THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 9344 of 2020
ORDER:
Assailing the action of the Tahsildar, Atmakur Mandal, the respondent No. 3 herein, in issuing notice dated 12.06.2020 in File No. B/614/2020, proposing to mutate the names of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 as against the agricultural land of the petitioner in Sy. No. 77/AA, admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas, situated at Atmakur Village & Mandal, Wanaparthy District, the present writ petition is filed.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the subject land has fallen to the share of the petitioner and his name was implemented in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor. While so, V. Balram Goud, the father of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, filed O.S. No. 26 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur seeking declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of the said land from the petitioner. Upon the death of V. Balram Goud, the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were brought on record as legal representatives of plaintiff therein. However, the suit was dismissed for default on 04.06.2015 and the said judgment has become final as no steps were taken by the respondent Nos. 4 to 7. While so, the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 filed an application seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records by removing the name of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that in collusion with the unofficial respondents, the respondent No. 3, by way of the impugned notice, is proposing to mutate the names of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in place of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.
2
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondents and Sri Sriram Polali, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Perused the material on record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit in O.S. No. 26 of 2005 filed by the unofficial respondents against the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and for recovery of possession of subject land was dismissed for default on 04.06.2015 and the said judgment has become final as no steps have been taken by them. Therefore, once the suit filed by the unofficial respondents has been dismissed, the question of them filing an application, before the Tahsildar, seeking mutation does not arise. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the repeal of the Telangana Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 with the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for short, 'the Act No. 9 of 2020'), which came into force w.e.f. 29.10.2020, the Tahsildar has no power to mutate any names in the revenue records except as envisaged under the Act No. 9 of 2020.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents contends that the unofficial respondents have already taken steps to get the suit restored and an I.A. filed to restore the suit, which is pending adjudication before the Trial Court. The learned counsel further states that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, as the challenge in the writ petition by the petitioner is only to a notice issued by the respondent No. 3 and that the petitioner can raise all the objections, now raised 3 before this Court, before the respondent No. 3 by filing his reply to the impugned notice.
Admittedly, in the present case, the unofficial respondents had already approached the civil court seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the subject property and on dismissal of the suit, they stated to have filed an application seeking restoration of the suit and the said I.A. is pending consideration. Instead of awaiting the result of the said interlocutory application for restoration of the suit, the unofficial respondents have filed an application before the respondent No. 3 seeking mutation of the subject land in their favour. It is not disputed by the unofficial respondents that the suit filed by them was already dismissed on 04.06.2015. Such being the case, the unofficial respondents without getting the suit restored to its file, ought not to have approached the respondent No. 3 seeking mutation of the subject land in their favour. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the Act No. 9 of 2020 coming into force w.e.f. 29.10.2020, only the concerned District Collector is empowered to make necessary amendments in the revenue records, either on acquisition of any right or on the basis of a court decree or on the basis of succession of a person, whose name is already entered in the revenue record. Therefore, in view of the enactment of the Act No. 9 of 2020 and the provisions thereof, the Tahasildar has no jursidction to entertain any application for mutation and hence on this ground alone the impugned notice is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned notice, dated 12.06.2020 issued by the Respondent 4 No. 3. However, liberty is granted to the unofficial respondents to workout their remedies in the pending civil suit filed by them, if the same is restored to its file.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 19.11.2021 tsr