Telangana High Court
Smt. Yerrola Sayamma W/O Sayappa vs The Government Of Telangana on 8 January, 2025
1
SK,J
W.P.No.26990 of 2014
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.26990 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the
orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in
Case No.D1/69/2010 File No.D1/3602/2010
dated 28.12.2013 and No.A/609/2007
dated 27.01.2009 respectively.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned
Counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
land to an extent of Ac.3-11 gts in Sy.No.704 situated at
Gummudal H/o.Doulthabad Village and Mandal, was
originally owned by one Palmadka Bheemappa @
Bheemanna and out of the said land, an extent of Ac.2-20
SK,J
gts was sold by said Bheemappa to the father-in-law of
petitioner, by name, Yerrolla Bajarappa, through private
sale deed dated 10.01.1969 and subsequently he had
executed a registered sale deed dated 25.03.1971.
Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner has succeeded
the said land and after his death, the petitioner is in
possession and enjoyment of the said land and her name
was also recorded as pattadar in the revenue records and
pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in her
favour on 04.12.2006. Against the said entries, the
unofficial respondent No.5 has filed appeal under Section
5(5) read with Rule 22 of ROR Act before the respondent
No.3 and the same was allowed vide Appeal
No.A/609/2007 dated 27.01.2009 holding that there is
no initial of the Officer against the entries made in the
ROR register and directed the respondent No.4 to
incorporate the name of the legal heir of the original
pattadar in accordance with the Rights in Land and
SK,J
Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the ROR Act,
1971"). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision
petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971, before the
respondent No.2 and the same was dismissed
in Case No.D1/69/2010 File No.D1/3602/2010
dated 28.12.2013.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.35 of 2007 on the
file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal for injunction and
the same was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner
and the respondent No.5 were in possession of the land in
Sy.No.704 and the appeal filed by the respondent No.5
before the respondent No.3 was pending. He further
submits that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have failed to
consider the revenue records filed by the petitioner from
1970-71 onwards.
SK,J
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits
that there is no dispute with regard to execution of the
document No.342/1971 by the grandfather of the
respondent No.5 in favour of the father-in-law of
petitioner namely Yerrola Bajarappa. The respondent
No.3, without following due procedure as contemplated
under Section 5 of the Act and without issuing any notice
to the interested persons, has allowed the appeal filed by
the unofficial respondent No.5. He submits that both the
appellate as well as the revisional authorities erred in not
remanding the matter to the respondent No.4 for denovo
enquiry as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act and
requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the
impugned orders.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
following Judgments;
SK,J
1. Damodhar Narayan Sawale (D) through LRS vs.
Jejrao Bajirao Mhaske 1
2. Rattan Singh vs. Nirmal Gill 2
3. Kasarla Yadagiri (died) per LRs vs. State of
Telangana, Revenue Department rep. through its
Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana at
Hyderabad 3
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
submits that the appellate as well as the revisional
authorities, after following due procedure and based on
the records available, passed impugned orders and there
is no need to interfere with by this Court and requested to
dismiss the writ petition.
8. Learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5,
basing on the counter, submits that there is no dispute
2023 SCC OnLine SC 566
AIRONLINE 2020 SC 854
2024(4) ALT 637 (TS)
SK,J
that Sri T. Beemappa @ Beemanna was the original owner
of land to an extent of Ac.3-11 gts in Sy.No.704, situated
at Gummudal Village, Doulthabad Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District, which is ancestral property. Late
Beemanna died leaving behind two sons i.e., Pedda
Sayanna and Chinna Sayanna. Chinna Sayanna died
issuless and Pedda Sayanna died leaving behind the
respondent No.5 as adopted daughter. Late Beemanna
never sold the subject land to the father-in-law of the
petitioner on 10.01.1969. He submits that the name of
the petitioner was entered in the revenue records without
any endorsement or order passed by any competent
authority. The respondent No.5 has preferred appeal
before the respondent No.3 and the same was allowed on
27.01.2009. He further submits that during pendency of
the said appeal, the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.35 of
2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal and
the same was dismissed after trial holding that the
SK,J
petitioner is not at all in possession of the subject
property and the respondent No.5 is in possession of the
subject property and the said Judgment has become
final. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before
the respondent No.2 was also dismissed.
9. Learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5
further submits by the date of entering her name in the
revenue records in the year, 2006, the father-in-law of the
petitioner Sri Bajrappa was alive and the subject property
was never mutated in the name of the son of said
Bajrappa and so also the name of the petitioner after the
death of her husband and the petitioner has played fraud
on the authorities and got entered her name in the
revenue records illegally. He further submits that the
petitioner has neither proved her title nor possession over
the subject land at any point of time and the registered
document No.342/71 is a bogus one and not binding on
SK,J
the respondent No.5 and if the said document is genuine,
the petitioner has to approach the competent civil Court.
He further submits that the revisional authority, after
verifying all the documents, has rightly dismissed the
revision and there are no merits in the writ petition and
requested to dismiss the writ petition.
10. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record,
this Court is of the considered view that the instant writ
petition is filed challenging the orders passed in the
appeal and the revision under the ROR Act, 1971. The
case of the petitoner is that she is the owner of land to an
extent of Ac.2-20 gts in Sy.No.704 situated at Gummudal
H/o.Doulthabad Village and Mandal. Originally, the land
belongs to one Palmadka Bheemappa @ Bheemanna, who
sold the said land through private sale deed
dated 10.01.1969 in favour of the father-in-law of the
petitoner and subsequently, said Bheemappa @
SK,J
Bheemanna has executed a registered sale deed on
25.03.1971 in favour of the father-in-law of the petitoner.
Thereafter, the husband of the petitoner has succeeded
the said property and after his death, the petitoner is in
possession and enjoyment of the said land.
11. Basing on the application filed by the petitoner, the
concerned Tahsildar has recorded her name in ROR
register as pattadar and issued pattadar pass book and
title deed in her favour in the year, 2006. Against the said
proceedings, the respondent No.5 filed appeal under ROR
Act, 1971 before the respondent No.3 and the same was
allowed on 27.01.2009 on the ground that there was no
initial of the Officer against the entries made in the ROR
register. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitoner filed
revision before the respondent No.2 under Section 9 of
the ROR Act, 1971 and the same was also dismissed by
SK,J
the revisional authority on 28.12.2013. Both the orders
are impugned in this writ petition.
12. The contention of the petitoner is that both the
respondent authorities, without considering the registered
sale deed filed by her, have cancelled her pattadar pass
book and title deed and the same is arbitrary and illegal.
The authorities have to take into account of the registered
sale deed and the Tahsildar has rightly mutated the name
of the petitoner in the revenue records and issued
pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour.
13. As per the orders of the respondent No.3 in the
appeal filed by the respondent No.5, there was a finding
that as per the record, it is evident that the Mandal
Revenue Officer has failed to conduct enquiry in proper
way and also verified copy of ROR and found that there
was no signature of the Officer and in view of the same,
set aside the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
SK,J
Doulthabad by directing the Tahslidar, Doulthabad to
incorporate the name of the legal heir of the original
pattadar in accordance with the ROR Act, 1971.
14. As per the certificate under Form 13(B), which is
filed along with the material papers in writ petition at
page No.16, it clearly shows that there are number of
corrections and there is no signature of the concerned
Mandal Revenue Officer. Moreover, before issuing said
Certificate under Form 13(B), there is no record available
for mutation proceedings as per the finding of the
Revenue Divisional Officer-respondent No.3 and in the
revision, the respondent No.2 has upheld the orders of
the respondent No.3.
15. Admittedly, the petitoner has filed O.S.No.35 of 2007
on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, for
injunction and the same was dismissed by the competent
SK,J
Civil Court declaring that the petitoner is not in
possession of the subject property.
16. The Judgments relied on the learned Counsel for the
petitoner in Damodhar Narayan Sawale's case (1 supra)
and in Rattan Singh's case (2 supra) are relating to the
validity of sale and the sale is not the subject matter
before the respondent authorities. In the instant case,
the issue is whether the ROR proceedings of the
MRO/Tahsildar are valid or not and the Certificate under
Form 13(B) was issued without the signature of the
Tahsildar and no record is available for passing of the
orders. In view of the same, the said two Judgments are
not apply to the facts of this case.
17. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitoner in Kasarla Yadagiri's case (3 supra), is with
regard to consideration of the contentions of the
respective parties and the material evidence on record
SK,J
and giving reasons. The said Judgment is also not apply
to the instant case as the appellate and the revisional
authorities have given reasons for passing the impugned
orders and categorically held that there is no
record available with regard to mutation proceedings and
also there is no signature of the Mandal Revenue Officer
in the certificate issued under Form 13(B).
18. In the impugned orders, the respondent No.3 has
directed the Tahsildar to incorporate the names of the
legal heir of the original pattadar by cancelling the entries
made in favour of the petitoner. The Mandal Revenue
Officer, without conducting proper enquiry has issued the
proceedings in favour of the petitoner and the Revenue
Divisional Officer has to direct the Tahsildar to conduct
denovo enquiry by giving opportunity to the petitoner as
well as the unofficial respondent No.5 and pass
appropriate orders as per the ROR Act, 1971 and Rules
SK,J
there under. But, without conducting any enquiry, the
respondent No.3 cannot direct the respondent No.4 to
mutate the names of the legal heir of the original
pattadar.
19. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is
disposed of by modifying the order passed by the
respondent No.3 in Case No.A/609/2007
dated 27.01.2009 by setting aside the direction to
incorporate the name of the legal heir of the original
pattadar in accordance with the ROR Act, 1971 and
directed the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Doulthabad, to
conduct denovo enquiry by issuing notice to the petitioner
as well as the respondent No.5 and pass appropriate
orders as per the ROR Act and the Rules thereunder,
after considering the documents filed by both the sides.
There shall be no order as to costs.
SK,J
20. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SARATH, J
Date:08.01.2025
sj
