Uppala Santhosh Kumar vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 4131 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                      AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                  WRIT APPEAL No.261 of 2021

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




     The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

30.04.2021

passed in W.P.No.11780 of 2021 by the learned

Single Judge.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

appellant/writ petitioner has purchased land admeasuring

Ac.2.39 guntas in Sy.No.240/A situated at Katnapally Gram

Panchayat, Choppandandi Mandal, Karimnagar District from

one Thallapalli Srinivas and Pochampally Mallaiah. The

petitioner's contention is that at the time of purchase, he has

verified the revenue records as to whether the vendors are

having valid title or not. Subsequently, pattadar pass book

and title deed were issued on 19.06.2019. The petitioner has

further stated before the learned Single Judge that later on he

has verified the record and he came to know that the land in

question was reflected in Dharani Web Portal as

Canal/Kaluva. In those circumstances, he came up before

this Court. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ

petition on the ground that the land in question was acquired

on 02.10.1981 for SRSP irrigation project and taking

advantage of the fact that in the revenue records the name of

the Government was not mutated, it was sold even though it

was an acquired land. The learned Single Judge in

paragraphs 4 and 5 held as under:

"4. It appears from the material placed on record that the petitioner and his vendors are taking advantage of wrong reflection of name of the original vendor in the revenue records, though the land was acquired by the Government by passing an award as early as on 02.10.1981. Merely because the name of vendors and the original pattadar was reflected in revenue records does not mean that land is not vested in the Government, subsequent to acquisition, in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, to claim that petitioner is owner of the land. If petitioner was not informed by his vendors about the acquisition, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy against his vendor for misleading the status of land in the revenue records.

5. Further, what is challenged in the writ petition is the information furnished to the petitioner on the status of land and acquisition proceedings of the year 1981. If the petitioner disputes the claim of the revenue authorities on the acquisition of land, it is for the petitioner to substantiate his claim in appropriate proceedings. I do not see any error in the proceedings communicated to the petitioner informing the status as reflected in the revenue records. By this communication no decision is taken affecting the right of the petitioner. The information furnished by the Tahsildar cannot give rise to a cause of action to the petitioner to institute writ petition and seek a declaration of such action as illegal and to ask for mutation of his name in the revenue records. I therefore do not see any merit in the writ petition and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed in limini. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed."

In the considered opinion of this Court, once an award

was passed on 02.10.1981, the land could not have been sold

by the predecessor in title of the appellant/writ petitioner and

therefore, this Court also does not find any reason to interfere

with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The

admission is declined.

Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 03.12.2021 ES