Revenue authorities are not competent to perform the functions of a Civil Court by partitioning property by metes and bounds or assigning specific shares based solely on a preliminary decree; such actions require a final decree.

COMMON ORDER:

The issues involved in all the Writ Petitions are interconnected and the basis of the pleadings and the relief sought for in all the Writ Petitions are intrinsically interlinked to the preliminary decree, dated 07.09.1988, passed in OS.No.66 of 1988. As the genesis of all the Writ Petitions is one and the same, all the Writ Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by common order.

2. For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the said suit.

3. The admitted facts of the case are that originally Musthyala Venkatramaiah was owner of different extents of lands in different Survey numbers in various Villages; that he had four wives and ten sons; that after the demise of the said M.Venkatramaiah, his legal heirs have filed suit in OS.No.66 of 1988 on the file of Sub-Ordinate Judge, Bodhan, seeking partition of the suit schedule properties; that the plaintiffs and defendants filed a compromise petition before the trial Court, basing on the same, preliminary decree dated 07.09.1988 was passed.

Writ Petition No.15329 of 2020

4. Writ Petition No.15329 of 2020 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Yellareddy in conducting enquiry and passing orders as per the directions of respondent No.2-Collector vide his letter No.D2/981/2018-108, dated 15.02.2020, which is preceded by the directions of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration of the State of Telangana (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘CCLA’) bearing No.CCLA’s Ref.No.ROR-II/887/2019, dated 21.01.2020, to implement the compromise decree in O.S.No.66 of 1988 dated 07.09.1988 passed by the Subordinate Judge at Bodhan, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential relief.

5. In the writ affidavit, it is averred that on an application of the plaintiffs in the said suit, the Tahsildar issued orders of mutation dated 02.02.1989, in respect of the suit schedule properties. While so, aggrieved by non-implementation of the mutation orders in the revenue records, such as ROR registers, etc., all the plaintiffs and defendants in the suit OS.No.66 of 1988, made series of representations to respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, who, addressed letter dated 24.07.1997 to respondent No.4-Tahsildar requesting to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of suit schedule properties as per the preliminary decree in OS.No.66 of 1988; that in pursuance thereof, respondent No.4 passed another mutation order dated 07.04.2001, allotting shares to the parties; that plaintiff No.3 filed Revision against the said order before respondent No.3-R.D.O. on the ground that the allotment of shares was made contrary to the preliminary decree; that the said Revision was disposed of remanding the matter to the Tahsildar with a direction to conduct de nova enquiry to implement the preliminary decree; that subsequently, on the representation made by the petitioner herein, the CCLA, vide orders dated 21.01.2020, directed respondent No.4-Tahsildar to immediately examine and take necessary action and to send action taken report; and that in pursuance of the said orders, respondent No.2-District Collector directed respondent No.4 to conduct enquiry and se