Uppu Tata Rao v. State Of Telangana And Five Others

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.13148 OF 2019 DATED :01.07.2019 Between :

Uppu Tata Rao, S/o.Uppu Chinnabai, Aged 76 yrs, Occu : Agriculturist, R/o.Kasinagaram Village, Dummugudem Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ..

Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.13148 OF 2019 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

2.

Petitioner claims that his forefathers occupied land to an extent of Ac.3.73 cents in Sy.No.62/2 of K.Veerabhadrapuram Village, Dummugudem Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. This land is situated in Agency area covered by Regulation 2 of 1970. According to petitioner it is a joint family property and patta was granted in the name of Kartha of the family i.e., Rama Rao, brother of the petitioner. Petitioner claims that his brother executed gift settlement deed on 27.06.2018 allotting a share of land to an extent of Ac.1.24 cents in his favour. While so, the unofficial respondents 5 and 6 who are sons of late Rama Rao are threatening to vacate the petitioner from the subject land, in collusion with the 4th respondent-Tahsildar. The 4th respondent is asking the petitioner to vacate the subject land and threatening to take severe action against him, if he does not vacate the subject land. Alleging such illegal action on the part of the Tahsildar, this writ petition is filed. 3.

As noted above, the only document placed on record is the alleged gift settlement deed executed by Late Rama Rao on 27.06.2018 which is an unregistered document. There is no other material placed on record to show that petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of land and that revenue records reflect the name of petitioner. No material is placed on record to

- 3 - show that Tahsildar is interfering with the subject land. The averments in the affidavit would clearly point out that there are inter se disputes between petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. 4.

Apparently there are inter se disputes between the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. It is for the petitioner to settle the disputes or to work out his remedies as available in common law to establish his right over the property. 5.

Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that there is no expression of opinion on title claim and possession of petitioner over the subject land. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 1st July, 2019 Rds