High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. a

4. 4

6. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretar[at, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Shadnagar Revenue Division Ranga Reddy District. The Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Nandigama Mandal Ranga Rehaman Khan, S/o.Not known to the Petitioner Occ . Tahsildar, Nandigama lVlandal Ranga Reddy District Yelganamoni Chennamma, Wo.Y.Gopal Aged about 65 years, Occ Housewife Fi,/o.H.No.2-75, Eklaskhanpet Village Keshampet lVlandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. Yelganamoni Hari Shekar, S/o.Y.GopalAged about 42 years, Oqc . Agriqulture R/o.H.No.2-75, Eklaskhanpet Village Keshampet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

8. Yelganamoni Sri Hari, S/o.Y.Gopal Aged about 38 years, Ocp . Agriculture Ryo.H.No.2-75, Eklaskhanpet Village Keshampet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 [\/andamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.4 in incorporating the names of Respondent Nos.6 to 8 in Dharani Portal and trying to rssue pattadar passbooks in respect of land admeasuring Ar:.2.0g grts in sy No 495/ e9 / C9 in fa'rour of 6th respondent, rand admeasuring i.\c.2.27 gts in sy'No 4g7l e9 / e9 in favour of 7th respondent and rand admeasurin,S nc.s.r z gts in Sy No 4g6l e9 / e9 in favour of Bth respondent totar admeasurinrl Ac.B.12 gts situated at Veerrapa,e 'virage, Nandigama Mandar, Ranga Reddy D istrict basing on the un-registered wi, Deed and Serf Affidavit submitted by the Respondent Nos.6 to.B as illegal, arhitrary, violation of principles of natural justi*,,, contrary to the procedure laid down under new pattadar passbook Act and viotation Article 14 and 300-4 of constitution of rndia and consequenry set aside the entries made in favour of the Respondent Nos.6 to B for the above said prop,,)rty. IA NO: 10F 2023 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumsta rces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corrt ,ru;;" ;;;"a ," direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to give effect the entries made n favour of Respondent Nos 6 to 8 in respect of rand admeasuring Ac.2.0B gts in Sy.No.495/ e9 / Gs in favour of 6th respondent, land admea suring Ac.2.27 gts in ijy.No.497i e9 / e9 in favour of Zth respondent and land admeasuring Ac.3.17 gts in sy'No 4g6l e9 / G9 in fav.ur of gth respondent totar admeasuring Ac.B.12 gts situated at Veerlapalle Village, Nandigama Mandal, Ranga Redoy District, pending disposal of the above Writ petition. IANO:1O F 2024 Between: '1. Yelganamoni Chenr n:U;tlS":1""'iRl'39fl "e-HJ[;L,,"JiliirrX33dr<"Xbn"#r3i^i;t;i,3&;

2. Yelganamoni Hari Sh -B["t:#;r],T,E_1j.il,1j;31?\ifi :33,op33,.?'#:,"#f,il3i.R?"6y.,81:T;

3. Yelganamoni Sri R7o.H.No.2-75. District. .[,3! u'Jfi,I," f, ,fl # ruf,";; :f il,H: ;,:.f ," I ?,., culture Reddy AND ...PETITIONERS

1. Gattupalli Prasanna, W/o.Devendar Aged about 29 years' Occ . Housewife Rl/o.H'.No.'l-32, Dammaiguda Kushaiguda Village, Kapra [Mandal Rpnga Reddy District, T.S.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Shadnagar Revenue Division Ranga Reddy District.

5. The Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Nandigama lt/andal Ranga 6. Rehaman Khan, S/o.Not known to the Petitioner occ . Tahsildar, Nandigama Mandal Ranga ReddY District ...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 orders passed in w.P. No. '18532 of 2023 , dated 14.07.2023 and dismiss the Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 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 vacate the interim orders passed in l.A.No. 1 of 2023 in w.P.No.18532 of 2023 dated 14.07.2023 and dismiss the writ petition, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAOHAVI PRIYA MANTENA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6 to 8: SRI K'KIRAN KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18532 OF 2023 ORDER: This Writ Pei-ition, under Article 226 ol the Constitution of - India, is hled seekir:51 the following relief "...to issue ar. appropiate utit, order or direction mcre particularlg one it the nature of Wit of Mandamuq declaing lhe action of ResF)cndent No.4 in incorporating the names of Respond.ent No::. 6 to 8 in Dharani Portal and trying to is:,;ue pattadar passbooks in respect of land admeasuing Ac.2.O8 gt:, in Sy.No.495/e9/9, in fauour of 6th respondent, land admeasur;.ng Ac.2.27 gts in Sy.No.497/@/e in fauour of 7tn respondent cnd land admeasuirttT Ac.3.17 gts in Sg.No.496/g/e in fouour oJ Eh respondent totol edmeasuing Ac.8.12 gts situated at Veerlapr,.lle Village, Nandiganta Mandal, Ranga Reddg Distict basing on the un-registered V, ilL Deed and Self Affidauit submitted bg ,.]r1s Respondent lvo-s (i fo I as illegal, arbitrary, uiolation of pincipres of natural justic(, contrary to the procedure laid dou.tn under n,=u pattador passbr>ok Act and uiolation Article 14 & 3OO A of Constitution of h,tlia and consequentlA set aside the entries mc,de in fauour cf the Respondent Nos.6 to 8 for the aboue slid propertg... "

2. It is stated 'hat the petitioner's late father Sri Ga,tupalli Srisailam, acquired agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.08 gts in Sy.No.495/A/AA. Ac.3.17 gts in Sy.No.496lA/AA, Ac.2.2Z gts in Sy.No.a97/A/AA, Ac 1.11 gts in Sy.No.503 IAIAA, Ac.0.38 gts in Sy.No.50aIA/AA, Ar:.1.17 gts in Sy.No.506/A/AA and Ac.2.3t gts in Sy.No.507/A/AA/ 1, total admeasuring Ac.14.29 gts situated at Veerlapalle Village, \andigama Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districr_, from his father Sri Gat, rrpalli Narayana. It is further stated :)y the 7 petitioner that after the demise of her mother, her father married one Smt. Sathamma and was bressed with a daughter namely Gattupa i Srinidhi. It is further stated that on 22.12.2022, the petitioner,s father fell sick and was admitred in Hospital and while undergoing treatment, he passed away on 02.01.2023 due to cardiac arrest. It is case of the petitioner that the respondent No.6, who is sister of her father, and the Respondents 7 and 8, who are sons of respondent No.6, taking advantage of critical condition of petitioner,s father, fabricated a Will Deed dated 22.12.2022 and submitted application for mutation of their names in the revenue records on the'file of the respondent No.4-Tahsilar, Nandigama Mandal. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4, without following due process of law or issuing notice to the petitioner and other family members, mutated the names of respondent Nos.6 to 8 in the revenue records over the iand admeasuring Ac.8.12 gts. It is stated that the petitioner and her sister i.e; Gattupalli Srinidhi fiied a partition suit ,ide O.S.No.109 of 2Ol9 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, at Shadnagar, against their father-Gattupaily Srisailam and Mounika (sister of the plaintiff) and the same is pending for adjudication. It is further stated that the petitioner also filed a suit vide O.S.No.2Ll of 2O2O on the hle of Junior Civil Judge, at Shadnagar, seeking declaration of title in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2-19 gts in Sy.No.505 situated at Veerlapally Village 5-- J and to cancel the will deed, against her sister-Mounika, father- Srisailam, paternal aunt i.e, respondent No.6 and others and the same is pending lor adjudication

3. Sri Madhavi l)riya Mantena, learned counsel for the pretitionei has submitted thzLl pending adjudication of civil disputes between the parties in respecl of the subject property, the Responde,nt No.4, without following rlue process of law, illegally mutated the r.ames of Respondent Nos.6 to 8 in the revenue records vide Pror:eedings No.C/36212023, daLed 12.06.2023, and issued pattadar passbooks solely on the basis of a fabricated, unregistered Will. It is contended that taking advantirge ol illegal entries, the respondent Nos.6 to 8 are trying to create thr rd parg interest to defeat the interesl_ of the petitioner over Lhe s'-rbject property. 4 . Per contra, liri K. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 8 contended that basing on the will deed dated

22.12.2024 executt:d by Late G. Srisailam, during his life time, the respondent No.6 gt>t mutated land admeasuring Ac.2.08 gts in Sy.No.495/A/AA, respondent No.7 got mutated Iand admeasuring Ac.2.27 gts in S5..No.497 / AIAA and the respondent No.B got muated land admeasuring A<:.3.17 gts in Sy.no.4g6/AlAA, total adme asuring Ac.8.12 gts situateci at Veerlapali Village, Nandigama Mandal. Ranga Reddy District and il-rey were also issued e-pattadar passbool;.s. It is 4 Iurther submitted that the petitioner frled a suit vide O.S.No.1O9 of 2Ol9 on the hle of Senior Civil Judge, at Shadnagar, seeking partition and separate possession and in the said suit, the respondent Nos.6 to 8 hled implead application and the same was allowed. It is also submitted that G. Srisailam (defendant No.1) filed written statement in O.S.No. 109 of 2019 denying his relationship with the petitioner and her sister and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim share in the properties held by G.Srisailam. It is further submitted that the petitioner also filed a suit for declaration of title vide O.S.No.2l7 ot 2O2l on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar against the respondent No.6 herein and others and the same is pending for adjudication. It is further submitted that wili deed is subject matter of civil suit and therefore, the present writ petition hled by the petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent Nos.6 to 8 fabricated an unregistered Will of her deceased father and pending adjudication of the civil suits, the respondent No.4, without following due process of law, got mutated the names of respondent Nos.6 to 8 in the revenue records and also obtained pattadar passbooks. Whereas, it is the case of Respondent Nos.6 to 8 that the mutation was based on a valid Will deed executed during the lifetime of the l deceased and that:;ince the matter involves disputed facts r.md title, the writ petition is not maintainable. The parties to this writ petition are inviting this Cotrrt to adjudicate upon the issues relating to right, title, and possessir>r'r of the subject property. In vierv of the serious- dispute with regarcl to right, title, and possession of the subject property, a writ peiition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve the inter se disputes be tween the parties, especially in the abs,ence of examination of the clocuments relating to title and possession of the respective parties. The questions as to who is the rightful o wner of the land in question; who is in possession of the subject property, and if so, since when, how, and under what circumstanc::s they claim to be in possr.ssion; whether such possession can be regarded as legal vis-d-vis tl,r, true owner, etc., are material questioris that arose for considerat ion in this writ petition. In my view, th,:5s s.. pure questions of fai;,_, which can only be appropriately addressed by a civil court in a proJrerly instituted civil suit, based on the e'idence adduced by the partit:s, and not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of t*'e Constitution of India. It has been consistently held :ry this Court and the Hon,blc Supreme Court that a regular civil suit is the proper remedy for thc adjudication of disputes relating to pr,rperty rights. I 6 Y-1 ' \.1 -

6. ln Mohan Pandeg as. IJsha Rani Rajgarial the Hon,ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "6: xxxx..... It has repeatedlg been lrcld bg this Court as also by uaious High Courts that a regular suit is the appropiate remedg for selllemenl of disputes relating to properry nghls betl^een priuate persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Con-stitution shall not be auailable except u.)here uioLation of some statutory dutA on the part of a statutory authoitg is atleged. And in such a case, the Court uill issue appropiate dtrection to the authoitg concemed. If the real gieuonce of the respondent is against the initiation of ciminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must auatl of the remedy under the general lanu including the Ciminal Procedure Code. The Hioh Court cannot ollou the co nstitutio nal iuis dictio n to be used for decidinq under t d ktut ciuil or ciminal ore avcilable. It is not interlded. to rcplace the oldinaru remedies bu u)au of a suit or apolication auailable to a litiaant. The iurisdiction is special and extraordinaru and should not be exercised casuallu or lig hllu. " (emp hasis supptted) r uhich remedie

7. In Dutarka Prasrzd Agarual as. B.D. Agarwal2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "The High Court tuhtle exercising a pouer of Ttdicial reuieu..t is concerned with ittegolitg, irrationalitA and procedural impropietA of an order passed bg the State or a stcttutory authoitV. Remedg under Article 226 of the Constttution of India cannot be inuoked for resolution of a piuate la u) dispute as contra distinguistrcd from a dispute inuoluing public law character. If is also uell-settled tfuit a uit remedy is not auailable for resolution of a propertA or a title dispute." B. 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 the absence of determining the validity or otherwise of their entitlement being decided at the first instance. '(r992) 4 scc 61 '(2oo3) 6 scc 230 7

9. In view of thr: above, this Court without going into me,.its of the case with regard lc, right and entitlement of the parttes in r espect of the subject lands, deems it appropriate to relegate the 1:,arties to agitate their grievimces in the pending suits i.e, O.S.No.10!,, of 2019 and.O.S.No.2 71 of 2027, in accordance with law. it is ne:dless to say that after obi.aining declaration orders, if any, from the Civil Court, the parties are entitled to make application for mutation of their names in tht: revenue records, in respect of the subje,:t lands. Pending disposai .l the aforesaid suits, both parties shalr :naintain status quo existing as on date, in all respec[s, in respec,t of the subject property.

10. Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if an,r, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY D PUTY REGISTR AR E \, \eCTION OFFICER To,

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

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Shadnagar Revenue Division rlanga Reddy District. The Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Nandigama Mandal Ranga One CC to SRI MADHAVT pRtyA IVIANTENA, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRI K.KIRAN KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of felangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies 4 E b 7 8 BSR GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0210412025 ORDER WP.No.18532 ot 2023 1, rt i iaiS o\.. 1 t APn 2025 t )' 2 ), { a DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS Obe' \o lt