N. Venkat Ramulu v. The State Of Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND ANO TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 15933 OF 2021 Between:

N. Venkat Ramulu, S/o N. Bandappa, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Retd employee, R/o H. No. 8-3-22811124/3, Rahmath Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad'r.l.r=r,r,O*a* AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Reptd. by its Principal Secretary' Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The District Cirllector, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

4. The Tahsildar, Doma li4andal, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District

5. N. Sujatha, Wio late N. Ramesh Babu, Aged about 31 years. Occ housewife, R/o 2-5-l6,Zaheerabad, Ivledak District.

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein for not considering petitioner's representation dated 1311112017 , January 20 1 8, 29t0112018,08/08/2018 and O3tO6l2O2"l deleting the name of the 5th respondent and her husband,s name and consequently direct the official respondents to continue the petitioner's mother's name aS Pattadar in the revenue records in respect of land admeasuring Ac 03-06 guntas in Survey No.58, Patta No 34, situated at Khammam Nacharam village, Doma Mandal, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

lA NO: 1 OF 202'l Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the official respondents not entertain any third party sale transaction in respect of land admeasuring Ac 03-06 guntas in Survey No.58, Patta No.34, situated at Khammam Nacharam village, Doma Mandal, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. DURGA NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos'1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.15933 of 2O2l ORDER:

This writ petition is filed praying to grant followir-rg relief: "... to issue any writ, order or direction more particularl;i one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the iesponaent Nos. 2 to 4 herein for not considering petitioner's ."pi."..,tutio., dated 13.11.2017, January 2018' 29 01 2018' otj.OA.ZOta and 03.06.2021 deleting the name of the Sft respondent and her husband's name and consequently direct the official respondents to continue the petitioner's.mother's name as pattadar in the revenue records in respect of land admeasuring i" O3-OA guntas in Survey No 58, Patta.N-o 34' situated at Khammam Nacharam Village, Doma Mandal' Vikarabad' Ranga R"aOy Oi"t.i", in the interesl of justice and pass such other order or orders...."

2, Heard Sri V. Durga Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue' 3.

According to petitioner, his mother was the owner of land to an extent oi Acs.3.O6 guntas in Sy.No'S8 of Khammam Nacharam Village, Doma Mandal, Vikarabad District. His mother acquired the above land on a gift given by her father at the time of her marriage as "Pasupu Kumkuma". Her name was mutated in the revenue record s. Petitioner states that his mother was blessed with five children.Shediedonl4.03.2ooT'Petitionerclaimsthatafterthe death of his mother, he is also entitled to a share in the land belonging to his mother. He further alleges that without his share, his elder brother bY nar:le Gangappa, apportioning mutated the name of his son N. Ramesh Babu, in the revenue records, causing great injustice and hardship to lhe petitioner' Petitioner further states that after the death of N. l?amesh Babu, the name oI his wife N.Sujatha-5tt' respondent was mutated in the revenue records and authorities are now contemplating to issue pattadar passbook to the Sfi Repp6ndent. Petitioner also contends

-Jthat he made several representations against the illegal mutation of name of N. Ramesh Babu and that his name should also be mutated in the revenue records and also to include the property in the list of disputed properties.

4.

In other words, the grievance of petitioner is that even though he is entitled to a share in the property standing in the name of his mother, his share was not determined and his name is not entered in the revenue records, causing hardship and suffering to him. The representation also highlights tire same fact of alleged injustice caused to him by his brother and got the revenue records mutated in his name.

5.

Though the averments in the affidavit and representation do not disclose exactly when the mutation exercise was undertaken, apparently, it must have been some time in the year 2007 or soon thereafter, after the demise of the mother of petitioner. It is not known why petitioner has not prosecuted his grievance to get a share in the joint family property in accordance with law instead of going before the Tahsildar-4o Respondent and other revenue officials who are not competent to decide the entitlement of his share in the propert5r belonging to his mother. Since, N. Ramesh Babu name was already mutated, after his death his wife is entitled to seek mutation of her name in the revenue records. Thus, unless and until petitioner succeeds in establishing his right and claim over the property stood in the name of his mother in appropriate civil proceedings, he cannot ask the revenue authorities to change the entries in revenue records nor can prevent the revenue authorities from issuing pattadar passbook in

-4the name of the person, whose name is reflected in the revenue records.

6.

Therefore, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail civil law remedy, if any, available, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// G"

SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri V. Durga Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPU-CI

2. Two CCs to GP for R6venue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies

4. One Spare Copy CHR \ sr \ )+/"

HIGH COURT DATED:1510712021 'I4 t\E AU0 (.)

ORDER

W.P.No.15933 of 2021 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS --) $