Gutha Pushpamma v. '1 . 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari declaring the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in case No.B/3194/2016, dated O5-OB-2017 purporting to mutate the name of the Sth respondent in the place of the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary, u nco nstitutiona I and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same. l.A. NO: 1 OF 20 17(WPMP. NO:40274 OF 20171 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent in case No.B/3194/2016' dated 05-08-2017, pending disposal of this writ petition. lA NO: 'l OF 2020 Between: Gutta Shekar Reddy, S/o. Occupation Agriculture, R/o District, Telangana. Late Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged about 64 years, . Yelikafte Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda ...PETITIONEFYRESPONDENT No.5 AND 1 2 J 4 E Gutha Pushparnma, Wo. Sudershan Reddy, Aged abo-ut 56- years, Occupation Household and Agriculture, Rl/o. Yelikafte Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District. The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, Telangana. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, Telangana. The Tahsildar, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana. ...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 stay granted in wP.MP No. 40274 ot 2017, dated 21 .09.2017 and consequently dismiss the writ petition w.P. No.32377 of 2O17 with exemplary costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. K.HEMALATHA Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: SRI P'SRI HARSHA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH - WRIT PETITION No.32377 of2OL7 . ORDER: Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and perused the entire material on record' Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this

2. petition is frled by the petitioner questioning the orders passed by the respondent No.3 in Case No'B/3194/2016, dated 05.08.2017 purporting to mutate the name of the respondent No.5 in place of the petitionet fot 1f 3'd share of the land to an extent of Ac.5-28 guntas in Sy'No'328, situated at Yelikatte Viliage, Chitya'l Mandal, Nalgonda District.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac. 13-31 guntas of agricultural land in Sy.No.328, situated at Yelikatte Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District and I l 2 SK,J W.P.No.32377 of 2O17 the same was purchased through Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.2094 of 1990. Subsequently, he sold the land to arr extent ol Ac.3-30 guntas. Immediately, after purchasing the said lald, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in the year, 1990 and also issued Pattadar Passbooks and Tifle Deeds. While it being so, nearly after lapse of 23 years, the respondent No.S is claiming that one of the agnate of the vendors of the petitioner had hled an appeal as shareholder has entitled 1/3.d share of the total extent of suit schedule propertlr. The respondent No.3 in spite of opposing the petitioner, assuming as Jurisdiction of Civil Court, had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.S by giving shares to the parties and directed the official respondents to mutate the name of the respondent No.S in place of the petitioner but for I f 3td share of the schedule land.

4. trarnecl Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.3 being a Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the title over the property by allotting a-- 3 SK,J W.P.No.32377 of 20t 7 shares and the respondent No.S have also filed O.S.No.19O of 2Ol7 before the competent Civil Court for partition and separate possession of the share in the schedule property ald requested to allow the writ petition. S. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.S basing on the counter contended that the respondent No.3 has rightly passed impugned order by giving equal shares to the shareholders and there are no irregularities in passing orders and the petitioner is one of the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent No.5 in O.S.No.190 of 2OlZ for declaration of the property and separate possession of his share. There is no irregularity in allotting va_luable shares to the respondent No.S and directing to mutate the name of the respondent No.S in place of the petitioner in accordance with R.O.R. Act, 7971 and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

6. After hearing both sides and perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that I I SK,J W.P.No.32:)77 of 2017 to the suit schedule there is no dispute with regard property purchased by the petitioner from the family members of the pattedars and after 23 years of mutation of records, the petitioner filed an appeal under R'O'R' Act' l97l fot recording his name as one of the shareholders of the schedule property' Once the competent Civil Court takenonfileofsuitforpartition,therespondentNo.3has no jurisdiction to decide the shares of the parties and directing the authorities to mutate the records in the name of the unofficial respondent No'5 is arbitrary and illegal' The impugned ord'ers passed by the respondent No'3 is liable to the set aside and it is a frt case for granting liberty to the parties to approach the authorities after disposal of the civil Proceedings' In view of the above findings' the writ petition is 7. disposed of by setting asid'e the impugned orders in Case No.B/319al2016, dated O5'08'2O17 and granting liberty to both the parties for agitate their rights before the Civil Courtarrdafterdisposalofthecivilproceedings,the 5 w.e.No.szszz ,y if;il respondent No.5 can approach the Revenue-Authorities for necessary corrections in the revenue records, if the suit decreed in his favour. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-L. LAKSHMI BAB ASSISTANT REGISIRA U R // c// SECTION OFFICER

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

2. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, Telangana. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, Telangana. 4. The Tahsildar, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana. 5. One CC to M/s. K.HEMALATHA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY,.Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD CoPies BSR BS & HIGH COUR SK, J DATED: 291A112025 I ; ORDER WP.No.3237',7 of 2017 s 1HE ST4 16 o 21FiB /a< -) i) U ($( 7 ?. a -t 1j DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS QJca"a w"