Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 216 (TS)

Nukala Pushpalatha v. State of Telangana

2025-04-02

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER : K.SARATH, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned Proceeding in case No.E5/7771/2013 dated 27.08.2018 by which the respondent No.2 dismissed the Revision filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the A.P.Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 with respect to land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.18.15 guntas, situated in Sy.Nos.153, 308, 301/A, 214, 215 and 216 of Ayyagaripalli Village, Kuravi Mandal of Mahabubabad District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’) and sought to set aside the same. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5 and perused the record. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the daughter of Late Bandi Narayana Reddy and the said Bandi Narayana Reddy married mother of the petitioner as second wife consequent on death of his first wife. During his life time, father of the petitioner and son of his first wife i.e. the respondent No.5 herein were arrived a family settlement for partition of agricultural lands in which father of the petitioner got an extent of Ac.18.15 guntas in Sy.Nos.153, 308, 301/A, 214, 215 and 216 of Ayyagaripalli Village of Kuravi Mandal of Mahabubabad District. After death of father of the petitioner, the said lands were mutated in the name of mother of the petitioner namely Bandi Soudhamani and Pattadar Pass Books were also issued vide Patta No.160 in the year, 2007. The mother of the petitioner gifted the said lands in favour of the petitioner vide Gift Settlement Deed No.3580/2012 dated 08.05.2012 and since then the petitioner has been in possession of the said land. The mother of the petitioner died in the month of March, 2013. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 got mutated his name in respect of the subject lands. On coming to know about the same in the year, 2013, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad vide RC No.A/763/2013 and the respondent No.3 by its order dated 15.10.2013, cancelled the patta held in the name of mother of the petitioner, without there being any procedure followed known to law. 4. On coming to know about the same in the year, 2013, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad vide RC No.A/763/2013 and the respondent No.3 by its order dated 15.10.2013, cancelled the patta held in the name of mother of the petitioner, without there being any procedure followed known to law. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the appellate authority/respondent No.3 has given a conclusion among other things that the registered Gift Deed executed in favour of the petitioner is null and void though the said Gift Deed was challenged by the respondent No.5 and his son in O.S.No.267 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Judge, Warangal. The respondent No.3 failed to consider that the name of mother of the petitioner was recorded as pattadar till her death i.e. from the years, 2007 to 2013. After death of mother of the petitioner, the Tahsildar mutated name of the respondent No.5 as Pattadar in the revenue records in place of mother of the petitioner. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that being aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent No.3, the petitioner filed Revision before the respondent No.2/Joint Collector, Mahabubabad in Case No.E/7771/2013 and the said Revision was dismissed on 27.08.2018. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that when ROR proceedings were pending, the respondent No.5 herein and his son filed a suit in O.S.No.267 of 2013 on the file of Principal District Judge, Warangal, (subsequently transferred to Mahabubabad) to declare the son of the respondent No.5 as owner and possessor of the suit schedule lands by virtue of Will Deed dated 10.05.2003 and consequently to declare the Gift Deed No.3580/2012 dated 08.05.2012 executed in favour of the petitioner by her mother as null and void and also for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner herein. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit filed by the respondent No.5 and his son in O.S.No.267 of 2013 was dismissed as devoid merits on 21.012.2023. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the respondent No.5 and his son filed appeal in A.S.No.306 of 2024 before this Court and the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.08.2024. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the respondent No.5 and his son filed appeal in A.S.No.306 of 2024 before this Court and the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.08.2024. In view of the same, the findings given by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are without any basis and the same are liable to be set aside and the revenue authorities have to cancel the entries made in favour of the respondent No.5 and requested to allow the writ petition. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance on the following Judgment: 1. Smt.P.Ghousia Begum and others Vs., Basireddy Rukminamma and others, 2019 (5) ALT (DB) 9. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5 reiterated the contents of the counter as mentioned in the impugned orders passed by the Respondent No.2 and 3 respectively and relied on the documents filed along with the counter, but not denied about the dismissal of O.S.No.267 of 2013 filed by the respondent No.5 and his son and also about dismissal of A.S.No.306 of 2024 and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 10. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that, the petitioner herein is questioning the mutation of revenue records in favour of the respondent No.5 in respect of the suit schedule lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.18.15 Guntas, situated in Sy.Nos.153, 308, 301/A, 214, 215 and 216 of Ayyagaripalli Village, Kuravi Mandal of Mahabubabad District and also questioning the orders passed respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the revision and the appeal respectively were dismissed on the ground that there was a settlement between the respondent No.5 and his father and also the Will Deed executed in favour of the son of the respondent No.5. 11. The documents mentioned in the ROR appeal and Revision and contentions were felt for consideration before the learned Principal District Judge, Mahabubabad in O.S.No.267 of 2013 filed by the respondent No.5 and his son for declaration as owner and possessor of the suit schedule lands by virtue of Will Deed dated 10.05.2003 and consequently to declare the Gift Deed No.3580/2012 dated 08.05.2012 executed in favour of the petitioner by her mother as null and void and also for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner herein. After conducting trial and marking the said documents as exhibits including the orders in ROR appeal dated 15.10.2013 as Ex.A5 and the orders in ROR revision dated 27.08.2018 as Ex.A-17 and after hearing both sides, the learned Principal District Judge, Mahabubabad rejected the contention of the respondent No.5 and his son and thereby dismissed the said suit by its Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.5 and his son filed appeal before this Court in A.S.No.306 of 2024 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.08.2024. As on the date, the contentions and the documents relied on by the respondent No.5 were rejected by the competent Civil Court and the same was attained finality. 12. The Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in Smt. P.Ghousia Begum and others Vs. Basireddy Rukminamma and others (supra) squarely apply to the instant case. The relevant operation portion of the Judgment is as under: “7. According to us, when the pattadar Pass book has been issued, the same cannot be cancelled automatically unless Civil Court found that there is no justification for issuance of the same. The presumption of correctness in issuance of Pattadar Passbook in favour of the person always in the act and action of Government. But recording is not conclusive as it may be corrected and rectified by the Civil Court. Unless a competent Civil Court decides the actual title of the property in favour of any person, consequential measure for issuance or cancellation of pattadar passbook does nto arise…” 13. In the instant case also, the competent Civil Court not accepted the contention of the respondent No.5 with regard to Will Deed executed in favour of his son by his father and also cancellation of Gift Deed executed in favour of the petitioner by mother of the petitioner in Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.267 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mahabubabad and the same was attained finality. 14. In view of the above circumstances, the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be set aside and the revenue authorities have to take into account of the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2023 in O.S.No.267 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mahabubabad for mutation of the revenue records. 15. 14. In view of the above circumstances, the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be set aside and the revenue authorities have to take into account of the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2023 in O.S.No.267 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mahabubabad for mutation of the revenue records. 15. With the above findings, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order passed respondent No.2 in Case No.E5/7771/2013 dated 27.08.2018 and also order passed by the respondent No.3 Case No.A/763/2013 dated 15.10.2013. Consequently, the mutation orders passed by the respondent No.4/Tahsildar in respect of the subject lands in favour of respondent No.5 is also hereby set aside. The Tahsildar/Respondent No.4 is directed to take appropriate action for mutation of the records as per ROR Act in favour of the petitioner for suit schedule property by taking into account of the Decree and Judgment dated 22.12.2023 in O.S.No.267 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mahabubabad. 16. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.