THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No.869 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for
the appellants.
2. This appeal is directed against the order
dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing
W.P.No.3474 of 2022 filed by the appellants as the petitioners.
3. Challenge made in the writ petition was to the order
dated 23.06.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal constituted
under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks
Act, 2020 (briefly 'the Special Tribunal' hereinafter) in respect
of land admeasuring Acs.3.21 guntas situated in Survey
No.215 of Madharam Village, Ghatkesar Mandal in Medchal-
Malkajgiri District (briefly 'the subject land' hereinafter).
::2::
4. Appellants had filed a revision petition before the
Special Tribunal against the orders dated 30.11.2006
and 25.12.2006 passed by the Tahsildar of Ghatkesar Mandal
in respect of the subject land.
5. On constitution of the Special Tribunal, the revision
petition was transferred to the Special Tribunal.
6. Claim of the appellants before the Special Tribunal was
that they were the absolute owners and possessors of the
subject land. It was alleged that certain persons by name of
Ch. Anji Reddy, Ch.Buchaiah @ Ch.Buchi Reddy and
Ch.Narsimha Reddy, who were holding the subject land, sold
their respective shares to respondent No.4 by way of
registered sale deeds, but what was alienated was more than what was actually possessed by the vendors. On the strength of the registered sale deeds, respondent No.4 got its name mutated in the revenue records. This came to be challenged ::3::
before the Tahsildar. When the challenge was unsuccessful, revision petition was filed.
7. Respondent No.4 objected to the claim of the appellants, who pressed its claim on the basis of registered sale deeds. It contended that having purchased the subject land, it got its name mutated in the revenue records by obtaining orders from the Tahsildar; it is in physical possession over the subject land; appellants do not have any semblance of right, title and interest as well as possession over the subject land.
8. By the order dated 23.06.2021, Special Tribunal noted that on the one hand, appellants claimed the subject land to be their ancestral property and on the other hand, respondent No.4 claimed ownership through registered sale deeds having purchased the land from different pattadars. In the circumstances, Special Tribunal noted that there is a serious dispute of title over the subject land between the rival ::4::
claimants, which cannot be adjudicated by the revenue authority. Giving liberty to the appellants to approach the competent civil Court, the review petition was dismissed.
9. Learned Single Judge took the view that the Special Tribunal had rightly relegated the parties to the competent civil court. In support of such finding, learned Single Judge examined the record of the case in detail. Finally, holding that there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Special Tribunal, which did not merit any interference, learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.
10. While we concur with the view taken by the Special Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge that if the appellants want to assert their right of ownership over the subject land, the appropriate forum would be the civil court of competent jurisdiction and not the revenue authority, however, we are of the further view that observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 8 and 9 would not ::5::
come in the way of any adjudication by the civil court, if approached by the appellants as those observations were made in the context of examining the writ petition filed by the appellants.
11. With the above clarification, Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 29.12.2022 LUR