Nazeer Ali v. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VENU CHEGGAM Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'B LE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKA R REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18849 of2O2s ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following reliei 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying Affidavit, lt is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring inaction of Respondents No: 2 to 4 in not correcting revenue records from the name of Mohd Azam to Mohd Waised Ati, in respect ofland in Sy No. 109 to an extent ofAc 0.31 Gts. land in Sy No l13 to an exrent ofAc 11.31 Gts and land in sy No. l45toanextentof Ac 0.i4 Gts situated at Andavelti Village, Kaghaznagar Mandal, Kumarambhm Asifabad District, in pursuance to petitioner,s Application dated 12.Og.2024 submitted before Respondent No. 2 and Memo vide Rc No.B/227/2024 dated 16.10.2024 rssued by Respo.dent No. 4, is being as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, agarnst to the principles oI naturai Justice and agarnst to Article 3OO_A of Constitution of India and consequently, direct tlre Respondent No-2 to consider my representation dated r2.og.2o24 ro recor(l names o[ legal heirs of Dartadar Mohd wajeed Ali in online Dharani portal and issue E Patra Pass book in respect of land in Sy No. 109 to aI, extent of Ac 0.3 l Gts_ Iand in Sy No- t 13 to an exte.t ofAc 11.3r Gts and land in sy No. I45 to an extent ofAc o. 14 Gts situated .t Andavelli Villagc, Kaghaznagar lvIandal, Kumaram bheem Asifabad District, perlding bcfore his authority and pass any such other order or orders rvhich this Hon'ble colrrt may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the in terest of-justice.,,

2. It is stated that the petitioner along with other famity members are descenda^ts of late Sri .fohd. Wajeed Ali, who was the orvner and possessor of [and admeasuring to an extent of Acs. 0.31 guntas in Survcy No.1O9, Acs. I 1.31 guntas in Survey No.113, Acs. O. 14 guntas in Surwey No. 145, totally admeasuring Acs. 12.46 guntas (for short, .the subject lands), situated at Andavelli Village, I{aghaznagar Mandal, Kumarambheem Asifabad District and the petitioner's fam y is in peaceful posscssion and enjoyment of the subject lands and the petitioner,s grandfather,s name was also reflected in the pahanies dll the year 2oo4-o5. It is further stated thar 2 CVBR, J W.P.No.18849 of 2025 when the petitioner and other family members inten (led to partition the subject lands, the petitioner, on verifying the revenue r-er:ords' found that the name of Mohd. Azam was erroneously recorded in 'he revenue records insteadofMohd.wajeedAli,withoutissuinganynoticr:oropportunitytothe petitioner. It is further stated that the pe titioner's fattLe : Sri Akhtar Ali made a representation dated 07 '1O '2024 to respondent Nos"l and 4' wherein the 4ft respondent has issued the impugned memo date I 16 lO '2024 stating that there are no provisions for cancellation of the patta at present and directed the petitioner's father to approach tl-re Couri. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to the cntry o[ wrong name in lhe revenue records' though the petitioner's [amily is enjoying thc subject ir rrcis' iirey ai-c not in a position to receive the various incentives sanctioned k'y the Government for cultivation of the subject lands. Hence, the present u ri1' petition'

3. Considered the submissions made by leitrned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader' ftlr Revenue appearing for the respotrdcnts and with their consent' this wi-il t)ctiticn is disposed of at the admission stage

4. A careful reading of the impugned Meno dated 16'10'2024 issued by the 4tr respor-rdent would reveal that thr: subject lands were registered in the name 'rf Sri Wajicl Ali's father Mahrbub Aii from the years 1983-84 to 1993 94 and on examining the currr: rt iand register, thc subject lands are in the name of Sri Mohamme il Hazam's father and CVBR, J W.P.No.18849 of 2O2S therefore, there are no provisions for cancellation of the patta at present and directed the petitioner,s father to approach the Court.

5. Prima facie, it appears from the record that there are serious disputes with regard to the entries being made in the revenue records. Earlier the name of petitioner's grandfather was recorded in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands, but subsequently, tl_re said entries were being carried out in the name of Mohd . Azarn.

6. The petirioner in this writ petition is inviting this court to adjudicate upon the issues rerating to right, title and possession of the subject lands. In view o[ the serious dispute with regard to right, title and possession o[ the subject lands, a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy to resolve the inter se disputes between the parties, especialry in the absence of examination of the documents rerating to title and possession of the respective parties. The questions as to who is the rightful owner of thc land in question; who is in possession of the subject property, and if so, since when, how and under what circumstances they claim to be in possessi,n; whether such possession can be regarded as legar vis-a-vis the true owncr, etc', are material questions that arose for consideration in this writ petition. In my view, these are pure questions of fact, which can only be appropriately addressed by a civil court in a properly instituted civil suit, based on the evidence adduced by the parties and not in a writ petition Iiled under Article 226 of the constitution of India. It has been consistently held by this court 4 CVBR, J W.P.No.18849 of 2025 andtheHon'bleSupremeCourtthataregularcivilsuitistheproperremedy for the adjudication of disputes relating to property rigl-tl.s' 7 . In Mohan Pandey vs' Usha Rani RcLjgarial' the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as foliows: "6: xxxx..... It has repeatedly been held by this Court as alsc' 1:1' vatious High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriatc remedy for settlemenl :'f disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy t uder Article 226 of tl:.e Constitution shall not be available except rvhere violation o[ s':)me statutory duty on the part o[ a statutory authority is alleged And in such a citrrt:' thc Court will issue appropriate direction to the authoritl' concerned lf tht rrlal grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of crimilial proceedings' antl the orciers passeci and steps taken thereon, she must avail o[ the remedy under the lyrncral larv including the Criminal Procedure Code. The [Igh Court cannot allorv the <:QL r stitutional iurisdi medies. uncicr - ire general iarv, civil or s disou s. for rvhich re medies by wav of a lace the ordin p cnminal. are available . It is not intende rccial and suit or apnlication a iiable to a litisant The iu ris(llction is and should n be exercised casu allv or I htlv " {emptrasis strP rlied) used for deci tr\

8. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal vs' B'D' Agarwal2 ' the Hon'ble Supreme Court obserwed as follows: "TheHighCourtwhileexercisingapo*,erofjudicialrevierr,isl<loncernedwithillegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passcd lx the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under A rticle 226 ot the Constitution of Ittc a cannot be invoked for dispute involving resolution of a private law dispute as contra distinguished lr-om 'r public law character' It is also wett settled that a u'rlt retr:dy rs not available for resolution of a propertl' or a title dispute " g. It is well settled law that this Court is n':t. having jurisdiction to delveintothedisputesandcometoaconclusionV/ithregarcitoright,title 'lt992l 12003) 4 SCC 61 6 SCC 230 CVBR, J W.P.No.18849 of 2O25 and possession of the parties in the absence of determining the validity or otherwise of their entitlement being decided at the first instance.

10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for granting relief as sought by the petitioner and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, if the petitioner is having any gricvance with regard to the entries being made in the revenue recorcls in respect o[ the subject rands, he is at liberty to approach the compctent civir court and i,stitute a comprehensive civil suit seeking for correction of the entries being made in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands. 1 1. Accorclingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be n<r order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall staty@gryif;(* SD/. M DABDULLA KHAN ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, \

1. One CC to SRI VENU CHEGGAIV!, Advocate. tOpUCl 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. louTI

3. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 i --.-l -,..- .. a / 2s IFP 2M '...,.' r)5 (1r 'l ?i / 7 ORDER WP.No.18849 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t ( 1b ^