Jangga Buchaiah And 7 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7119 Tel

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                         AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                                W.A.No.869 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for

the appellants.


2.      This        appeal        is     directed        against   the   order

dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.3474 of 2022 filed by the appellants as the petitioners.


3.      Challenge made in the writ petition was to the order

dated 23.06.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal constituted

under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks

Act, 2020 (briefly 'the Special Tribunal' hereinafter) in respect

of land admeasuring Acs.3.21 guntas situated in Survey

No.215 of Madharam Village, Ghatkesar Mandal in Medchal-

Malkajgiri District (briefly 'the subject land' hereinafter).
                               ::2::




4.    Appellants had filed a revision petition before the

Special Tribunal against the orders dated 30.11.2006

and 25.12.2006 passed by the Tahsildar of Ghatkesar Mandal

in respect of the subject land.


5.    On constitution of the Special Tribunal, the revision

petition was transferred to the Special Tribunal.


6.    Claim of the appellants before the Special Tribunal was

that they were the absolute owners and possessors of the

subject land. It was alleged that certain persons by name of

Ch. Anji Reddy, Ch.Buchaiah @ Ch.Buchi Reddy and

Ch.Narsimha Reddy, who were holding the subject land, sold

their respective shares to respondent No.4 by way of

registered sale deeds, but what was alienated was more than

what was actually possessed by the vendors. On the strength

of the registered sale deeds, respondent No.4 got its name

mutated in the revenue records. This came to be challenged ::3::

before the Tahsildar. When the challenge was unsuccessful,

revision petition was filed.

7. Respondent No.4 objected to the claim of the

appellants, who pressed its claim on the basis of registered sale

deeds. It contended that having purchased the subject land, it

got its name mutated in the revenue records by obtaining

orders from the Tahsildar; it is in physical possession over the

subject land; appellants do not have any semblance of right,

title and interest as well as possession over the subject land.

8. By the order dated 23.06.2021, Special Tribunal noted

that on the one hand, appellants claimed the subject land to be

their ancestral property and on the other hand, respondent

No.4 claimed ownership through registered sale deeds having

purchased the land from different pattadars. In the

circumstances, Special Tribunal noted that there is a serious

dispute of title over the subject land between the rival ::4::

claimants, which cannot be adjudicated by the revenue

authority. Giving liberty to the appellants to approach the

competent civil Court, the review petition was dismissed.

9. Learned Single Judge took the view that the Special

Tribunal had rightly relegated the parties to the competent

civil court. In support of such finding, learned Single Judge

examined the record of the case in detail. Finally, holding that

there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Special

Tribunal, which did not merit any interference, learned Single

Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.

10. While we concur with the view taken by the Special

Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge that if the

appellants want to assert their right of ownership over the

subject land, the appropriate forum would be the civil court of

competent jurisdiction and not the revenue authority,

however, we are of the further view that observations made by

the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 8 and 9 would not ::5::

come in the way of any adjudication by the civil court, if

approached by the appellants as those observations were made

in the context of examining the writ petition filed by the

appellants.

11. With the above clarification, Writ Appeal is dismissed.

No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

stand dismissed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 29.12.2022 LUR