Smt. Rukmini Bai vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2019 Tel

Item No.48

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                          W.A.No.270 of 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    The present appeal is directed against an order dated

18.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing a writ

petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner praying inter alia for

issuing directions to the respondents to issue her a digital pattadar

passbook in respect of a parcel of land situated in Budvel Village,

Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, to the

extent of Acs.3.37 guntas.

2. Learned Assistant Government for the Revenue had stated

before the learned Single Judge as follows:

"On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on written instructions, would contend that as per the revenue records of the year 1955-58, the land admeasuring Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.111 is classified as Patta and recorded in the name of one Sayanna Pyatla, land admeasuring Ac.0.38 guntas in Sy.No.112 and Ac.1.14 guntas in Sy.No.113 are classified as Patta and recorded in the name of Smt.Rukmini Bai (the petitioner herein). Subsequently, the subject lands have been recorded in the names of one Resu Narasimha Reddy, Bhujanga Reddy and Krisha Reddy from the year 1995-96 to 2017-18. As per the latest Dharani record, the subject lands were recorded as Houses/Plots in the name of Janachaithanya Housing Limited. The petitioner is not in possession of the subject lands and the total subject land was converted into house

site plots and hence, the question of issuance of Digital Pattadar Pass Book in respect of subject lands in favour of the petitioner does not arise and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition".

3. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the

respondent that the subject land was no more an agricultural land and

had been converted into house plots long ago, the court was not

inclined to issue any such direction as was requested by the appellant,

for updating the pattadar passbook. Aggrieved by the said order, the

present appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had

submitted a representation on 08.08.2020 to the respondents No.2 to 4

to update the revenue records, which they have failed to consider and

that this fact was ignored in the impugned order. He further submits

that some outsiders had tampered with the revenue records and

without any order in their favour, have got their names inserted

therein as pattadars/possessors of the subject land.

5. In the first instance, we have requested learned counsel for the

appellant to indicate to us the last entry made in the pattadar passbook

in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the last entry

was made sometime in the year 2006. However, he is unable to state

as to why did the appellant not take any steps for the past decade and

half to get the pattadar passbook updated. Moreover, the allegations

of tampering of the revenue records by third parties cannot be gone

into in writ proceedings. It appears from the relief prayed for in the

writ petition that the appellant was somehow trying to get out of the

said entries already made in the revenue records in favour of third

parties by filing the writ petition, without making any effort to

implead them.

6. We do not see any reason to entertain the present appeal, which

is dismissed in limine as meritless along with the pending

applications, if any

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

06.07.2021 Lrkm/vs