Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, T. AMARNATH GOUD, JJ.
C. Kalyan – Appellant
Versus
Prl. Secretary, Revenue Dept. and Ors. – Respondents
Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2018 in W.P.M.P. No. 23686 of 2016 in Writ Petition No. 19303 of 2016, Writ Petition No. 19303 of 2016, Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2020 in Writ Petition No. 4311 of 2020 and Writ Petition No. 4311 of 2020
Decided On : 15-12-2020
Mutation - Property Dispute - A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971, Rule 30 - The court directed the respondents to implement mutation orders in the revenue records and incorporate the petitioner's name in the pahani patrika of Hafeezpet Village. The court also set aside the refusal of construction permission by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation based on the claim of the land being Government land, which had been rejected by the court and the Supreme Court in a previous case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed Writ Petitions challenging the non-consideration of representations by the Revenue Authorities and the refusal of construction permission by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner had purchased property and sought mutation of his name in the Revenue Records, which was refused by the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal to implement mutation orders and the denial of construction permission were unjustified. The court held that the State had no title to the land and directed the authorities to implement the mutation orders and grant construction permission.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal of mutation by the Revenue Authorities and the denial of construction permission by the Municipal Corporation based on the claim of the land being Government land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authorities were bound to implement mutation orders as per Rule 30 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971. The court also emphasized that the State's claim of the land being Government land had been rejected in previous litigation and should not influence the decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petitions, set aside the refusal of mutation and construction permission, and directed the authorities to implement the mutation orders and grant construction permission. The respondents were also ordered to pay costs to the petitioner.
ORDER :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
1. Both these Writ Petitions are filed by the same petitioner in relation to mutation by the Revenue Authorities of property admeasuring Ac. 7.27 gts in Survey No. 80/A of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District purchased by the petitioner under registered Sale Deeds and refusal of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to grant construction permission to the petitioner. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.
2. According to petitioner, he had purchased an extent of Acs. 7.27 gts. in Survey No. 80/A of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under registered Sale Deeds bearing Doc. No. 3095/06 dt. 13.02.2006 from Burugupally Sivaramakrishna, Doc. No. 1992/04 from Vishnuvardhan Reddy and G.B. Rajendra Prasad and Doc. No. 7209/15 from Singanamala Ramesh Babu.
3. Thereafter, according to petitioner, (i) for Acs. 2.00 in Survey No. 80/A, orders were passed vide proceeding No. B/186/2009 dt. 29.06.2009 directing mutation of petitioner's name, (ii) for Ac. 0.27 gts. in Survey No. 80/A vide proceedings No. B/184/2009 dt. 29.06.2009 in favour of petitioner's vendor G.B. Rajendra Prasad, and (iii) for Acs. 5.00 in Survey No. 80/A vide proceedings No. B/187/2009 dt. 29.06.2009, in favour of petitioner's vendor Singanamala Ramesh Babu's name.
4. In spite of the same, petitioner contends that they were not carried out and implemented in the Pahani patrikas and in other Revenue Records.
5. Petitioner submitted representation on 04.04.2016 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the Dy. Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District along with an application in Form-VI to grant mutation of his name basing on the sale deeds and to change the entries in the Revenue Records including the Pahani patrikas by deleting the name of the Government therefrom stating that the State Government had lost title to this land in O.S.A. No. 18 of 2010 on 01.02.2011 rendered by this Court and in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22420 of 2011 on 26.11.2013 by the Supreme Court arising out of C.S. No. 14 of 1958.
6. The said Officers did not take any action.
7. Petitioner gave another representation on 27.04.2016 to the same effect enclosing an order dt. 17.03.2016 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 15056 of 2014 for the adjacent Survey No. 77 of Hafeezpet Village wherein it had directed the respondents to delete the name of the State Government and incorporate the name of petitioner in all Revenue Records including pahani patrikas.
8. Nothing was done by the respondents on the said representation also.
9. Petitioner also submitted application for construction permission to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation which rejected it on 21.05.2016 stating that the land is shown as Government land in Maabhoomi website.
W.P. No. 19303 of 2016
10. Petitioner therefore filed W.P. No. 19303 of 2016 challenging the non-consideration of the petitioner's representations dt. 04.04.2016 and 27.04.2016 by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the Dy. Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also the order dt. 21.05.2016 passed by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation refusing to grant municipal permission for construction.
Order dt. 22.2.2017 in WPMP. No. 23686 of 2016 in W.P. No. 19303 of 2016
11. Petitioner had filed WPMP. No. 23686 of 2016 in W.P. No. 19303 of 2016 to direct the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the Dy. Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to grant mutation in his favour as per representations dt. 04.04.2016 and 27.04.2016 and incorporate his name as owner and possessor in all the Revenue Records including the pahanies and Maabhoomi website basing on the registered Sale Deeds in his favour, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
12. On 22.02.2017, this Court passed an interim direction as prayed by relying on the interim order passed on 17.08.2016 in
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
