HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2695 of 2025

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 3^rd respondent herein in taking steps to issue the mutation proceedings for mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.136/1/5, 136/1/6, 136/1/7, 136/1/8 and 136/1/9 total admeasuring Ac.5.06 gts situated at Narayanapur village, of Vikarabad Mandal and District in view of allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent in Case No.C/843/2006 dt.20/12/2014 setting aside mutation proceedings No.B/548/2006 dt.5- 11-2005 issued by the 3^rd respondent inspite of the personal visits followed by written representations dt.9.5.2019 and 20.3.2024 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and colourable exercise of powers and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to issue the mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned lands in compliance of the above said orders.…”

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.5.06 gts in Sy.Nos.136/1/5, 136/1/6, 136/1/7, 136/1/8 and 136/1/9, situated at Narayanpur Village, Vikarabad Mandal and District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 23.11.1998 vide Document No.5555/1998. The petitioner submits that to meet his financial necessities, he borrowed money from Sri R. Srisailam, husband of respondent No.4, by mortgaging the subject property. Upon failure to repay the loan, Sri R. Srisailam filed a suit for recovery of money, which was decreed and in pursuance of the same, the subject property was sold in a court auction and a Sale Certificate dated 01.05.2005 was issued in favour of Sri R. Srisailam. Consequent to the said sale, mutation proceedings were initiated vide Proceedings No.B/548/2005 dated 05.10.2005. Aggrieved by the same, it is stated that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 and the same was allowed on 20.12.2014 setting aside the said mutation proceedings. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite submission of representations dated 09.05.2019 and 20.03.2024 requesting the respondent No.3 to mutate his name in the revenue records, till date, no action has been taken.

4. The learned counsel for the impleaded respondent No.5 submitted that the respondent No.5 is the lawful owner and possessor of the subject lands, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 29.10.2010 vide document No.3071/2010. It is further submitted that initially, the petitioner, who was the owner of the subject lands, had mortgaged the same to the husband of the respondent No.4. The husband of the respondent No.4 filed a suit for recovery of the loan amount vide O.S.No.34 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, which was preliminarily decreed on 30.10.2002 and a final decree was passed on 21.10.2003 in I.A.No.190 of 2003. Thereafter, the husband of the respondent No.4 filed Execution Petition No.6 of 2004 and the same was allowed on 17.11.2004, resulting in issuance of Sale Certificate dated 03.12.2004 in favour of Sri R.Srisailam. Subsequently, the husband of the respondent No.4 sold the subject lands under registered sale deed dated 10.04.2006 vide document No.2091/2006 to Syed Omer and Mohammed Asif, who in turn sold the same to the respondent No.5 vide registered sale deed dated 29.10.2010. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed I.A.No.694 of 2005 in O.S.No.34 of 2002 seeking to condone the delay of 1010 days in filing an application to set aside ex parte decree, in which respondent No.5 filed I.A.No.351 of 2019 seeking to implead him as party a