Mr.Abbu Raghupathi Reddy v. State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.8628 of 2018 ORDER:

The petitioner is stated to be the son of the fifth respondent. He states that he is a physically challenged person and married a girl outside his caste in the year 2006. Some family disputes arose due to that inter-caste marriage among the family members. In those circumstances, the family property was partitioned. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land of an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.1106 of Peddakodepaka Village, Shayampet Mandal, Warangal District, apart from the land of an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas in Survey No.1214/A and Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.814 of the same Village. He was issued pattadar pass books and title deeds also. However, he states that his father, the fifth respondent, submitted an application for change of entries in the revenue records. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.

82 of 2013 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Parkal, seeking perpetual injunction against his father and three brothers. The said suit was decreed on 31.10.2014. Now the petitioner states that pursuant to the application made by the fifth respondent, entries in the revenue records were changed and pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of three survey numbers were cancelled by the third respondent on 07.07.2014. Challenging the same, he preferred a revision before the second respondent and the second respondent stayed the said proceedings by order dated 07.04.2016. The petitioner states that the revision is pending before the second respondent.

the revenue records are changed in favour of the fifth respondent. In those circumstances, he filed the present Writ Petition. The above facts clearly show that pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner were cancelled on 07.07.2014 by the third respondent. Against the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the second respondent, wherein the order of stay was granted and the revision is pending. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court with regard to the name of the person whose name was recorded in the revenue records at the time of filing revision.

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to maintain the same name that appeared in the revenue records as on the date of passing the order by him on 07.07.2014, and the second respondent is directed to dispose of the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 07.07.2014, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by following due process of law. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of at the stage of admission without issuing notice to the fifth respondent as no adverse order is passed against him. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 16.03.2018 vs