Telangana High Court
WP/28882/2019 of Master G. Tanish and another Vs State of Telangana and another on 30 December 2019
SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.28882 OF 2019 Dated:30.12.2019 Between: Master G. Tanish, S/o. G. Sudheer Kumar, Aged 3 years, Minor and another .. Petitioners And State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ..
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.28882 OF 2019
Dated:30.12.2019
Between:
Master G. Tanish, S/o. G. Sudheer
Kumar, Aged 3 years, Minor and another
.. Petitioners
And
State of Telangana, rep., by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.28882 OF 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 4.
2. The application filed by the petitioners for mutation of their names in the revenue records concerning land to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.753 and Ac.1.00 in Survey No.756 of Alair Village and Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, by placing reliance on the registered deeds of conveyance dated 28.03.2017 was rejected by the Tahsildar by his endorsement, dated 09.12.2019, impugned in this Writ Petition.
3. The Tahsildar rejected the request of the petitioners on the ground that a decree was granted by the competent Court in respect of the subject property and partitioned the suit schedule property and since a decree was granted by the Court, the application for mutation based on two registered sale deeds, dated 28.03.2017, cannot be accepted.
4. The decree granted by the competent Court is filed as Ex.P3 at Page No.26 of the writ petition paper book. From the array of parties in the suit, it is seen that the father of the petitioners was 1[st] defendant. It appears, the petitioners placed reliance on the sale deeds stated to have been executed by grandfather of the petitioners on 28.03.2017.
5. Having regard to the facts noted above, I do not see any illegality in the decision of the Tahsildar warranting interference in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when petitioners have remedy of appeal against the said decision.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies against the decree granted by the competent Court. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
P. NAVEEN RAO, J
Date:30.12.2019
KH