Telangana High Court
Chinthala Kotaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.12061 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of mandamus to declare the impugned orders dated
2/4/2024 passed in File No.F2/Dharani/RC220000/2023 by the 2nd
respondent in rejecting the dharani application sought for issuance of
new electronic pass book to the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.1.02
gts in Sy.No.270/E1 situated at Mallemadugu village, Khammam Rural
Mandal, Khammam district in spite of having submitted copy of judgment
and decree dated 5.9.2017 passed in OS No.68 of 2014 on the file of the
Principal Junior Civil Judge at Khammam wherein the learned civil court
declared that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land and the 2nd
respondent rejected the dharani application with a direction to approach
the civil court on the ground that the 6th respondent is not the party in
OS No.68 of 2013 is as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and
violation of Articles 21 and 300A of constitution of India and
consequently set aside the impugned orders dated 2.4.2024 passed in
File No.F2/Dharani/RC220000/2023 by the 2nd respondent...."
2. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of
land admeasuring Ac.1.02 gts in Sy.No.270/E situated at
Mallemadugu Village, Khammam Rural Mandal and District, having
purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 21.05.1982
vide document No.308/1982. It is further stated that the name of
the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and he was also
issued pattadar passbook and title deed vide Patta No.903 dated
26.06.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that when his sister i.e,
respondent No.4, interfered with his possession and enjoyment over
the subject land, he instituted a suit vide O.S.No.68 of 2014 on the
file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, seeking declaration
of title and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated
05.09.2017 declaring him as owner of the subject land. It is further
case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, the
respondent No.4 alienated the subject land in favour of respondent
No.5 under sale deed dated 28.06.2014 bearing document
No.4454/2014 and the respondent No.5 in turn sold the subject
land in favour of respondent No.6 under registered sale deed dated
11.06.2019 bearing document No.7608/2019. The grievance of the
petitioner is that seeking implementation of the judgment and
decree dated 05.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.68 of 2014, he
submitted an application on the file of respondent No.2 but the
same was rejected vide impugned order dated 02.04.2024 in File
No.F2/Dharani/RC2200004679/ 2023 directing the petitioner to
approach the Civil Court by filing Execution Petition. Hence the writ
petition.
3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed in
File No.F2/Dharani/RC2200004679/2023 by the respondent No.2,
it is seen that the petitioner's application seeking implementation of
the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.68 of
2014 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, and issuance
of pattadar passbooks, was rejected. The reasoning given by the
respondent No.2 is that respondent No.4, who was a party to the
suit, had already sold the subject land to respondent No.5, and
later respondent No.5 sold it to respondent No.6, whose name is
now shown as pattadar in the Dharani portal. It was further stated
in the impugned order that since the respondent No.6 was not
made a party to the civil suit, and no execution petition was filed
against him, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to approach
the civil court by filing an Execution Petition.
5. It is well-settled law that the revenue authorities do not have
the power to decide ownership or title disputes over immovable
property. Their duty is only to maintain and update the revenue
records based on valid documents and Court Orders. In the instant
case, the petitioner has already obtained a declaration decree from
the competent civil court in O.S.No.68 of 2014, declaring him as the
lawful owner of the subject land. The said decree has become final
and has not been stayed or challenged by anyone in any Appellate
Court. Therefore, the respondent No.2, being a revenue authority, is
legally bound to act as per the Civil Court's decree. The reason
given by the respondent No.2 in the impugned order that the
petitioner must file an Execution Petition since respondent No.6
was not a party to the suit, is unsustainable. When the civil court
has already declared the petitioner as the owner, and there is no
stay, the respondent No.2 cannot refuse to implement it. In view of
the above circumstances, the impugned order passed by the
respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed by
respondent No.2 in File No.F2/Dharani/RC2200004679/2023 is
set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the
petitioner's application in accordance with the Telangana Rights in
Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 or the Telangana Bhu
Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2024, whichever is
applicable. If there is no stay on the judgment and decree dated
05.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.68 of 2014 by the learned Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, then respondent No.2 shall
implement that judgment and issue pattadar passbooks in favour of
the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of three(3)
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 15.04.2025
scs
