Rajagopal Goud v. 'l . The State of Telangana

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 toto issue appropriate orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the act of the Respondent No.3 in issuance of certificate No. D/6/95 dated 1011011995 in transferring from the name of father of the petitioner late Venktramulu S/o Yellappa land admeasuring Ac.B.24 Gts in survey No. 73 and the land admeasuring Ac.'1 1 29 Gts in survey No. 74 situated at lvlandipalle Village, Danwada I\,4andal, Narayanpet District, into the names of respond6nts No. 4 to 15 in the Revenue records without issuing a notice to the effected parties is illegal arbitrary and against the principles of naturaljustice. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petitron under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No 3 not to regrster the sale deed for the land admeasuring 4c.8 24 Gts in survey No 73 and the land admeasuring Ac 11.29 Gts in survey No.74 situated at l\ilandipalle Village, Danwada Mandal,, Narayanpet District, on the sale deed to be executed by respondent No.4 to 15 or their power of attorney holders in the name of third parties. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 TO 15: K.RAMESH The Court made the following: ORDER 'i SK, J W. P.No.2I606 of 2020 THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SARATH W.P.No.2 L6O6 of 2O2O ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in issuance of Certificate No.D/6/95 dated 10.10.1995 in transferring the name of the father of petitioner i.e, late Venktramulu, in the names of the respondent Nos.4 to 15 in the revenue records in respect of the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.8-24 gts in Sy.No'73 and Ac'11-29 gts in Sy.No.74 situated at Mandipalle Village, Danwada Mandal, Narayanpet District, without issuing any notice to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary'

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue ald learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 15'

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject lands were originally stands in the name of the grandfather of petitioner and thereafter, his father ,r' ) O.O.no ,rUOU "r?[;3 was the o\vner and possessor of the sard lands and there are no protected tenants and neither his grandfather nor his father never sold the subject lands. to anyone, Dut taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner and in collusion with the respondent No.3, the respondent Nos.4 to 15 got mutated the subject lands in their names and the respondent No.3 has issued Certificate No.D/6/95 dated 10. lO. i995 in transferring the name of father of petitioner in the narnes of the respondent Nos.4 to 15 with regard to the subject lands without issuing any notice to the petitioner. He submits that though the petrtioner has submitted a representation dated O3.II.2O2O to the respondent No.3 for mutation of his name in the revenue records, no action has been terken and requested to allou, the writ petition by directing the respondent No.3 not to register the sale deed executed by the respondent Nos.4 to 15 or their power of attorney holder in the name of the third pa.tie":__ \ 3 SK, J w.P.No.2l606 of 2o2o

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 15 based on the counter avernents submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings after 27 years approximately and the impugned proceedings a_re appealable to the Revenue Divisional officer under Section 5-B of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 197 I (for short the Act'). He submits that the subject lands were sold by the father of petitioner during his life time prior to 1995 by way of Sada Sale Deed and later the sale was regularized by the respondent No.3 on 10.10.1995 and the petitioner has suppressed the material facts in the writ petition. He further submits that though the impugned proceedings were issued during the life time of the father of petitioner, he never questioned the said proceedings during his life time and without availing alternative remedies, the petitioner has approached this Court and requested to dismiss the writ petition. , I 4 S I(, J W P. No.2l6O6 of 2O2O

5. In view of the nature of dispute r:aised by the petitioner, without going into the merits of the matter, the Writ pr:tition is disposed of graating liberty to the petitioner r. approach the competent civir court with regard to his right and title over the subject properties in appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs. 6 Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed ',/ //TRUE COPYII / I sD/-P. PADMANABHA feoov ,/' DEPUTY REGISTRAR \r \i SECTION UPTICER The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Hyderabad, State of Teiangana. The District Collector, Narayanpet.District. The Tahasildar, Dhanwada Mandal, Narayanpet District. One CC to SRI M.VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Siate of Tetangana, at Hyderabad IOUT] One CC to SRI K RAMESH, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To 1 2 .) 4 t

6. 7. PSK. BS 6 HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 ORDER WP.No.21606 of 2020 ' .1." i:r: J ,{: 'rr 2 2 nln Zt25 z o I t 1)1:spATcB Eo * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS GI'"r- 'd