Subject land treated as a free hold land.

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside memo in File No.B/51/13, dated 29.01.2013, of respondent No.3, whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner in Form-VIA for mutation of her name in the record of rights in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.4.39 cents in Survey No.268/2 of Kammeta Village and Gram Panchayat, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the subject land’).

I have heard Sri Mahmmod Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area).

The petitioner averred that she has purchased the subject land under registered sale deed, dated 21.05.2001, from one Kancherla Buchi Reddy. The petitioner traced the title to the property by referring to the registered sale transactions, viz., sale deed, dated 25.02.1975, executed by one Junnawada Papaiah in favour of Budda Anthaiah and the sale deed, dated 16.07.1998, executed by Budda Anthaiah in favour of the petitioner’s vendor. The petitioner further pleaded that her predecessors-in- title had been in possession of the subject land and that the revenue records recorded their names as the owners/pattadars.

The petitioner filed an application before respondent No.3 in Form-VIA for mutation of her name in the record of rights in respect of the subject land. By the impugned proceedings, the said application was rejected on the ground that it is a Government land and that it is covered by laoni patta. The petitioner assailed the said order by stating that the subject land is neither a Government land nor covered by laoni patta. She has also referred to the circumstance of granting of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of her vendor, to buttress her claim that the subject land is a private land. The petitioner filed copies of the sale deeds, dated 25.02.1975, 16.07.1998 and 21.05.2001, which prove that the sale transactions were registered without any objection by the registering authority. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of her vendor by name Kancherla Buchi Reddy on 08.08.1995, wherein the subject land is described as his own.

In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is, inter alia, stated that as per the khasara pahani, the land admeasuring Acs.14.31 guntas in Survey No.268 was recorded as Kharij Khatha Sarkari; that out of the entire extent, an extent of Acs.4.39 guntas was assigned to one Junnawada Papaiah; and that the said Papaiah has sold the land to one Budda Anthaiah, who, in turn, has sold the same to Kancherla Buchi Reddy, who sold the land to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that the land assigned under the laoni patta is heritable but not alienable. Purporting to support the averments in the counter-affidavit, respondent No.3 has filed certain extracts of the revenue records. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) fairly conceded that these extracts would not pertain to khasara pahani. He is also unable to state from these extracts that any entry has been made in any of these extracts showing that the subject land is covered by a laoni patta.

The counter-affidavit refers to File No.B1/6938/1965, under which the subject land was stated to have been allotted to Junnawada Papaiah. A perusal of the first page of the revenue extract filed by respondent No.3, along with the counter-affidavit shows that it contains the said file number and an Urdu endorsement, which was translated by Sri Mahmood Ali at the hearing. According to him, the purport of the Urdu endorsement is to the effect that the number was referable to a memo No.B1/6938/1965, issued on 10.12.1965 by the Tahsildar’s Office, Hyderabad District. The learned counsel submitted that the said extract does not refer to any laoni patta though the name of Papaiah has been shown at Serial No.3 and the land admeasuring Acs.4.39 guntas has been mentioned in Column No.7.

As rightly sub