V. Gangadhar Goud vs The State Of Telangana, And 6 ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3614 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                  WRIT PETITION No. 9344 of 2020
ORDER:

Assailing the action of the Tahsildar, Atmakur Mandal, the

respondent No. 3 herein, in issuing notice dated 12.06.2020 in File

No. B/614/2020, proposing to mutate the names of the

respondent Nos. 4 to 7 as against the agricultural land of the

petitioner in Sy. No. 77/AA, admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas, situated

at Atmakur Village & Mandal, Wanaparthy District, the present

writ petition is filed.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the subject land

has fallen to the share of the petitioner and his name was

implemented in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor.

While so, V. Balram Goud, the father of respondent Nos. 4 to 7,

filed O.S. No. 26 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur

seeking declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of the

said land from the petitioner. Upon the death of V. Balram Goud,

the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were brought on record as legal

representatives of plaintiff therein. However, the suit was

dismissed for default on 04.06.2015 and the said judgment has

become final as no steps were taken by the respondent Nos. 4 to 7.

While so, the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 filed an application seeking

mutation of their names in the revenue records by removing the

name of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that in

collusion with the unofficial respondents, the respondent No. 3, by

way of the impugned notice, is proposing to mutate the names of

the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in place of the petitioner. Hence, the

present writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondents and Sri

Sriram Polali, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Perused

the material on record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

suit in O.S. No. 26 of 2005 filed by the unofficial respondents

against the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and for recovery of

possession of subject land was dismissed for default on

04.06.2015 and the said judgment has become final as no steps

have been taken by them. Therefore, once the suit filed by the

unofficial respondents has been dismissed, the question of them

filing an application, before the Tahsildar, seeking mutation does

not arise. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the

repeal of the Telangana Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar

Pass Books Act, 1971 with the Telangana Rights in Land and

Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for short, 'the Act No. 9 of 2020'),

which came into force w.e.f. 29.10.2020, the Tahsildar has no

power to mutate any names in the revenue records except as

envisaged under the Act No. 9 of 2020.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of unofficial respondents contends that the unofficial respondents

have already taken steps to get the suit restored and an I.A. filed to

restore the suit, which is pending adjudication before the Trial

Court. The learned counsel further states that the writ petition

itself is not maintainable, as the challenge in the writ petition by

the petitioner is only to a notice issued by the respondent No. 3

and that the petitioner can raise all the objections, now raised

before this Court, before the respondent No. 3 by filing his reply to

the impugned notice.

Admittedly, in the present case, the unofficial respondents

had already approached the civil court seeking declaration of title

and recovery of possession in respect of the subject property and

on dismissal of the suit, they stated to have filed an application

seeking restoration of the suit and the said I.A. is pending

consideration. Instead of awaiting the result of the said

interlocutory application for restoration of the suit, the unofficial

respondents have filed an application before the respondent No. 3

seeking mutation of the subject land in their favour. It is not

disputed by the unofficial respondents that the suit filed by them

was already dismissed on 04.06.2015. Such being the case, the

unofficial respondents without getting the suit restored to its file,

ought not to have approached the respondent No. 3 seeking

mutation of the subject land in their favour. Moreover, as rightly

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the

Act No. 9 of 2020 coming into force w.e.f. 29.10.2020, only the

concerned District Collector is empowered to make necessary

amendments in the revenue records, either on acquisition of any

right or on the basis of a court decree or on the basis of succession

of a person, whose name is already entered in the revenue record.

Therefore, in view of the enactment of the Act No. 9 of 2020 and

the provisions thereof, the Tahasildar has no jursidction to

entertain any application for mutation and hence on this ground

alone the impugned notice is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the

impugned notice, dated 12.06.2020 issued by the Respondent

No. 3. However, liberty is granted to the unofficial respondents to

workout their remedies in the pending civil suit filed by them, if

the same is restored to its file.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 19.11.2021 tsr