IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.23168 of 2014 BETWEEN S. Maldakal and another.
AND ... PETITIONERS Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. MOHD. GHULAM RASOOL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition relates to a dispute among the legal heirs of one Pedda Uthanooranna.
2. It appears that the said pattadar, who was holding an extent of 7 acres of land at Uppala village, Ieeja Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, died in the year 1977 and the name of the first petitioner was mutated in the revenue record by the Tahsildar. However, the Tahsildar, on an application filed by the elder brother of the father of the petitioners, without enquiry, mutated the names of S. Kishore Babu, S. Ranjith Kumar and Ranadhir Kumar i.e. the sons of the elder brother of the father of the petitioners. Petitioners, contesting the said mutation, filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in File No.C/747/2010, which came to be disposed of under the impugned order dated 13.11.2013. The RDO came to the conclusion that the entries made by the Tahsildar in the name of respondents therein was not justified and set aside the same directing that the entries existing prior to the implementation be restored and also directed the appellants (petitioners herein) and the respondents therein to approach the civil Court for adjudication as the land in question belongs to the joint family and as to who is entitled thereto. That order is questioned by the petitioners on the ground that the RDO while setting aside the mutation ought to have directed that the names of the petitioners be incorporated in the revenue record.
3. I am not inclined to accept the said contention inasmuch as the dispute with regard to the joint family property and successors thereto is a matter, which only a competent civil Court can adjudicate upon. Hence, the direction given by the RDO under the impugned order is justified in law and moreover, the respondents, before the RDO, whose names were directed to be deleted from the revenue records, are, apparently, not aggrieved by the said order. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the said order.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the parties to approach the civil Court for adjudication. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 13, 2014 DSK