Telangana High Court
Banavath Somli vs D.Kamal Prasad And 4 Others on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
I.A.No.1 of 2022
in/and
WRIT APPEAL No.755 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. K.Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Venkat Reddy Thipparthi, learned counsel
for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.
2. I.A.No.1 of 2022 has been filed for condoning the
delay of 222 days in filing the related writ appeal.
3. The writ appeal has been filed assailing the order
dated 07.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge
allowing Writ Petition No.21250 of 2021 filed by the 1st
respondent as the writ petitioner.
4. 1st respondent had filed the related writ petition
questioning the order dated 19.06.2021 passed by the Special
Revenue Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the 1st
respondent against the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the
2 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.755 of 2022
Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar, Amangal Mandal in
Ranga Reddy District in respect of land to the extent of
Ac. 1.28 guntas in Survey No.471, situated at Akuthotapally
Village, Amangal Mandal in Ranga Reddy District (subject
land). 1st respondent further sought for a direction to the
Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar to record his name as a
pattadar and possessor in respect of the subject land.
5. Case projected by the 1st respondent before the
learned Single Judge was that he was the owner of the
subject agricultural land which he had purchased under a
registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.8031 of 2006
dated 27.07.2006 from the husband of appellant. It was
contended that 1st respondent was granted mutation on
22.02.2007 by the Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar
whereafter he was issued pattadar pass book and title deed.
He further contended that the above sale deed was
acknowledged by the Lok Adalat, Kalvakurthy in the award
passed in O.S.No.224 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil
Judge, Kalwakurthy filed by none other than son of the
appellant. The suit was filed to declare the sale deed as null
3 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.755 of 2022
and void. Ultimately on compromise, the award was passed
whereby validity of the sale deed was upheld. Later on, it
transpired that after the death of appellant's husband, the
subject land came to be recorded in the name of the
appellant. 1st respondent submitted application for correction
of such entry. However, the same was rejected by the
Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar on 05.03.2020.
6. Aggrieved by the same, 1st respondent approached
the Special Revenue Tribunal in appeal. However, Special
Revenue Tribunal by the order dated 08.02.2021 dismissed
the appeal filed by the 1st respondent.
7. Hence, the related writ petition.
8. Learned Single Judge in the order dated
07.03.2022 recorded that despite service of notice,
respondent No.5 (appellant herein) did not appear and contest
the proceeding. Thereafter learned Single Judge set aside the
order of the Special Revenue Tribunal dated 19.06.2021 as
well as the order of the Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar
dated 05.03.2020. Further learned Single Judge directed the
4 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.755 of 2022
State authorities to mutate the name of the 1st respondent in
the revenue records in respect of the subject land.
9. When the 1st respondent had purchased the
subject land from the husband of the appellant by a
registered Sale Deed validity of which has attained finality,
title of 1st respondent over the subject land cannot be
disputed. Mutation of the name of the 1st respondent in
respect of the subject land is a consequential procedural
aspect which follows from title.
10. That apart, it appears that appellant had got her
name surreptitiously entered in the revenue records replacing
that of the husband and sought mutation of her name as his
legal heir. When the late husband had already alienated the
said land to the 1st respondent by way of a registered sale
deed, question of appellant inheriting the said land does not
arise.
11. We find no error or infirmity in the view taken by
the learned Single Judge. Consequently, we are not inclined
to also condone the delay of 222 days in filing the writ appeal.
5 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.755 of 2022
12. Accordingly, both I.A.No.1 of 2022 and Writ Appeal
No.755 of 2022 are hereby dismissed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
___________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 22.11.2022
KL
