Damodhar Narayan Sawale (Df through LRS v. Jejrao Bajirao Mhaskel

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent not to carry out any amendments in ROR in respect of S.No- 704li an extent of Ac.2-20 gts of Gummudal H/o Doulthabad village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District pending disposal of the above writ petition. !.A.NO:1 OF 2023 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 direct the 4th respondent to restore the name of the petitioner in record of rights in respect of the land an extent of Ac.2-00 in S.No.704l1/2 situated at Dowlathabad village and Mandal, Vikarabad District. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.s : SRI N. ASHOK KUMAR The Court made the following ORDER SK,J W.P.No.2699O of 2074 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.2699O of 2Ol4 oRDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Case No.Dl l69l2OIO File No.D113602 /2OlO No.A/6O9/2OO7

28.t2.2073 dated 27.0 1.2OO9 respectively.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Counsel for the unofhcial respondent No.5.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Iand to an extent of Ac.3-11 gts in Sy.No.7O4 situated at Gummudal H/o.Doulthabad Village and Mandal, was originally owned by one Palmadka Bheemappa @ Rheemanna and out of the said land, an extent of Ac.2-2O 2 SK,J W.P.No.26990 of 2Ol4 gts was solct by said Bheemappa to the father_in_law of petitioner, by name, yerrolla Bajarappa, through private sale deed d,ated 1O.0i.1969 and subsequenfly he had executed a registered sale deed dated 2S.O3.IgZl. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner has succeeded the said land ald after his death, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said rand and her name was also reccrded as pattadar in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and tjtle deed r.,",ere issued in her favour on O.l. 12.2Cr06. Against the said entries, the unofficial respondent No.5 has liled appeal under Section 5(5) read wittr Rule 22 or RoR Act before thc respo,dent No.3 and the same was allowed vide Appeat No.A/6O9/2007 dated 2Z.Ot.2OOg holding that there is no initial of the Officer against the entries made in the ROR register and directed the respondent No.,4 to incorporate ttre name of the legal heir of the original pattadar in a.ccordance w-ith the Rights in Land and J SK,J W.P.No.2699O of 2OI4 Pattadar Passbooks Act, I9Z I (for short ,the ROR Act, L97 l"l. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971, before the respondent No.2 and the sarrre was dismissed in Case No.Dl/6912O10 File No.D11360212O1O dated 28.12.2073.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.3S of 2OOZ on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal for injunction and the same was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent No.5 were in possession of the land in Sy.No.704 and the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 before the respondent No.3 was pending. He further submits that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have failed to consider the revenue records hled by the petitioner from l97O-7 | onwards. 4 SK,J W. t']. No.216990 of .lO 14

5. l,earned, Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no dispute with regard to execution cf the document No.342 / 197 I by the grandfather ol the respondent No.5 in favour of the father-in-1a.w of petitioner na-rnely Yerrola Bajarappa. The, respondent No.3, without following due procedure as <:ontemplated under Section 5 of the Act and without issuing any notice to the interested persons, has allowed the appeal filed by the unofficial respondent No.5. He submits that both the appellate as rvell as the revisional authorities erred in not remanding th.e matter to the respondent No.4 for dr:novo enquiry as contemplated under Section 5 ol the Act and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following Judgments; ) SK,J W.P.No.2699O of 2O14

1. Damodhar Narayan Sawale (Df through LRS vs Jejrao Bajirao Mhaskel

2. Rattan Singh vs. Nirmal GiIl2

3. Kasarla Yadagiri (died| per LRs vs. State of Telangana, Revenue Department rep. through its Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana at Hyderabad3

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the appellate as well as the revisional authorities, a-fter following due procedure and based on the records available, passed impugned orders and there is no need to interfere with by this Court and requested to dismiss the writ petition

8. Learned Counsel lor the unofhcial respondent No.5, basing on the counter, submits that there is no dispute r2023 SCC OnLine sC i66 'AtRoNLtNE 2o2o sc 854 'zozq+1eut o:t 1rsy 6 S K,J W.P.No.26990 of 2rl14 that Sri T. Beemappa @ Beemalna was the originai owner of land to an extent of Ac.3-11 gts in Sy.No.704, situated at Gummudal Village, Doulthabad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, which is ancestral property. Late Beemanna died leaving behind two sons i.e., pedda Sayanna and Chinna Sayanna. Chinna Sayanna died issuless and Pedda Sayanna died leavir-rg behincl the respondent No.5 as adopted daughter. Late Beemanna never sold the subject land to the father-in-law of the petitioner on 10.01.1969. FIe submirs that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records without any endorsement or order passed by any competent authorit5r. The respondent No.5 has preferred appeal before the respondent No.3 and the same was allolvr:d on

27.O1.2OO9. He further submits that during pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner {iled suit in O.S.No..lS ol 2OO7 or the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal and the same was dismissed after trial holding that the { t 7 SK,J W.P.No.2699O of 2Ol4 petitioner is not at all in possession of the subject property and the respondent No.S is in possession of the subject property and the said Judgment has become final. The revision petition hied by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 was also dismissed.

9. learned Counsel for the unofficia,l respondent No.S further submits by the date of entering her name in the revenue records in the year, 2006, the father-in-law of the petitioner Sri Bajrappa was alive and the subject propert5i was never mutated in the name o[ the son of said Bajrappa and so also the name of the petitioner after the death of her husband and the petitioner has played fraud on the authorities and got entered her name in the revenue records illegaily. He further submits that the petitioner has neither proved her title nor possession over the subject land at any point o[ time and the registered document No.342/71 is a bogus one and not binding on ......<t. 8 S K.J W.P.No.216990 of .20 I4 the respondent No.s and if the said document is genuine, the petitioner has to approach the competent civil Court. He further submits that the revisiona-l aurhority, after veri$ring all the documents, has rightty dismisseC the revision and there are no merits in the rvrit petition and requested to <lismiss the writ petition.

10. After hearing both sides arrd perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the instanr writ petition is filed challenging the orders passed irr the appeal and the revision under the ROR Act, i971. The case of the petitoner is that she is the owner of land to an extent of Ac.2-2O gts in Sy.No.704 situated at Gumrludal H/o.Doulthabad Village and Mandal. Originallv, the land belongs to one Palmadka Bheemappa @ Bheemanna. who sold the said land through private sale deed dated 10.01.1969 in favour of the father-in_1ar.r, oi- the petitoner and subsequently, said Bheemappa (4 i 9 SK,J W.P.No.26990 of 2014 Bheemanna has executed a registered sale deed on

25.03. l97l in favour of the father-in-law of the petitoner. Thereafter, the husband of the petitoner has succeeded the said property and a-fter his death, the petitoner is in possession and enjoSrment ol the said land.

11. Basing on the application hled by the petitoner, the concerned Tahsildar has recorded her name in ROR register as pattadar and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour in the year, 2006. Against the said proceedings, the respondent No.5 filed appeal under ROR Act, 1971 before the respondent No.3 and the same was allowed on 27.OL2O09 on the ground that there was no initial of the Oflicer against the entries made in the ROR register. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitoner hled revision before the respondent No.2 under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 and the sarne was also dismissed by t0 SJ K,J W.P.No.2ti990 of 2014 the revisional authority on 28. 12.2013. Both the orders are impugned in this writ petition.

12. The contention of the petitoner is that both the respondent authorities, without considering the registered sale deed hled by her, have cancelled her pattadar pass book and titie deed and the same is arbitrary. and illegal. The authorities have to take into account of the regisLered sale deed and the Tahsildar has rightly mutated the name ol the petitoner in the revenue records and is,sued pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour.

13. As per the orders of the respondent No.3 in the appeal hled by the respondent No.5, there was a firrding that as per 1-he record, it is evident that the Merndal Revenue Olficer has tailed to conduct enquiry in proper way and also verified copy of ROR and found that :here was no signature of the Officer and in view of the same, set aside the c,rder passed by the Mandal Revenue Ofticer, SK,J W.P.No.2699O of 2OL4 Doulthabad by directing the Tahslidar, Doulthabad to incorporate the name of the legal heir of the original pattadar in accordalce with the ROR Act, l9Z l.

14. As per the certificate under Form 13(B), which is filed a-tong with the material papers in writ petition at page No.16, it clearly shows that there are number of corrections and there is no signature of the concerned Mandal Revenue Ofhcer. Moreover, before issuing said Certihcate under Form 13(B), there is no record available for mutation proceedings as per the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer-respondent No.3 and in the revision, the respondent No.2 has upheld the orders of the respondent No.3.

15. Admittedly, the petitoner has hled O.S.No.35 of 2OO7 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, for injunction and the sarne was dismissed by the competent 12 ISK,J W.P.No.26990 of itO14 Civil Court declaring that the petitoner ls nct in possession ol' the subject property.

16. The Juo.gments relied on the learned Counsel frtr the petitoner in Damodhar Narayan Sawale,s case (1 supra) and in Rattan Singh's case (2 supra) are relating 1.o the validi$z of seLle and the sale is not the subject nlatter belore the respondent authorities. In the instart case, the issue ir; whether the ROR proceedings oj the MRO/TahsiLdar are valid or not and the Certifrcate under Form l3(B) u,as issued without the signature of the Tahsildar anri no record is available for passing of the orders. [n vir:rv of the same, the said two Judgment.s a,re not apply to the lacts of this case.

17. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitoner in Kasarla Yadagiri's case (3 supra), is with regard to consideration of the contentions of the respective parties and the material evidence on rr:cord l3 SK,J W.P.No.26990 ot 20t4 and giving reasons. The said Judgment is a.lso not apply to the instarrt case as the appellate and the revisiona_l authorities have given reasons for passing the impugned orders and categorically held that there is no record available with regard to mutation proceedings and also there is no signature of the Mandal Revenue offlcer in the certificate issued under Form 13(B).

18. In the impugned orders, the respondent No.3 has directed the Tahsildar to incorporate the narnes of tJre legal heir of the original pattadar by cancelling the entries made in favour of the petitoner. The Mandal Revenue Officer, without conducting proper enquiry has issued the proceedings in favour of the petitoner and the Revenue Divisional Officer has to direct the Tahsildar to conduct denovo enquiry by giving opportunity to the petitoner as well as the unofficia-l respondent No.S and pass appropriate orders as per the ROR Act, l97L and Rules l i t4 SK,J W.P.No.26990 of 2O14 there under. But, without conducting any enquiry, the respondent No.3 cannot direct the respondent No'4 to mutate the names of the legal heir of the original pattadar

19. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is disposed ol by modifying the order passed by thc in Case No'Al609 l2'OO7 respondent No.3 dated. 27.Ol.i'.OOg by setting aside the directiorL to incorporate thLe nafnc ol the legal heir of the original pattadar in accordance with the ROR Act, l97l and directed the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Doulthabad' to conduct denovo cnquiry by issuing notice to the petitioner as weli as tLte respondent No'5 and pass appropriate orders as per the ROR Act and the Rules thereunder' after considering the documents hled by both the sides' There shall be no order as to costs' ) t5 SK,J W.P.No.2699O ot 2014

20. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. ,^i1'.t.:E+ht I AS ,,TRUE COPY,, ECTPN OFF ICER To I

2. 3 4 5 t*s*;s*tg*ffi**j#'n**ffi; l'*i'itiidfl iilttilsffi,ffi^t:R3;t:1"'isttoPucr 6 7 8 Two CD CoPes SA M o 4^{+ tu' T, i(. (.,/.( C) 2 E r f t 2025 + l c I t s oecTA, HIGH COURT DATED:0810112025 ORDER WP.No.26990 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. w