WA/869/2022 of Jangga Buchaiah and 7 others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others on 29 December 2022

1. Jangga Buchaiah, S/o Late J. Pochaiah, Aged about 60 years,Occ: Agriculture Rl/o H. No 4-59, Venkirala Village, Bibinagar lVandal, YadadriDistrictOcc: Agriculture Rl/o H. No 4-59, Venkirala Village, Bibinagar lVandal, YadadriDistrict

2. Jangga Naryana (Died)

3. Maddi Balaraju, S/o. Late M. Ramaiah Aged about 63 years, Occ: AgricultureR/o H. No 4-411 , V enkirala Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri DistrictR/o H. No 4-411 , V enkirala Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri District

4. Jangga Laxamiah, S/o Late J. Balaiah Aged about 44 years, Occ: AgricultureFl/o H. No 5-174, Venkirala Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri DistrictFl/o H. No 5-174, Venkirala Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri District

5. Bathini Vijay Laxmi, Wo late B. Nagesh Aged about 40 Years,Occ: Agriculture, F/o H.No 2-223, Venkirala Village, Bibinagar Mandal,Yadadri DistrictOcc: Agriculture, F/o H.No 2-223, Venkirala Village, Bibinagar Mandal,Yadadri District

6. Master Bathini Shiva, S/o Late Nages Aged about 20 years, Occ: Student,R/o H.No 2-223, Yenkiala Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri District.R/o H.No 2-223, Yenkiala Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri District.

7. Janga Kistamma, W/o. Narayana, Aged 70 years, Fl/o 5-'l 13, Bibinagar,lnkriyala, Nalgonda District.lnkriyala, Nalgonda District.

8. Janga Mahesh, S/o Janga Narayana, Aged 40 years, Rl/o 4-51, Bibinagar,lnkriyala, Nalgonda Districtlnkriyala, Nalgonda District

...PETITIONERS

AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Special Tribunal, Under the Telangana rights in land And PattadarPassbooks Act,2020 presided by The District Collector, Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict.Passbooks Act,2020 presided by The District Collector, Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict.

3. The Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ghatkesar, Medchal Malkajgiri District

4. M/s Shourya lnvestment and Finance Pfi Ltd, Reg Office at 1- 18,Saroonagar, Hyderabad Represented by its Director T. VirupakshaS/o. Ramnath Gupata Aged about 45 Years, Occ Business

...RESPONDENTS

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the operation of the impugned orders of the 2nd respondentdaled:23.06.2021 .

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M. SRINIVAS

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE CHIEF IUSTICE UIIAT BHUYANANDoSRIKAN. REDW.A.No.869 of 2022

JUDGMENT,. [2er ][the ][I ][lor'bh ][rhe ][Lhiel ]Jtrtta [Iljlat ][tsht4an)]

Heard Mr. Ii.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel forthe appellants.

2. This appcal1Sdirected against theordetadated 11 .1L,2022 passed bv thc lcarned SingleJudge dismissing\X7.P.No.3474 of 2022 Frled by the appellants as rhe pcrrrioners.

3. Challengc made in the writ petit_ion v/as to the orderdated 23.06.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal constitutedunder the ['l'elangana ]Righrs in Land and Pattadar Passbooks4ct,2020 (briefly 'the Spccial Trit:trnal' hereinafter) in respectof land admeasuring Acs.3.21 guntas siruared in SurveyNo.215 of Madharan-r Village, Ghatkesar Nlandal in Medchal-Maikajgtr l)istrict (:riefly'the sub j ect iand' hereinafter).

4. Appellants hacl filecl a revision pctrtion beforc theSpecial Tribunal against the orders dated 30.11..2006ar.d 25.72.2006 passed by thc ['Iahsildar ]of Cihatkcsar Mandalin respect oI the sub [ject ]land

5. On constitution o[ the Spccial Tribunal, thc revisionpetition rvas transferrcd to the Special ['I'ribunal.]

6. Claim of the appellants before the Special [-l ]ribunal rvasthat they wcrc the absolute owners and posscssors of thesubject lancl. It was aileged that certain persons by name o[Ch. Anii Reddy, Ch.Buchaiah @ Ch.Buchi ll-cddy andCh.Narsimha Reddv, who rvere holding thc subject iand, soldtheir respecuve shares to respondent No.4 by rvay ofregistcred sale deeds, but what was alienated was morc thanwhat was actually possessed by the vendors. On the suengthof the registered sale deeds, respondent No.4 got its namemutated in the revenue records. This came to be challenged before the Tahsildar. When the challenge was unsuccessful,revision peution rvas filcd.

7. Respondent No.4 objccted to the claim of theappellants, who pressed its claim on the basis of registered saledeeds. It contended that having purchased the subject land, itgot its name mutated in the revcnue records by obtainingorders ftom the Tahsildar; it is in physical possession over thesubject land; appcllants do not havc any semblance of right,tide and interest as well as possession over the subjcct land.

8. By the ordcr dated 23.06.2021, Special Tribunal notedthat on the one hand, appellants claimed the subject land to betheir ancestral properry and on thc other hand, respondentNo.4 claimed ownership through registered sale deeds havingpurchased the land From difflcrent pamadars. In thecircumstances, Special Tribunal flotcd that there is a seriousdispute o[ tide over the subject land between the rival I

claimants, s,hich cannot bc adjudicated by the revenueauthority. Giving liberry to the appellan ts to approach thecompetent civi-l Court, the review petition was dismissed.authority. Giving liberry to the appellan ts to approach thecompetent civi-l Court, the review petition was dismissed.

9. Learned Single Judge took the view that thc SpccialTribunal had righdy relegated the parties to thc competentcivil court. In support of such Frnding, learned Singlc Judgeexamined tl.re rccord o[ thc case in detail. Finallv, holding thatd.rere is no error or illegality in the order passed by thc Spccial'I'ribunal, which did not merit any interfcrence, lcarned SingleJudge [dismissed ][the ][Writ ][Petition.]

10. While we concur with the view taken b), the SpecialTribunal as rvell as by thc learned Single .|udge that if thcappellants vant to assert their right o[ orvnership over thesubject land, the appropfiate [orum would be the civil court ofcompetent jurisdiction and not the revcnuc authoriry,hower-er, wc are of the further viev'that observations madc b1,the learned Singie Judge in paragraphs 8 and 9 would not \

come in the way of any adjudication by the civil courr, ifapproached by the appelraors as those observadons were madein the context of examining the writ petition filed by theappellants.

11\X/ith the above ciarification, Writ Appeal is dismissed.No costs.No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,stand dismissed.stand dismissed.

SD/. CH.[VENKATESHWAR]UDEPUTY [RE][GIS]

//TRUE [COPY//]SECTIONFFICER

'O1. [ON" ][CC ][tO ][SRI K. ][RATHANGAPANI REDDY' ][AdVOCAIE ][IOPUC]]2 Two ccs [to ][GP ][FoH'iEVEiiuE''Fiigh ][court ][forthe ][State ][of ][Telangana ][at]Hvderabad [OUT]3. 6i,;"bCi;SRl [tvi. ][sRtNtvRs' ][Advocate ][[oPUC]]4. Two [CD ][CoPies]BBcJP]I,-- HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212022

ORDERW.A.No.869 of 2022

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL

WITHOUT COSTS(1)\ t./[n,v?t1\, [\]

SiAl [E]Or':)o11 [I\\ ][$A]?l6