IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, N. BALAYOGI, JJ.
M/s. Trinity Infraventures Limited - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 11032, 11034 & 11037 of 2018
Decided On : 16-08-2018
Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 – Section 9 – Pattas – Grant of – Challenging three different orders passed by the Joint Collector on same day allowing three different revision petitions filed under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the companies in whose favour Tahsildar directed the grant of patta (and which orders were reversed by the Joint Collector by the impugned orders), have come up with the above writ petitions – Held, Even before looking at the order of the Joint Collector, court tested the very basis of the claim of the writ petitioners and court have found (1) that there was no final decree; (2) that the properties are not traceable to the plaint schedule in the suit (3) that the petitioners were not entitled to have mutation in the revenue records, unless and until a final decree in a manner known to law is passed in C.S. and that too in respect of these properties – Writ Petitions Dismissed (Paras 58, 59)
V. Ramasubramanaian, J.
Challenging three different orders passed by the Joint Collector on the same day allowing three different revision petitions filed under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the companies in whose favour the Tahsildar directed the grant of patta (and which orders were reversed by the Joint Collector by the impugned orders), have come up with the above writ petitions.
2. Heard Mr. R.N. Hemandranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Telangana and Mr. C.B. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondents in all the writ petitions.
Tahsildars order
3. By two independent proceedings dated 19-08-2011, the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District directed that the record of rights (i) in respect of lands in Survey No.57 to an extent of Ac.39.00 guntas in Hasmathpet village of Balanagar Mandal, be amended in favour of certain persons; and (ii) in respect of lands in Survey No.1 to an extent of Ac.74.08 guntas in the same village be amended in favour of certain other persons. The ultimate effect of these two orders of the Tahsildar, Balanagar dated 19-08-2011 can be appreciated easily, if presented in a tabular column as follows:-
S. No.
Proc. No.
Date
Sy. No.
Extent
Mutation ordered In favour of
1.
B/805/2011
19-08-2011
1
Ac.12.00
Mrs. Indrani Prasad
Ac.10.00
Mr. S. Murali Krishna
Ac.01.00
Dr. P.S. Prasad
Ac.26.00
M/s. Cyrus Investments Ltd.
Ac.20.00
M/s. Goldstone Exports Ltd., (presently known as Trinity Infraventures Ltd)
Ac.05.00
M/s. Goldstone Infratech. Ltd, (formerly known as Goldstone Engineering Ltd.)
Ac.74.00
2.
B/807/2011
19-08-2011
57
Ac.10.20
Mr. L.P. Sashi Kumar
Ac.01.20
Mr. R. Ramamurthy
Ac.01.00
Dr. P.S. Prasad
Ac.14.00
M/s. Cyrus Investments Ltd.
Ac.20.00
M/s. Goldstone Exports Ltd, (presently known as Trinity Infraventures Ltd)
Ac.39.00
Revisions before the Joint Collector
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders of the Tahsildar effecting mutation in favour of those persons, three independent revisions came to be filed before the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. One revision was filed by (i) Hameedunnisa Begum challenging the order of the Tahsildar in respect of the land in Survey No.57. The other two revisions were filed by (i) Nawab Mohd. Moizuddin Khan relating to the land of an extent of Ac.9.30 guntas in Sy.No.1 and (ii) Noushad Ali and Mansoor Sadruddin, in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.88.35 guntas in Survey No.1.
4. By separate orders dated 09-02-2018 containing identical reasons, the Joint Collector allowed all the three revision petitions and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for a de nova enquiry. Being aggrieved by these three orders of the Revisional Authority, the petitioners, who were the respondents before the Revisional Authority, have come up with the above writ petitions.
The claim of the writ petitioners and the basis of the claim
5. It is seen from the orders of the Tahsildar dated 19-08-2011 that the claim of the writ petitioners for a mutation of the revenue records in their favour in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.1 and 57, was based upon (i) a final decree purportedly passed by this Court in Application Nos.711 and 712 of 2009 in C.S.No.14 of 1958, respectively on 26-02-2010 and 31-03-2010 and (ii) the orders passed in Application No.86 of 2010 in C.S. No.
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.