Aileni Veera Sahith Reddy v. The State Of Telangana
Date : 2.12.2019 Between:
Aileni Veera Sahith Reddy S/o Late Veera Bhoopal Reddy Aged 18 years student & others Petitioner And The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Land Acquisition Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad & others Respondents The Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development.
2.
According to petitioners, they are legal heirs of late Aileni Veera Sreeram Reddy, who was landlord of vast extent of lands in Survey Numbers 187, 188, 192, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 209, 211, 212, 214, 215, 224, 227, 245, 247 to 250, 252 to 262, 265 and 266 Samudrala village, Koheda mandal, Karimnagar district and died on 1.9.1991. Petitioners said that after death of Aileni Veera Sreeram Reddy, they are not living in the village and in the absence of petitioners and their family members, persons who were cultivating the lands, in active collusion with revenue authorities and without following the due procedure got their names mutated in the revenue records. As petitioners were not living in the village, they were not aware of the transactions made in the revenue records.
As soon as they came to know about the same, they requested the Tahsildar to rectify the entries in the revenue records and Tahsildar expressed his inability to undertake such exercise as entries were already made and advised the petitioners that if they are aggrieved they should go before the appellate authority. Instead of filing appeal, petitioners filed a representation before the District Collector, who in turn directed the petitioners to file appeal.
appeal on the ground that petitioners have not submitted any evidence in support of their claim and advised the petitioners to go before the Tahsildar for rectification of the entries. Later, petitioners sought for information and supply of copies under Right to Information Act and since such information was not furnished, this writ petition is filed. 3.
Having regard to the statutory limitation prescribed in the Act, I do not see any error in the decision of Revenue Divisional Officer to decline to entertain the appeal.
4.
At this stage, learned Government Pleader, submitted that Tahsildar vide his proceedings dated 7.6.2017 requested the petitioners to furnish the details of file numbers and Katha particulars to enable his office to furnish the information sought for. Thus, it is open to petitioners to obtain the documents by pursuing the matter under Right to Information Act and workout remedies on the alleged illegal mutation of the names of third parties without their consent or without executing any sale transaction by them or by their father. Further, if petitioners are not satisfied with the reply given by the Tahsildar on 7.6.2017, they are at liberty to workout their remedies as available in law. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.
__________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 2-12-2019 TVK
Date : 2.12.2019