Telangana High Court
Shaik Raffi vs State Of Telangana, on 10 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.331 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)
Mr. P. Lalith Kamesh, learned counsel representing
Mr. J. Raghuram, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for
Revenue appearing for the respondents.
2. This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order
dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.42070 of 2022.
3. Brief facts:
The appellant filed W.P.No.42070 of 2022 seeking to
declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing notice
dated 27.10.2022 directing the 3rd respondent to submit
enjoyment list of the farmers over the petition schedule land
to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.66/E situated at
Becharag Madharam Village at Suryapet District instead of
unblocking his vendor's name Md. Mumtaz Ali in order to
mutate the name of the appellant in Dharani Portal as per the
HCJ & JAK, J
registered sale deed vide Doc.No.5845 of 2014 dated
29.11.2014, contrary to new Telangana Rights in Land and
Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020, as illegal and consequently to
direct the 2nd respondent to unblock the name of the
appellant's vendor in order to mutate his name in Dharani
Portal in respect of the subject property.
4. The appellant claims that he is the absolute owner and
possessor of the subject property purchased vide registered
sale deed bearing No.5845 of 2014, dated 29.11.2014.
A copy of the sale deed, mutation proceedings and pattadar
passbook issued in favour of his vendor, namely,
Md. Mumtaz Ali, are filed. The appellant purchased the
property with his elder brother, who sold the property to a
third party. It is the specific case of the appellant that the 3rd
respondent has not entertained the online application bearing
No.LM2100074426 at 'Land Grievance Matters' to unblock his
vendor's name in Dharani Portal in order to mutate his name
pursuant to the sale deed. He filed W.P.No.16730 of 2022 to
declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not
unblocking the name of the vendor of the appellant and not
HCJ & JAK, J
considering his application. By order dated 11.04.2022, the
writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to
consider the online application submitted by the appellant.
5. In compliance with the order dated 11.04.2022, the
2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 23.09.2022 directed
the 3rd respondent to submit enjoyment list of farmers over
the petition schedule land. The 3rd respondent submitted
enjoyment list of farmers to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd
respondent vide notice dated 27.10.2022 directed the
appellant to attend enquiry with relevant documents on
29.10.2022. Challenging the said notice, the appellant filed
W.P.No.42070 of 2022. This Court by order dated 01.02.2023
dismissed the said writ petition. Against the said order, the
present writ appeal is filed.
6. Learned Single Judge, in the order in W.P.No.42070 of
2022, held that the appellant/petitioner had kept silent for 8
years in getting his name mutated in the revenue records and
applied for mutation in the year 2022. Taking note of the fact
that an application was filed under "Land Grievance Matters",
learned Single Judge held that the petitioner instead of
HCJ & JAK, J
attending the enquiry on 29.10.2022 with all the relevant
documents before the 2nd respondent, pursuant to notice
dated 27.10.2022, filed W.P.No.42070 of 2022 challenging the
action of the 2nd respondent and also seeking a direction for
enjoyment of list of farmers.
7. Learned Single Judge also held that as per Rule 26 (6) of
the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land Pattadar Passbooks
Rules, 1989, a title deed or pattadar passbook is given only to
those persons who are in actual possession of the land.
Therefore, the 2nd respondent called for a report including
enjoyment list of farmers in respect of the subject land and
the said list was submitted by the 3rd respondent. That the
3rd respondent informed the Court that subject property is an
urban locality/area situated in Suryapet Municipality and
houses have come up and is not an agriculture land as
claimed by appellant. The appellant is not entitled for
mutation of his name in the revenue records and issuance of
e-pattadar passbook. Therefore, the provisions of the Act,
2020 are not applicable to the subject land. It is trite to note
that learned Single Judge held that "contention of the
HCJ & JAK, J
petitioner that calling for enjoyment list of farmers over the
land of the petitioner is nothing but inviting unnecessary
records is untenable". Learned Single Judge dismissed the
writ petition. Challenging the dismissal order, the present
appeal is filed.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
the appellant purchased land in the year 2014 by way of a
registered sale deed and he accrued a right and that his name
be mutated in the revenue records, as the subject land is an
agricultural land. That brother of appellant purchased a part
of land in survey number and the subject property was
mutated in the name of his brother and that he cannot be
denied. It is submitted that appellant is entitled to that
portion of land which is vacant wherein houses are not
constructed. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has
erred in not considering the facts in proper perspective.
9. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader for
Revenue that the appellant purchased the land in the year
2014 and should have made an application for mutation of
his name in the revenue records at the earliest point of time,
HCJ & JAK, J
but has approached the High Court after eight years. It is
further submitted that, concerned Tahsildar submitted a
report that the said property (purchased by way of a
registered sale deed dated 29.11.2014) is an urban land
situated in Suryapet Municipality and houses have been
constructed in the subject property and that the report of the
Tahsildar is in pursuant to a direction in writ petition. As per
the report, the property is situated in urban area and the said
land is not an agricultural land. The relief being sought
cannot be granted as houses have been constructed in the
subject property by obtaining necessary permission from
authorities. It is also submitted that the appellant has
a remedy of approaching the appropriate authority/Court
of law.
10. Heard the learned counsels, perused the record and the
order of the learned Single Judge.
11. Learned Single Judge has given a categorical finding on
the basis of report of Tahsildar that the property being sought
for mutation is in urban agglomeration and houses are
constructed in the subject property and mutation is sought
HCJ & JAK, J
after a long lapse of eight years. The report of the Tahsildar is
contra to the pleadings of the appellant that the subject
property is an agricultural land. The remedy available for the
appellant is to approach the appropriate forum/Court of law.
This Court is not inclined to go into the aspect as to whether
the land is an agricultural land or urban land. We deem it
appropriate that the appellant has a remedy of approaching
the appropriate forum/Court of law. We do not find any
grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single
Judge.
12. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed
of with a liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate
forum/Court of law.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
___________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:10.01.2024
KH
HCJ & JAK, J
