Mr. Fakrunda Ali vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 1484 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mr. Fakrunda Ali vs The State Of Telangana on 29 January, 2025

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

              WRIT PETITION No.2344 of 2025

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed praying this Court to set aside

the order, dated 11.11.2024 passed in Case No.B/5/2024 by

respondent No.4 and consequently directing the respondent

authorities to implement the judgment and decree, dated

14.03.1958 passed in case No.6/1 of 1958 on the file of the

District Munsif, Ibrahimpatnam, Hyderabad.

2. It is stated that the petitioner filed an online application

for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of

the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.46.08 guntas, situated

in Sy.Nos.480, 481 and 490 of Lemoor Village, Kandukur

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is further stated that the

predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner have obtained the

decree, dated 14.03.1958 in Case No.6/1 of 1958 and relying

upon the said judgment and decree, the petitioner has

submitted an application seeking for mutation of his name in

the revenue records. Respondent No.4 vide proceedings

No.B/212/2014, dated 15.07.2014 relying upon the judgment

of the Apex Court in Shri Lokraj and others v. Kishan Lal

CVBR, J Wp_2344_2025

and others 1 rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence

the writ petition.

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the

respective parties and with their consent, this writ petition is

being disposed of at the admission stage.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed an application

before respondent No.4 seeking for implementation of the

judgment and decree passed in Case No.6/1 of 1958. It is

settled law that if the petitioner or his predecessors-in-interest

are having any right for seeking implementation of the judgment

and decree, they ought to have taken steps by filing Execution

Petition as required under C.P.C. but instead of filing E.P., the

petitioner has approached respondent No.4 seeking mutation of

his name stating that his predecessors-in-interest are the

decree holders of the subject land.

5. A careful examination of the impugned order would show

that respondent No.4, duly taking into consideration of the facts

and also the judgment and decree in Case No.6/1 of 1958, has

rightly rejected the application submitted by the petitioner.

This Court does not see any irregularities or legal infirmities for

(1995) 3 SCC 291

CVBR, J Wp_2344_2025

rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. Apart

from that the validity of the decree has expired by a lapse of

twelve years' period. Hence, , this Court is of the considered

opinion that the writ petition is nothing but a

sheer abuse of process of law and the same is misconceived and

liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY 29.01.2025 gkv