Nalla Srinvias Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5966 Tel

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

              WRIT PETITION NO.27956 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Mr. M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. M. Govind Reddy, learned

counsel for the fourth respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the endorsement

issued by the second respondent dated 03.01.2022 in file

No.B/73/2016 whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of

succession and mutation of his name in the revenue records in

respect of the land situated in Survey No.151/A1 admeasuring

Acs.2.26 gts out of Acs.4.00 gts of Chennupally Village,

Ananthagiri Mandal, Suryapet District (hereinafter referred to as

"subject land"), was rejected by the third respondent.

3. The admitted facts are that the father of the petitioner

herein, namely Late Kasi Reddy, was the absolute owner and

possessor of the subject land and the same was also updated in

the revenue records as pattadar in the name of the father of the

petitioner herein and the same is continued as such as on date.

On the demise of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner

herein made a request for grant of succession and mutation in 2 MSK,J W.P.NO.27956 OF 2022

his name being the successor-in-interest of his deceased father.

The said request of the petitioner was initially rejected by the

respondent-authorities in the year 2014 on the ground that

there was a civil suit pending in O.S.No.168 of 2009 on the file

of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kodad filed by

the fourth respondent herein. The said suit was dismissed by

the Court concerned by a judgment and decree dated

15.02.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner once again approached

the respondents seeking for grant of succession and mutation in

respect of the subject land. As the same was not considered,

the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2247 of

2019 and the same was disposed of by this Court by an order

dated, 11.02.2019 directing the third respondent to take

appropriate action on the application submitted by the

petitioner for grant of succession and mutation. Thereafter, the

third respondent issued the impugned endorsement stating that

the request of the petitioner for grant of succession and

mutation is rejected by the second respondent on the ground

that the petitioner is not in actual and physical possession and

in terms of Rule 26(6) of the Rules made under the Telangana

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 ("the Act,

1971" for brevity), the person, who is in actual physical 3 MSK,J W.P.NO.27956 OF 2022

possession of the land shall alone be issued with pattadar pass

book. In the light of the above undisputed fact situation, the

case of the petitioner and the fourth respondent is considered

as under:-

4. It is the case of the fourth respondent that he purchased

the subject land from the petitioner and his father under an

agreement of sale and he was inducted into possession of the

subject property in the year 2003 and his name is also entered

in the 'possessor column'. However, as the petitioner and his

father failed to comply with their obligations under the said

agreement of sale, after having got issued a legal notice, the

fourth respondent filed O.S.No.168 of 2009 on the file of the

Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kodad for

declaration of title, injunction and also sought for an alternative

relief of refund of amount and the said suit was dismissed by a

judgment and decree, dated 15.02.2018. Hence, the fourth

respondent filed A.S.No.14 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the

II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda and that the same is

pending for consideration. It is also stated in the counter filed

by the fourth respondent that the petitioner herein and his

father got filed O.S.No.306 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the

Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, for partition and separate possession 4 MSK,J W.P.NO.27956 OF 2022

in respect of the joint family properties including the subject

property and the said suit was decreed by passing a preliminary

decree on 01.12.2003 and thereafter, the fourth respondent

herein filed an objection petition in the said suit, but the same

was dismissed by the said Court and ultimately, a final decree

was also passed in the said suit.

5. Thus, the claim of the fourth respondent herein is only

basing upon an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed

by the petitioner and his father, but the suit, which was filed

basing upon the said agreement of sale seeking declaration of

title and consequential injunction, etc., was dismissed by the

competent Court. Though an appeal was preferred against the

said judgment and decree in O.S.No.168 of 2009, admittedly,

there is no interlocutory order passed in the said appeal suit as

on date. Therefore, any claim of the fourth respondent against

the subject property is only basing upon the appeal suit referred

to above, which is pending. From a perusal of the material on

record, it is noticed that the mother of the petitioner is alive and

she also made a request for mutation of her name in the

revenue records.

6. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner's father is

appearing as pattadar in respect of the subject property in all 5 MSK,J W.P.NO.27956 OF 2022

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 6 MSK,J W.P.NO.27956 OF 2022

herein, which is however subject to the result of A.S.No.14 of

2018.

7. 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.

8. 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 7 MSK,J W.P.NO.27956 OF 2022

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.

9. However, this order shall not be construed as an order

having any impact on the possession over the subject land.

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous

applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ (MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J)

17th November 2022 RRB