Telangana High Court
K. Sridhar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 7 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ WRIT APPEAL No.42 OF 2025
% Dated 07.01.2025
# K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o.Pratap Reddy
Age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o.H.No.2/78, 3rd Floor Harsha Vardhan Colony
Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011
and two others
....Appellants
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue)
Secretariat, Hyderabad
and three others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for appellants : Mr. Srinivasa Rao Sirikonda
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram
for respndent Nos.1 to 3
Ms. V. Sanjana
for respondent No.4
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
2
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.42 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao)
This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellants
invoking the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.19549 of 2022, by which the writ petition
filed by the appellants was disposed of by setting aside the
mutation made in favour of the appellants in respect of the subject
property to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts. in Sy.No.253 situated in
Pregnapur Village of Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District.
2. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Sirikonda, learned counsel for the
appellants, Mr.Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government
Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.K.
Ajith Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms.V.Sanjana, learned
counsel for respondent No.4.
3. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition has been
disposed of at the admission stage.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ appeal briefly stated are
that the appellants are claiming that they are owners and
possessors of the subject property i.e., agricultural land to an
extent of Ac.1.00 gts. in Sy.No.253/9 situated at Pregnapur Village
of Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District, and the same was purchased
through registered sale deed vide document bearing No.5517 of
2004 dated 21.06.2004 from Sri Kolupula Narsaiah, who is none
other than the father of respondent No.4. The appellants further
averred that they have purchased total extent of Ac.20.34 gts. in
Sy.Nos.253, 254 and 338 of Pragnapur Village from other vendors
as well through registered sale deed. The revenue authorities after
following the due procedure issued proceedings on 25.05.2006
mutating the names of the appellants in the revenue records and
pattadar pass book and title deed were issued and they have been
in possession of the subject property.
4.2. The appellants averred that they came to know that
respondent No.4 and another filed suit in O.S.No.31 of 2014 before
the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Siddipet, for declaration of title and
perpetual injunction against the vendor of the appellants without
making them as party defendants and obtained ex parte decree by
suppressing the material facts. During pendency of the said suit,
respondent No.4 filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Gajwel, questioning the mutation proceedings dated 25.05.2006
issued in favour of the appellants in respect of the subject property
and the said appeal was dismissed, by its order dated 28.05.2018
and the same has become final.
4.3. The appellants further averred that basing on the decree
dated 31.01.2018 passed in O.S.No.34 of 2014, respondent No.4
has made an application for mutation of her name in the revenue
records. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.3 has issued
proceedings dated 17.09.2019 mutating the name of respondent
No.4 in the revenue records. Questioning the above said
proceedings dated 17.09.2019, the appellants have filed
W.P.No.19549 of 2019. Learned Single Judge of this Court
disposed of the said writ petition by setting aside the mutation
proceedings issued in favour of the appellants as well as
respondent No.4 and directed respondent No.3 to issue notice to
the appellants as well as respondent No.4 and other persons, if
any, and pass appropriate orders by duly taking into consideration
the judgment in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue
Officer, Serilingampally Mandal and others 1 within a period of
three (3) months and till such time, the parties are directed to
maintain status quo in respect of the subject property in all
respects. Thus, the appellants filed the present writ appeal.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellants:
5.1. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
respondent No.4 is not having any right in respect of the subject
property and the appellants have purchased the same by paying
valuable sale consideration through registered sale deed dated
21.06.2004 and since then they have been in possession of the
subject property and the revenue authorities issued mutation
proceedings in favour of the appellants on 25.05.2006.
Questioning the said proceedings, respondent No.4 filed appeal
before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel and the said appeal
was dismissed on 28.06.2006 and the said order has become final.
5.2. He further submitted that suppressing the above said facts,
respondent No.4 and another filed suit in O.S.No.31 of 2014 before
the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Siddipet, against the vendor of the
AIR 2008 AP 15
appellants, namely Sri Kolupula Narsaiah, without making the
appellants as party defendants. During pendency of the suit, Sri
Kolupula Narsaiah died on 22.07.2017 and respondent No.4
obtained ex parte decree by suppressing the said fact. Basing on
the ex parte decree, respondent No.4 submitted application for
mutation of her name in the revenue records, though the decree
passed in O.S.No.31 of 2014 is not binding upon the appellants.
5.3. He further submitted that respondent No.3, without verifying
the records and earlier mutation proceedings dated 25.05.2006
issued in favour of the appellants and the order passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel, dated 28.05.2018, issued
proceedings on 17.09.2019 proposing to mutate the name of
respondent No.4 in the revenue records and the same is contrary
to law.
5.4. He submitted that the revenue authorities mutated the
names of the appellants pursuant to the registered sale deed dated
21.06.2004 and the said mutation proceedings was confirmed in
the appeal and respondent No.4 has not questioned the order
passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 28.05.2018. In the
absence of the same, the learned Single Judge ought not to have
set aside the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the
appellants.
6. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.4:
6.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the
competent civil Court passed decree of declaration of title in favour
of respondent No.4 and pursuant to the said decree, respondent
No.3 issued proceedings dated 17.09.2019. Learned Single Judge
rightly set aside the said proceedings and directed respondent
No.3 to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass
Books Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'ROR Act') and the
appellants are entitled to raise all the objections before respondent
No.3 and there are no grounds in the appeal.
Analysis:
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that the appellants are claiming rights over the
subject property basing on the registered sale deed dated
21.06.2004 said to have been executed by Sri Kolupula Narsaiah,
who is none other than the father of respondent No.4, and
pursuant to the said sale deed, the revenue authorities issued
mutation proceedings in favour of the appellants on 25.05.2006.
Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 had filed appeal under
Section 5(5) of the RoR Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Gajwel, and the same was dismissed on 28.05.2018. It further
reveals from the record that respondent No.4 has not questioned
the said order and the same has become final.
8. It further reveals from the record that even prior to filing of
the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel,
respondent No.4 and her son filed suit in O.S.No.31 of 2014 before
the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Siddipet, seeking declaration and
perpetual injunction against Sri Kolupula Narsaiah, who is the
vendor of the appellants, without making the appellants as party
defendants and the said Court passed ex parte decree in their
favour. Respondent No.4 herself averred in the said suit that she
came to know that the defendant executed sale deed in favour of
the third parties and the said averment clearly reveals that
respondent No.4 is having knowledge about the execution of the
registered sale deed in favour of the third parties. However,
respondent No.4 without making the purchasers, namely the
appellants, as party defendants filed the suit against the
defendant, namely Sri Kolupula Narsaiah, only and obtained ex
parte decree against the dead person. Basing on the said ex parte
decree, respondent No.4 is not entitled to seek mutation of her
name in the revenue records in respect of the subject land and the
same is not binding upon the appellants and also not enforceable
under law. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought
not to have set aside the mutation proceedings dated 25.05.2006
issued in favour of the appellants and the same is excess of
jurisdiction.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge is set aside and respondent No.4 is granted
liberty to work out her remedies by approaching the competent
Civil Court to establish her claim in respect of the subject property
against the appellants and thereafter respondent No.4 is entitled to
make necessary application for seeking mutation of her name in
the revenue records.
10. To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the learned
Single Judge is modified.
11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
____________________________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 07.01.2025
Note: L.R. Copy to be marked.
(b/o)
mar
