Telangana High Court
Kotte Pothanna vs Smt. Kotte Raju Bai on 29 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.1162 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)
Mr. Kanakaiah, learned counsel representing Mr. J.
Narender, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.V.
Kalayan Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order
dated 18.11.2023 in W.P.No.21136 of 2014.
3. Brief facts:
The appellant herein claims to be the owner and
possessor of land in Sy.Nos.1825 and 1826 admeasuring
Acs.1.25 gts. and Acs.3.05 gts. situated at Naleshwar Village
of Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District. An appeal was filed
under section 5(5) of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar
Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971') before the
Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter 'RDO') contending
that a registered gift deed dated 27.11.2010 was executed in
favour of his daughter and in revenue records the name of
appellant was reflected from 2008 till 2010-11, but in 2010-
11, revenue records reflected the name of Kotte Hanmandlu
S/o Kotte Gangaram. That the appellant sought restoration
of his name in the revenue records and appeal was allowed
vide order in proceedings No.A3/5383/2011, dated
09.07.2011.
3.2. Aggrieved by order of RDO, the unofficial respondents
filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 before
respondent No.5. The revision was rejected by an order vide
proceedings No.D2/1836/2012, dated 05.12.2013.
3.3. The name of one Kotte Hanmandlu was appearing in
revenue records as pattadar till 2008. Name of appellant is
reflected from 2008 till 2010-11. In the year
2010-11 name of Kotte Hanmandlu was restored. It is
observed by learned Single Judge in the order that neither
the appellant nor the unofficial respondents pleaded before
the High Court nor before the appellate authority nor the
revisional authority the manner in which title was acquired
over the subject land. It is further observed that by
proceedings bearing No.ROR/16/94, dated 31.08.1994, the
subject property with several other lands situated in other
survey numbers of the same village belong to Kotte
Gangaram S/o Linganna and succession was ordered in
favour of Kotte Hanmandlu and three others. The subject
land situated in Sy.Nos.1825 and 1826 fell to the share of
Kotte Hanmandlu. The said proceedings dated 31.08.1994
were relied upon by the unofficial respondents before the
RDO as basis for entering the name of Kotte Hanmandlu in
revenue records. It is also observed by the learned Single
Judge that without verifying the genuineness of proceedings
dated 31.08.1994, (issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer
(hereinafter 'MRO')), the RDO allowed the appeal filed by the
appellant vide order dated 09.07.2011 and directed the
Tahasildar to take action for correction of entries in
pahanies. The order of RDO was confirmed by the 5th
respondent (Joint Collector) vide order dated 05.12.2013.
3.4. The unofficial respondents claim the right and
interest in the subject property through proceedings dated
31.08.1994, but, the appellant got his name mutated in
revenue records in place of Kotte Gangaram on the basis of
family settlement, in proceedings, in case No.A1/195/2005,
dated 09.12.2005. Learned Single Judge observed that the
appellant is not claiming to be the son or a person in any
way related to Kotte Gangaram, that the unofficial
respondents were claiming through the son of Kotte
Gangaram i.e., Kotte Hanmandlu. It is further observed that
no enquiry was conducted by MRO before issuance of
proceedings in case No.A1/195/2005 and that there is no
mention of so called family settlement in the proceedings of
MRO. Held that in the absence of any pleading as to how
the appellant acquired the subject property from Kotte
Gangaram or Kotte Hanmandlu no value could be attached
to proceedings dated 09.12.2005. It was also observed by
the learned Single Judge that as proceedings in
ROR/16/1994 were undisputed the claim of the appellant
before the RDO was without basis. It was held that orders
dated 09.07.2011 and 05.12.2013 were unsustainable and
were set aside. The learned Single Judge left it open for the
appellant to approach the Competent Civil Court for
appropriate relief including rectification of entries in revenue
records. This writ appeal is filed challenging the order in
writ petition.
4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant that the subject land was a joint
family property, that the name of the grandfather Kotte
Gangaram was recorded and not the father of the unofficial
respondents. It is contended that the unofficial respondents
in the revision petition admitted that the subject land was in
the name of their grandfather and that the appellant and
unofficial respondents were related and the joint family
properties are in the name of the Kartha of the family.
4.1. It is submitted that the Tahasildar conducted an
enquiry and submitted a report that the unofficial
respondents pressurised the Village Revenue Officer
(hereinafter 'VRO') to incorporate the name of Kotte
Hanmandlu in the pahani for year 2010-11. That the
Tahasildar requested for restoration of old entries due to
mistake committed by part time village assistant and the
RDO allowed the appeal which was confirmed by the
revisional authority. That the learned Single Judge arrived
at a wrong conclusion that the appellate authority and
revisional authority committed an error. It is also submitted
that the appellant had filed pahanies and material papers
crucial for establishing the claim of appellant and the same
were not considered by the learned Single Judge. Hence,
the order of the learned Single Judge is bad in law and be
set aside.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
unofficial respondents that the learned Single Judge has
rightly set aside the orders of the appellate authority and the
revisional authority. The learned counsel supported the
order of the learned Single Judge and contended that
proceedings bearing No.ROR/16/94, dated 31.08.1994 were
undisputed. That the learned Single Judge has rightly held
that no value could be attached to the proceedings in case
No.A1/195/2005, dated 19.12.2005 as the appellant never
pleaded the manner in which he acquired the property from
Kotte Gangaram or Kotte Hanmandlu. The learned counsel
further submitted that the learned Single Judge was right in
leaving it open for the appellant to seek appropriate relief.
6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, the order
of appellate authority and revisional authority.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is
of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly
given a finding that no value could be attached to
proceedings dated 09.12.2005 and further correctly held
that the appellate authority and revisional authority erred in
accepting the claim of appellant, on the ground that the
appellant has nowhere pleaded that he is in any way related
to Kotte Gangaram but claimed the property through family
settlement and that the said family settlement was not even
mentioned in the said proceedings. This finding goes to the
root of the matter. This Court is not inclined to differ with
the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We do not find
any grounds for interference in the order of learned Single
Judge. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are
devoid of merits and the writ appeal is liable to be
dismissed. The learned Single Judge was right in leaving it
open to the appellant to approach the Competent Court for
appropriate relief including rectification of entries.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Appeal is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 29.12.2023
PLP
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.1162 OF 2023
Date: 29.12.2023
PLP
