Kalvakuntla Bikshamaiah vs Nalla Srinivas Reddy And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6359 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                                    W.A.No.790 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. N.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant; Mr. M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent

No.1; and Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for

Revenue representing respondents No.2, 3 and 4.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.11.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.No.27956 of 2022

filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.

3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition assailing

the endorsement dated 03.01.2022 of the Tahsildar, Ananthagiri

Mandal, Suryapet District (respondent No.4 herein) rejecting the

succession application submitted by respondent No.1 in respect of

land admeasuring Acs.2.26 guntas out of Acs.4.00 in Survey

No.151/A1 situated at Chennupally Village, Ananthagiri Mandal in

Suryapet District (briefly 'the subject land' hereinafter).

::2::

Consequential direction was sought to the Tahsildar to grant

succession in favour of respondent No.1.

4. We may mention that on an earlier occasion, respondent

No.1 had approached this Court in W.P.No.2247 of 2019. Learned

Single Judge vide the order dated 11.02.2019 observed that name of

the father of respondent No.1 was entered in the revenue records

as pattadar though civil litigation in O.P.No.306 of 2003 and

O.S.No.168 of 2009 before the competent civil Court were pending

in respect of the subject land. By the order dated 11.02.2019, the

writ petition was disposed of by this Court by directing the

Tahsildar to take appropriate action on the petitioner's application

dated 07.08.2018 for succession. It was thereafter that Tahsildar

passed the endorsement dated 03.01.2022.

5. In the endorsement dated 03.01.2022, it was mentioned that

request of respondent No.1 for issuance of pattadar pass book and

title deed was rejected by the Collector, Suryapet District. This

decision would be communicated to respondent No.1 by the

Collector as per the procedure in vogue in Dharani portal.

::3::

Therefore, Tahsildar took the view that since request of respondent

No.1 was rejected by the Collector, Suryapet District, no further

decision at his end was called for. This came to be challenged by

respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27956

of 2022.

6. Before adverting to the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27956 of 2022, we may mention

that O.S.No168 of 2009 was decreed by the Principal Junior Civil

Judge at Kodad on 15.02.2018. O.S.No.168 of 2009 was instituted

by the appellant as the plaintiff. In the judgment and decree dated

15.02.2018, civil Court has held that contrary to the claim of the

plaintiff (appellant herein) the defendants (including respondent

No.1 herein) could establish their case that the suit schedule

property belongs to them and that they had been in possession and

in enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the above factual

backdrop, learned Single Judge after recording the rival pleadings

and submissions, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the

impugned endorsement and directing the Collector and Tahsildar ::4::

to take immediate steps for grant of succession and mutation in

favour of respondent No.1 in respect of the subject land. Learned

Single Judge held as follows:

Admittedly, the name of the petitioner's father is appearing as pattadar in respect of the subject property in all the revenue records. The petitioner herein, being the successor-in-interest, is definitely entitled to seek succession in respect of the subject property, subject to the claims of any other legal representatives of his deceased father. The claim of the petitioner herein is rejected now through the impugned endorsement on the ground that in terms of Rule 26(6) of the Rules made under the Act, 1971, persons in physical possession alone are entitled for issuance of pattadar pass books. In the records that are maintained on Dharani Portal under the Act, 2020, there is no 'possessor column' as such. As the name of the petitioner's father is already shown as pattadar in all the revenue records and the claim of the fourth respondent is already negatived by a competent Civil Court, the claim of the petitioner for grant of succession and mutation of his name in the revenue records cannot be rejected by the respondents on the ground that petitioner is not in physical possession of the subject property. Whether the petitioner is in physical possession or not is not a matter for consideration by the respondent-authorities while considering his case for succession and mutation. Admittedly, there are certain observations made in the judgment in O.S.No.168 of 2009 in connection with the possession over the subject property in favour of the petitioner herein, which is however subject to the result of A.S.No.14 of 2018.

::5::

Further reliance placed on Rule 26(6) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 ("the Rules, 1989" for brevity) is also totally an irrelevant consideration, as the said Rule 26 of the Rules, 1989, deals with only issuance of title deed and pattadar pass book but not succession and mutation. The claim for succession and mutation are required to be considered under Section 5 of the Act, 1971 and Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules, 1989. Further, after the enactment of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 ("the Act, 2020" for brevity), the question of placing any reliance on the Rules made under the repealed enactment namely, the Act, 1971 is totally irrelevant.

Therefore, the ground on which the claim of the petitioner for grant of succession and mutation of his name in the revenue record is rejected by the third respondent through the impugned endorsement is wholly unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate steps for granting succession and mutation in favour of the petitioner herein and other legal representatives of Late Kasi Reddy, including the mother of the petitioner herein and complete the process within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant contended that

Tahsildar had only made an endorsement dated 03.01.2022

conveying decision of the Collector. The order of the Collector ::6::

was not challenged by respondent No.1 in the writ petition.

Without challenging the order of the Collector, the endorsement

could not have been challenged. This aspect was not gone into by

the learned Single Judge.

8. On a query by the Court as to whether this point was urged

by the appellant in the writ proceedings, learned counsel for the

appellant fairly submits that this point was neither pleaded nor

urged before the learned Single Judge. However, he submits that

order of the Collector goes to the root of the matter and therefore

unless the order of the Collector is set aside, respondent No.1

would not be entitled to the reliefs as granted by the learned Single

Judge. He also submits that against the judgment and decree of the

civil court dated 15.02.2018 in O.S.No.168 of 2009, appellant has

filed first appeal before the District Court which is pending. But he

fairly submits that no injunction has been granted by the appellate

Court.

9. On due consideration, we are of the view that the point

raised by learned counsel for the appellant is a technical one and ::7::

not one of substance. When the learned Single Judge had

examined the decision of the Tahsildar as contained in the

impugned endorsement and thereafter held that rejection of the

application of respondent No.1 for succession and mutation was

wholly unsustainable, it naturally implies that the decision of the

Collector would have to give way to the decision of the High

Court. When there is a positive conclusion and direction of this

Court, it would mean implied overruling of the decision of the

Collector. Collector's decision cannot stand in the face of the

order of this Court. Therefore, having regard to the limited scope

of grant of succession and mutation, we are not inclined to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

10. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

dismissed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 02.12.2022 LUR