Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 364 (TS)

Marepally Pandurangam v. State of Telangana

2021-11-24

A.ABHISHEK REDDY

body2021
ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6. 2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 21.05.2014, passed by respondent No.4 – the Tahsildar vide File No.B1/566/2013, entering the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the revenue records and issuing pattadar passbooks in their favour in respect of the land, admeasuring Ac.0.06 guntas, in Survey No.49-E, situated at Muthangi Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District. 3. This Court, on 03.02.2020, while admitting the writ petition, in I.A.No.1 of 2020, has granted interim stay as prayed for. Seeking to vacate the said interim order, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed vacate stay application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has purchased the plot, admeasuring 400 square yards, in Survey No.49, situated at Muthangi Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, under registered sale deeds, dated 21.12.1992 and 09.12.1999 and that after purchasing the said plot, he has obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat concerned and constructed three shops in the said plot. Learned counsel has further stated that the subject land has already been converted into plots, and has drawn the attention of this Court to the layout dated 23.10.1991 granted by the Gram Panchayat concerned. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the photographs filed by the petitioner, which show the existence of structures in the subject land. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents has vehemently contended that the land to an extent of Ac.1.24 guntas has been sold by one Latchi Raju, the GPA holder - vendor of the petitioner, wrongly, instead of Ac.01.18 guntas, which includes the land of the unofficial respondents to an extent of Ac.0.06 guntas. Therefore, the unofficial respondents were constrained to file an appeal before the respondent No.4 – Tahsildar. The respondent No.4 – Tahsildar, duly taking into consideration all the necessary facts, conducting proper enquiry and putting the petitioner on notice, has passed the impugned order. The learned counsel has further stated that as on date there is no order converting the subject land from agriculture to non-agriculture. 6. Heard both sides and perused the record. 7. The respondent No.4 – Tahsildar, duly taking into consideration all the necessary facts, conducting proper enquiry and putting the petitioner on notice, has passed the impugned order. The learned counsel has further stated that as on date there is no order converting the subject land from agriculture to non-agriculture. 6. Heard both sides and perused the record. 7. A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents, more particularly the pahanies for the year 2012-13 filed by the petitioner, and the adangals/pahanies filed by the unofficial respondents, show that the subject land is shown as non-agricultural land and it was converted into plots. Once the agricultural lands are converted into non-agricultural lands and divided into plots, the Revenue Authorities do not have any jurisdiction to interfere with the matter under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for short, ‘the Act’). The provisions of the Act provide for making entries in respect of the agricultural lands only, but not non-agricultural lands. Though there are no orders of conversion in respect of the subject land, if the nature of the land is changed from agriculture to non-agriculture and the land is converted into plots, and no more put to agricultural use, the respondent authorities cannot issue pattadar passbooks in respect of the said land. 8. A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, more particularly, the sale deeds, building permission obtained from the Gram Panchayat as well as the photographs, shows the existence of the structures in the subject land. Therefore, it cannot be said that the land is still being used for agricultural purposes. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 insofar as Ac.0.06 guntas in Survey No.49/E, is one without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order, insofar as the extent of Ac.0.06 guntas in Survey No.49/E is set aside and the writ petition is partly allowed. However, if the petitioner is so advised, he is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to agitate his rights. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.