Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
Kosaraju Balaji – Appellant
Vs.
State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
WP No. 17674 of 2014
Decided On : 13-10-2015
Civil Law – A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971 – Section 5(5) – Mutation – Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 5 and 12 to 24 – Delay/Laches/Limitation –Sought for questioning order of mutation in his favour on ground that was the owner and possessor of entire land – Condonation of Delay – Case of petitioner is that Vadde Jangaiah and Vadde Sathaiah were paternal cousins; that apart from other properties, the said Jangaiah and Sathaiah owned agricultural land of Acs. 4-00 in Sy. No. 304 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal; that they shared the said land equally through settlement and consequently pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of Acs. 2-00 each were issued; that after the death of Vadde Sathaiah, respondent Nos. 9 to 11, being his wife and sons, inherited the said property; and that the names of respondent Nos. 9 to 11 have been mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said property from 1997-98 – That the petitioner has purchased Acs. 2-00 in Sy. No. 304/AA vide registered Document from respondent Nos. 9 to 11; that after his purchase said property has been mutated in the pahani as pattedar and occupant – 17 years after mutation of the said land in favour of his vendors and nine years after mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the said property, Smt. Jangamma and other legal heirs of late Vadde Jangaiah-respondent Nos. 5 to 8, filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of Act 1971 – Held, it is noteworthy that almost at the fag end of the hearing of the writ petition, L. Srujan, in whose favour respondent Nos. 5 to 8 claimed to have entered into the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, has filed WPMP for his impleadment on ground that a sale deed was executed by the latter in his favour – By a separate reasoned order, this Court has dismissed the said application. Surprisingly, at no stage of the hearing, respondent Nos. 5 to 8 have disclosed their executing the sale deed in favour of the said applicant in WPMP – From the record, it is also evident that two days after the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney was executed by respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in favour of the said third party, appeal was filed before respondent No. 3. This fact would clearly indicate that the filing of the said appeal was an afterthought and the same was done at the instance of the said third party almost 17 years after mutation has taken place in favour of respondent Nos. 9 to 11 – It needs to be observed that though several aspects were argued by the learned Counsel for both the parties on the merits of the case such as issue of pattadar passbooks etc., it is unnecessary to delve into all these aspects in the light of the finding that the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 8 before respondent No. 3 was hopelessly time barred and that respondent No. 3 had no power or jurisdiction to entertain such appeal unless an application for condonation of delay was made by respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and such delay was condoned by respondent No. 3 for valid reasons – impugned order is quashed – Petition is allowed (Paras 33, 34 and 35)
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
1. This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to call for the records relating to order dated 23.6.2014 of respondent No. 2 in Case No. D1/1388/2014, whereby he has confirmed the order of respondent No. 3 in Case No. C/1488/2014, dated 23.6.2014 and to quash the said orders. The case of the petitioner is that Vadde Jangaiah and Vadde Sathaiah were paternal cousins; that apart from other properties, the said Jangaiah and Sathaiah owned agricultural land of Acs. 4-00 in Sy. No. 304 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal; that they shared the said land equally through settlement dated 27.2.1998 and consequently pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of Acs. 2-00 each were issued; that after the death of Vadde Sathaiah, respondent Nos. 9 to 11, being his wife and sons, inherited the said property; and that the names of respondent Nos. 9 to 11 have been mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said property from 1997-98. That the petitioner has purchased Acs. 2-00 in Sy. No. 304/AA of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal vide registered Document No. 5591/2005, dated 28.5.2005 from respondent Nos. 9 to 11; that after his purchase, the said property has been mutated in the pahani as pattedar and occupant in File No. D/3237/2005, dated 6.9.2005, for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.
2. It is the further case of the petitioner that 17 years after mutation of the said land in favour of his vendors and nine years after mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the said property, Smt. Jangamma and other legal heirs of late Vadde Jangaiah-respondent Nos. 5 to 8, filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971 (for short "the Act"), questioning the order of mutation dated 6.9.2005 in his favour, on the ground that late Vadde Jangaiah was the owner and possessor of the entire extent of Acs. 4-00. The petitioner averred that after the death of Vadde Jangaiah, his wife i.e., respondent No. 5, got her name mutated in respect of Acs. 2-00 vide Proceedings No. B/3617/2002, dated 4.9.2002 and also surrendered the passbook and title deed (Patta No. 386 and Title Deed No. 352488) of her husband. That respondent Nos. 5 to 8 failed to question the mutation effected in favour of Vadde Sathaiah as pattadar; and that they have questioned the consequential orders of mutation of the names of respondent Nos. 9 to 11 in File No. D/6205/2004 in the place of late Vadde Sathaiah. That the subject land was clearly recorded in the name of late Vadde Sathaiah in Form-I Register, but subsequently the records were tampered and the extent of Acs. 4-00 was interpolated against the name of late Vadde Jangaiah in the revenue records; and that respondent Nos. 5 to 8 suppressed the fact that in the sale deed executed by them in favour of third parties they have shown the subject land as neighbour's land. That respondent No. 3/appellate authority, without supplying a copy of the remarks of respondent No. 4 to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to contradict the same, has placed undue reliance on the said remarks, wherein a finding was recorded that mutation in respect of the subject land in favour of late Vadde Sathaiah was effected fraudulently. That respondent No. 3/appellate authority hurriedly and without giving opportunity to the petitioner disposed of the said appeal on 30.5.2014 and set-aside the mutation both in his and his vendors' favour in spite of there being no explanation offered by respondent Nos. 5 to 8 for the delay of 17 years by way of filing an application for condoning the said delay; and that though he was transferred on 3.6.2014, respondent No. 3 passed the order by antedating the same. That questioning the said order, the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 9 of the Act before respondent No. 2 on 7.6.2014 alongwith an application seeking suspension of the order of respondent No. 3; that respondent No
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
