G.V. Rajeshwar Reddy vs State Of Telangana And 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 774 Tel

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

              WRIT PETITION No.16883 of 2019

ORDER:

Heard Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel,

appearing for Ms. Madhuri Kuchadi, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for Bangaru Laxmi Jasti, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7.

2. The brief facts of the case that lead to filing of this Writ

Petition are as under:-

The petitioner herein filed an appeal under Section 5B

read with Section 10A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land

and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971'),

before respondent No.3 against respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein

claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the

lands situated in Sy.Nos.272, 273, 292, 293, 290 and 294

admeasuring Acs.2.22 gts., Acs.5.07 gts., Acs.3.03 gts.,

Acs.6.28 gts., Acs.2.23 gts., and Acs.16.27 gts., respectively of

Mamidipally Village, Dandepally Mandal, Macherial District and

also stating that besides the above lands, the petitioner is also

having some other lands in the same Village. It is further stated ::2::

MSK,J Wp_16883_2019

that all the above said properties stand in the name of one late

Mrs.G.V.Hemalatha Devi w/o Someshwar Reddy, the mother of

the petitioner. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein are the natural

sisters of the petitioner herein. The mother of the petitioner died

on 12.06.1991 and the father of the petitioner died on

12.12.1997. Both the mother and father of the petitioner and

respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein have died intestate. The petitioner

herein claimed to have succeeded to the entire land standing in

the name of his deceased mother being the only son. By

contending so, the appeal was filed. The said appeal was filed

before respondent No.3 stating that, recently the petitioner

came to know that the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 have

been entered in the Revenue records in the place of the mother

of the petitioner namely late Mrs.G.V.Hemalatha and that the

said entries were made basing upon the compromise decrees

said to have been obtained from respondent Nos.5 to 7 and

further contended that the said decrees are bogus and fake and

have no validity in the eye of law for want of registration and

also contending that the mother of the petitioner was seriously

ill as on the date of passing of the said decrees. It is the further

case of the petitioner that no file is opened by Revenue

Authorities for entering the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 in

the Revenue records and without there being any proceedings ::3::

MSK,J Wp_16883_2019

on record, the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 have been

entered in the Revenue records. The said appeal was filed in the

month of March, 2017. Though the petitioner referred to the

compromise decrees in the said appeal, he has not furnished

any details of the said compromise decrees. The said appeal

filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.3 by an

order, dated 25.03.2017, on the ground that the said appeal

was filed after a long lapse of time against the entries that were

made in the year 1989 and hence, the said appeal was barred

by limitation and also on the ground that the petitioner herein

and respondent Nos.5 to 7 are own brother and sisters and the

dispute between them is a family dispute, the same is required

to be adjudicated by a competent civil Court. Having been

aggrieved by the said order passed by respondent No.3, the

petitioner herein filed a Revision Petition under Section 9 of the

Act, 1971, before respondent No.2 herein and the said Revision

Petition came to be dismissed by an order, dated 24.06.2019.

Aggrieved by the said order passed by respondent No.2, the

present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel,

contended that the petitioner herein being the only son of late

Mrs.G.V.Hemalatha, whose name was appearing in the Revenue ::4::

MSK,J Wp_16883_2019

records before entering the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7

herein and as such the petitioner herein being son of the said

late Mrs.G.V.Hemalatha, is entitled for notice, but he was never

put on notice before entering the names of respondent

Nos.5 to 7 herein in the Revenue records in respect of the

subject land. He further contended that the petitioner has been

in possession of the subject property and that the same is also

evident from the copies of the Pahanies that are placed on

record. He further contended that a perusal of the plaint,

written statement and decree passed in O.S.Nos.76, 77 and 78

of 1989, passed by the Court of the District Munsif at

Luxettipet, dated 10.03.1989, makes it clear that they are

collusive decrees and until and unless the said decrees are

registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, such

decrees cannot be acted upon by the Revenue authorities for

giving effect to such decrees. He further contended that no order

was passed by respondent No.4 herein ordering for mutation of

the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein, in the revenue

records. It is also contended that, respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein

played fraud on the petitioner and got their names entered in

the Revenue records in a fraudulent manner. He also placed ::5::

MSK,J Wp_16883_2019

reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Bhoop Singh vs Ram Singh Major & Ors1 and Ganpatbhai

Mahijibhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat & Ors2 and also on the

judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Chinnam

Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally

Mandal & Ors.3

4. On the other hand, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 6, submitted that

respondent No.5 is the absolute owner and the possessor of the

land situated in Sy.Nos.290 and 293 admeasuring Acs.2.23 gts.,

and Acs.6.28 gts., respectively of Mamidipally Village and

respondent No.6 is the absolute owner and possessor of land

situated in Sy.Nos.272, 273 and 292 admeasuring Acs.2.22 gts.,

Acs.5.07 gts., and Acs.3.03 gts., respectively and similarly

respondent No.7 is the absolute owner and possessor of the

land situated in Sy.No.294 admeasuring Acs.16.27 gts., having

got the same by way of 'Pasupukunkuma' and as confirmed by a

decree passed in O.S.Nos.76, 77 and 78 of 1989, on the file of

the Court of District Munsif at Luxettipet, declaring the title of

1995 SCC (5) 709

(2008) 12 SCC 353

AIR 2008 AP 15 ::6::

MSK,J Wp_16883_2019

respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein in respect of their respective

extents of lands. It is further contended that the said decrees

were passed in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7 in the year 1989

and during the life time of the mother of the petitioner and

respondent Nos.5 to 7, consent decrees were passed in the said

suits, and by virtue of the said consent decrees, the names of

respondent Nos.5 to 7 have been entered in the Revenue records

as early as in the year 1989. Thus it is contended that, the said

entries were made with the consent of the mother of the

petitioner namely late Mrs.G.V.Hemalatha Devi, whose name is

replaced with the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein, the

question of putting the petitioner herein on notice, during the

life time of his mother does not arise at all. It is further

contended that the appeal was filed by the petitioner herein

almost after a lapse of 30 years from the date of entering the

names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 in the Revenue records and as

such the same was rightly dismissed by respondent No.3 and

confirmed by respondent No.2. It is also contended that the

Pahanies that are placed on record clearly show that the names

of respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein have been appearing in the

Revenue records as Pattadars since the year 1989-90 onwards

in respect of the subject lands and the name of the petitioner

herein is also being shown in the Revenue records in respect of ::7::

MSK,J Wp_16883_2019

the other survey numbers i.e., Sy.Nos.274, 285, 286, 287, 288,

289 and 291 etc., which were also the lands originally standing

in the name of the mother of the petitioner. Thus, Sri D.Prakash

Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the petitioner

herein succeeded to certain extent of land referred to in the

above survey numbers and respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein have

succeeded to the other extents of land, which are the subject

matter of this Writ Petition. But the petitioner herein, with a

mala fide intention, after a long lapse of time, filed an appeal

before respondent No.3 pleading ignorance about the entries

that were made in the year 1989 and contending that he has

come to know about the entries in the Revenue records recently.

He also submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have rightly

considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner and they

were rightly dealt with, and as such this Court, in exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by respondent

Nos.2 and 3. He also contended that the contention of the

petitioner that the consent decrees are required to be registered

is totally unsustainable, as the said decrees were passed

recognizing the pre-existing right of respondent Nos.5 to 7 over

the subject land.

::8::

MSK,J Wp_16883_2019

5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced on

either side and perused the entire material on record.

6. There is no dispute that the names of respondent

Nos.5 to 7 are entered in the Revenue records as Pattadars in

respect of their respective extents of lands as claimed by

respondent Nos.5 to 7. Copies of the amendment register of the

year 1989 are also placed on record. There is no dispute about

the copies of the amendment register placed on record. Certified

copies of the decrees passed in O.S.Nos.76, 77 and 78 of 1989,

on the file of the Court of the District Munsif at Luxettipet, are

also placed on record. The petitioner is aware of such decrees as

on the date of filing of the appeal before respondent No.3 in the

month of March, 2017, and reference was also made in the said

appeal to the decrees in question. It is an admitted fact that the

names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein were entered in the

Revenue records basing upon the decrees passed by the

competent civil Court, which were passed during the life time of

the mother of the petitioner herein. The mother of the petitioner

herein has not chosen to question the said decrees nor chosen

to question the entries made in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7

herein during her life time. The claim of the petitioner over the

subject land is by virtue of inheritance on the demise of his ::9::

MSK,J Wp_16883_2019

mother in the year 1991. The question of inheritance over the

subject lands will arise only in case if the mother of the

petitioner had possessed such lands as on date of her demise.

7. In the instant case, admittedly, the decrees declaring the

title of respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein were passed in the year

1989 during the life time of the mother of the petitioner and the

names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 were also entered in the

Revenue records as Pattadars.

8. In the light of the above, the question of petitioner herein

succeeding to the lands, which are the subject matter of the

decrees in O.S.Nos.76, 77 and 78 of 1989, dated 10.03.1989,

does not arise at all. Hence, the very basis on which the

petitioner is making a claim is totally unsustainable. If at all the

petitioner is aggrieved by the decrees passed by the competent

civil Court, it is for the petitioner to take steps to avoid such

decrees by instituting appropriate proceedings before the

competent Court of Law. It is not the case of the petitioner that

he has taken any such steps as on date.

9. Even otherwise, the petitioner herein cannot succeed to

the entire properties of his deceased mother, as admittedly

respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein are the natural sisters of the ::10::

MSK,J Wp_16883_2019

petitioner herein. If at all a succession is to take place on the

demise of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner and

respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein succeed to the same being Class I

Heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, on both

the grounds the claim made by the petitioner before respondent

No.3 is totally unsustainable.

10. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that his mother

died without executing any Will and on the other hand it is an

admitted case that the mother of the petitioner died intestate. If

that be the case, the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 7

herein being Class I Heirs will succeed to the entire estate of

their mother. As is evident from the appeal filed by the

petitioner herein before respondent No.3, besides the lands,

which are subject matter of this Writ Petition, there are certain

other lands, which were also standing in the name of the

mother of the petitioner and the petitioner succeeded to the said

lands. As rightly pointed out by Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned

Senior Counsel, and as is evident from the Pahanies placed on

record, the petitioner is having the lands in other survey

numbers i.e., 272, 273, 292, 293, 290 and 294.

11. In the light of the decrees passed by the competent civil

Court referred to above and as already pointed out above, the ::11::

MSK,J Wp_16883_2019

very basis on which the petitioner made a claim for claiming

title over the subject properties is found unsustainable by this

Court, this Court does not find any reason to consider the other

submissions made by learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the

petitioner.

12. Even assuming that the decrees that were obtained by

respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein are not valid, either for want of

registration or on the ground of collusion etc., as alleged, the

petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein being Class I Heirs

of their mother namely late Mrs.G.V.Hemalatha Devi, they

succeed to the entire estate of their mother and as such they

will have equal right over the entire estate of their deceased

mother. But the petitioner cannot claim exclusive right over the

estate of his deceased mother. Further a decree passed by a

competent civil Court cannot be ignored unless and until the

same is declared as invalid or not binding on the petitioner.

13. In the light of the above, this Court is in complete

agreement with the reasoning given by respondent Nos.3 and 2

in the impugned orders, dated 25.03.2017 and 24.06.2018

respectively passed by them and does not find any reason to

interfere with the reasoning given by respondent Nos.2 and 3 ::12::

MSK,J Wp_16883_2019

and not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

14. However, it is open for the petitioner to agitate his rights

either against the decrees that are being relied upon by

respondent Nos.5 to 7, or to agitate his rights being a son of late

Mrs.G.V.Hemalatha Devi by instituting appropriate proceedings

before a competent Court in accordance with law.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in

this Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed.

___________________________________ MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J

Date:14.02.2023

NDS ::13::

MSK,J Wp_16883_2019

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.16883 of 2019

Date :14.02.2023

NDS