IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) BETWEEN TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.33855 of 2014 S. Gopal Reddy.
... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Nalgonda District and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. CH. JAGANNATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner claims to be the owner and occupier of an extent of Ac.4.31 guntas in Sy.No.140/AA and an extent of Ac.0.09 guntas in Sy.No.1431/AA at Thirumalagiri Revenue Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. Petitioner states that the third respondent herein approached the Tahsildar under his application dated 04.02.2008 seeking mutation of the aforesaid land in his favour on the ground that the petitioner had sold the entire extent under a registered document dated 26.05.1995. The said aspect was considered by the Tahsildar under his order dated 26.02.2013 and on finding that the said purchaser/third respondent is in possession of the land, ordered his name to be recorded as pattadar and possessor by deleting the name of the petitioner from the pahani patrika and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in favour of the third respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Joint Collector, Nalgonda and the said revision came to be disposed of under the impugned order dated 12.06.2014. The said order is questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity by the Tahsildar and in fact, the very document, on the basis of which the third respondent claimed title, is seriously disputed by the petitioner.
3. The order impugned, passed by the Joint Collector, has considered the said contention of the petitioner but, however, found that since the Tahsildar has passed the order of mutation on the basis of a registered document executed by the petitioner in favour of the third respondent, the grievance of the petitioner relating to the genuineness or otherwise of the said sale deed cannot be considered by the revenue authorities and the petitioner will have to agitate the said aspect before the competent civil Court. The Joint Collector found that since the executant i.e. petitioner, who is pattadar, has sold the land to the third respondent, mutation cannot be denied to the third respondent by the recording authority and consequently, dismissed the revision.
4. It is evident from the record, therefore, that the third respondent’s claim is based on a registered sale deed in his favour.
It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner disputes the said registered sale deed. However, that aspect, as rightly held by the Joint Collector, is required to be agitated by the petitioner before the competent civil Court and if the petitioner succeeds in the civil proceedings, the mutation orders, which are impugned herein, passed by the revenue authorities, will have to abide by the decree of the civil Court. In view of that, I do not see any reason to entertain the writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 11, 2014 DSK