NIMMALA NARAHARI Vs. C.NARENDRANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these appeals arising out of Common Order dated 23.03.2018, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.

(2.) These appeals are filed against Common Order dated 23.03.2018 in W.P.Nos.20585 and 20586 of 2013 by one Nimmala Narahari, appellant herein (who is 5th respondent in writ petitions) against one C.Narendranath-1st respondent in these appeals.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the writ petitions. It is the case of the petitioner in both these writ petitions that one Sri Veera Mallaiah was the original owner of different extents of land in Sy.Nos.196, 197 and 206 of Madeenaguda Village, Serilingampaly Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The lands in Sy.No.197 was sold by him in favour of Sri Suryanarayana Raju and five others, by way of registered sale deed dated 14.12.1966 vide document Nos.1170/66 and 1171/1966 and subsequently, he sold entire lands in the Sy.Nos.196, 197 and 206 after leaving the land towards roads at the time of execution of documents. The said Veera Mallaiah died in the year 1975 leaving behind Sri Nimmala Narahari-5th respondent as his legal heir. Subsequently, the 5th respondent along with his mother sold Acs.7.00 in Sy.Nos.197 and 207 pursuant to the agreement of sale entered by his father on 28.10.1974 as successors of the deceased. After 14 years of death of his father, the 5th respondent applied for succession certificate in the year 1989 in respect of Sy.No.197 for an extent of Acs.14.09 as if his father Veera Mallaiah did not sell the property and also without excluding the property sold by him along with his mother vide document No.246/1978, and the same was granted vide proceedings in File No.B/456/89 on 30.03.1989, which was sought to be implemented in the year 2008, that is after lapse of 33 years. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued notices thrice to the petitioner- C.Narendranath. The petitioner submitted explanation/objections to the same and subsequently filed W.P.No.11635 of 2009, which was disposed of on 23.06.2009 directing the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders after considering the objections filed by the petitioner. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar-cum-Deputy Collector, Serilingampally Mandal, without considering the objections of the petitioner, issued impugned proceedings dated 31.01.2010 ordering mutation of the name of the 5th respondent in revenue records for the year 2009-2010 in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.7.00 in Sy.No.196 and Acs.4.28 guntas in Sy.No.197 totally admeasuring Acs.11.28 guntas of Madeenaguda Village, ignoring the fact that mutation which was affected in favour of the petitioner and his family members in the year 1980. One Smt.C.Laxmibai and two others, mother and sisters of the petitioner, who purchased a part of the property from the vendee of Veera Mallaiah, applied for mutation, which was ordered by the 4th respondent in File No.B/2568/2003 dated 26.05.2004 for an extent of land admeasuring Acs.4.23 guntas out of the total purchased land of an extent of Acs.5.27 guntas in Sy.No.197 purchased under registered sale deed No.999/1979, dated 22.05.1979. The petitioner also obtained mutation proceedings in his favour in respect of land to an extent of Acs.0.10 guntas out of total purchased land of an extent of Acs.0.34 guntas, situated in Sy.No.197, under registered sale deed No.961/1979, dated 18.05.1979 from one Sri Suryanarayanana Raju and others, in proceedings No.B/2583/2003, dated 26.05.2004. After noticing the name of the 5th respondent in column No.13 of pahanies for the years 1982-83, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, he made an application to the 4th respondent for deletion of the name in respect of land in Sy.No.197 on 27.09.2006, who issued proceedings on 17.11.2006 allowing the application and ordered for deletion of the name of the 5th respondent. In the said proceedings, it is observed that the entries in the pahanies of the name of the 5th respondent was with different ink by tampering the records and also observed that the said land was in possession of the petitioner by the name of 'Naren Garden '.