Abdul Rahman vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 701 Tel

           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

                WRIT PETITION No.4934 of 2021

                          Date:05.03.2021

Between:

Abdul Rahman S/o.Fakruddin,
Aged about 47 yrs, Occu : Agriculture & others
                                             .....Petitioners

     And

State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department & others.
                                             .....Respondents




The Court made the following:
                                 -2-



           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

                WRIT PETITION No.4934 of 2021

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the

respondents.

2. Petitioners claim as legal heirs of late Fakruddin and pray to

direct the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to act upon the representation

submitted by them on 18.01.2021 to mutate their names in the

revenue records and to issue pattadar pass books to them on land

to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.29 of Thirmalapuram

Village, Shankarmpet-A Mandal, Medak District.

3. According to petitioners, Gandla Sangaiah was the owner of

land to an extent of Ac.15.37 guntas in Sy.No.29. Late M.D.

Fakruddin S/o.Md.Shah purchased Ac.1.20 guntas of land from

out of the said extent in the form of Bikrinama (Sale Deed) to

construct Ajuar's Sadathullah Hussain Chilla Mubarak Darga,

executed on 20.04.1980. Sale consideration was paid and

possession was handed over to late Fakruddin. In the year 2002,

on application filed by the petitioners an enquiry was conducted as

part of exercise to mutate the names of petitioners, but it was not

proceeded further. Petitioners have again applied for mutation of

their names, but sofar steps are not taken by the Tahsildar.

According to petitioners, Gandla Sangaiah instituted O.S.No.29 of

2002 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Medak praying to grant

permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from

interfering in possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of

Ac.15.37 in Sy.No.29. By judgement and decree rendered on

12.11.2008 in O.S.No.29 of 2002, the trial Court granted decree

excluding Ac.1.20 guntas of land which was sold to late Fakruddin.

In view thereof petitioners are entitled to mutation of their names

and the action of respondent-Tahsildar in not mutating the names

is ex facie illegal affecting the right of petitioners to property in

issue.

4. The trial Court framed four issues for trial. They read as

under :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as

prayed for ?

2. Whether the plaintiff had lost the title, right and interest to

an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.29 as alleged by the

defendants ?

3. Whether there is no cause of action ?

4. To what relief ?

5. Against Issue No.2, the trial Court recorded the following

findings :

"Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Indian Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act no title of the property can be transferred either to Fakruddin or defendants being his Legal Representatives and Ex.B.1 an unregistered document is no way helpful to the defendants case that the title of Ac.1.20 gts., in Sy.No.(29) transferred in the name of Fakruddin and after his death they succeeded the property and once Ex.B.1 is not valid document, it cannot be said that plaintiffs lost title and interest to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts., in Sy.No.29.

Thus the Issue is answered that still the title of Ac.15.37 gts., in Sy.No.29 including the disputed Ac.1-20 gts., standing in the name of Sangaiah and after death of Sangaiah during the pendency of the suit the Plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4 being his Legal Representatives are the only persons to succeed the title of entire property under Item No.4 of the schedule property."

6. From the extracted portion, it is clear that the trial Court

held that the sale transaction claimed is not valid in the eye of law

and late Gandla Sangaiah continued to be owner of the entire

extent of land in Sy.No.29.

7. As can be seen from the discussions against Issue No.1, the

findings recorded and conclusions arrived, the trial Court found

that on Ac.1.20 guntas of land, Darga was constructed and prayers

are offered by Hindus and Muslims in the said Darga. The Court

also found that until the demise of late Gandla Sangaiah, he was

managing the affairs of Darga. The Court having noticed that

Darga should be open for all Muslims in the area and others who

can pray, granting injunction for the entire extent of land claimed

by the plaintiffs against the defendants would amount to

restraining the defendants even entering the Darga to perform the

prayers, excluded the land to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas from

injunction and permitted the defendants to offer prayers in the

Darga.

8. Thus, the limited relief granted by the trial Court in favour of

petitioners was to the extent of offering prayers in the Darga only.

The categorical finding of the trial Court is that the sale deed was

not valid and that Gandla Sangaiah was the owner of entire extent

of land.

9. Strangely, petitioners make claim for mutation of their

names in the revenue records, based on a decree granted by the

trial Court and by tracing the ownership claim to an unregistered

sale deed of the year 1980 which was held to be not valid by the

trial Court, which finding has become final.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the

judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court has become final.

11. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition to consider the

representation of the petitioners for mutation of their names in the

revenue records cannot be granted. In fact according to the

procedure prescribed by the Government, there is no question of

making application in physical form for mutation and application

has to be made through online web portal. As the claim of

petitioners itself is ex facie illegal, the question of holding the

respondent authorities in not acting upon the representation to

mutate their names in the revenue records as illegal, does not

arise.

12. Writ Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed

with costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). The entire

exercise would clearly point out that petitioners are seeking to

abuse the process of Court by trying to make out a claim when it

was categorically declined by the competent Court in civil

proceedings and the judgment and decree has become final.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 5th March, 2021 Rds

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.4934 of 2021

Date:05.03.2021

Rds