Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 515 (TS)

Mohemmed Layeeq v. State of Telangana

2025-04-30

C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

body2025
ORDER : C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J. This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein more particularly the 5 th respondent in not considering the representation dated 18.04.2025 made by the petitioner herein from stopping the mutation proceedings initiated by 6 th to 8 th respondents in respect of Sy.No.433/AA2 admeasuring Ac.0.14 gts., Sy.No.433/AA1 admeasuring Ac.014 gts., Sy.No.433/AA admeasuring Ac.0.12 gts., Sy.No.433/A admeasuring Ac. 1.00.gts., total an extent of Ac.2.00 gts., situated at Mamidipally Village, Sanga Reddy Mandal and District, Telangana, Pattadar and Title passbook vide No. T09080051209 and Khata No.20396 as illegal, arbitrator and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 more particularly 5 th respondent to considered the representation dt.18.04.2025 and to stop the mutation proceedings in favour of 6 th to 8 th respondents based on Judgment and Decree vide O.S.No.21 of 2014 passed by the Hon’ble Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy District at Sanga Reddy Judgment and Decree dt.21.10.2024 as the petitioner is not a party to the said suit which is not binding on the petitioner herein and pass such other order or orders as Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. It is stated that the petitioner is pattadar and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 0.14 guntas in Survey No.433/AA2, Acs. 0.14 guntas in Survey No.433/AA1, Acs. 0.12 guntas in Survey No.433/AA and Acs. 1.00 guntas in Survey No.433/A, total admeasuring Acs. 2.00 guntas, situated at Mamidipally Village, Sanga Reddy Mandal and District (for short, ‘the subject land’), having purchased the same from one Mohammed Abdul Muqthadeer through registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.53253 of 2019 dated 11.07.2019 and the petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deeds were also issued in favour of the petitioner vide Passbook No.T09080051209 and Khata No.20396. It is further stated that respondent Nos.6 to 8 filed a suit vide O.S.No.21 of 2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy District, against one Jamalpur Chandra Kumar, who sold the subject land to one Mohammed Abdul Muqthadeer, who is the vendor of the petitioner and judgment and decree was passed in the said suit on 21.10.2024 and petitioner is not a party to the said suit. It is further stated that basing on the said judgment and decree, respondent Nos.6 to 8 have filed online application for mutation of their names in respect of the subject land. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has submitted a representation on 18.04.2025 to the 5 th respondent requesting not to entertain the application submitted by respondent Nos.6 to 8 and to stop the mutation proceedings in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 8. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to respondent Nos.6 to 8 is dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the revenue authorities do not have any power or authority to implement the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy District, in O.S.No.21 of 2014, which was obtained by respondent Nos.6 to 8. It is submitted that the decree holders are required to approach the competent Civil Court by instituting an Execution Petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and only after issuance of notice to all the interested and affected parties, the said judgment and decree be implemented in accordance with law. 5. A Full Bench of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal and others , [ AIR 2008 AP 15 ] held that, all the persons, who are affected by the grant of succession, mutation, amendment or rectification of revenue records, are entitled for issuance of notice and non-issuance of notice would amount to violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to provisions of Telangana Record of Rights and Pattadar Passbooks Act. 6. 6. In view of the above submission and in view of the settled legal position in Chinnam Pandurangam ’s case (supra), the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to make an application on the file of the 4 th respondent with regard to his grievance and in the event of such an application being made by the petitioner, the 4 th respondent shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law and as per the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 and Rules made thereunder before altering or amending the revenue records in respect of the subject land. 7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.