Telangana High Court
Shaik Raffi vs State Of Telangana, on 10 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.331 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti) Mr. P. Lalith Kamesh, learned counsel representing Mr. J. Raghuram, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
2. This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.42070 of 2022.
3. Brief facts:
The appellant filed W.P.No.42070 of 2022 seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing notice dated 27.10.2022 directing the 3rd respondent to submit enjoyment list of the farmers over the petition schedule land to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.66/E situated at Becharag Madharam Village at Suryapet District instead of unblocking his vendor's name Md. Mumtaz Ali in order to mutate the name of the appellant in Dharani Portal as per the HCJ & JAK, J W.A.No.331 of 2023 2 registered sale deed vide Doc.No.5845 of 2014 dated 29.11.2014, contrary to new Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020, as illegal and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to unblock the name of the appellant's vendor in order to mutate his name in Dharani Portal in respect of the subject property.
4. The appellant claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property purchased vide registered sale deed bearing No.5845 of 2014, dated 29.11.2014. A copy of the sale deed, mutation proceedings and pattadar passbook issued in favour of his vendor, namely, Md. Mumtaz Ali, are filed. The appellant purchased the property with his elder brother, who sold the property to a third party. It is the specific case of the appellant that the 3rd respondent has not entertained the online application bearing No.LM2100074426 at 'Land Grievance Matters' to unblock his vendor's name in Dharani Portal in order to mutate his name pursuant to the sale deed. He filed W.P.No.16730 of 2022 to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not unblocking the name of the vendor of the appellant and not HCJ & JAK, J W.A.No.331 of 2023 3 considering his application. By order dated 11.04.2022, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the online application submitted by the appellant.
5. In compliance with the order dated 11.04.2022, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 23.09.2022 directed the 3rd respondent to submit enjoyment list of farmers over the petition schedule land. The 3rd respondent submitted enjoyment list of farmers to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent vide notice dated 27.10.2022 directed the appellant to attend enquiry with relevant documents on 29.10.2022. Challenging the said notice, the appellant filed W.P.No.42070 of 2022. This Court by order dated 01.02.2023 dismissed the said writ petition. Against the said order, the present writ appeal is filed.
6. Learned Single Judge, in the order in W.P.No.42070 of 2022, held that the appellant/petitioner had kept silent for 8 years in getting his name mutated in the revenue records and applied for mutation in the year 2022. Taking note of the fact that an application was filed under "Land Grievance Matters", learned Single Judge held that the petitioner instead of HCJ & JAK, J W.A.No.331 of 2023 4 attending the enquiry on 29.10.2022 with all the relevant documents before the 2nd respondent, pursuant to notice dated 27.10.2022, filed W.P.No.42070 of 2022 challenging the action of the 2nd respondent and also seeking a direction for enjoyment of list of farmers.
7. Learned Single Judge also held that as per Rule 26 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, a title deed or pattadar passbook is given only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land. Therefore, the 2nd respondent called for a report including enjoyment list of farmers in respect of the subject land and the said list was submitted by the 3rd respondent. That the 3rd respondent informed the Court that subject property is an urban locality/area situated in Suryapet Municipality and houses have come up and is not an agriculture land as claimed by appellant. The appellant is not entitled for mutation of his name in the revenue records and issuance of e-pattadar passbook. Therefore, the provisions of the Act, 2020 are not applicable to the subject land. It is trite to note that learned Single Judge held that "contention of the HCJ & JAK, J W.A.No.331 of 2023 5 petitioner that calling for enjoyment list of farmers over the land of the petitioner is nothing but inviting unnecessary records is untenable". Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the dismissal order, the present appeal is filed.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant purchased land in the year 2014 by way of a registered sale deed and he accrued a right and that his name be mutated in the revenue records, as the subject land is an agricultural land. That brother of appellant purchased a part of land in survey number and the subject property was mutated in the name of his brother and that he cannot be denied. It is submitted that appellant is entitled to that portion of land which is vacant wherein houses are not constructed. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the facts in proper perspective.
9. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the appellant purchased the land in the year 2014 and should have made an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records at the earliest point of time, HCJ & JAK, J W.A.No.331 of 2023 6 but has approached the High Court after eight years. It is further submitted that, concerned Tahsildar submitted a report that the said property (purchased by way of a registered sale deed dated 29.11.2014) is an urban land situated in Suryapet Municipality and houses have been constructed in the subject property and that the report of the Tahsildar is in pursuant to a direction in writ petition. As per the report, the property is situated in urban area and the said land is not an agricultural land. The relief being sought cannot be granted as houses have been constructed in the subject property by obtaining necessary permission from authorities. It is also submitted that the appellant has a remedy of approaching the appropriate authority/Court of law.
10. Heard the learned counsels, perused the record and the order of the learned Single Judge.
11. Learned Single Judge has given a categorical finding on the basis of report of Tahsildar that the property being sought for mutation is in urban agglomeration and houses are constructed in the subject property and mutation is sought HCJ & JAK, J W.A.No.331 of 2023 7 after a long lapse of eight years. The report of the Tahsildar is contra to the pleadings of the appellant that the subject property is an agricultural land. The remedy available for the appellant is to approach the appropriate forum/Court of law. This Court is not inclined to go into the aspect as to whether the land is an agricultural land or urban land. We deem it appropriate that the appellant has a remedy of approaching the appropriate forum/Court of law. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
12. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of with a liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum/Court of law.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ___________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date:10.01.2024 KH HCJ & JAK, J W.A.No.331 of 2023 8