Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 423 (TS)

Miyapuram Rajender v. State of Telangana

2025-04-25

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER : K. SARATH, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the orders dated 27.12.2017 passed by the respondent No.2/Joint Collector in Case No.D1/3733/2014 and D1/374/2016, whereby the orders passed by the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer in No.B2/878/2013 dated 10.02.2014 and the orders passed by the respondent No.4/Tahsildar in No. B/15499/2009 dated 24.01.2013 were set aside. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents and the learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents and perused the record. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally the subject lands situated at Pedabonkur Village, Peddapalli Mandal and District, belongs to one Surya Prakash and consequent on his death the same were partitioned among his sons namely Narsimhachari, Eswaraiah and others. In the year, 1985, mutation was done as per succession. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the unofficial respondents Nos. 5 to 8, who are the legal heirs of Eshwaraiah, have filed appeal before the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer and the appellate authority passed orders on 07.02.2011 directing to conduct de novo enquiry afresh. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the unofficial respondents filed a revision before the respondent No.2 under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971. Meanwhile, one Miyapuram Laxminarayana, respondent No.6 withdrawn the revision petition. Accordingly, the Joint Collector, Karimangar disposed of the Revision Petition and directed to Tahsildar, Peddapalli to process necessary action on the subject matter as per the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide Proc.No.D1/3044/2011 dated 09.06.2012. In pursuance of the said orders, the Tahsildar, conducted de novo enquiry by issuing notice dated 2.06.2012 in File No.B/15499/2009 and passed orders stating that there is no land for the Legal Heirs of Late Eswaraiah as they have already sold way. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of the late Eshwaraiah filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in File No.B/2878/2013 and the said appeal was dismissed on 10.02.2014 confirming the orders passed by the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of the late Eshwaraiah filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in File No.B/2878/2013 and the said appeal was dismissed on 10.02.2014 confirming the orders passed by the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the legal heirs of the deceased-Eshwariah filed Revision before the respondent No.2 and through impugned orders, the respondent No.2 has set aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the ground that a Civil Suit in OS Nos.67 of 2007 and O.S.No.83 of 2007 (correct number is O.S.No.44 of 2007) are pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and Junior Civil Judge, Peddapally, respectively and further the Mandal Revenue Officer is not competent to record the partition in the revenue records. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the O.S.No.67 of 2007 was already closed one year prior to passing of impugned orders by the respondent No.2 and another O.S.No.83 of 2007 (correct No.44 of 2007) has nothing to do with the subject property. By virtue of the impugned orders, the revenue authorities wants to change all the entries and this would give a cloud over the properties and alienations will be started by the unofficial respondents and requested to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 by allowing the writ petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions relied on the following Judgments: 1. Edelweiss Asset Constructions Company Ltd., Vs., R.Perumalswamy and others , [ (2021) 11 SCC 98 ] 2. Erukala Uma Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another , [ 2014 (2) ALD 228 (DB)] 3. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy Vs. D.Narsing Rao and others , (2015) 3 SCC 695 . 4. Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Vs. Collector, Haridwar and others , (2017) 16 SCC 418 . 6. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents would submit that the respondent No.2 rightly allowed the revision filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 8. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy Vs. D.Narsing Rao and others , (2015) 3 SCC 695 . 4. Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Vs. Collector, Haridwar and others , (2017) 16 SCC 418 . 6. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents would submit that the respondent No.2 rightly allowed the revision filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 8. The father of the petitioners No.1 and 2, with an ill intention, created a fake partition deed dated 02.08.1976 in respect of properties of Miyapuram Rajeeru including the self-acquired properties of Miyapuram Eswaraiah i.e. lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.26 in Sy.No.675/1, an extent of AC.2.25 guntas in Sy.No.65/B, an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.678, an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.631/D, an extent of Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.632/B, an extent of Ac.3.03 guntas in Sy.No.46, an extent of Ac.3.01 guntas in Sy.No.457 and an extent of Ac.1.11 guntas in Sy.No.303 situated at Peddabonkur Village of Peddapalli Mandal and obtained partition proceedings vide Proc.No.ROR/210/1994, dated 17.10.1997 from the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer, without any jurisdiction and basing on a fake document the subject lands were partitioned stating that there was an oral partition between the family members in the year, 1976. But the Revenue Divisional Officer, without considering the said facts dismissed the revision. 7. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents would further submit that the respondent No.2 in the revision rightly observed that the recording authority i.e. MRO, Peddapally vide Order No.B/15499/2009 dated 24.01.2013 partitioned the subject lands among the brothers of the Joint Family, whereas one of the legal heirs are disputing the same. As a matter of fact, the Mandal Revenue Officer is not competent authority to decide the shares of the joint family and the Civil Court is the competent authority to decide such issues. Apart from that, the two civil suits i.e O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and O.S.No.83 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli are pending for adjudication at the time of mutation. Apart from that, the two civil suits i.e O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and O.S.No.83 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli are pending for adjudication at the time of mutation. The respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, without verifying the competency and dispute over the partition, simply confirmed the orders passed by the Tahsildar, which is not tenable and the respondent No.2 rightly set aside the proceedings issued by the respondent No.3 in case No.B2/878/2013 dated 10.02.2014 and the proceedings of the respondent No.4 in Proc.No.B/15499/2009 dated 24.01.2013 directing the both parties to approach the revenue authorities after the disposal of the civil suits and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 8. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 passed impugned orders by setting aside the orders passed by the Respondent No.3 and 4 on the ground that the Tahsildar has no power to record the partition deed and also in view of pendency civil suit Nos. O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and O.S.No.83 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and directed to both the parties to approach the revenue authorities after disposal of the said civil suits. 9. In fact, the unofficial respondents herein filed O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli for declaration that the orders passed by the respondent No.3 in ROR No.210/1994 dated 27.10.1997 as illegal and not binding on them and rectification of records. The said suit was dismissed for default on 15.11.2016 i.e. prior to passing of the impugned orders by the respondent No.2 in Case No.D1/3733/2014 and D1/374/2016 dated 27.12.2017. The suit schedule property in O.S.No.67 2007 is the subject property in ROR revision filed by the unofficial respondents. Once the declaration suit filed by the unofficial respondents was dismissed for default, the respondent No.2 cannot direct the parties to approach the revenue authorities after the disposal of the said suit. 10. In the impugned order it is also mentioned that O.S.No.83 of 2007 is pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. Once the declaration suit filed by the unofficial respondents was dismissed for default, the respondent No.2 cannot direct the parties to approach the revenue authorities after the disposal of the said suit. 10. In the impugned order it is also mentioned that O.S.No.83 of 2007 is pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. During the course of arguments, both the counsel stated that due to typographical mistake suit number was mentioned as O.S.No.83 of 2007 instead of O.S.No.44 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapally in the impugned orders and the same was filed by one Surya Prakash, brother of the petitioner No.1 and the said suit was filed for injunction against third parties with regard to his own properties and therefore the said suit is nothing to do with the proceedings under ROR. 11. In this regard, the Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Erukula Uma Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra) squarely apply to the facts of the instant case and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as under: “14. We are of the opinion that the Act provides a complete mechanism in respect of making entries in the revenue records. The Act contains a prescribed procedure and lays down the powers of the authorities in relation to passing orders and making entries. The provision envisages that whenever an application is filed before the authorities intimating them about the acquisition of rights and seeking amendment of the entries, the authorities have to put all such persons to notice, whose names are entered in the record of rights, who are interested and who are going to be affected by the amendment. When a person receives a show cause notice from the authorities, it is incumbent upon him, to appear before the authorities and by way of a reply, submit before the authorities all relevant facts including pendency of civil suit, if any. But he cannot straightaway approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek a writ of Mandamus. In such cases, this Court should refrain from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. But he cannot straightaway approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek a writ of Mandamus. In such cases, this Court should refrain from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Hence, we deem it appropriate to clarify the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in V. Goutham Rao''s case, to the extent that, when a show cause notice is issued by a competent authority, just because a civil suit is pending, ipso facto, it will not entitle a party to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the law laid down in V. Gowtham Rao''s case, but the party has to approach the authority by way of a reply and should bring all the relevant facts to the notice of the authority otherwise, the purpose of the Act itself would be frustrated, which is enacted for effective implementation of entries in Record of Rights” In the instant case also, the unofficial respondents before filing the Revision under ROR, have already approached the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli for declaration of title the same schedule property and the said suit was dismissed for default. But, said fact was not brought to the notice of the respondent No.2 and in view of the same the respondent No.2 set aside mutations proceedings in favour of petitioners as if O.S.No.67 of 2007 was pending and directed both the parties to approach the revenue authorities after disposal of the civil suits. In view of the same, the Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in Erukala Uma case’ (surpa) squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. 12. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents in support of their contention relied on the Judgment in K.Jai Pal Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District , [ 2023 (6) ALT 622 (DB) (TS)] and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as under: 31. The judgment of Pramila Modi (supra) referred by the learned counsel for the Appellant/respondent No.3 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case referred (supra), it is the case that transfer of patta is nothing but a title. The judgment of Pramila Modi (supra) referred by the learned counsel for the Appellant/respondent No.3 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case referred (supra), it is the case that transfer of patta is nothing but a title. However, in the present case, the subject lands were alleged to be ancestral properties and the parties herein have common lineage. As such, the properties classified as ancestral properties cannot be claimed by any individual where complex questions of disputes of title exists which are for beyond the scope of summary enquiry and more so, on earlier occasion a partition suit was filed on the subject properties which was dismissed for default. 33. The learned Single Judge, after considering the provisions of the Act and various judgments, finally held as under: "Therefore, the said order was devoid of jurisdiction and far in excess of the powers conferred by the Act of 1971 and the Rules of 1989. The Revenue Authorities, be it the Joint Collector or the Mandal Revenue Officer, acting in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act of 1971 could not have resolved the disputed questions of title which were thrown up by the facts of the present case. The decisions in G.PADMAVATHI's case (supra), PATEL RAGHAV NATHA's case (supra), K.SIDDIAH NAIDU's case (supra), V.GOUTHAM RAO's case (supra), SANNEPALLI NAGESWAR RAO's case (supra) and B.PUSHPAMMA's case (supra) are of guidance and support in this regard. Complex and serious disputes of title falling beyond the ambit of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1989 are not within the ken of the adjudicative authority of revenue authorities even under the Act of 1971. It is for the parties to initiate appropriate proceedings before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction to resolve their dispute and it is not open to either party to turn to the Act of HC, J & NVSK, J 1971 to steal a march over the other. Needless to state, in the event of either party approaching a civil Court of competent jurisdiction, it is open to them to raise all the issues and contentions raised in this writ petition, including the effect and consequences of the dismissal of the suit O.S.No.348 of 1989 for default, and the same would be decided independently without being influenced by any observations made herein. In the result, the order dated 24.07.2000 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 is found to be without jurisdiction and hence, unsustainable. The consequential order dated 10.11.2000 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Act of 1971 had the effect of resolving serious and complex disputes of title far beyond the scope of the summary enquiry which could have been initiated by the said Officer under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1989. The said order is in excess of jurisdiction and is accordingly held to be null and void. The writ petition is therefore allowed. There shall be no order as to costs." The above Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents not apply to the instant case. In the instant case, the unofficial respondents have already approached the Civil Court by filing suit in O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapally for declaration of title and the said suit was dismissed for default prior to passing of the orders passed by the respondent No.2. 13. Further, another suit O.S.No.83 of 2007 (correct number O.S.No.44 of 2007) is not pertaining to the subject property and the said suit was filed by one Surya Prakash, brother of the petitoienr No.1, against third parties, for injunction. In view of the same, the respondent No.2 cannot set aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the ground of the said suit pending for adjudication. The respondent No.2 has to take into account of the dismissal of the suit filed by the unofficial respondents in O.S.No.67 of 2007 and has to pass orders on merits. In view of the same, it is fit case to remand the matter to the respondent No.2 for passing orders in accordance with law. 14. In view of the above findings, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 in case No.D1/3733/2014 and D1/374/2016, dated 27.12.2017 and the matter is remanded back to the revisional authority for passing appropriate orders on merits, as per the existing rules. 14. In view of the above findings, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 in case No.D1/3733/2014 and D1/374/2016, dated 27.12.2017 and the matter is remanded back to the revisional authority for passing appropriate orders on merits, as per the existing rules. Till disposal of the Revision by the revisional authority, both the parties shall maintain status quo in all respects existing as on today. 15. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.