Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1028 (TS)

Cherabuddi Kartikeya v. State of Telangana

2025-09-12

K.LAKSHMAN

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Dara Sreesailam, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. Initially, vide 22.07.2024, this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by dispensing with the notice to unofficial respondent No.5 herein, directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 04.07.2024 submitted by the petitioner seeking 3 restoration of his name in the revenue records in respect of the subject property by deleting the name of respondent No.5 and issue e-Pattedar passbook and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, by putting the General Power of Attorney, i.e. the father of the petitioner, respondent No.5 and all affected parties on notice and affording them an opportunity. If, respondent No.2 is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shall pass an order assigning specific reasons and communicate copy of the said order to the petitioner. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 3. Challenging the said order, respondent No.5 preferred a writ appeal vide W.A. No.17 of 2025. Vide judgment dated 06.01.2025, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeal setting aside the said order dated 22.07.2024 with an observation to hear the parties and to decide the writ petition afresh. Therefore, this matter is being decided on merits after hearing both sides. 4. CASE OF THE PETITIONER: i) He is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.39 guntas in Survey Nos.1058/C and 1058/D, situated at Madikonda Revenue Village, Hanamkonda Mandal and District (erstwhile Warangal District), on the strength of registered sale deed bearing document No.3912 of 2004, dated 17.05.2004 executed by Mr. Palla Narsimha Reddy S/o Pulla Reddy. His name was mutated in revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deed bearing No.1107 were also issued in his favour. From the date of his purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. ii) Mr. Palla Narsimha Reddy S/o Pulla Reddy. His name was mutated in revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deed bearing No.1107 were also issued in his favour. From the date of his purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. ii) Mr. Kota Satish & 2 others filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.15752 of 2024 to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not considering the petitioners representation dated 30.05.2024 in not restoring mutating and not issuing e-pattadar passbook in favour of the petitioners in respect of Plot No.18, admeasuring 322 square yards or 269.22 square meters (Ac.0.266 guntas) of petitioner No.1, Plot No.19, admeasuring 370 square yards or 309.35 square meters (Ac.0.305 guntas) of petitioner No.2 and Plot No.16, admeasuring 322 square yards or 269.22 square meters (Ac.0.266 guntas) of petitioner No.3 in Survey Nos.1058/C and 1058/D of Madikonda Revenue Village and Grampanchayat, Hanumakonda Mandal and District, as illegal and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to restore, mutate and issue e-pattadar passbook in respect of the aforesaid plots. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.06.2024 with a liberty to file fresh writ petition. iii) While the petitioner leaving to USA, he executed registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) vide document No.1 of 2006, dated 02.01.2006 and another one vide File No.576 of 2011, dated 19.01.2011 in favoour of in respect of the aforesaid land. iv) While the matter stood thus, respondent No.5 herein in connivance of the then respondent No.4 had obtained fake patta passbook and title deed bearing No.T21080022351 (Khata No.1869) in respect of the aforesaid land. v) On the complaint, an enquiry was conducted by respondent No.3 under Section - 5B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and, vide order dated 03.02.2018 in File No.RC.No.A/1059/2013 cancelled the patta passbook and title deed issued in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas and advised the petitioner herein, respondent No.5 and others to adjudicate title dispute over the subject land before the Competent Civil Court, where civil cases are pending. vi) Since there is no login in Dharani Portal for restoration of name of the petitioner by deleting the name of respondent No.5 in revenue records, the petitioner submitted a written representation dated 04.07.2024. vi) Since there is no login in Dharani Portal for restoration of name of the petitioner by deleting the name of respondent No.5 in revenue records, the petitioner submitted a written representation dated 04.07.2024. Despite the same, respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not restore the name of the petitioner by deleting the name of respondent No.5 in revenue records. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not considering the said representation dated 04.07.2024 as illegal and arbitrary. 5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.5 Respondent No.5 filed counter affidavit denying the claim of the petitioner: i) He disputed about the petitioner’s ownership and enjoyment over the subject land as the same is the subject matter of multiple civil suits pending before the competent Civil Courts since 2012 including O.S. No.3101 of 2022 filed by him against the petitioner. ii) Mere execution of the aforesaid GPAs does not by itself establish the right of the petitioner over the subject property. iii) The proceedings dated 03.02.2018 issued by respondent No.3 cancelling the patta passbook and title deed are only to a limited extent of Ac.0.10 guntas in Survey No.1058, but not the entire extent of Acs.2.39 guntas claimed by the petitioner herein. Further, there is a challenge to the said proceedings before the competent forum and, therefore, the said proceedings dated 03.02.2018 did not attain finality. iv) The grievance of the petitioner pertains to a disputed question of title and possession, which has to be decided by a competent Civil Court. Instead of availing such alternative remedy, the petitioner approached this Court. v) The petitioner suppressed the material facts, particularly with regard to pendency of multiple civil proceedings. vi) There are civil suits pending before the competent Civil Courts viz., O.S. No.1341 of 2012, 744 of 2013, 745 of 2013, 746 of 2013 and 3101 of 2022. Suppressing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Therefore, even on the ground of suppression of material facts, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief. With the aforesaid contentions, respondent No.5 sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT: i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is no doubt true that there are certain civil cases pending as contended by learned counsel for respondent No.5. With the aforesaid contentions, respondent No.5 sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT: i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is no doubt true that there are certain civil cases pending as contended by learned counsel for respondent No.5. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondent No.5 that suppressing pendency of the said cases, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition and, therefore, even on the ground of suppression of material facts, the writ petition has to be dismissed. ii) Therefore, it has to be seen whether the said cases are pending between the petitioner and respondent No.5 herein or not and that the same pertains to the subject property. Perusal of Official Website of Hanumakonda District Court website would reveal that the following civil suits are pending: S. No. Case No. Name of the Court Parties to the Case Relief sought 01. OS No. 3101/22 III AJCJ, Hanumakonda Shyampeta @ Vaskula Devender Vs. 1. Cherabuddi Karthikeya 2. Cherabuddi Raghuveerareddy 3. Venugopal Reddy 4. The Tahsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Kazipet Mandal 5. The Sub-Registrar, Warangal 6. The District Collector, Hanumakonda Suit for Permanent injunction in respect of land AC.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.1058/D 02. OS No. 1341/2012 (III AJCJ Court, Hanumakonda) Renumbered as OS 1436/2025 II ASJ, Hanumakonda Vaskula Devender Vs. 1. Challa Yadagiri 2. Venugopal Reddy 3. Ravi -do- in respect of Ac.0.10 guntas in 1058/A/3 03. OS No. 744/2013 (III A JCJ, Hanumakonda) Renumbered as OS 95/2025 -do- 1. Kota Satish 2. Allam Komuraiah Vs. 1. Vaskula Devender 2. Nasani Murahar -do- in respect of Plot No.18, admeasuring 322 square yards out of Sy.Nos.1058/C & 1058/D 04. OS No. 745/2013 (III AJCJ Court, Hanumakonda) Renumbered as OS 685/2025 I ASCJ, Hanumakonda Gaddam Mohan Rao Vs. 1. Vaskula Devender 2. Nasani Murahari -do- in respect of Plot No.19, admeasuring 370 square yards out of Sy.Nos.1058/C & 1058/D 05. OS No. 746/2013 (III AJCJ Court, Hanumakonda) Renumbered as OS 1150/2025 III ASCJ, Hanumakonda Mudumba Srinivas Vs. 1. Vaskula Devender 2. Nasani Murahari -do- in respect of Plot No.16, admeasuring 322 square yards out of Sy.Nos.1058/C & 1058/D iii) Thus, it is clear that the aforesaid civil cases are pending in respect of the subject land. OS No. 746/2013 (III AJCJ Court, Hanumakonda) Renumbered as OS 1150/2025 III ASCJ, Hanumakonda Mudumba Srinivas Vs. 1. Vaskula Devender 2. Nasani Murahari -do- in respect of Plot No.16, admeasuring 322 square yards out of Sy.Nos.1058/C & 1058/D iii) Thus, it is clear that the aforesaid civil cases are pending in respect of the subject land. It is also clear that out of the aforesaid five (05) Civil Cases, the petitioner herein is arrayed as defendant No.1 in O.S. No.3101 of 2022 (at serial No.1 of the above table) filed by respondent No.5 herein and others. Perusal of entire writ affidavit, there is no reference with regard to pendency of the said civil suit O.S. No.3101 of 2022. In fact, the said suit is of the year 2022, whereas, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 19.07.2024. By the time of filing the present writ petition, the said suit O.S. No.3101 of 2022 is pending and the petitioner entered his appearance in the said suit through his counsel. Suppressing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. iv) In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, there is specific mention with regard to suppression of material facts in the writ affidavit by the petitioner and on that ground alone, he sought to dismiss the present writ petition. There is no explanation from the petitioner with regard to the same. Even, he has not chosen to file any reply to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5 denying the contentions raised by respondent No.5. In view of the same, by applying maxim “suppression veri or suggestion of falsi” the writ petition has to be dismissed on the said ground alone. The said principle was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik , 2025 INSC 218 . v) Even otherwise, coming to the case on hand, it is also apt to note that vide proceedings dated 03.02.2018, on consideration of the pendency of civil disputes, respondent No.3 advised the petitioner to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. v) Even otherwise, coming to the case on hand, it is also apt to note that vide proceedings dated 03.02.2018, on consideration of the pendency of civil disputes, respondent No.3 advised the petitioner to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. In the said order, respondent No.3 observed that as per the report of respondent No.4, the Village Revenue Officer, Madikonda enquired the matter and submitted that Survey No.1058/D is covered by the house plots and during enquiry, the Villagers informed that respondent No.5 is not having any land in Survey No.1058/D. Respondent No.4 has to issue only agricultural lands as per the ROR Act, 1971, but in the present case, respondent No.4 issued pattadar passbooks to house plots. Thus, it was concluded by respondent No.3 that respondent No.4 has not followed the ROR Act, 1971 and the procedure laid down therein. Observing so, respondent No.3 set aside and cancelled the pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.10 guntas in Survey No.1058. vi) Respondent No.3 further observed about pendency of civil cases between the petitioner and respondent No.5 herein and others including O.S. No.1341 of 2012 and granting of temporary injunction in I.A. No.939 of 2012 by learned Pricnipal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in respect of the subject property, and thereby came to a conclusion that there is a title dispute which has to be decided by competent Civil Court. vii) Thus, there is cloud over the title of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has to pursue the said civil suits and crystallize his right over the subject property, thereafter he has to approach competent authority under Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025. Viewed from any angle, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in the present writ petition. Thus, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. CONCLUSION The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the aforesaid civil disputes, crystallize his right over the subject property and approach competent authority in terms of Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Rules, 2025. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.