Kantareddy Sarojini Devi v. 1. The Revisional Authority/Joint collector

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court mair be pleased to issue an order, Direction, writ more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in granting orders in RoR File No. Bt15t2O18 dt. 2410312018 granting succession in favor of respondent No.6 as sole heir of deceased Pattadar late Kotha susheela thereby transferring ownership of lands sy.No.2/E, 339, 369, 372,48718 situate at venikepalli Village of Saidapur Revenue Mandal in Karimnagar District on the application of respondent No. 6 dt. 1410212018 merely on the basis of false, incorrect report submitted by respondents No.4 and 5 and without conducting inquiry under Sec. 5 of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 as bad, illegal, arbitrary. opposed to principles of natural justice, violation of Art. 14 and Arl.21 and Art. 300-A Constitution of lndia and to set aside the impugned Orders consequently directing the respondents to conduct fresh inquiry in accordance with provisions of Rights in Land and Pattabar Pass Books Act, 1971. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 issue directions to respondent No. 6 not to create third party interest in the lands Sy.Nos. 21E,339,369,372, 48718 total measuring 2 acres 32 guntas situated at Venikepalli Revenue village of Saidapur Revenue Mandal in Karimnagar District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 issue directions to respondents No. 1 to 3 not to implement or give effect to the orders and grant Title Deed to respondent No.6 pursuant to the impugned orders dated 24tO3t2O1B in file No.B/1 5t2018 in respect of lands trahsferred in favour of respondent No.6 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counse! for the Petitioner: SRI B.NAGESHWAR RAO, REP. FOR SRI C.RAMESH SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.I to 5: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER .i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LA>(MI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.78 of 20.20 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the action of respondent No.9 in passing orders in ROR File No.B /1512O18, dated 24.O3.2OL8 granting succession in favour of respondent No.6, as illegal, arbitrary, contrar5r to principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India.

2. Heard Sri B.Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri C.Ramesh Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. Notice sent to respondent No.6 returned with an endorsement 'addressee left without instrrrctions'. Therefore, service deemed sufficient and the matter is being disposed of basin$ on the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally Kotha Raji Reddy, father of the petitioner and the respondent No.6 were the owner of land in Survey Nos.339, 369,372 and 487/8, situated at Venikepalli Village of Saidapur Revenue Mandal, Karimnagar District. After demise of Kotha Raji Reddy, mother of the petitioner and respondent No.6, executed document dated t -\*1 \ 2

05.11-2006 to the effect ttrat respondent No.6 is entitled to claim H.No.3-9 situated at Venikepafly Village and rand admeasuring Ac. 1.19 guntas in Sy.No.339 and Sy.No.101O of Akunuru Village, and the sarne was accepted by respondent No.6. Except the aforesaid properties, the respondent No.6 has no claim on the rest of the properties held by their family.

5. Learned counser for the petitioner would also submit that mother of the petitioner had executed will deed dated 20.09.201s bequeathing land admeasuring2Z guntas in Sy.No.4g7 lB,29 guntas in Sy.No.339,27 % guntas in Sy.No.369/B and 15 guntas in Sy.No.372, situated at Venikepalli Revenue Village of Saidapur Mandal, Karimnagar District, in favour of the petitioner and her expired on 09.10.2015; that the petitioner submitted application dated. 24.71.2015 and 15. l2.2OlZ before the 3.drrespondent for trarrsfer of lands covered under the said will deed dated 2o.og.2ols, duly enclosing copy of the will executed in her favour, however, the

3.d respondent did not take any action.

6. Learned counser for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.6 made an application dated 2T.lO.2OlS to respondent No.3 to transfer an the rands of his mother in his favour by suppressing the document executed by him as well as his mother dated 05-11.2006. The respondent No.3 invited objections vide r/ 3 proceedings dated 29.LO.2O15 and in response, petitioner submitted objections on 24.LL.2O15 informing the respondent authorities that her mother executed will bequeathing the lands in Survey Nos.4B7 lB, 339,369 and 372 in her favour. Accordingly, respondent No.3 vide proceedings No.B/205512016, dated L2.O7.2016 rejected the claim of respondent No.6. However, suppressing the aforesaid rejection proceedingS, respondent No.6 submitted another application dated 14.12.2018 and the 3'd respondent without notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry passed the impugned proceedings vide File No.B/LS|2OL8, dated 24.03.2018 granting succession in favour of respondent No.6.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order without following the procedure contemplated under Rights in Land apd Pattadar Pass Books Act, L971 and Rules, 1989. He also submits that in view of the proceedings No.B 1205512016, dated 12.07.2016, wherein the earlier application submitted by respondent No.6 was rejected, the respondent No.3 ought not to have entertained the application dated L4.t2.2008 submitted by respondent No.6 and finally prayed to allow the writ petition.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that respondent No.3 passed the impugned order by duly 4 giving notice dated 14.02.201g calling for objections and basing on the report submitted by respondent Nos.4 and 5 dated ls.o2.2oL8, and therefore, there is illegality or irregularit5i in the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. ( 9' A perusal of the record discloses that on earlier occasion, respondent No.6 had submitted application d,ated 22.LO.2015, for transfer of subject lands in his favour and the sarne was rejected by respondent No.i! after due enquiry vide Memo No.B/2055/2016, dated 12.07.2016. Suppressing the earlier rejection, the Respondent No'6 submittecl another apprication dated L4.72.207g and Respondent No.ll entertained the same and passed the impugned order. The impugned order does not disclose as to whether any notice has been issued to the petitioner except referring to the alleged notice dated l4.O2.2OIg. Thus, the impugngd order dated 24.o3-2ol8 passed by respondent No-3 suffers from serious irregularity in view of the earrier rejection order dated 12.0z.2016 passed by the same authorit5r. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 24'o3-20rg is unsustainable and accordingly, set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 for fresh adjudication' Respondent no.3 is directed to consider the application ./ s dated 14.12.2018 submitted by respondent No'6 and objections dated 24.11.2015 submitted by the petitioner and adjudicate the issue afresh by duly alfording opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with Law, as expeditiously as possible. 1 1. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPYII SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Revisional Authority Joint Collector, Karimnagar under Rights in Land and Paftadar Pass Books Act, 1971. \

2. The Appellate Authority/Revenue Divisional Officer, Huzurabad under Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

3. The Recording Authority/Tahsildar, Saidapur under Rights in Land and Paftadar Pass Books AcL 1971.

4. The Mandal Revenue lnspector, V-Saidapur Revenue Mandal, Karimnagar I District.

5. The Village Revenue Officer, Venikepalli Village, Revenue Maridal, V- Saidapur, Karimnagar District.

6. One CC to SRI C.RAMESH SAGAR, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for thd State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies BSR GJP HIGH COURT DATED: 1611012025 l l I 1 ORDER WP.No.78 of 2020 a '$F|,E S.I.A ): G t rJ (J 20 il0U M z C) .* C DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,,. WITHOUT COSTS \ \\