Mohd. Ahmed v. The State Of Telangana
Date : 14.10.2019 Between:
Mohd Ahmed S/o Late Mohd Burhan aged 85 years occ Agriculture R/o H No 2-83 Pudur Village and Mandal Rangareddy District Presently Revenue District Vikarabad T S Petitioner And The State of Telangana through its Secretary for Revenue Department Secretriate Hyderabad & others Respondents The Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
2.
Petitioner claims that he is absolute owner and in possession of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.15 guntas in Survey No.71, Pudur Revenue mandal, Ranga Reddy district; that after death of his father, his dependants including himself came into possession and enjoyment of land; that late Zulekha Bi is his sister who died long back and his father temporarily permitted Darbar Mahboob Ali/ husband of Zulekha Bi to supervise the cultivation of subject land; that Darbar Mahboob Ali without any right or authority, illegally incorporated name of late Zulekha Bi in the revenue records, which fact came to the notice of petitioner in the year 1996 when Darbar Mahboob Ali tried to usurp the subject land. It appears, Darbar Mahboob Ali filed O.S. No.
20 of 1996 on the file of Court of the District Munsif at Pargi, Ranga Reddy district to grant perpetual injunction and obtained ex-parte decree. Petitioner now alleges that 4th respondent and others dishonestly planning to sell the subject land, therefore, petitioner submitted a representation to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 22.7.2019 and marked copy of the representation to police and revenue authorities. Alleging inaction on the representation dated 22.7.2019 by Tahsildar, this writ petition is filed.
3.
On prima facie reading of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and representation made by petitioner, it is apparent that there is title dispute and decree was granted in favour of Darbar Mahboob Ali. In the above representation petitioner actually makes request to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to give directions to police and revenue authorities against persons named therein. Petitioner alleges illegal entry of names in the revenue records and attempts to sell the subject land. That being so, remedy of the petitioner is otherwise and no direction can be issued to revenue authorities to undertake any review of the decision alleged to have been made long back.
4.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to workout his remedies as available in law. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.
__________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 14-10-2019 TVK
Date : 14.10.2019