Ganddam Poolamma v. The State Of Telangana, And 6 Others

Between:

Ganddam Poolamma, W/o. late Sathi Reddy, Age 70 years, Occ: Housewife/Agriculture, R/o. Epoor Village, Athmakur (S) Mandal, Suryapet District .. Petitioner And The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue Department), Secretariat at Hyderabad and others .. Respondents The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4. 2.

According to petitioner, her father, Kaki Pedda Sathireddy, purchased land to an extent of Acs.5.32 guntas in Survey No.241 of Epoor Village in the year 1965 from his vendor, by name, Kashabina Veeramallu. However, only in the occupation column, petitioner's father name was entered and later name of her husband was entered, as both names are Sathi Reddy, but name of the pattadar is continued as usual.

3.

According to petitioner, her father died in the year 2004 and husband died in the year 2018. Petitioner states that on the inconsistencies in the alleged transaction that claimed to have taken place leading to mutation of name of the 6th respondent in the revenue records, on 14.11.2019, petitioner submitted representation to the Tahsildar, Suryapet Mandal. From the reading of the representation, it is clear that according to petitioner, in respect of land in Survey Nos.239, 241, 242 and 243 some false documents were created with forged signatures and got the revenue records mutated and therefore requests to rectify the illegalities in the revenue records. Same request is also made in the representation, dated 25.08.2020, submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet. In this writ petition, petitioner complains of non-furnishing of information under the Right to

Information Act and requests to cancel the mutation proceedings and pattadar passbook issued in favour of third parties. 4.

From the narration of the events made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the representations, it appears that based on certain documents of sale, applications were made for mutation of the names and accordingly names are mutated. Petitioner alleged that signatures were forged to create documents of sale transactions and therefore those corrections carried out in the revenue records based on those sale transactions have to be nullified. Further, from the averments made in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it appears that petitioner's father name and later her husband name are not shown as pattadars, but only shown in the occupation column. 5.

Having regard to these discrepancies, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a case where the Tahsildar can go into these aspects and decide whether the signatures were forged and based on the forged signatures, documents were created, which documents were relied upon to get mutation done in favour of the 6th respondent. The petitioner has to work out civil law remedy to establish her right and title over the subject property. 6.

Granting liberty to the petitioner to avail civil law remedy, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J KH

KH