Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Bairy Samba Siva Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Telangana, Department of Revenue, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.10592 OF 2019
Decided On : 16-04-2024
Mandamus - Land Rights - ROR Act Sections 5, 5-A - The court interpreted the provisions of the ROR Act, emphasizing the necessity of notice to all interested parties during record amendments, and concluded that disputed property rights must be resolved in civil court rather than through writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the issuance of a pattadar passbook to the respondent, claiming the land was joint property of their deceased mother, while the respondent asserted ownership through a family partition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issues raised were disputed questions of fact regarding property ownership and rights, which could not be resolved in a writ petition and required adjudication in a civil court.
Issues: Whether the subject property was joint property of the deceased and if the issuance of the pattadar passbook to the respondent was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to resolve complex title disputes and that such matters must be addressed in civil court.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed, leaving the petitioners to seek resolution in civil court.
ORDER :
(J. Sreenivas Rao, J.) :
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
2. Heard Sri S.Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Mahith Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri Pramod Maligi, learned counsel for respondent No.6, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the official respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that mother of petitioner No.1, namely, Bairy Kanakamma, was the owner and possessor of agricultural land in Survey No.44 to an extent of Ac.1.17 guntas and in Survey No.46 to an extent of Ac.1.23 guntas, total extent of Ac.3.00 gunts, situated at Mucherla Village of Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal Urban District, which was retained by herself after allotment of certain lands in different survey numbers in favour of her four sons, namely, B.Veera Reddy (respondent No.6 herein), B.Samasiva Reddy (petitioner No.1 herein), late B.Raji Reddy and late B.Satyanarayana Reddy and pursuant to the said allotment, they are enjoying their respective shares and their names were mutated in the revenue records in the year 2003 and they obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds.
3.1. He further submits that Government had acquired the land to an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.44 and Ac.1.10 guntas in Survey No.46, out of an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas, belonging to Bairy Kanakamma in the year 2007 for laying Devadula Pipeline and accordingly, Government paid compensation to her and she is in possession of remaining extent of land to an extent of Ac.1.07 guntas in Survey No.44 and Ac.0.13 guntas in Survey Nos.46, total extent of Ac.1.20 guntas, and she died on 16.04.2015. After her death, when respondent No.6 is trying to mutate his name in the revenue records in respect of the above said land, petitioner No.1 made a representation, dated 12.01.2017, before respondent No.4 requesting him not to entertain any application from respondent No.6 as the above said land is a joint property. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 submitted another representation dated 29.05.2017 requesting respondent No.4 not to change the existing name of his mother Bairy Kanakamma in the revenue records and basing on the said representation, Village Revenue Officer submitted a report, dated 14.06.2017, to respondent No.4 stating that petitioner No.1 and other family members are claiming rights over the property of late Bairy Kanakamma on the ground that said property is a joint property.
3.2. He further submits that in spite of the same, respondent No.6 got mutated his name in the revenue records with respect to the subject property and obtained pattadar pass book and title deed from the office of respondent No.4. After came to know about the same, petitioner No.1 immediately approached respondent No.4 and submitted a representation dated 03.05.2019 requesting him to cancel the revenue entries and also pattadar p
The judgment establishes the principle that mutation entries in revenue records do not determine land title and ownership, and disputed titles should be referred to the Civil Court for adjudication.
The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention in land disputes, affirming that the right of appeal must be explicitly provided by law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that illegality cannot be perpetuated, and the court may refuse to set aside an illegal order, even if it goes against established legal princip....
Revenue authorities may not adjudicate on civil title disputes under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act; parties should approach civil court for resolution.
The court emphasized that pattadar passbooks must be issued only after valid mutation proceedings, and any orders issued without such proceedings are void.
Claims for land ownership after significant delays must be addressed by civil courts, as administrative bodies cannot adjudicate on disputed titles without violating established rights.
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
