WA/1162/2023 of Kotte Pothanna Vs Smt. Kotte Raju Bai on 29 December 2023

IN THE HIGH [COURT ][FOR THE ][STATE ][OF ][TELANGANA]AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE [TWENTY ][NINTH DAY ][OF ][DECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND [AND TWENTY THREE]

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE [THE CHIEF ][JUSTICE ][ALOK ][ARADHE]ANDTHE HONOURABLE [SHRI ][JUSTICE ][ANIL ][KUMAR JUKANTI]

WRIT APPEAL [NO: ][1162][ oF ][2023]

Writ Appeal [under ][clause 15 ][of ][the ][Letters Patent ][Against Order ][Dated]

finiid;ii"-rfuF.ru". [21136 ][or ][2014 ][on the ][file ][of ][the Hish ][Court']

Between:

Kntte Pothanna, [S/o ][Poshetty, Aged about.42yrs' ][Occ ][Agriculture' ][R/o ][Nyaleshwar]Vifj"g", [Niuip"t ][Mandal, Nizamabad ][District ]...A''ELLANT

...A''ELLANT

AND1Smt. Hio] N;i;tlili'Viirr6", Kotte Hio] N;i;tlili'Viirr6", Kotte N;i;tlili'Viirr6", Kotte [Raiu ][Bai, ][Wo. ][rujuipLt ][Kotte ][Hanmandla' ][Manoat, ][Distrirct ][ngq{.92 ][Nizamabad'][years',Occ ][Agriculture']1Smt. Hio] N;i;tlili'Viirr6", Kotte Hio] N;i;tlili'Viirr6", Kotte N;i;tlili'Viirr6", Kotte [Raiu ][Bai, ][Wo. ][rujuipLt ][Kotte ][Hanmandla' ][Manoat, ][Distrirct ][ngq{.92 ][Nizamabad'][years',Occ ][Agriculture']

1Smt. Hio] N;i;tlili'Viirr6", Kotte Hio] N;i;tlili'Viirr6", Kotte N;i;tlili'Viirr6", Kotte [[Manoat, ]]Smt. Hio] N;i;tlili'Viirr6", Kotte Hio] N;i;tlili'Viirr6", Kotte N;i;tlili'Viirr6", Kotte [[Manoat, ]]2Kotte Koteshwar. il;;f$;; [tirrib., ][s/o ][rlarp"t ][Kotte ][Hanmandla, ][Ma ][ndal, ][Distri't ][Age!..35 years. ][N ][izam ][abad'][occ ][Agriculture' ][R/o]

Kotte Jaqadishwar, [S/o Kotte ][Hanmandlq, A99d..p5 ][years'. ][Occ ][Agriculture']Ai.i'ft [y"d;ffi;iViri"g", ][Nivipet ][Mandal' ][Dislrict ][Nizamabad']Ai.i'ft [y"d;ffi;iViri"g", ][Nivipet ][Mandal' ][Dislrict ][Nizamabad']

J

The State [of ][Telangana, ][Rep' ][by ][its ][Principal ][Secretary' Revenue' ][Secretariat]Building, [HYderabad.]Building, [HYderabad.]

The Joint [Collector, Nizamabad, ][Nizamabad]

...RESPONDENTS

IAN[O:1 ][O][F 2023]

PetitionunderSectionl5lcPcprayingthat.inthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit [filed ][in ][suppJ,t ][oi ][tn" ][p"iiti*' ][in" ][Hion ][court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to]I"#;?; opEriion [,jt ][tn" ][o'a"r. ][ai:arttzozt ][maie ][in ][w ][P'No ][21 ][136 or ][2014']

Counsel [for ][the ][Appellant ][: ][SRI ][KANAKAIAH' ][rep" ][SRI ][NARENDAR ][JALLI]

Corn""f [for ][the ResPondents No'1 ][:]ffi;;;i iI. [ii''" ][n""bondents ][No'2,&3 ][: ][sRl ][r'v'KALYAN ][sINGH];;;;;i [i.. ][iii" ][n"=bondents ][No'4&5 ][: ][GP ][FoR ][REVENUE]

The Court [delivered the ][following: ][JUDGMENT]

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHEANDTHE HON'BLE SHRI Jt'STICE ANIL KUMAR WI(ANTIWRIT APPEAL No.1162 OF 2o.23

JUDGMENT: @er the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)

Mr. Kanakaiah, learned counsel representing Mr. J.Narender, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.V.Kalayan Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.2. This intra court appeal is hled challenging the orderdated 18. 11.2023 in W.P.No.21t36of 20t4.

3. Brief facts:

The appellant herein claims to be the owner andpossessor of land in Sy.Nos. 1825 and 1826 admeasuringAcs. 1.25 gts. and Acs.3.O5 gts. situated at Naleshwar Villageof Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District. An appeal was filedunder section 5(5) of Telangana Rights in Land and PattadarPassbooks Act, 197 | (for short the Act, 197 I J before theRevenue Divisional Ofhcer (hereinafter 'RDOJ contendingthat a registered gift deed dated 27.lL.2OlO was executed in favour of his daughter and in revenue records the name ofappellant was reflected from 20Og till 20 l O_ 1 1 , but in 20 1 O_11, revenue records reflected the name of Kotte HanmandluS/o Kotte Gangaram. That the appellant sought restorationof his name in the revenue records and appeal was alloweduide order in proceedings No.A3/53g3/2O I 1, dated09.O7.2011.

3'2' Aggrieved by order of RDo, the unofficiar respondentsfiled a revision under Section 9 of Act, 1971 before.the respondent No.S. The revision was rejected by an order uid.eproceedings N o.D2 / | 836 / 20 12, d ated. OS. I 2.2O I 3.

3.3. The name of one Kotte Hanmandlu was appearing inrevenue records as pattadar till 20Og. Name of appellant isreflected from 2O0g till 20iO_11. In the year2O1O-11 name of Kotte Hanmandlu was restored. It isobserved by learned single Judge in the order that neitherthe appellant nor the unofficial respondents pleaded beforethe High Court nor before the appellate authority nor thererrisional authority the manner in which title was acquired over the subject land. It is further observed that byproceedings bearing No.ROR/ t6/94, dated 31.Og. 1994, thesubject property with several other lands situated in othersurvey numbers of the same village belong to Kottesurvey numbers of the same village belong to KotteGangaram S/o Linganna and succession was ordered infavour of Kotte Hanmandlu and three others. The subjectfavour of Kotte Hanmandlu and three others. The subjectland situated in Sy.Nos. lg25 and lg26 fell to the share ofKotte Hanmandlu. The said proceedings dated 31.0g.1994were relied upon by the unofficial respondents before theKotte Hanmandlu. The said proceedings dated 31.0g.1994were relied upon by the unofficial respondents before theRDO as basis for entering the name of Kotte Hanmandlu inrevenue records. It is also observed by the learned SingleJudge that without verifying the genuineness of proceedingsrevenue records. It is also observed by the learned SingleJudge that without verifying the genuineness of proceedingsdated 31 .O8. 1994, (issued by the Mandal Revenue Oflicer(hereinafter'MROI), rhe RDO allowed the appeal frled by theappellant uide order dated O9.07.20I I and directed the(hereinafter'MROI), rhe RDO allowed the appeal frled by theappellant uide order dated O9.07.20I I and directed theTahasildar to take action for correction of entries inpahanies. The order of RDO was conhrmed by the 5*rrespondent (Joint Collectorl uide order dated 05.12.2013.

3.4 . The unofficial respondents claim the right andrnterest in the subject property through proceedings dated

31.08.1994, but, the appellant got his name mutated [in]revenue records in place of Kotte Gangaram on the [basis ][of]family settlement, in proceedings, in case No.A1/ 195/2OO5,dated 09.12.2O05. Learned Single Judge observed that [the]appellant is not claiming to [be ]the [son ]or [a ][person ][in ][any]way related to Kotte Gangaram, that the [unofficial]respondents were claiming through the son of [Kotte]Gangaram i.e., Kotte Hanmandlu. It [is ][further ][observed ][that]no enquiry was conducted by MRO [before ][issuance of]proceedings in case No.Al/ L95 /2OOS and that there [is ][no]mention of so called family settlement in [the ][proceedings ][of]MRO. Held that in the absence of [any ][pleading ][as ][to ][how]the appellant acquired the subject [property ][from ][Kotte]Gangaram or Kotte Hanmandlu.no [value could ][be attached]to proceedings dated O9.12.2OO5. [It ][was ][also ][observed by]the learned Single Judge [that as ][proceedings ][in]ROR/ 16/ 1994 were undisputed [the claim ][of ][the ][appellant]before the RDO was without basis. [lt ][was ][held ][that ][orders]dated 09.07.2011 and [05.12.2013 were ][unsustainable ][and]were set aside. The learned Single [Judge ieft ][it ][open ][for ][the]

w

appellant to approach the Competent Civil Court forappropriate relief including rectiflcation of entries in revenuerecords. This writ appeal is hled challenging the order inwrit petition.

4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellant that the subject land was a jointfamily property, that the name of the grandfather KotteGangaram was recorded and not the father of the unofficialrespondents. It is contended that the unofficial respondentsin the revision petition admitted that the subject land was inthe name of their grandfather and that the appellant andunofficial respondents were related and the joint familyproperties are in the name of the Kartha of the family.

4.1. It is submitted that the Tahasildar conducted anenquiry and submitted a report that the unofficialrespondents pressurised the Village Revenue Ofhcer(hereinafter I/ROJ to incorporate the narne of KotteHanmandlu in the pahani for year 20 10- 1 1 . That theTahasildar requested for restoration of old entries due to mistake committed by part time village assistant and theRDO allowed the appeal which was confirmed by therevisional authority. That the learned Single Judge arrivedat a wrong conclusion that the appellate authority andrevisional authority committed an error. It is also submittedthat the appellant had hled pahanies and material paperscrucial for establishing the claim of appellant and the samewere not considered by the learned Single Judge. Hence,the order of the leamed Single Judge is bad in law and beset aside.revisional authority. That the learned Single Judge arrivedat a wrong conclusion that the appellate authority andrevisional authority committed an error. It is also submittedthat the appellant had hled pahanies and material paperscrucial for establishing the claim of appellant and the samewere not considered by the learned Single Judge. Hence,the order of the leamed Single Judge is bad in law and beset aside.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for theunofhcial respondents that the learned Single Judge hasrightly set aside the orders of the appellate authority and therevisional authority. The learned counsel supported theorder of the learned Single Judge and contended thatproceedings bearing No.ROR/16/94, dated 31.O8.1994 wereundisputed. That the learned Single Judge has rightly heldthat no value could be attached to the proceedings in caseNo.Al/195/2005, dated 19.12.2OO5 as the appellant neverpleaded the manner in which he acquired the propert5r from Kotte Gangaram or Kotte Hanmandlu. The learned counselfurther submitted that the learned Single Judge was right inleaving it open for the appellant to seek appropriate relief.

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, the orderof appellate authority and revisional authority.

7 . Having considered the rival submissions, this Court isof the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightlygiven a finding that no value could be attached toproceedings dated O9. |2.2OOS and further correctly heldthat the appellate authority and revisional authorit5r erred inaccepting the claim of appellant, on the ground that theappellant has nowhere pleaded that he is in any way relatedto Kotte Gangaram but claimed the property through familysettlement and that the said family settlement was not evenmentioned in the said proceedings. This frnding goes to theroot of the matter. This Court is not inclined to differ withthe view taken by the learned Single Judge. We do not frndany grounds for interference in the order of learned SingleJudge. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are devoid of merits and the writ appeal is liable to bedismissed. The learned Single Judge was right in leaving itopen to the apperant to approach the competent court forappropriate relief including rectification of entries.dismissed. The learned Single Judge was right in leaving itopen to the apperant to approach the competent court forappropriate relief including rectification of entries.

8. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Appeal isdismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall standclosed SD/.K.SAILESHI

//rRUE copytt

DEPUW $2,*o*SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. One [CC to SRI J.NARENDAR, ]Advocate. IOPUCI

2. One [[CC to SRI ][TIV.KALY{N_9INGH, ]][[TIV.KALY{N_9INGH, ]]Advdcate.lbeUCl One [[CC to SRI ][TIV.KALY{N_9INGH, ]][[TIV.KALY{N_9INGH, ]]Advdcate.lbeUCl3 Two ccs [to ][the ][Gp FoR ]REVENUE, High cou;afo;t-n1. stat" of reranganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]4. Two CD Two CD [[CoPies]]BSKLS

4. Two CD Two CD [[CoPies]]

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

JUDGMENT

WA.No.1162 ot 2023

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS

AN

(I [I ],jil[I ][iLl]* og5lr