Telangana High Court
Mukesh Bhai Patel vs Joint Collectorii on 12 October, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, N.V.Shravan Kumar
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.655 of 2010
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. G.Sundaresan, learned counsel representing
Mr. P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants.
2. In this intra court appeal, the appellants have
assailed the validity of the order dated 02.07.2010 passed
by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition
preferred by the appellants, namely W.P.No.6356 of 2010,
has been dismissed.
3. Facts
giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated
are that the legal heirs of one Mr. Pothuganti Gopaiah, the
original pattadar, sold the land measuring Ac.0.20 guntas
(out of Acs.8.13 guntas) in Survey No.7 of Satamrai Village,
Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to one
Smt. Shanthaben Patel and appellant No.1 vide registered
sale deed dated 29.08.1980. Thereafter, on 31.01.1983 a
deed of rectification was executed by the legal
representatives who are not parties to the sale deed. The
legal heirs of Mr. Pothuganti Gopaiah, vide registered sale
deed dated 18.11.1981, sold the land measuring Acs.4.00
to one Smt. Labhkunwar B. Lotia. Thereafter, the legal
representatives of the aforesaid Mr. Pothuganti Gopaiah by
another registered sale deed executed on 18.11.1981 sold
the land measuring Acs.3.33 guntas to one Smt. Sheela N.
Lotia. The aforesaid persons, namely Smt. Labhkunwar B.
Lotia and Smt. Sheela N. Lotia, vide registered sale deeds
dated 15.10.1982 sold land measuring Acs.7.33 guntas in
favour of appellant No.1 and his mother. According to the
appellants, they acquired title in respect of land measuring
Acs.8.13 guntas in Survey No.7 situate in Satamrai Village,
Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Some time in
the year 1983, the names of the appellants were also
recorded in the revenue records.
4. Smt. Shanthaben Patel executed a will deed on
22.08.1991 bequeathing Acs.4.03 guntas in favour of
appellant No.2. Thereafter, Smt. Shanthaben Patel expired
on 29.11.1994. On 31.03.1995, the mutation was made in
favour of appellant No.2 in respect of the land measuring
Ac.4.03 guntas. The legal representatives of the deceased
Pothuganti Gopaiah, namely respondents No.4 to 9, filed
an application under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land
and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, before the Tahsildar in
which the order of mutation dated 31.03.1995 was
questioned. The Tahsildar by an order dated 21.12.2007
dismissed the petition filed by respondents No.4 to 9.
Thereupon, respondents No.4 to 9 filed an appeal before
the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was withdrawn by
them. Thereafter, respondents No.4 to 9 filed a revision
before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector by an order
dated 15.12.2009 allowed the revision and set aside the
order dated 21.12.2007. The aforesaid order was inter alia
passed on the ground that the record pertaining to
mutation in favour of the appellants was not traceable. It
was further held that no notice was issued to respondents
No.4 to 9 before passing the order dated 31.03.1995. The
appellants thereupon challenged the validity of the order
passed by the Joint Collector in the writ petition. The
learned Single Judge by the order dated 02.07.2010 has
dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ
petition. It is further submitted that the learned Single
Judge ought to have appreciated that the revision was filed
before the Joint Collector after inordinate delay and ought
not to have been entertained the same.
6. We have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellants.
7. The learned Single Judge inter alia held that the
dispute between the parties requires adjudication by the
civil Court. It is not in dispute that respondents No.4 to 9
have already filed a suit seeking cancellation of the sale
deeds executed in favour of the appellants. It is trite law
that entry made in the revenue records does not confer any
title. The right, title or interest of either the appellants or
respondents No.4 to 9 are subject to the outcome of the
civil litigation, which is pending before the civil Court.
8. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
no case for interference in this intra court appeal is made
out. However, it is clarified that any observations made
either by the learned Single Judge or by this Court shall
not come in the way of either of the parties in prosecuting
the remedy of civil suit.
9. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the writ appeal
is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
______________________________________
N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
12.10.2023
vs
