Habeeb Khan v. The State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3506 OF 2017 ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is that the he purchased land in Sy.No.31 admeasuring Ac.3-13 guntas situated at Devapur Village, Adilabad Mandal and District vide registered document No.2187/2015, dated 28-10-2015 and made application on 04-04-2016 along with Form-VI for mutation of his name and issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed. As the same is not acted upon, WP.No.31744 of 2016 was filed and the same was disposed of directing the respondent No.4 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 04-04-2016 and pass orders. Meanwhile, the respondent No.4 issued notice on 09-12-2016 alleging that the respondent No.5 filed application for mutation of subject land in her favour and the petitioner appeared before the Tahsildar and submitted all the documents. The petitioner came to know that the respondent No.5 filed application for mutation of land in Sy.No.31 admeasuring Ac.3-05 guntas on 19-11-2014 and the respondent No.5 also filed WP.No.3354 of 2013, wherein this Court directed the respondent No.5 to file application under prescribed proforma.

Though the respondent No.5 filed mere application on 19-11-2014 and though she is not in possession of the property, the same was entertained. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 considered the application of the

respondents 5 and 6, though they have not filed any documents.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to look into the title of the parties. As such, the respondent No.4 ought to have rejected the application of the respondent No.5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 are claiming the subject lands.

It is to be seen that the applications filed by the petitioner as well as the respondents 5 and 6 are pending, this Court directed to consider the applications of the petitioner and respondents who filed writ petitions, it is for the 4th respondent to consider the same in accordance with law and pass orders in accordance with law. This writ petition is filed only on mere apprehension of the petitioner. This Court cannot go into the title of the parties and direct the respondent No.4 to mutate the name in favour of the petitioner only. The petitioner can also file objections in respect of the applications filed by the respondents 5 and 6 and the respondent No.4 shall consider the objections of the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 and dispose of their applications in accordance with law.

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J 02-02-2017 Note:

Issue CC by Monday.

B/o.

nvl