Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 29 (TS)

Thati Bhadramma v. State of Telangana

2026-01-06

K.SARATH

body2026
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Kiran Reddy Mallarapu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. Perused the material on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing Endorsement in Rc.B/302/2020 dated 24.02.2021 for not implementing the orders passed by the respondent No.2 in ROR Case No.2/BPD/2019 dated 11.12.2019 to un-sign the Khata and initiate a fresh enquiry to incorporate the petitioner’s name in the concerned revenue records for the land in Sy.No.440/A (Old Sy.No.440/68 Old) admeasuring Ac.10-00 guntas, situated at Laxmipuram Village, Burgampadu Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District (for brevity “the subject property”) as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject property, originally assigned by the Government to her late father, Soyam Singaiah. The petitioner, being the sole legal heir, filed O.S.No.156 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and obtained a decree on 18.09.2017 declaring her as Class-I legal heir of late Soyam Singaiah. While it being so, the respondent No.4, wife of one Khasim Babu, who claims to be the adopted son of Soyam Singaiah/Assignee, approached the revenue authorities and got her name mutated as pattadar and possessor of the subject property vide MUT/27/06/00382/2018 dated 04.09.2018, relying on a registered Will deed No.22/2012 dated 19.06.2012 allegedly executed by Soyam Singaiah in her favour. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, aggrieved by the mutation proceedings issued by the respondent No.3-Tahsildar vide MUT/27/06/00382/2018 dated 04.09.2018, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.2-Sub Collector, Bhadrachalam, under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, which was disposed vide order dated 11.12.2019 in ROR Case No.2/BPD/2019, directing the respondent No.3 to un-sign the Khata and to initiate a fresh enquiry. For implementation of the said order, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.10191 of 2020 and after disposal of the said Writ Petition, the respondent No.3-Tahsildar passed the impugned endorsement in Rc.No.B/302/2020 dated 24.02.2021, which is challenged in the instant Writ Petition. 5. For implementation of the said order, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.10191 of 2020 and after disposal of the said Writ Petition, the respondent No.3-Tahsildar passed the impugned endorsement in Rc.No.B/302/2020 dated 24.02.2021, which is challenged in the instant Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the impugned endorsement dated 24.02.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 was on the ground that the respondent No.4 has succeeded the subject property through the registered Will deed No.22/2012 dated 19.06.2012 and the respondent No.4 has also obtained ex-parte injunction order in O.S.No.62 of 2019 dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Kothagudem, advising the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of the her grievance. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the subject property is an assigned land to late Soyam Singaiah/Assignee by the Government and the Assignee cannot execute the registered Will deed in favour of a stranger to the family and there are no valid proceedings to show that the father of the petitioner adopted the husband of the respondent No.4 and basing on the recital in the registered Will deed executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.4, the respondent authorities cannot declare the respondent No.4 as the legal heir of the Assignee and the same is contrary to the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for brevity, “the Act, 1977”) and also the orders passed by this Court. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned endorsement dated 24.02.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 and directing the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry for mutation of entires in the revenue records in favour of the legal heirs of late Soyam Singaiah/Assignee. 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that late Soyam Singaiah was the original assignee and pattadar of the subject property and the land is an assigned Government land. The late Soyam Singaiah/Assignee executed a registered Will deed bearing No.22/2012 dated 19.06.2012 in favour of his daughter-in-law, i.e., respondent No.4, bequeathing Ac.10-00 gts. The late Soyam Singaiah/Assignee executed a registered Will deed bearing No.22/2012 dated 19.06.2012 in favour of his daughter-in-law, i.e., respondent No.4, bequeathing Ac.10-00 gts. in Sy.No.440/68, reciting that he has a daughter, Thati Bhadramma (the petitioner) through his first wife, that he adopted Khasim Babu as his son and after the death of the adopted son, the respondent No.4 looked after him and his wife, so he allotted the land to her. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that the respondent No.2 did not direct incorporation of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records, but only directed un-signing of the respondent No.4’s Khata and a fresh enquiry. In compliance of the same, the respondent No.3 un-signed the Khata of the respondent No.4, initiating fresh proceedings, issued notices to both the petitioner and the respondent No.4, received their claims and documents, conducted detailed enquiry, examined their documentary evidence and rejected the petitioner’s claim on the ground that the original pattadar’s registered Will is in favour of the respondent No.4 and the same has already been recognized by the Civil Court in O.S.No.62 of 2019. The decree in O.S.No.156 of 2017, relied upon by the petitioner, is not sustainable in view of the registered Will deed in favour of the respondent No.4 and the subsequent decree in O.S.No.62 of 2019. The petitioner, without challenging the decree in O.S.No.62 of 2019, has approached this Court and in view of the same, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and therefore, requested to dismiss the same. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that the father-in-law of the respondent No.4, Soyam Singaiah, was pattadar, title holder and possessor of the subject property and during his lifetime, he executed a registered Will Deed No.22/2012 dated 19.06.2012 bequeathing the said land in her favour. Soyam Singaiah died on 21.01.2016, whereupon the Will came into force and she became absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 further submits that, basing on the said Will deed, the name of the respondent No.4 was entered in the revenue records as owner and possessor of the subject property and the respondent No.3 issued pattadar passbooks in her name vide Passbook No.T27060121251, Khata No.60040 and the online pahanies and 1-B also stand in her name. The petitioner filed O.S.No.156 of 2017 for declaration that she is a Class-I legal heir of late Soyam Singaiah, which was decreed on 18.09.2017, but the respondent No.4 was not made a party and therefore, the decree is not binding on her. Further, the respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.62 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, for perpetual injunction against the petitioner in respect of the subject property, wherein summons were served on the petitioner, who did not appear and was set ex-parte and the suit was decreed on 12.08.2019 granting perpetual injunction in favour of the respondent No.4. The petitioner has not challenged either the Will deed or the Civil Court decree and has instead approached this Court, while the respondent No.4 remains in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and requested this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition. 11. After hearing both sides and on a perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the father of the petitioner, Soyam Singaiah, was the owner of the subject property and the same was assigned to him by the Government. The father of the petitioner expired on 21.01.2016. The petitioner filed O.S.No.156 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, for a succession decree, which was granted in her favour, declaring her as a Class-I legal heir of late Soyam Singaiah. Consequently, the petitioner made an application for mutation of the revenue records in her favour in respect of the subject property, but the respondent authorities passed the mutation proceedings vide MUT/27/06/00382/2018 dated 04.09.2018 in favour of the respondent No.4. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings by filing an appeal before the respondent No.2 vide Case No.2/BPD/2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2019, directing the respondent No.3 to unsign the Khata entries in the revenue records made in favour of the respondent No.4 and to conduct a fresh enquiry. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings by filing an appeal before the respondent No.2 vide Case No.2/BPD/2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2019, directing the respondent No.3 to unsign the Khata entries in the revenue records made in favour of the respondent No.4 and to conduct a fresh enquiry. Thereafter, in view of non- compliance of the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10191 of 2020 and pursuant to the order dated 31.12.2020 passed by this Court, the respondent No.3 passed the present impugned endorsement dated 24.02.2021 by rejecting the claim of the petitioner for mutating the entries in the revenue records in her name and directing the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court, on the grounds that the respondent No.4 holds a registered Will deed in her favour executed by the father of the petitioner, late Soyam Singaiah/Assignee and an ex-parte injunction decree in O.S.No.62 of 2018 dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. 12. The main contention of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner, being the assignee of Government land, had no power to execute a Will deed in favour of the respondent No.4, who is not a family member of Soyam Singaiah/ Assignee. As per the conditions stipulated in the assignment patta, the property is inheritable, but not transferable. In view of the same, the respondent authorities, basing on the registered Will deed, passed the impugned endorsement, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1977. 13. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that the Assignee executed the registered Will deed as the respondent No.4 is the daughter-in-law of the Assignee and the Civil Court passed an ex-parte injunction decree in her favour. 14. The relevant portion of Section 3 of the Act, 1977 reads as under: “3. 13. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that the Assignee executed the registered Will deed as the respondent No.4 is the daughter-in-law of the Assignee and the Civil Court passed an ex-parte injunction decree in her favour. 14. The relevant portion of Section 3 of the Act, 1977 reads as under: “3. Prohibition of transfer of assigned lands: (1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed of transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred; and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. (2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise. (3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be null and void. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to any transaction of the nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or of any award or order of any other authority. (5) Nothing in this section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of such commencement.” 15. The above provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1977, clearly show that any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be null and void, in spite of execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority. 16. The above provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1977, clearly show that any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be null and void, in spite of execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority. 16. In view of the above provisions, the contention of the respondents is unacceptable, as the registered Will deed mentions the petitioner’s name as the daughter of the Assignee, but states, without reference to any supporting document or date, that the husband of the respondent No.4 had been adopted by the father of the petitioner. A mere recital cannot be treated as sufficient to consider the respondent No.4 as the family member of the deceased Soyam Singaiah/Assignee. In view of the same, the respondent authorities, under a misconception and basing on the registered Will deed, mutated the name of the respondent No.4 and such mutation cannot be said to be in conformity with the Act, 1977. 17. This Court considered a similar matter in Katta Yesuratnam vs. Commissioner, Land Revenue, Hyderabad & others , (1997) 6 ALT 829 , holding that a Will deed in respect of the assigned land is permissible only among the family members of the Assignee and not in favour of a stranger. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “It may be true that a Will executed under common law operates on the death of the testator/testatrix, and it is a testamentary disposition. May be that it is not a transfer under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The argument of Mr. V.V.S. Rao, is that even the definition of ‘transfer’ under Section 2(6) of the Act excludes the testamentary disposition and as the Will is a testamentary disposition, it is outside the purview of A.P. Act No. 9 of 1977. A.P. Act. No. 9 of 1977 titled as “The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977” enacted to prohibit transfer of certain lands assigned to landless poor persons in the State of Andhra Pradesh, is a legislation made as a measure of social justice to provide livelihood to the landless poor persons and is a beneficial legislation for such landless poor persons. The lands are assigned to the landless poor persons for their enjoyment, as also the enjoyment of their heirs. The lands are assigned to the landless poor persons for their enjoyment, as also the enjoyment of their heirs. As such, the conditions that the assigned land is heritable but not alienable and that it should be in cultivation of the assignee and his family members, have to be read together and in this context, the definition of the word ‘transfer’ under Section 2(6) of the Act has to be tested including the exclusion of testamentary disposition from the said word ‘transfer’. This exclusion of testamentary disposition from the word ‘transfer’ under Section 2(6) of the Act is not in general sense and the testamentary disposition is not used or understood as in common parlance. It should be read down and understood in the context of the objects and intendment of the Act, which totally prohibits the induction of strangers to the family of assignee either during his life time or thereafter. As such, the words “testamentary disposition” employed under Section 2 (6) of the Act, have to be understood that the assignee can execute a Will choosing some of his family members to succeed to the assigned lands excluding one or some among his family members. As such, the will even if it is a testamentary disposition can only be among the family members of the said assignee but not to a stranger. This is the proper construction to be given to a beneficial legislation of this nature, as otherwise, it is capable of being abused and misused. If bequeathing of the assigned land to a stranger to a family is allowed, then under the guise of a will, the lands which are otherwise precluded from alienation or transfer can easily be transferred labeling it as a Will and then the very purpose of the Act will be frustrated. While interpreting the beneficial statutes, one which further the object of the Act should be adopted even by passing the common and general notions. As such, I hold that the Will, even though a testamentary disposition, is not permissible in the case of assigned land covered by A.P. Act No. 9 of 1977 in favour of strangers to the family. A Will can be executed by the assignee under A.P. Act No. 9 of 1977 only in favour of his family member/s and not to strangers. As such, this contention also fails.” 18. A Will can be executed by the assignee under A.P. Act No. 9 of 1977 only in favour of his family member/s and not to strangers. As such, this contention also fails.” 18. The above findings of this Court squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. The respondent No.4 is a stranger to the family of the petitioner and also to the deceased Soyam Singaiah/Assignee. In view of the same, the registered Will deed dated 19.06.2012 in favour of the respondent No.4, cannot be taken into consideration for mutation of the assigned lands, which are required to be mutated only in favour of the legal heir of the deceased Soyam Singaiah/Assignee. 19. This Court, in Chenna Reddy vs. D. Venkata Reddy , (2004) 1 ALT 406 also considered the scope of testamentary disposition in respect of assigned lands under the Act, 1977. In paragraph No.14 of the said Judgment, it was observed that, though testamentary disposition is generally permissible, in the context of assigned lands the term “heritable” must be understood as favouring only family members and that all blood relatives do not automatically fall within the fold of “family members” reiterating that a Will can be executed by the Assignee only in favour of his family member/s and not in favour of strangers and the relevant portion of the Judgment at paragraph No.14, reads as under: “14. It is no doubt true that the respondent/plaintiff had not specifically pleaded about the family or the joint family as such, but the fact remains that the 3rd defendant is the brother and the respondent/plaintiff is the brother's son belonging to the same family since Narayanappa died unmarried. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is the sister's son. Since a sister's son also is a blood relative, such a blood relative will not be a stranger and hence there could be testamentary disposition in favour of such a blood relative, is the stand taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Since the term “family” is not defined under the Act, the definition of the same in Webster's Dictionary had been relied upon wherein on doubt it is stated that all persons in the family related by blood or marriage also may fall within the meaning of “family”. However, apart from the condition of non-alienability, there is a condition relating to the heritabilty also. However, apart from the condition of non-alienability, there is a condition relating to the heritabilty also. The term or expression “heritable” can be definitely construed as one in favour of the family members and all blood relatives cannot fall within the fold of the family members. In the decision referred (3) supra, it was held: “The lands are assigned to the land less poor persons for their enjoyment, as also the enjoyment of their heirs. As such, the conditions that the assigned land is heritable but not alienable and that it should be in cultivation of the assignee and his family members, have to be read together and in this context, the definition of the word ‘transfer’ under section 2(6) of the Act has to be tested including the exclusion of testamentary disposition from the said word ‘transfer’. This exclusion of testamentary disposition from the word ‘transfer’ under Sec. 2(6) of the Act is not in genera sense and the testamentary disposition is not used or understood as in common parlance. It should be read down and understood in the context of the objects and intendment of the Act, which totally prohibits the induction of strangers to the family of assignee either during his lifetime or thereafter. As such, the words ‘testamentary disposition’ employed under Section 2(6) of the Act have to be understood that the assignee can execute a Will choosing some of his family members to succeed to the assigned lands excluding one or some among his family members. As such, the will even if it is a testamentary disposition can only be among the family members of the said assignee but not to a stranger. This is the proper construction to be given to beneficial legislation of this nature, as otherwise, it is capable of being abused and misused. If bequeathing of the assigned land to a stranger to a family is allowed, then under the guise of a will, the lands which are otherwise precluded from alienation or transfer can easily be transferred labeling it as a will and then the very purpose of the Act will be frustrated. While interpreting the beneficial statutes, one which furthers the object of Act should be adopted even by passing the common and general notions. While interpreting the beneficial statutes, one which furthers the object of Act should be adopted even by passing the common and general notions. As such, that the will, even though a testamentary disposition, is not permissible in the case of assigned land covered by A.P. Act No. 9 of 1977 in favour of strangers to the family. A will can be executed by the assignee under A.P. act No. 9 of 1977 only in favour of his family member/s and not to strangers.” 20. As per the conditions in the assignment patta, the property is inheritable but not transferable by any mode of transaction. The above findings of this Court clearly shows that a registered Will deed must be executed in favour of the family members and not to strangers. In view of the same, the document relied upon by the respondent authorities in passing the present impugned endorsement, as well as the ex-parte injunction decree, cannot be taken into account for mutating the revenue records in favour of the respondent No.4. In view of the same, the impugned endorsement passed by the respondent No.3 is liable to be set-aside and the respondent authorities have to conduct a fresh enquiry to record the names of the family members of the deceased Soyam Singaiah/Assignee, following the due procedure contemplated under law. 21. In the light of the above findings, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned endorsement dated 24.02.2021 in Rc.B/302/2020 and directing the respondent No.3 to conduct a de novo enquiry to incorporate the names of the family members of the deceased Soyam Singaiah/Assignee in respect of the subject property, by following the due procedure as contemplated under the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025, by issuing notices to the petitioner and any other interested/affected parties, affording them an opportunity of hearing, including a personal hearing and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.