Telangana High Court
Smt. Barla Shalini vs Sri Navin Mittal, I.A.S on 13 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.17168 of 2022 &
CONTEMPT CASE No.1153 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.17168 of 2022 is filed seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to mutate the names of respondent Nos.7 to 13 in place of Late V. Sudhakar in the revenue records including issuance of pattadar passbook-cum-title deed book in favour of the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 13 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts., in Sy.Nos.402, 403 & 422, situated at Lal Sab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, during the pendency of the declaration suit vide O.S.No.61 of 2022 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under the guise of implementing the order dated 27.07.2021, in W.P.No.16869 of 2021.
2. The writ petitioner claims to be adoptive daughter of Late V. Sudhakar, whose name was recorded as pattadar and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts., in Sy.Nos.402, 403 & 422, situated at Lal Sab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal. It is stated that late V. Sudhakar has constructed Geetha Ashramam in part of the said land and rendering services by conducting religious and spiritual activities. It is further stated that 2 Late V. Sudhakar died intestate on 05.09.2020 and his wife pre- deceased him. It is further stated that the petitioner being the adopted daughter has submitted an application for grant of succession/pouthi izafa in respect of the subject lands and when the said application has not been considered, she was constrained to file O.S.No.61 of 2022 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the trial Court') seeking to declare that
(i) defendant No.1 is not the adopted daughter of late V. Sudhakar and the plaintiff alone is the adopted daughter of late V. Sudhakar and his wife T. Bajaramma @ T. Bharathi (ii) the unregistered will deed dated 06.07.2020 is sham and fabricated after the death of late V. Sudhakar and the same is not binding on the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.2 to 7 are no way concerned with the properties left by late V. Sudhakar, who died intestate on 05.09.2020 and for other consequential reliefs.
3. Mr. Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that pending adjudication of the suit vide O.S.No.61 of 2022, the trial Court, vide order dated 14.02.2022, in I.A.No.135 of 2022 in O.S.No.61 of 2022 has granted interim order directing both the parties to maintain status quo till further orders. Learned counsel vehemently contended that contrary to the said interim order dated 14.02.2022, when third parties are making claim over the property, 3 the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition and this Court, vide order dated 06.04.2022, directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 to maintain status quo obtaining as on date with regard to the entries in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands and the said interim order was extended from time to time and finally, extended until further orders. It is stated that while the interim order dated 06.04.2022 passed by this Court is in force, the official respondents granted succession in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of the subject land and consequently entertained the sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 10 in the contempt case. Alleging the said acts as willful and deliberate disobedience of the interim order dated 06.04.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.17168 of 2022, the writ petitioner has filed contempt case vide C.C.No.1153 of 2024.
4. Mr. Mohammad Afsar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in the contempt case has contended that the petitioner is not the adopted daughter of late V. Sudhakar and there are serious disputes with regard to the rights of the petitioner as adopted daughter of the deceased and the respondent No.5 is class II legal heir of the deceased and in the absence of class I legal heirs of the deceased, class II legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for grant of succession/pouthi izafa as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956'). Learned counsel has 4 further stated that respondent No.5 has made an application for succession in Dharani portal in TM4 module, duly enclosing all the documents and since he has complied with all the requirements and being the class II legal heir of the deceased, the official respondents, after conducting enquiry has granted succession and mutated the property in his favour. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the procedure adopted by the official respondents warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as well as the contempt case.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 has stated that the respondent No.5 in the contempt case has submitted online application in Meeseva for grant of Pouthi Izafa/succession through TM4 Module and the same was forwarded to the office of respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 after calling for report from the Mandal Girdawar and as the application submitted by the respondent No.5 has fulfilled the norms prescribed in Dharani Portal, mutated the name of the respondent No.5 in the revenue records. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 came to know about the fraud played by the respondent No.5 only after receipt of the notice in the contempt case.
5
6. Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 10 in the contempt case has vehemently contended that respondent No.5 being class II legal heir of the deceased is entitled for mutation of the properties in the absence of Class I legal heirs of the deceased. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner, who is claiming to be cognate of late V. Sudhakar's wife, has instituted a suit vide O.S.No.61 of 2022 seeking declaration as adoptive daughter of the deceased and unless the said suit is decreed, the petitioner is not having any right to maintain W.P.No.17168 of 2022 or to make any application objecting for grant of Pouthi Izafa/succession certificate in favour of respondent No.5. As such, the revenue authorities have rightly entertained the application and granted Pouthi Izafa in favour of respondent No.5 and basing on the same, the respondent Nos.6 to 10 in the contempt case have purchased the subject property and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as well as contempt case filed by the petitioner.
7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
8. A perusal of the record would reveal that the subject land to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts., in Sy.Nos.402, 403 & 422, situated at Lal Sab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, was 6 recorded in the name of late V. Sudhakar in the revenue records as pattadar and the revenue authorities have also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favour as per the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. It is stated that Smt. T. Bajaramma @ T. Bharani, pre-deceased Late V. Sudhakar. Thereafter, the disputes arose over the subject property and the petitioner claiming to be adoptive daughter of the deceased has made an application before the revenue authorities and also instituted the suit. Admittedly, late V. Sudhakar or his wife is not having any successors-in-interest to claim the estate of deceased. The petitioner claiming to be adoptive daughter of the deceased has instituted a suit vide O.S.No.61 of 2022 before the trial Court and the same is pending for adjudication. The case of the petitioner is that pending adjudication of the said suit, the unofficial respondents are making efforts to dispose the subject property in favour of the third parties. The further case of the petitioner is that in view of granting status quo orders in I.A.No.135 of 2022 in O.S.No.61 of 2022, neither respondent No.5 in the contempt case nor any other parties are entitled to deal with the subject property in any manner. The case of the respondent No.5 in the contempt case is that he is the class II legal heir of the deceased and in the absence of class I legal heirs, the estate of the deceased would devolve upon the legal heirs of class II as per the Schedule prescribed in the Act, 1956. 7
9. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that pending adjudication of the suit instituted by her, the unofficial respondents are making efforts to alienate the property or meddle the property with third parties. It is also stated that at the instance of the third parties, earlier when the subject land was listed in the prohibited properties, the same was got deleted and taking advantage of the same, respondent No.5 in the contempt case has fraudulently obtained pouthi izafa/succession certificate and consequently transferred the property in favour of the respondent Nos.6 to 10 in the contempt case.
10. Since there are serious inter se disputes among the class II legal heirs and the petitioner claiming to be alleged cognate of the deceased Late V. Sudhakar (original pattadar) in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts., in Sy.Nos.402, 403 & 422, situated at Lal Sab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal. It is stated that the original pattadar died intestate without leaving any successors-in-interest. Since it is stated that the civil suit vide O.S.No.61/2020 is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare her as adoptive daughter and the same is pending for adjudication before the trial Court and the name of respondent No.5 and other purchasers in the contempt case has already been mutated, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is not an appropriate 8 remedy to resolve the inter se disputes between the parties with regard to the nature of the lands and the entitlement of the petitioner as an adoptive daughter of the deceased or the respondent No.5 in the contempt case is class II heir for grant of pouthi izafa (succession) for mutation of subject properties. These issues are required to be decided by competent civil court in a properly instituted suit, based on the evidence adduced by the parties, but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. In Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"6: xxxx..... The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly." (emphasis supplied).
12. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contra distinguished from a 1 (1992) 4 SCC 61 2 (2003) 6 SCC 230 9 dispute involving public law character. It is also well-settled that a writ remedy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute."
13. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the parties to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their rights in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts., in Sy.Nos.402, 403 & 422, situated at Lal Sab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, over the estate of the deceased Late V. Sudhakar, in accordance with law. In the event of obtaining any declaration decree from the competent Civil Court by either of the parties or any other person interested in the property, the revenue authorities shall implement the same and mutate the subject property in favour of the decree holder and consequently issue pattadar passbooks. The trial Court shall dispose of the suits instituted over the subject lands without being influenced by the observations in this order. As it is stated by the respondent No.4 in the writ petition that soon after receipt of the notice in the contempt case, the subject lands have been blocked for transactions, the parties to the lis are directed to maintain status quo in respect of subject property, in all respects including change of nature of lands, till the disposal of the suit/suits. If the parties to the lis or any other interested party fail to produce the declaration decree in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts., in Sy.Nos.402, 403 & 422, situated at Lal Sab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, 10 Quthbullapur Mandal, held by the deceased Late V. Sudhakar, the District Collector is directed to exercise powers under the provisions of the Telangana Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 and take custody of the said property to Government custody.
14. With regard to C.C.No.1153/2024, the respondent No.4- Tahsildar stated that the petitioner did not follow the prescribed procedure for blocking the subject survey numbers. Further, the representations dated 10.05.2020 and 14.06.2020, submitted by the petitioner, were filed much prior to the respondent No.4 assumed charge as Tahsildar on 12.08.2023. It is further submitted that soon after coming to know about that respondent No.5 is not entitled for grant of Pouthi Izafa/succession in view of the status quo orders dated 06.04.2022 granted by this Court, the subject survey numbers were blocked vide Proceedings No.D1/1111/2024 dated 25.06.2024. The above circumstances would reveal that there is no willful negligence or deliberate action by the respondents in entertaining the application submitted by the respondent No.5 for grant of Pouthi Izafa/ succession. Furthermore, as the petitioner also failed to take necessary steps for blocking the survey numbers by submitting an application through the TM26 Module, it is not a fit case to initiate contempt proceedings or subject the respondents to rigmarole of contempt trial.
11
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 13.03.2025 Pvt/scs