SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 37110

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Cheruku Gouraiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 3247/2020



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.3247 of 2020

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in passing order dated 18.1.2020 in Case No.1/707/2017, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Lands & Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 and to set aside the same.

2. Heard Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. Though Mohd.Sadiq Ali, entered appearance for respondent No.5 and filed counter, there is no representation on his behalf.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 is the owner of land admeasuring Ac.1.30 guntas in Sy.No.153/C3, situated at Bhanjipet village, Raghunathpally Mandal, Jangaon District, having purchased the same vide Sale Deed No.6335 of 2016, dated 26.07.2016 and he has also been issued with Pattedar Pass book and 1 B record by respondent No.4; that the respondent No.5 purchased land admeasuring Ac.1.30 guntas in Sy.No.156/A/1, situated at Bhanjipet Village, Raghunathpally Mandal, Jangaon District from one Pokala Lingaiah through Sale Deed No.837/2017, dated 23.1.2017. While so, when the respondent No.5 tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner No.1’s property, the petitioner No.1 filed suit in OS.No.57 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, seeking perpetual injunction along with IA.No.127 of 2017 for grant of interim injunction and the trial Court granted interim injunction vide order dated 06.03.2017.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while the matter stood thus, respondent No.5 filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Jangaon, under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Lands & Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971’), seeking to set aside the Pattedar Pass Books and Title Deeds issued in favour of the petitioner No.1; that the Joint Collector remanded the matter to respondent No.3 to take up the same as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971 and dispose of the same. The respondent No.3 by order dated 18.01.2020 has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.5 and remanded the matter to respondent No.4 which is primary authority to conduct denovo enquiry as per the Act, 1971 and Rules 1989, within a period of two months. However, while remanding the matter, respondent No.3 has ordered cancellation of entries made in favour of petitioner No.1 in the revenue records and Pattedar Pass Book and Title Deed issued to the petitioner No.1. Aggrieved by the said cancellation of entries made in the revenue records and issuance of Pattedar Pass Book and Title Deeds of petitioner, present writ petition is filed.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that while remanding the matter to the Primary Authority, respondent No.3 ought not to have cancelled the mutation proceedings No.B/3019/2016 by which the name of the petitioner No.1 has been mutated in the revenue records and Pattedar Pass Books and Title Deeds were issued. He further submits that his Court vide interim order dated 17.02.2020, suspended the impugned order insofar as it relates to the cancellation of Pattedar Pass Book and Title Deed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.4 has not yet completed denovo enquiry or passed a final order and therefore, prayed to make the interim order absolute and that respondent No.4 be directed to complete the denovo enquiry and pass appropriate orders, within a fixed time frame.

8. Counter has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5 wherein it is contended that petitioner No.1 has created false documents and executed registered sale deed No.6335/2016 dated 26.07.2016; that in fact the vendor of petitioner No.1 is not having title to the subject land, therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner No.1 is not valid. It is further averred that petitioner No.1 f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top