Telangana High Court
Swaroop Dhupar vs The State Of Telangana on 11 August, 2021
Bench: P Naveen Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.17867 of 2021
Date:11.08.2021
Between:
Swaroop Dhupar W/o.S.P.Dhupar,
Aged 69 yrs, Occu : Housewife,
R/o.Plot No.72, Gunrock Enclave,
Phase-I, Gate 4, Secunderabad & another
.....Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat at Hyderabad & others.
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
-2-
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.17867 of 2021
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :
"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondents 3 & 4 in not mutating the names of the Petitioners
herein in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1-22 Gts falling in
Sy.No.852, Ac.11-18 Gts falling in Sy.no.858 and Ac.5-29 Gts
falling in Sy.no.859 and Ac.4-39 Gts falling in Sy.no.889 of
Medchal Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in terms
of Final Decree dated 26.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.84 of 2004 by
the Honble I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, which suit was
decreed basing on the judgment dated 18.10.2016 passed in
SLP(C).No.18618 of 2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms
of the settlement agreement reached between the parties to the
partition suit, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of the
Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 2020
violative of the final decree dated 26.10.2018 and the judgment of
the Honourable Supreme Court dated 18.10.2016, violative of
CCLA's Circular No.1/2021 dated 15.01.2021 and violative of
Articles 14 & 300A of the Constitution of India and to pass such
other order..."
2. Heard Sri T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
3. On inter se dispute of share in the joint family property,
petitioners and unofficial respondents were prosecuting the
litigation that went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
During the pendency of Civil Appeal No.10846 of 2017 (Special
Leave Petition (C) No.18618 of 2012) before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the matter was referred to mediation and arbitration centre
at Hyderabad. With active assistance of the mediation and
arbitration centre parties have resolved the dispute. A settlement
was entered into on 18.10.2016 recording the resolution of the
dispute amicably, closing the curtains to inter se disputes. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded the settlement arrived at between
the parties and closed the Civil Appeal.
4. Based on the settlement arrived inter parties, petitioners
applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records through
Dharani web portal. The Dharani web portal assigned application
number as LM2100031738 on 20.07.2021. It is contended that
there is no further progress on the application made by the
petitioners.
5. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, though
petitioners have uploaded all the documents required along with
the application, the web site displays that the petitioners to 'upload
valid documents' without specifying what are the documents
required.
6. The claim of the petitioners for mutation is referable to
provisions in Sections 6 and 7 of the Telangana Rights in Land and
Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (Act 9 of 2020). Under Section 6 of
Act 9 of 2020 a person can apply for recording his name in the
revenue records, having claimed to have acquired right to the
property by succession/survivorship/inheritance. Section 7 seeks
to give effect to the decision rendered by the competent Court.
Section 7 requires the Tahsildar to allot date and time, intimate to
the person and maintain such particulars in the register in a
prescribed format. When that person appears on the date fixed by
the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar is required to verify the record as
required by Sub-Section (4) and if the claim is in compliance of
Section 7, he should mutate his name and issue pattadar
passbook.
7. Apparently, except asking the petitioner for uploading the
documents, without specifying what documents to be uploaded,
the Tahsildar has not taken steps as required by Section 7.
8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the
Tahsildar to strictly follow the provisions of Act 9 of 2020. He shall
fix a date for appearance of the petitioners by serving notice in
advance. The Tahsildar shall also put on notice, respondents 5 to
10 and give them opportunity of hearing before considering the
request of petitioners for mutation of their names in the revenue
records based on the so called settlement arrived at inter parties
on 18.10.2016. It is made clear that there is no expression of
opinion and the claims of respective parties are preserved. If any of
the parties to the settlement dt.18.10.2016 have any objection, it is
open to the parties to appear and present their version before the
Tahsildar on the date fixed for hearing. The Tahsildar shall fix the
date of hearing and issue notice fixing the date within four weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. He shall complete the
entire exercise within Ten (10) weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.NAVEEN RAO,J
11th August, 2021
Rds
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.17867 of 2021
Date:11.08.2021
Rds
