THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.27956 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard Mr. M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. M. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
2. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the endorsement issued by the second respondent dated 03.01.2022 in file No.B/73/2016 whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of succession and mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the land situated in Survey No.151/A1 admeasuring Acs.2.26 gts out of Acs.4.00 gts of Chennupally Village, Ananthagiri Mandal, Suryapet District (hereinafter referred to as "subject land"), was rejected by the third respondent.
3. The admitted facts are that the father of the petitioner herein, namely Late Kasi Reddy, was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land and the same was also updated in the revenue records as pattadar in the name of the father of the petitioner herein and the same is continued as such as on date. On the demise of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner herein made a request for grant of succession and mutation in 2 MSK,J W.P.NO.27956 OF 2022 his name being the successor-in-interest of his deceased father. The said request of the petitioner was initially rejected by the respondent-authorities in the year 2014 on the ground that there was a civil suit pending in O.S.No.168 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kodad filed by the fourth respondent herein. The said suit was dismissed by the Court concerned by a judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner once again approached the respondents seeking for grant of succession and mutation in respect of the subject land. As the same was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2247 of 2019 and the same was disposed of by this Court by an order dated, 11.02.2019 directing the third respondent to take appropriate action on the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of succession and mutation. Thereafter, the third respondent issued the impugned endorsement stating that the request of the petitioner for grant of succession and mutation is rejected by the second respondent on the ground that the petitioner is not in actual and physical possession and in terms of Rule 26(6) of the Rules made under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 ("the Act, 1971" for brevity), the person, who is in actual physical 3 MSK,J W.P.NO.27956 OF 2022 possession of the land shall alone be issued with pattadar pass book. In the light of the above undisputed fact situation, the case of the petitioner and the fourth respondent is considered as under:-
4. It is the case of the fourth respondent that he purchased the subject land from the petitioner and his father under an agreement of sale and he was inducted into possession of the subject property in the year 2003 and his name is also entered in the 'possessor column'. However, as the petitioner and his father failed to comply with their obligations under the said agreement of sale, after having got issued a legal notice, the fourth respondent filed O.S.No.168 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kodad for declaration of title, injunction and also sought for an alternative relief of refund of amount and the said suit was dismissed by a judgment and decree, dated 15.02.2018. Hence, the fourth respondent filed A.S.No.14 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda and that the same is pending for consideration. It is also stated in the counter filed by the fourth respondent that the petitioner herein and his father got filed O.S.No.306 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, for partition and separate possession 4 MSK,J W.P.NO.27956 OF 2022 in respect of the joint family properties including the subject property and the said suit was decreed by passing a preliminary decree on 01.12.2003 and thereafter, the fourth respondent herein filed an objection petition in the said suit, but the same was dismissed by the said Court and ultimately, a final decree was also passed in the said suit.
5. Thus, the claim of the fourth respondent herein is only basing upon an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the petitioner and his father, but the suit, which was filed basing upon the said agreement of sale seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction, etc., was dismissed by the competent Court. Though an appeal was preferred against the said judgment and decree in O.S.No.168 of 2009, admittedly, there is no interlocutory order passed in the said appeal suit as on date. Therefore, any claim of the fourth respondent against the subject property is only basing upon the appeal suit referred to above, which is pending. From a perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that the mother of the petitioner is alive and she also made a request for mutation of her name in the revenue records.
6. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner's father is appearing as pattadar in respect of the subject property in all 5 MSK,J W.P.NO.27956 OF 2022 the revenue records. The petitioner herein, being the successor- in-interest, is definitely entitled to seek succession in respect of the subject property, subject to the claims of any other legal representatives of his deceased father. The claim of the petitioner herein is rejected now through the impugned endorsement on the ground that in terms of Rule 26(6) of the Rules made under the Act, 1971, persons in physical possession alone are entitled for issuance of pattadar pass books. In the records that are maintained on Dharani Portal under the Act, 2020, there is no 'possessor column' as such. As the name of the petitioner's father is already shown as pattadar in all the revenue records and the claim of the fourth respondent is already negatived by a competent Civil Court, the claim of the petitioner for grant of succession and mutation of his name in the revenue records cannot be rejected by the respondents on the ground that petitioner is not in physical possession of the subject property. Whether the petitioner is in physical possession or not is not a matter for consideration by the respondent-authorities while considering his case for succession and mutation. Admittedly, there are certain observations made in the judgment in O.S.No.168 of 2009 in connection with the possession over the subject property in favour of the petitioner 6 MSK,J W.P.NO.27956 OF 2022 herein, which is however subject to the result of A.S.No.14 of 2018.
7. Further reliance placed on Rule 26(6) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 ("the Rules, 1989" for brevity) is also totally an irrelevant consideration, as the said Rule 26 of the Rules, 1989, deals with only issuance of title deed and pattadar pass book but not succession and mutation. The claim for succession and mutation are required to be considered under Section 5 of the Act, 1971 and Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules, 1989. Further, after the enactment of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 ("the Act, 2020" for brevity), the question of placing any reliance on the Rules made under the repealed enactment namely, the Act, 1971 is totally irrelevant.
8. Therefore, the ground on which the claim of the petitioner for grant of succession and mutation of his name in the revenue record is rejected by the third respondent through the impugned endorsement is wholly unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate steps for granting succession and mutation in favour of the petitioner herein and other legal representatives of Late Kasi 7 MSK,J W.P.NO.27956 OF 2022 Reddy, including the mother of the petitioner herein and complete the process within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. However, this order shall not be construed as an order having any impact on the possession over the subject land.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ (MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J) 17th November 2022 RRB