Rayala Kondala Rao vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1725 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

                     W.P.No.22365 of 2018

ORDER:

The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the

orders passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal

No.D2/1431/2018, dated 12.06.2018, by modifying the impugned

orders passed by the respondent No.3 in case No.5 of 2017

(B1/1510/2017), dated 09.02.2018, is contrary to the provisions

of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,

2007 is illegal and void and opposed to Articles 14, 19, 21 and

300 A of Constitution of India, in connection with the land of the

petitioner to an extent of Acs.3-11 guntas out of Survey Nos.102,

103 and 104/Vu, Acs.1-16 guntas out of Survey No.503/E/2 and

land in Survey Nos.36, 83/E to an extent of Acs.2-23 guntas of

Rayapatnam Revenue Village, Madhira Mandal, Khammam

District, covered under Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.114 of

2007, dated 27.02.2018, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupally and orders in I.A.No.29 of 2017 in O.S.No.8 of 2017,

dated 02.02.2017, extended till 03.07.2018 and consequently, set

aside the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

                                2                               JSR,J
                                                W.P.No.22365 of 2014


2.           Heard   Sri   Mummaneni     Srinivasa     Rao,     learned

counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Women Development Child Welfare appearing for respondent

Nos.1 to 4, Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for

the unofficial respondents and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is owner and possessor of the subject land and acquired

the same in the family partition and the petitioner name is

mutated in the revenue records and he obtained the pattadar pass

books and title deeds. He further submits that respondent No.6

executed sale deed on 12.07.2017 in favour of Divvela Tripura

Venkata Surendra Nadh, in respect of the land to an extent of

Acs.2.23 guntas in Survey No.36, 83/E though he is not having

any right over the said property. At that stage, the petitioner and

his father/respondent No.5 filed a suit in O.S.No.1114 of 2007 on

the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally, seeking cancellation of

the sale deed and for grant of perpetual injunction and the same

was decreed on 27.02.2018. When the respondent Nos.5 to 9 are

trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the land, the petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.8 of 2017 on

the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madhira and the said 3 JSR,J W.P.No.22365 of 2014

Court granted temporary injunction in I.A.No.29 of 2017 on

02.02.2017 and the same is continuing and the said suit is

pending.

4. He further submits that while things stood thus,

respondent No.5 made an application before the respondent No.3

invoking the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents

and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' for

brevity) and the respondent No.3, without considering the

contentions of the petitioner and also injunction order passed by

the Competent Civil Court, passed the impugned order in Case

No.5 of 2017 (B/1510/2017), cancelling the revenue entries and

also passbooks in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.3.00, in

Survey Nos.102, 103, 104/Vu and 1.16 guntas in Survey

No.503/E/2.

5. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed

appeal No.D2/1431/2018 before the respondent No.2 and the

respondent No.2 also dismissed the appeal on 12.06.2018,

without considering the grounds of appeal and directed the

respondent No.4/Tahsildar to take necessary actions as per the

powers vested in him to record the name of respondent No.5 in the 4 JSR,J W.P.No.22365 of 2014

revenue records and also handed over the subject property to the

respondent No.5.

6. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not having authority or jurisdiction

to pass the impugned orders directing the Tahsildar to cancel the

revenue entries and hand over the physical possession in favour of

the respondent No.5, especially, when the Competent Civil Court

granted decree recognizing the rights of the petitioner and also the

suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.8 of 2017 against the

unofficial respondents, is pending on the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Madhira.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the unofficial respondents submits that respondent No.3 after

following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions

of the Act, passed the impugned order on 09.02.2018 and the

same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and there is no

illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the 5 JSR,J W.P.No.22365 of 2014

petitioner is claiming the rights over the subject property basing

upon Family Partition between the petitioner and unofficial

respondents and his name was mutated in the revenue records

and revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbooks and title

deeds. The records further reveals that the petitioner and his

father filed suit in O.S.No.114 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Sathupally, seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed

executed by the respondent No.6 in respect of the land to an

extent of Acs.2.23 guntas in survey No.36-83/E and the said suit

was decreed on 27.02.2018 and the same has become final.

9. It also further reveals that the petitioner filed suit in

O.S.No.8 of 2017 for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the

subject property against unofficial respondents on the file of

Junior Civil Judge, Madhira and the said Court granted temporary

injunction in I.A.No.29 of 2017 on 02.02.2017 and the said order

is continuing. Respondent No.3 basing on the application filed by

the respondent No.5, who is none other than the petitioner's

father, invoking the provisions of the Act initiated proceedings vide

case No.5 of 2017 (B1/1510/2017), dated 09.02.2018, passed the

impugned order directing the Tahsildar to cancel the revenue 6 JSR,J W.P.No.22365 of 2014

entries made in favour of the petitioner and the said order was

confirmed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.D2/1431/2018 on

12.06.2018 and directed the respondent No.4 to restore the

possession of the property to respondent No.5. The respondent

Nos.2 and 3 exceeded the jurisdiction and passed the impugned

orders. As per the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, in the event

the Senior Citizen executed any document by mentioning certain

conditions, then he is entitle to seek cancellation of such

documents.

10. In the instant case, the respondent No.5 has not

executed any document in favour of the petitioner and petitioner

has not violated any terms and conditions of such document. In

such circumstances, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not having

jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the respondent No.5 and

to pass impugned order for cancellation of the revenue entries and

cancellation of the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the

petitioner and restore the land to respondent No.5.

11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order

passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.D2/1431/2018,

dated 12.06.2018 and the order of respondent No.3 in case No.5 of 7 JSR,J W.P.No.22365 of 2014

2017 (B1/1510/2017), dated 09.02.2018 are liable to be declared

as without jurisdiction. Accordingly, both the orders are set aside

and the writ petition is allowed. However, the unofficial

respondents are given liberty to workout their remedies as

available under law. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J

21st day of April, 2023 PNS