HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4934 of 2021
Date:05.03.2021
Between:
Abdul Rahman S/o.Fakruddin,
Aged about 47 yrs, Occu : Agriculture & others
.....Petitioners
And
State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department & others.
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
-2-
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4934 of 2021
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
2. Petitioners claim as legal heirs of late Fakruddin and pray to direct the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to act upon the representation submitted by them on 18.01.2021 to mutate their names in the revenue records and to issue pattadar pass books to them on land to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.29 of Thirmalapuram Village, Shankarmpet-A Mandal, Medak District.
3. According to petitioners, Gandla Sangaiah was the owner of land to an extent of Ac.15.37 guntas in Sy.No.29. Late M.D. Fakruddin S/o.Md.Shah purchased Ac.1.20 guntas of land from out of the said extent in the form of Bikrinama (Sale Deed) to construct Ajuar's Sadathullah Hussain Chilla Mubarak Darga, executed on 20.04.1980. Sale consideration was paid and possession was handed over to late Fakruddin. In the year 2002, on application filed by the petitioners an enquiry was conducted as part of exercise to mutate the names of petitioners, but it was not proceeded further. Petitioners have again applied for mutation of their names, but sofar steps are not taken by the Tahsildar. According to petitioners, Gandla Sangaiah instituted O.S.No.29 of 2002 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Medak praying to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering in possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.15.37 in Sy.No.29. By judgement and decree rendered on -3- 12.11.2008 in O.S.No.29 of 2002, the trial Court granted decree excluding Ac.1.20 guntas of land which was sold to late Fakruddin. In view thereof petitioners are entitled to mutation of their names and the action of respondent-Tahsildar in not mutating the names is ex facie illegal affecting the right of petitioners to property in issue.
4. The trial Court framed four issues for trial. They read as under :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?
2. Whether the plaintiff had lost the title, right and interest to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.29 as alleged by the defendants ?
3. Whether there is no cause of action ?
4. To what relief ?
5. Against Issue No.2, the trial Court recorded the following findings :
"Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Indian Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act no title of the property can be transferred either to Fakruddin or defendants being his Legal Representatives and Ex.B.1 an unregistered document is no way helpful to the defendants case that the title of Ac.1.20 gts., in Sy.No.(29) transferred in the name of Fakruddin and after his death they succeeded the property and once Ex.B.1 is not valid document, it cannot be said that plaintiffs lost title and interest to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts., in Sy.No.29.
Thus the Issue is answered that still the title of Ac.15.37 gts., in Sy.No.29 including the disputed Ac.1-20 gts., standing in the name of Sangaiah and after death of Sangaiah during the pendency of the suit the Plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4 being his Legal Representatives are the only persons to succeed the title of entire property under Item No.4 of the schedule property."
-4-
6. From the extracted portion, it is clear that the trial Court held that the sale transaction claimed is not valid in the eye of law and late Gandla Sangaiah continued to be owner of the entire extent of land in Sy.No.29.
7. As can be seen from the discussions against Issue No.1, the findings recorded and conclusions arrived, the trial Court found that on Ac.1.20 guntas of land, Darga was constructed and prayers are offered by Hindus and Muslims in the said Darga. The Court also found that until the demise of late Gandla Sangaiah, he was managing the affairs of Darga. The Court having noticed that Darga should be open for all Muslims in the area and others who can pray, granting injunction for the entire extent of land claimed by the plaintiffs against the defendants would amount to restraining the defendants even entering the Darga to perform the prayers, excluded the land to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas from injunction and permitted the defendants to offer prayers in the Darga.
8. Thus, the limited relief granted by the trial Court in favour of petitioners was to the extent of offering prayers in the Darga only. The categorical finding of the trial Court is that the sale deed was not valid and that Gandla Sangaiah was the owner of entire extent of land.
9. Strangely, petitioners make claim for mutation of their names in the revenue records, based on a decree granted by the trial Court and by tracing the ownership claim to an unregistered sale deed of the year 1980 which was held to be not valid by the trial Court, which finding has become final. -5-
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court has become final.
11. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition to consider the representation of the petitioners for mutation of their names in the revenue records cannot be granted. In fact according to the procedure prescribed by the Government, there is no question of making application in physical form for mutation and application has to be made through online web portal. As the claim of petitioners itself is ex facie illegal, the question of holding the respondent authorities in not acting upon the representation to mutate their names in the revenue records as illegal, does not arise.
12. Writ Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). The entire exercise would clearly point out that petitioners are seeking to abuse the process of Court by trying to make out a claim when it was categorically declined by the competent Court in civil proceedings and the judgment and decree has become final. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 5th March, 2021 Rds -6- HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.4934 of 2021 Date:05.03.2021 Rds