Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.Sarath
Miyapuram Rajender – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
K. SARATH, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the orders dated 27.12.2017 passed by the respondent No.2/Joint Collector in Case No.D1/3733/2014 and D1/374/2016, whereby the orders passed by the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer in No.B2/878/2013 dated 10.02.2014 and the orders passed by the respondent No.4/Tahsildar in No. B/15499/2009 dated 24.01.2013 were set aside.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents and the learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents and perused the record.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally the subject lands situated at Pedabonkur Village, Peddapalli Mandal and District, belongs to one Surya Prakash and consequent on his death the same were partitioned among his sons namely Narsimhachari, Eswaraiah and others. In the year, 1985, mutation was done as per succession. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the unofficial respondents Nos. 5 to 8, who are the legal heirs of Eshwaraiah, have filed appeal before the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer and the appellate authority passed orders
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to resolve complex title disputes, which must be adjudicated by civil courts.
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate on matters of title and possession, which are reserved for civil courts, and must respect prior civil court findings.
Civil Courts cannot adjudicate matters concerning partition as per H.P. Land Revenue Act, Section 171, which restricts jurisdiction in partition disputes, asserting that remedy lies within revenue au....
The main legal point established is the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing orders under Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passb....
The court ruled that procedural irregularities in land mutation must be rectified, emphasizing the need for proper notice and inquiry before altering land records.
The Revenue Divisional Officer lacks jurisdiction to exercise suo motu powers under the RoR Act, which is reserved for the Collector, emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures.
The High Court confirmed rights established under a 1955 partition decree, emphasizing that the execution of civil court judgments must be respected without unauthorized administrative interference.
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
