Nukala Pushoalatha v. The State of Telangana

Petition tJrder section 151 cPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings in Case No. E5fi17112013 dated 2ilOdZofi of the 2nd respond€ nt dismissing the Revision petition filed und,:r Section g of A.P. Records of Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Book Act, 1971 with respect to agricultural lands in an extent of Acres 1 8.1 5 Guntas covered un,ler various sy. Nos. viz., Sy. lrlc. 153, 308, 3011A,214,215 and 216 of Ayyagaripalli Viltage, Kuravi Mandal, Maharbubabad District forthwith, pending disposal of writ petition. I.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition LJn,Jer llection 151 cPC praying that in the circumsti:nces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petiti,:n. No. 33296 of 2018 by considering the petitioner's counter and vacate the lnterinr Order granted in lA. No. 1 oI 2018 in Wp No. 33296 of 2018, dated: 27..09-21)18, in the interest of justice. Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRI K.RAM REDDy Counsel for the Res6xrndent Nos.1 to 4 : Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Rebprondent No.S : SRI CH.SHASHI BHUSHAN The Court made the lbtlowing ORDER 1 SK, 4 wP_33296 2018 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARA'TH WRIT PETITION No.33296 OF 2018 ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned Proceeding in case No.ES/7771/2013 dated

27.O8.2O18 by which the respondent No.2 dismissed the Revision hled by the petitioner under Section 9 of the A.P.Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 197 I with respect to land admeasuring to art extent of Ac.18. 15 guntas, situated in Sy.Nos.153, 308, 301/A,2I4,215 and 216 of Alyagaripa-lli Village, Kuravi Mandai of Mahabubabad District (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property) and sought to set aside the same.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5 and perused the record. ----t 2 SK, 4 tLP.t3296 2018

3. The leerrned Counsel for the petitioner would submit thir'- the petitioner is the daught.er of Late Bandi Narayana Reddy and the said Bandi NarayarLa Reddy married mother of the pel.itioner as second rnife consequent on death of his first wife. During his l;le time, father of the petitioner and son of his hrst wile i.e. the respondent No.5 herein were arrived zr fa_rr ily settlernent for partition of agricultural lands in which father of the petitioner got an extent of Ac. 18.15, guntas in Sy.Nos.153, 3Og, 30l/A,214,2lS and 216 of A.yyagaripalli Village of Kuravi N4an<ial of Mahabubabarl District. After death of father of the petitioner, the said lands were mutated in the na.ne of mother of ttrr: petitioner namely Bandi Soudhamani and Pattraclar Pass Books were also issued vide patta No.160 irr thc: year,2OO7. The mother of the petitioner \ gifted the sai<l lands in favour of the petitioner vidt: Gift Settlemerrt D,:ed No.3580/2012 dated 0g.05.2O12 and, since then th,: petitioner has been in possession of the said land. The mother of the petitioner died in the I 3 SK, J wP_33296 2018 month of March, 20 13. Thereafter, the respondent No.S got mutated his name in respect of the subject lands. On coming to know about the sarne in the yetr,2013, the petitoner hled appeal before the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisonal Ofhcer, Mahabubabad vide RC No.A/763/2Ot3 and the respondent No.3 by its order dated 15.10.2013, cancelled the patta held in the name of mother of the petitioner, without there being any procedure followed known to law.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the appellate authority/respondent No.3 has given a conclusion amo.ng other things that the registbred Gift Deed executed in favour of the petitioner is null and void though the said Gift Deed was challenged by the respondent No.S and his son in O.S.No.267 of 2OL3 on the file of principal District Judge, Warangal. The respondent No.3 tailed to consider that the name of mother of the petitioner was i: 4 SK, J wP-33296-2018 -'1 recorded as pattadar till her death i.e. from the years, 2OO7 tct 120 13. After death of mother of the petitioner, the TahsildzL: mutated name of the respondent I\1o.5 as Pattadar in the revenue records in place of mo,her of the petitionc:r-.

5. Th,e learned Counsel for the petitioner would further subntit that being aggrieved by the orders passed b,r 1he respondent No.3, the petitionet filed Revision before the respondent No.2/Joint Collector, Revision \^/eL:; dismissed on 27.Og.2O1g. Being aggrievecl by the said orders, the petitioner filerl the instant ',r.n t pr1lti1ien. 6- The 1earned Counsel for the petitioner u,ould further :;ubr:rit that when ROR proceedings were pending, ttre respondent No.5 herein and his son filed a suit in O.S.No.267 of 2OI3 on the lile of prin,:ipat District Jurlger. Warangal, (subsequently tralsferrr d to Mahabub:rtrac) to declare the son of the responrjent \ \ ,1 5 sK, 4 wP 33296 2018 No.S as owner and possessor of the suit schedule lands by virtue of Will Deed dated 10'05'2003 and consequently to declare the Gift Deed No'358O12O12 dated 08.05.20 12 executed in favour of the petitioner by her mother as null and void and also for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner herein'

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit frled by the respondent No'5'and his son in O.S.No.267 of 2Ol3 was dismissed as devoid merits on 2l.Ol2-2O23' Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the respondent No'5 and his son liled appeal in A.S'No'306 of 2024 befote this Court and the said appeat was dismissed as withdrawn on O2.O8.2O24- lnview of the same, the frndings given by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are without any basis and the sarne are liable to be set aside and the revenue authorities have to calcel the entries made in favour of the respondent No.5 and requested to allow the writ petition. I 6 SK, J] wP 3.1296 2018 \ \ B The lealned Counsel for the petitioner in strpport of his cc,nr3ntion placed reliance on the following Judgment: 1 Srnt.P.Ghousia Begum and. others Basireddg Rukrninamma and othersl Vs.,

9. On the other hand the learned Counsel fc,r 16" unofficial rer;pondent No.S reiterated the contertts of the counter as mentioned in the impugned crders passed by th,: Respondent No.2 and 3 respectiveb and relied on the documents filed along with the cor.rnter, but not denred about the dismissa_l of O.S.No.2ri7 of 2013 hlerl by 1.he respondent No.5 ald his son alcl a-lso about dir;missal of A.S.No.306 of 2024 and requ,:sted to dismiss tht: writ petition.

10. After hearing both sides and perusing the re,:ord, this Court is cf the considered view that, the petitroner herein is clur:r;tioning the mutation of revenue records in favour of tl-re respondent No.5 in respect of the suit schedule latnck; admeasuring to an extent of r\c.1g.15 ' 2019 (5) Am (l)Bl / 7 SK, 4 wP 33296 20)8 Guntas, situated in Sy.Nos.153, 308, 3Ol/A,2L4,2L5 and 216 of Ayyagaripalli Village, Kuravi Manda-l of Mahabubabad District and also questioning the orders passed respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the revision and the appeal respectively were dismissed on the ground that there was a settlement between the respondent No.5 and his father and also the Will Deed executed in favour of the son of the respondent No.5. 1 1. The documents mentioned in the ROR appeal and Revision and contentions were felt for consideration before the learned Principal District Judge, Mahabubabad in O.S.No.267 of 2OL3liled by the respondent No.5 and his son for declaration owner and possessor of the suit schedule lands by virtue of Will Deed dated 10.05.2003 and consequently to declare the Gift Deed No.358O/2O12 dated

08.05.2012 executed in favour of the petitioner by her mother as null and void and also for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner herein 8 SK, 4 w,P .3296 2018 After conrlu,:ting trial and marking the said ciocuments as exhibits i.rcluding the orders in ROR appeal dated 15.i0.2013 zrs trx.A5 and the orders in ROR rcvision dated 27.08.20 18 as Ex.A_17 and after hearin5l both learned principal District .fudge, sides, the Mahabubab:r,l rejected the contention oj. the responderLt \ro.5 arrd his son and thereby disnrissed the saicl st:it by its Judgment arrd Decree dated 22.12.2C'23. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.5 and his son filed appeal before this Cor- rt in A.S.No.3rl(r c,l' 2024 and the sarne was dismissr_,d as withdrau,'n o:1 02.O8.2024. As on the date, the contentions eLnd the documents relied on by the respondenr-.No.5 were rejected by the compet.ent Civil Court anrl thr: same was attained finality. 12. The .Iu<lgment relied on by the learned Cor.Lnsel for the petittc,ner. in Smt p.Ghousia Begum and others 7s. Basired.dg Rukminqmmq and ot,hers (s-upra) s,quar3ly apply to the instant case. The \ \ 9 sr<, q wP 33296 2018 relevant operation portion of the Judgment 15 aS under: According to us, when the pattadar pass book hqs been i,ssued, the same cannot be cancelled. automaticallg unless Ciuil Court found_ that there is no justification for issuance of the same. The presumption of correctness in issuance of pattad.ar passbook in fauour of the person alutags in the act and. action of Gouemment. But recording is not conclusiue as it mag be corrected. and rectified bg the Ciuil Court. (Jnless a competent Ciuil Court d_ecid_es the actual title of the property in fauour of any person, consequential measure for i.ssuance or cancellation of pattadar passbook does nto arise...,

13. In the instant case a_lso, the competent Civil Court not accepted the contention of the respondent No.5 with rega_rd to Will Deed executed in favour of his son by his father and also cancellation of Gift Deed executed in favour of the petitioner by mother of the petitioner in Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.267 of 2Ol3 on the file of the principa_l District Judge, Mahabubabad and the same was attained finality. ,//. \ 10 SK, J] wP_ t3296 2018

14. In vierr, of the above circumstances. the orders passed b'y th.e respondent Nos.2 and 3 are liablt: to be set aside anrl the revenue authorities have to tal<e into account. crf lLLe Judgment arld Decree d.ated,22.1,1.2023 in O.S.N,I.267 of 2013 on the frle of the pnncipal District .Iurlge, Mahabubabad for mutation r>f the reventle reco :ds

15. Witle the above findings, the Writ petition is disposerl ol b1r setting aside the impugned order passed rr:sproldsnl No.2 in Case No.E5 lTZTll2013 dated tl,7.Ol.2O78 and also order passed by the responderrt No.3 Case No.A/763/201.3 dated

15.10.2013. ()onsequently, the mutation orders passed by the respcndent No.4/Tahsildar 1n respect of the subject lzLnctr; in favour of respondent No.5 i,.; a_lso hereby s;et :'.r;ide. The Tahsildar/Respondent Nc.4 is directed to trlke appropriate action for mutation tf the records as pe r ROR Act in favour of the petitioner for \, suit sch,:clule property by taking into account of the 7 To i1 sI(,4 wP_33296_201A Decree and Judgment dated 22.12.2023 in O.S.No.267 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mahabubabad.

16. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana secretariat, state of Telangana at HYderabad.

2. The Joini Coll6ctor, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District' 3. The Appellate Authority and Revenue Divisional fficer, Mahabubabad' Ivlahabubabad District.

4. The Tahsidar, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District' 5.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to SRI K-RAM REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI CH.SHASHI BHUSHAN, Advocate (OPUC) 8. Two CD CoPies SA/BSK G FIIGH COURT' DATED:0210412025 ORDER WP.No.33296 of 2018 rR' : 1EAPrffi i_' c. \ __ -: =--: r-a\) DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.