M/S.Victory Avenue (P) Ltd v. State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO Date: 27.6.2019 Between:

M/s Victory Avenue (P) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Vadineni Mahendra .. Petitioner And State of Telangana, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue and Registration and Stamps Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

.. Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2 and perused the material on record.

2.

It appears, 3rd respondent herein submitted an application on 20.3.2019 for mutation of his name in the revenue records claiming that the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 in Survey No.830 of Medchal village belongs to his father, therefore his name should be reflected in the revenue record in respect of the said extent. In response to the said application, the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar issued a notice on 10.6.2019, fixing the date of hearing on 15.6.2019, calling upon the 3rd respondent as well as petitioner to appear before him with relevant documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Petitioner appeared and copy of application filed by the 3rd respondent was furnished to him and thereafter, petitioner submitted written explanation in support of its claim.

3.

According to the learned counsel for petitioner, O.S.No.241 of 2018 is pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medchal in respect of the same subject property and the learned Judge also granted order of status quo on 27.3.2019, therefore no mutation orders can be passed by the Tahsildar in favour of 3rd respondent. 4.

The learned counsel for petitioner did not dispute the competency of the Tahsildar to issue notice. According to the learned counsel, petitioner is anticipating decision of the Tahsildar in favour of

3rd respondent in order to deprive the petitioner of his valuable property rights by manipulating the revenue records. 5.

Since, the petitioner did not dispute the competency of Tahsildar, it cannot be said that the Tahsildar would not consider the explanation stated to be offered by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice dated 10.6.2019. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. 6.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out remedies as per law if he is aggrieved by the remarks/orders that may be passed by the Tahsildar, if he is advised to do so. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 27.6.2019 DA

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO 27.6.2019 DA