Mallapu China Lingaiah Died, Rr ... vs Alopi Shanker, Hyderabad 6 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4133 Tel

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                           AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                  WRIT APPEAL No.1482 OF 2017

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Bhaskar Reddy)



1.     Heard Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior

Counsel for the appellants; Mr. P.Venugopal, learned

Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Parsa

Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned Government Pleader for

Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7.

2. The writ appeal is filed against the order of the

learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.25907 of 2006,

dated 21.07.2017, whereby and whereunder the learned

Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the

respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein directing the respondents 5

to 7 herein to make necessary corrections in the revenue

records by incorporating the name of the father of the

appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein/respondent Nos.10 to 13

(wrongly typed in the writ petition as respondent Nos.10

to 14), i.e., late M.China Lingaiah to an extent of Acs.7.33

guntas in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village,

Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The case of the writ petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to

4 herein as stated before the learned Single Judge is that

the first writ petitioner's mother late Raja Rani Bai had

purchased half of the extent in survey No.148 under a

registered sale deed bearing document No.115 of 1996,

dated 19.09.1956 from one Kannaiahlal, who was the

absolute owner of the property, along with Survey

Nos.151 to 157 and 159 to 164 and 166 of Mankhal

Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Survey No.148 is an extent of Acs.21.12 guntas and out

of the said extent, Acs.2.02 guntas had been acquired for

the purpose of laying a road, an award was passed, half

of the compensation awarded was paid to the mother of

the first writ petitioner and the remaining balance

amount was paid to the father of the respondent Nos.5 to

7 in the writ petition/appellant Nos.2 to 4 herein.

Subsequently, an application was submitted on

17.11.1996 by the father of the respondent Nos.10 to

13/appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein seeking mutation before

the fifth respondent herein/Mandal Revenue Officer,

Maheswaram Mandal and the fifth respondent herein

being the competent authority under the provisions of the

Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for

short, the Act) after considering the objections raised by

the first writ petitioner passed orders on 28.01.1997 for

correction of entries in the revenue records for the total

extent of land in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village,

Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of

one Mallapu China Lingaiah, father of the respondent

Nos.10 to 13 in the writ petition/appellant Nos.7 to 10

herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ

petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed an appeal

on the file of the sixth respondent herein/Revenue

Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District,

under Section 5(5) of the Act. The sixth respondent

herein after considering the entire material disposed of

the said Appeal by order dated 23.04.1998 directing the

writ petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein to

approach the competent civil Court for redressal of their

grievance. Questioning the said orders, again the writ

petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed a Revision

under Section 9 of the Act before the seventh respondent

herein/Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The

Revisional Authority after examination of entire material

dismissed the revision, by order dated 17.06.2006 on the

ground that the revision is not maintainable in view of

the parallel proceedings in O.S.No.29 of 1997, which is

decreed by the competent civil court. Challenging the

said orders of the Revisional Authority, dated

17.06.2006, the writ petition is filed.

4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition

by order dated 21.07.2017 after considering the

proceedings issued under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A

of the Act in favour of the father of the appellant Nos.7 to

10 herein/respondent Nos.10 to 13 in respect of an

extent of Acs.7.33 guntas only in survey No.148 of

Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District and it was recorded that the said factum was

admitted by both the parties in the writ petition. The

learned Single Judge also observed that as the fifth

respondent herein, i.e., the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Maheswaram Mandal has travelled beyond the said

extent and granted mutation in respect of the entire

extent of land in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village,

Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, directed the

fifth respondent herein to make necessary corrections in

the revenue records by incorporating the name of the

father of respondent Nos.10 to 13 in the writ

petition/appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein, namely M.China

Lingaiah, to the extent of Acs.7.33 guntas only in survey

No.148 of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District, as admittedly the said extent was

purchased by the father of respondent Nos.10 to 13 in

the writ petition/appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein. Aggrieved

by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the present

writ appeal is filed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vedula Venkata

Ramana appearing for the appellants submits that

respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein/writ petitioners filed

O.S.No.29 of 1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,

Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual

injunction restraining the appellants herein from

interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment

and the same was decreed vide Judgment and decree

dated 07.09.2004. Against the said order, the appellants

herein filed A.S.No.176 of 2004 on the file of the II

Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the

same was allowed by setting aside the judgment and

decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same,

the again respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein/writ petitioners

filed Second Appeal i.e., S.A.No.224 of 2006 on the file of

this Court and this Court dismissed the Second Appeal

by confirming the judgment and decree passed in

A.S.No.176 of 2004. Learned Senior Counsel submits

that having failed to obtain favourable orders from the

civil Courts and this Court, respondent Nos.1 to 4

herein/writ petitioners have approached this Court by

filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India to determine the question relating to

title and possession, which is illegal and impermissible

and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

He further submits that the writ courts are not having

jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari for correction of

entries in the revenue records. He further submits that

the learned Single Judge, ignoring all these aspects,

allowed the writ petition, warranting interference by this

Court. In support of his submission, he has relied upon

the decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v.

K.S.Radhakrishnan1.

6. Mr. P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for respondent Nos.1 to 4/writ petitioners submits that

the first writ petitioner's mother along with others had

purchased the land in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village,

Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under

registered sale deed vide document No.115 of 1956, dated

19.09.1956 and part of the land was acquired for laying a

road and awarded compensation amount was also paid to

her. He further submits that the regularisation of

alienation in favour of the father of appellant Nos.7 to 10

AIR 1964 SC 477

herein/respondent Nos.10 to 13 is not valid in law and

the same was not in accordance with the Rules framed

under the Act and therefore, the proceedings issued by

the fifth respondent herein for mutation of entries in

revenue records in favour of the father of appellant Nos.7

to 10 herein/respondent Nos.10 to 13 is bad in law,

illegal and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.1020, dated

03.12.1997 and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the

writ appeal.

7. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

herein/respondent Nos.10 to 13, namely M.China

Lingaiah purchased land in survey No.148 of Mankhal

Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and

the same was validated under the provisions of the Act as

admitted by both the parties. The suit being O.S.No.29 of

1997 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4/writ petitioners

for simplicitor injunction in respect of Acs.7.33 guntas of

Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District was initially decreed vide judgment and decree

dated 07.09.2004 by the Junior Civil Judge,

Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, and the appeal

carried by the appellants herein was allowed by judgment

and decree dated 07.11.2005 passed in A.S.No.176 of

2004 by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy

District by setting aside the judgment and decree passed

in the suit. Again the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein/writ

petitioners carried the matter by way of filing second

appeal in S.A.No.224 of 2006 before this Court and this

Court dismissed the said appeal by confirming the

judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.176 of 2004 as no

substantial question of law was involved in the second

appeal. This Court is of the view that learned Single

Judge without adverting to such facts allowed the writ

petition directing the fifth respondent herein/Mandal

Revenue Officer, Maheswaram Mandal to correct the

entries in the revenue records to an extent of Acs.7.33

guntas only in survey No.148 of Mankhal Village,

Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District which is

therefore required to be interfered with by this Court. It is

settled proposition of law that the parties agitating their

rights have to approach the competent civil court to

establish their title and possession by adducing evidence

and after obtaining necessary orders from the competent

civil courts only, they are entitled for correction of

revenue records and mutation of their names in the

revenue records. It is also settled proposition of law that

the revenue authorities cannot decide the question of title

and possession, however the revenue authorities being

the regulating authority is entitled to consider the

applications submitted for mutation of the properties

strictly in accordance with the procedure contained in the

Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge in stead of

allowing the writ petition for correction of entries ought to

have relegated the parties to approach the competent

authority for redressal of their grievance to carry out

necessary entries in the revenue records.

9. The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass

Books Act, 1971 was replaced with the enactment of the

Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,

2020 (for short, 'Act No.9 of 2020'). By virtue of Section

16 of Act No.9 of 2020, all the pending Appeals and

Revision cases under the provisions of the Telangana

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 stood

transferred to the Special Tribunals.

10. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed by

setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well

as the orders of the Revisional Authority and the

Appellate Authority, with liberty to respondent Nos.1 to

4/writ petitioners to approach the Special Tribunal

constituted under Act No.9 of 2020 for redressal of their

grievance in accordance with law, if so advised.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 16.08.2022 JSU