Telangana High Court
G. Ramakishan vs The State Of Telangana on 24 September, 2021
Author: A.Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 7009 of 2021
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the endorsement No. C/ROR/404/2020, dated 03.09.2020 of the respondent No. 4, the Tahsildar, Mahaboobnagar Urban Mandal, in rejecting the petitioners' request for restoration of their names as pattadars and possessors and for issuance of e-Pass Books in respect of land in Sy. No. 230, admeasuring Ac. 18-23 guntas, situated at Yedhira Village, Mahaboobnagar Urban Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, as arbitrary and illegal.
The case of the petitioners is that one Irfan Khan was the original owner and pattadar of the subject land in Sy. No. 230 of Yedhira Village while Sri K. Venkanna was the protected tenant. After the death of Sri K. Venkanna, his wife, K. Nagamma inherited the subject property and the legal heirs of the original pattadar have sold the land in favour of Smt. K. Nagamma. Consequently, the Revenue Divisional Officer has granted certificate under Section 38-A of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act') by order dated 04.05.2002 in favour of Smt. K. Nagamma, who is the vendor of the petitioners herein. Subsequently, the District Wakf Committee, Mahaboobnagar filed an appeal under Section 90(1) of the Act against the petitioners herein and others, wherein the Joint Collector had granted interim orders on 28.10.2002. Challenging the said orders, the vendor of the petitioners had filed W.P. No. 22494 of 2002. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition directing the Joint Collector to dispose of the appeal, observed that 2 the effect of the impugned order therein can be only on further alienations and the alienation already made by the petitioners therein stands unaffected. Subsequently, the Joint Collector dismissed the appeal by order dated 21.04.2009 and the said orders have become final. Basing on the registered sale deeds, the petitioners' names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in their favour. That apart, the suit in O.S. No. 25 of 1985 filed by the District Wakf Committee for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, claiming ownership in respect of various survey numbers, including the subject land, was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar on 20.07.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the District Wakf Committee has approached this Court by filing A.S. No. 686 of 2008 wherein this Court by order dated 01.12.2006 granted interim stay pending disposal of the appeal. The petitioners state that they are not parties to the said proceedings. Later, when the District Wakf Officer filed a revision before the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, nearly after 16 years of granting pattadar Pass Books, questioning the mutation of the land in the revenue records in favour of various purchasers, the Joint Collector not only entertained the same, but also directed the Tahsildar, Mahaboobnagar not to effect any changes in all the revenue records until further orders. The Tahisldar, in implementation of the orders of the revisional authority, dated 30.01.2010, has rounded off the names of the petitioners in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the action of the Joint Collector in entertaining the revision of the Wakf Board, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 14094 of 2010 which was 3 allowed on 10.01.2020 setting aside the orders of the revisional authority, dated 30.01.2010. Complaining non-implementation of the orders of this Court, dated 10.01.2020, the petitioners have filed C.C. No. 777 of 2020. It is alleged that instead of correcting the revenue records by entering the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, the Tahsildar had issued the impugned endorsement, dated 03.09.2020 rejecting the petitioners request to restore their names on the ground of pendency of W.P. No. 17353 of 2010 and A.S. No. 686 of 2006 and basing on the entries in Section 22-A Register describing the subject land as 'wakf land'.
Heard Sri A. Giridhar Rao, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Farah Azam Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 6. Perused the material available on record.
The main contention of Sri A. Giridhar Rao, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, is that consequent to the orders of this Court, dated 10.01.2020 allowing W.P. No. 14094 of 2010 and setting aside the notice issued by the revisional authority, categorically holding that the entertainment of revision is premature, the petitioners had made representations before the Tahsildar seeking restoration of their names, as were existing prior to the interim orders of the revisional authority, but instead of restoring the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, the Tahsildar has passed the impugned endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioners, which is beyond his jurisdiction.
On the other hand, Sri Farah Azam Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for Wakf Board, sought to sustain the impugned endorsement of the respondent No. 4 contending that since the 4 matter is sub judice in W.P. No. 17353 of 2010 and A.S. No. 686 of 2006, the impugned endorsement cannot be found fault with.
Admittedly, when the petitioners were issued notices by the revisional authority i.e., the Joint Collector, while entertaining the revision preferred by the District Wakf Committee after lapse of 16 years of mutation of entries in respect of various survey numbers, including the subject property, the petitioners challenged the same by filing W.P. No. 14094 of 2010. This Court, after elaborately dealing with the matter, allowed the writ petition on 10.01.2020 setting aside the notice issued by the revisional authority. That being the case, the action of the Tahsildar, again agitating the issue by way of impugned endorsement, is without jurisdiction and highly deprecated. Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned endorsement of the respondent No. 4 is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned endorsement of respondent No. 4, dated 03.09.2020. Consequently, the respondent No. 4 is directed to restore the names of the petitioners in the revenue records as Pattadars and possessors by issuing e-Pass Books in respect of the subject land. It is needless to observe that the mutation of the names of the petitioners in the revenue records is only provisional one and is subject to the final orders likely to be passed in A.S. No. 686 of 2008.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 24.09.2021.
tsr 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7009 of 2021 DATE: 24-09-2021