Parepally Lakshmamma And 2 Others v. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

Date : 16.7.2019 Between:

Parepally Lakshmamma W/o Late Parepally Rangaiah Aged 65 years Occ House wife R/o Arutla Wage Manchal Mandal RangaReddy District and 2 others Petitioner And The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad and 3 others Respondents The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

2.

Petitioner preferred application to mutate his name in the revenue records under Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the same was rejected by the Tahsildar/4th respondent vide proceedings dated 27.5.2019. Against the said order, remedy of appeal is available before Revenue Divisional Officer and without availing the said remedy, this writ petition is filed. 3.

Learned counsel for petitioners sought to contend that earlier petitioners filed W P No. 2970 of 2019 claiming as legal heirs of Parepally Rangaiah and that pattadar pass books and title deeds to be issued to them. The said writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to make application under Form VI (A) and on filing such application, Tahsildar, Manchal Mandal was directed to consider the same. Pursuant thereon, petitioners filed application for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds and the same is rejected by impugned order. Learned counsel for petitioners sought to contend that when petitioners are claiming the land being legal heirs of Parepally Rangaiah S/o Parepally Sathayya, without deciding the said issue, illegally rejected the claim of the petitioners vide impugned orders holding that 13-B certificate was issued in the name of Chindam Narsimha and 4 others.

4.

Against the impugned order, effective remedy of appeal is available and without exhausting said remedy and bye-passing such remedy, petitioners cannot approach this Court against the orders of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar. Further, whether petitioners validly succeeded to the subject property standing in the name of Parepally Rangaiah and whether 13-B certificate was validly issued in the name of Chindam Narsimha and 4 others are matters which require consideration by the appellate authority.

5.

In the circumstances, writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed. __________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 16-7-2019 TVK

Date : 16.7.2019