ANDEM SUDHAKAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:

(2.) It is stated that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.138 and Ac.4-00 gts in Sy.No.132 situated at Dacharam Village, Mothkur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.413/2004 dtd. 5/5/2004 from the respondent No.5. It is further stated that names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records and they were issued pattadar passbooks vide patta Nos.675 and 828 as per the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short "ROR Act, 1971"). It is further stated that the petitioner No.1 has executed a gift settlement deed vide document No.1653/2009 dtd. 31/1/2009 in favour of his son i.e, petitioner No.2 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4-00 gts in Sy.No.132. It is the case of the petitioners that when the respondent No.5 and others tried to interfere with their property, they instituted a suit vide O.S.No.86/2014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet and the same was decreed vide judgment and decreed dtd. 11/12/2014. While the things stood thus, it is stated that the respondent No.3 has issued mutation proceedings No.B/963/2014 dtd. 7/3/2015 in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.0-16 gts in Sy.No.138 and Ac.0-12 gts in Sy.No.132 in favour of respondent No.4 without following the procedure prescribed under ROR Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder. It is stated that aggrieved by the said mutation proceedings, the petitioners filed statutory appeal on the file of the respondent No.2 under Sec. 5(5) of the ROR Act, 1971 and when the said appeal was not disposed of within reasonable time, the petitioners were constrained to file W.P.No.9618 of 2019 on the file of this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dtd. 1/5/2019 directing the respondent No.2 to decide the appeal, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In pursuance of the same, the respondent No.2 allowed the appeal partly vide impugned order dtd. 4/11/2019 in Case No.D/1580/2015 and directed the respondent No.3-Tahsildar to refer the Court decrees for mutation under Sec. 58B of Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and after collection of necessary stamp duty, and validating the said decrees under Sec. 42 of the Registration Act, take further steps in accordance with law. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 instead of deciding their case in terms of the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971 have erroneously taken into consideration the orders dtd. 7/4/1995 passed in I.A.No.275/1991 in O.S.No.367/1989 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, at Ramannapet, wherein the final decree proceedings were issued in a partition suit instituted by the respondent No.4 against the respondent No.5. It is stated that the respondents are not entitled for implementation of the said final decree proceedings after lapse of about 18 years and the respondent No.2 is not having any power under Sec. 58B of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli to validate the said decree. It is further stated that the decrees which are barred by limitation are not enforceable in law and prayed for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings.

(3.) Even though the respondent No.4 filed her appearance, she did not chose to file any counter affidavit disputing the contents of the writ affidavit.