, 477, 4-/8 & 483 in Chityal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. After the demise of the mother I 6 J SK, J wP_19049-2021 of the respondent No.4, she is the only legal heir for succecd.ing the property. But, the respondent No.5, who is the daughter of the respondent No.4, without giving any notice to the respondent No.4 had made changes in the revenue records pertaining to the mother of the respondent No.4. While it being so, the respondent No.4 had made an application before the respondent No.3 seeking information about the changes that were made in the revenue records of the property of the late Maddi Dhanzunma. In pursuance to the said application, the respondent had issued a Memcl dated 2y.O6.2OL9 stating that there was a change in the revenue record.s and the property of the late Maddi Dhanamma was transferred in favour of the respondent No.5 uide proceeding No.B llO22/2014 dated O4.O5.2014.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the said proceed.ings dated 04.05.2014, were happens to be issued on a Sunday and as on the date of the issuance of the proceedings, the mother of the respondent No.4 is still alive. Thereafter, the respondent No.S had sold Ac. 1.OO guntas of the subject land to the petitioners herein, who are 7 SK, J wP_19049_2021 the known persons to the respondent No.S. He further submits that, admittedly the subject land was succeeded by late Maddi Dhanamma from her husband Maddi Laxma Reddy, after his demise. Subsequently, after lfte demise of the mother of the respondent No.4, the respondent No.5 in collusion with the petitioners and as well as the revenue authorities had obtained the mutation proceedings dated

04.05.2014 and sold a part of the land to the petitioners uide Registered Sale Deed dated 28.06.2017 .

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional officer, Nalgonda seeking for cancellation of the mutation proceedings in favour of the respondent No.5 and the petitioners. But the same was transferred to the respondent No.2, wherein initially without giving any opportunity of hearing for the respondent No.4, the respondent No.2 vide ord.er dated 06.02.2021 , dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent No.4. Thereafter, in view of the orders of this court in w.P.(PIL)No.2o of 2021, the respondent No.4 had made and application to the a SK, J wP_l9049_2021 respondent No.2 requesting for personal hearing and pursuant to which the respondent No.2 after issuing notices to the petitioners and the respondent No.S herein had conducted a personal hearing and after perusal of the records uide ord.er dated lO.O7 .2O2 1 allowed the appeal of the respondent No.4. He further submits that after demise of Late Maddi Dhanamma, the respondent No.4 is the only legal heir of her mother and the property of Late Maddi Dhanamma should be mutated in favour of the respondent No.4. But the respondent No.5 in collusion with the petitioners, had obtained the mutation proceedings dated O4.O5.2O14. After perusing the entire record, the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda, allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent No.4 and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

8. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has purchased the subject agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.O0 guntas in Sy'Nos'475, 476, 478,483 situated at chityal village and Mandal, 9 SK, J wP_l9049_2021 Nalgonda District, through Registered Sale Deed from the respondent No.S uide Doc. No. 587 4 / 20 L7 dated 29.06 .2o lz . the property to an extent Ac:.2.15 guntas, Originally belongs to one Maddi Dhanamma, w /o Maddi Laxma Reddy. The vendor of the petitioner succeeded the aforesaid property by virtue of Fouthi uide progs.No.B / LO22 /2OL4 dated 04.OS.2OL4 , from her grandmother, whereas, the records clearly shows that the grandmother of the respondent No.5 has passed away on

08.06.20214 and the Tahsildar, chityala Mandal issued proceeding No.B/ Lo22 /2oL4, dated 04.os.'2014, stating that the respondent No.S has succeeded the property to an extent of Ac.2.15 guntas from her grandmother Late Maddi Dhanamma, which is prior to her death. 9- Moreover, the aforesaid proceedings issued by the Tahsildar clearly shows that there is no menrioning of the date of issuance of the Form-8 notice, the report of the v.R.o and there is no procedure followed by the Tahsilclar, chityal Mandal, while mutating the narne of the respondent No.5 as successor of Late Maddi Dhanamma. F.urther, the 70 SK, J wP_l9049_2021 schedule also clearly shows that the property which was succeeded by the respondent No.S through Late Maddi Dhanamma, prior to her death and the said proceedings were issued by the Tahsildar, Chityal Mandal without following any procedure contemplated under law. In view of the same, the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda, has rightly set aside the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, Chityal Mandal, as the respondent No.4 herein is the only daughter and successor of Late Maddi Dhanamma and without issuing any notice to the respondent No.4, the Tahsildar, Chityal Mandal has mutated the name of the respondent No.5 as the successor. Basing on the mutation proceedings dated O4.O5.2O14, the n€une of the respondent No.S was entered into the revenue records, thereafter, the petitioners purchased the property from the respondent No.5' Further, if the petitioners have any grievance, they can approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of titte over the subject land.

10. In view of the sarne, this court finds no merit in the contentions made by the petitioners and the special \ \ 77 SK, J wP_19049_2021 Tribunal uide tts order dated LO.O7.2O2|, rightly allowed the appeal fiIed by the respondent No.4 and as the respondent No.3 has not followed any procedure while mutating the property of Late Maddi Dhanamma in favour of the respondent No.5. Therefore, this Court finds no interference is needed in the reasoned order dated lO.O7 .2O2L passed by the Special Tribunal-respondent No.2 as the respondent No.3 not followed procedure contemplated under law while mutating the records in favour of the respondent No.S and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, rvith the above findings, this Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ;tgll+lxtttt.t+eir G ,,TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER 'o't ?ffi B3ii,:q[':,S"Sl'J"i1["'fa'SJP[Y?J" Reddv' sctoPuc] 'o f}"i"*?S Lo"u[lp'uoeep i. f;; cD copies TJ TKS ya.' or re'ansana' at "u'" HIGH COURT DATED:04/08/2025 ORDER WP.No.19049 of 2021 !'l r*Et a 2t t{0I M t ( * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIO MERITS WITHOUT COSTS AS DEVOID OF 4 .da F,,"