Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 10526
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. LAKSHMAN, J
K.Bheemsen Rao – Appellant
Versus
The state of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.8245 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. Murtuza Ali Faruqui
For the Respondents: Mr. Somu Srinivasa Reddy, Mr. Raja Shekar Reddy Vanjari
Ownership disputes regarding agricultural land must be resolved by the appropriate appellate authority, ensuring notice and opportunity to all parties involved.
Headnote:(A) Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Section 38-E - Writ petition seeking mandamus to declare certificate issued by authorities as illegal - Petitioners claimed ownership and possession of land based on title deeds and revenue records, asserting no lease or contract with any other party - Respondent No.5 claimed rights based on tenancy certificates issued to her grandfather - Court noted disputed facts regarding ownership and possession, stating that the Additional Collector must decide the appeal filed under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
Findings of Court:
The Additional Collector is directed to decide the petitioners' appeal under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act, providing notice and opportunity to both parties. (Para 7)
Issues: The main issues include the validity of the ownership certificate issued to respondent No.5 and the rightful ownership of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and possession should be resolved by the Additional Collector as the appellate authority.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the Additional Collector.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim ownership of ancestral land. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondent no.5 contests petitioners' claims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court analyzes competing claims and procedural issues. (Para 6) |
| 4. court orders appeal resolution with due process. (Para 7) |
ORDER:
Heard Mr. M. Murtuza Ali Faruqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Somu Srinivasa Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Raja Shekar Reddy Vanjari, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking writ of mandamus declaring the certificate issued by respondent No.3 in File No.B/370/2018, dated 30.01.2024 and the proceedings No.D/388/2023, dated 22.02.2024 of respondent No.2 as illegal.
3. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS:
i) The petitioners herein are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Acs.1.08 guntas in Survey No.2 and admeasuring Acs.2.29 guntas in Survey No.3, situated at Kyathanpally Village of Damargidda Mandal, Narayanpet District, apart from the land in various other survey numbers after the demise of their father. It is their ancestral property. Originally, their forefathers and thereafter their father used to cultivate the said lands. They never let any part of the land to be cultivated by any other person either on contract, lease or hire etc. The revenue records pertaining to the years 1954 to 2017 disclose their names as pattadars and cultivators of the aforesaid lands. Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour. In fact, their family religious Deity is located in between the aforesaid survey numbers and they are offering prayers frequently.
ii) The petitioners have surrendered substantial area of land under the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘Ceiling Act’) and the remaining is only the permitted holding as per the Ceiling Act. The aforesaid two survey numbers are part of two standard holdings which they retained.
iii) After introduction of Dharani Portal, land in some of the survey numbers including the aforesaid Survey Nos.2 and 3 is missing in Dharani Portal. Therefore, they have submitted a representation dated 09.07.2018 to respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the same was not considered by them.
iv) While so, respondent No.2 had issued proceedings in File No.D/388/2023, dated 22.02.2024 granting pattadar passbook in favour of respondent No.5 without any basis and without giving any notice to them in respect of the aforesaid survey numbers. In fact, respondent No.5 has no right, title or interest over the said property and she was never in possession of the same. The tenancy certificate said to have issued under Section - 38E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘Tenancy Act’) in favour of respondent No.5 is forged and fabricated. In fact, the grandfather of respondent No.5, late Bugappa S/o Papanna was already assigned the land of the petitioners in Survey Nos.92 and 93 under the Tenancy Act and they are in possession and enjoyment of those lands since 1976. Therefore, the question of granting pattadar passbook in respect of Survey Nos.2 and 3 does not arise.
v) The petitioners also made another representation dated 04.03.2024 to respondent No.2 to protect their possession and enjoyment over the land in Survey Nos.2 and 3. Despite receiving and acknowledging the same, they did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.2, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
4. CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT No.5:
i) On the other hand, respondent No.5 filed counter denying the claim of the petitioners by contending as follows:
ii) She is a PT over the land in Survey No.2 admeasuring Acs.1.08 guntas and Survey No.3 admeasuring Acs.2.29 guntas, situated Kyathanpalli Village of Damargidda Mandal and she has been in possession of the same. Originally, her grandfather, Buggappa, was the o
