Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 398 (TS)

Chinna Nagamma v. Tahsildar

2025-04-23

K.SARATH

body2025
JUDGMENT : (K. SARATH, J.) This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the respondent No.4 in Case No.D1/45/2014 dated 23.10.2019 in reversing the orders of the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy in File No.D/113/2007 dated 03.02.2013 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri K. Gani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the mother of petitioners late Chinna Nagamma was the pattadar of lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0-32 gts in Sy.No.127, Ac.0.10 gts in Sy.No.158, Ac.4.13 gts in Sy.No.159, Ac.0.13 gts in Sy.No.175, Ac.0.07 gts in Sy.No.176, Ac.1.26 gts in Sy.No.177, Ac.4.13 gts in Sy.No.195 and Ac.1.06 gts in Sy.No.199 situated at Kanmanoor Village of Peddamandhadi Mandal, Wanaparthy. The unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 by creating the bogus documents and misrepresenting the facts before the respondent No.2-Tahsildar got mutated their names in the revenue records without having any right and the respondent No.2 did not issue any notice to the mother of petitioners prior to said mutation. The mother of petitioner filed appeal bearing No.D/113/2007 before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was allowed on 03.02.2013 setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 and thereafter, the respondent No.2 has restored the name of the mother of petitioners in the revenue records for the subject lands by order dated 18.10.2013 in File No.B/522/2013. Against the said orders, the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed two revisions before the respondent No.4 after formation of new Districts and the village of the petitioners comes under Mahabubnagar District. During pendency of those revisions, the mother of petitioners died on 16.05.2019 and the petitioners being legal heirs were not brought on record by the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the Revision Case No.D1/45/2014. The respondent No.4 has clubbed both the revisions and allowed the revisions by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 in File No.D/113/2007 dated 03.02.2013 and the consequential order passed by the respondent No.2 in File No.B/522/2013 dated 18.10.2013. 4. The respondent No.4 has clubbed both the revisions and allowed the revisions by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 in File No.D/113/2007 dated 03.02.2013 and the consequential order passed by the respondent No.2 in File No.B/522/2013 dated 18.10.2013. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the respondent No.4 has mentioned the names of petitioners as legal heirs in Revision Case No.D1/09/2016, he has not given an opportunity to the petitioners to be impleaded as legal heirs in Case No.D/45/2015 dated 23.10.2019, which is a main case and as such, the order passed by the respondent No.4 in Case No.D1/45/2014 dated 23.10.2019 is void as it was passed against a dead person. He submits that after the orders passed by the respondent No.3 in File No.D/113/2007 dated 03.02.2013, the subject lands were gifted in favour of the petitioner No.1 and his daughter as those lands are ancestral lands and the mother of petitioner got share out of the other shareholders in the subject lands. He further submits that the other share holders have sold the lands to the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 and some others because of illiteracy of the mother of petitioners and they got mutated their names in the revenue records by misrepresenting that the mother of petitioners has sold the lands. He further submits the respondent No.3 after thorough enquiry found that the mother of petitioners did not alienate her share of land to anybody and passed orders for restoration of the name of petitioners in the revenue records in File No.D/113/2007 dated 03.02.2013. He further submits that the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 have created forged documents in collusion with other co-sharers of the lands and got mutated their names in the revenue records and the respondent No.4 without taking into consideration of the grounds raised by the mother of petitioners and after her death without bringing the LRs i.e, petitioners, on record allowed the revision by the impugned order in Case No.D1/45/2014 dated 23.10.2019 and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 23.10.2019. 5. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 based on the counter submits that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 are absolute owners and possessors of certain extents of lands in Sy.Nos.195/E, 199/E, 195/A and 195/AA situated at Kanmanoor Village, Pedda Mandadi Mandal, Mahabuubnagar District through registered sale deeds and the respondent No.2 has mutated their names in the revenue records, issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. The mother of petitioners sold her land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4-13 gts to Musti Chinna Buchanna through registered sale deed dated 25.05.1994 and after 13 years of her sale, she filed case against the respondent Nos.6 and 7 before the respondent No.3, who in turn passed order on 03.02.2013 in File No.D/113/2007 without giving opportunity to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and entered the name of Chinna Nagamma by removing the names of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 in File No.B/522/2013 dated 18.10.2013. Against the said proceedings, the respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed two appeals before the respondent No.4 and in one appeal, they included the petitioners and their mother. He submits that the petitioner No.1 has created a sale document in respect of the disputed land from his mother Nagamma and the respondent No.1 passed the proceedings in File No.B/10183/2016 and entered the name of the petitioner No.1 in the revenue records without any notice to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and when they filed objections, the respondent No.4 passed cancellation of the proceedings of the respondent No.1 in File No.B/10183/2016. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 further submits that as per the records, Sri Narayana, grandson of the original pattadar Sri Thimmanna and Yerranna(son) have sold the subject lands to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 through registered sale deeds and Sri Thimmanna, original pattadar is survived by one son and two daughters. The mother of petitioners is one of the daughters and the petitioners being legal heirs are claiming the share in the lands of the respondent Nos.6 and 7. He further submits that the respondent No.4 after considering all the aspects allowed the revisions and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. The mother of petitioners is one of the daughters and the petitioners being legal heirs are claiming the share in the lands of the respondent Nos.6 and 7. He further submits that the respondent No.4 after considering all the aspects allowed the revisions and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the mother of petitioners filed ROR appeal No.D/113/2007 before the respondent No.3 against the mutation proceedings in favour of the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 with regard to the suit schedule property. After hearing both sides, the respondent No.3 has allowed the said appeal on 03.02.2013 on the ground that the record discloses that no notice was issued to the pattadars at the time of mutation of the names of the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 and set aside the mutation proceedings. As per the ROR Act, if at all any sale by the pattadar, the Tahsildar has to issue notice to the pattadars before mutation even if the sale deeds are true and genuine one. Aggrieved by the said orders, the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 have filed revision before the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 has allowed the revision petition on the ground that the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 have purchased the subject lands through registered sale deeds and continued possession over the subject lands till date. The finding of the revisional authority is without any basis as the respondent No.3 has given a categorical finding that the Tahsildar without following due procedure has mutated the names of the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the records. 8. Once the appellate authority after verifying the records has stated that the mutation proceedings have taken place without following due procedure, it is has to be remanded back to the preliminary authority for conducting enquiry for mutation of the records. In the instant case, the revisional authority without directing to conduct de novo enquiry has allowed the revision filed by the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7. The respondents herein have failed to produce any document to show that the Tahsildar while mutating the records has followed due procedure as required under the ROR Act. In the instant case, the revisional authority without directing to conduct de novo enquiry has allowed the revision filed by the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7. The respondents herein have failed to produce any document to show that the Tahsildar while mutating the records has followed due procedure as required under the ROR Act. Without following due procedure as contemplated under the ROR Act, the revenue authorities cannot mutate the records in favour of any one on the basis of registered documents. In view of the same, this is a fit case to remand the matter to the preliminary authority i.e., Tahsildar, for conducting de novo enquiry by giving opportunity to the contesting parties for mutation of revenue records. 9. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 in Case No.D1/45/2014 dated 23.10.2019 and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1- Tahsildar for conducting de novo enquiry under the ROR Act by giving opportunity to the both sides and pass appropriate orders as per law and communicate the same to the both parties. No order as to costs 10. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.