Telangana High Court
Bangaru Chennaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 24 December, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1422 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao)
This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant
invoking the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.30349 of 2024, by which the writ
petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. Heard Mr.Kasu Bala Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr.Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government
Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, on
the question of admission.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ appeal briefly stated
are that the appellant’s father, namely late Bangaru Kondaiah,
was the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of
Ac.11.32 gts. in Sy.No.476 situated at Elikatti Village of Farooq
Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and his name was
recorded in Pahani Patrika from the year 1952-53. After his
2
death, the appellant and his two brothers succeeded the said
property and the appellant was allotted land to an extent of
Ac.3.37 gts. and his two brothers were allotted Ac.3.38 gts.
each. The appellant averred that his two brothers sold their
respective shares to him and his name was mutated in the
revenue records to an extent of Ac.9.32 gts. and his wife got
mutated to an extent of Ac.2.00 gts. and pattadar pass books
and title deeds were issued in their favour. He further averred
that after introduction of the Telangana Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (Act 9 of 2020), the appellant
came to know that in e-pass book his name was mentioned for
the land to an extent of Ac.0.39 gts., instead of Ac.9.32 gts.
Thereafter, the appellant submitted an application to
respondent Nos.2 to 4 requesting them to rectify the mistake
with regard to the extent of land. When respondent Nos.2 to 4
failed to consider the said application, he approached this
Court and filed writ petition, namely W.P.No.1851 of 2024, and
the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ
petition on 25.01.2024 directing the respondents therein to
consider the application submitted by the appellant and pass
3
appropriate orders. When the respondents failed to implement
the said order, the appellant filed contempt case, namely
C.C.No.1714 of 2024. During pendency of the contempt case,
respondent No.4 passed order vide Proceedings
No.B/892/2024 dated Nil.09.2024 stating that the land to an
extent of Ac.0.39 gts. was recorded in the name of the
appellant in RoR records from 1989-90 to 2020-2021 and the
appellant is not entitled for correction of revenue records.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed W.P.No.30349
of 2024 and learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the
said writ petition holding that the appellant raised several
disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be adjudicated
in the writ petition, however, granted liberty to the appellant to
approach the competent civil Court for correction of entires in
the revenue records. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant
filed the present writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
name of the appellant continued in the revenue records to an
extent of Ac.9.32 gts. till Act 9 of 2020 came into force.
Respondent No.4 without properly considering the entries in
4
the revenue records and other documents, issued proceedings
dated Nil.09.2024. Learned Single Judge without considering
the said fact dismissed the writ petition. He further submitted
that the appellant has been in possession of the land to an
extent of Ac.9.32 gts. and doing agricultural operations. In
such circumstances, respondent Nos.2 to 4 ought to have
corrected the revenue entries.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submitted that
respondent No.4 after conducting detailed enquiry and after
verifying the entire record issued impugned proceedings dated
Nil.09.2024 and rightly rejected the claim of the appellant and
the appellant ought to have approached the competent civil
Court to establish his claim.
6. Having considered the submissions made by the
respective counsel and after perusal of the material available
on record, it reveals that respondent No.4 after due verification
of RoR records 1979-1980 and new RoR records 1989-90 held
that the land to an extent of Ac.0.39 gts. was recorded in the
name of the appellant and no where recorded his name as
pattadar to an extent of Ac.9.32 gts.
5
7. It is pertinent to mention herein that the appellant raised
several disputed questions of fact that his name continued in
the revenue records from the inception to an extent of Ac.9.32
gts., whereas the official respondents are disputing the same
stating that the appellant’s name was recorded in the revenue
records only to an extent of Ac.0.39 gts. The said disputed
questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a summary
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
especially when the appellant is claiming rights over the
property basing upon the revenue entries.
8. It is equally well settled legal principle that the disputed
questions of fact cannot be decided in a summary proceeding
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as per the
judgments of the Apex Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari
Shivam 1 and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal
Pradesh 2.
1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562
2 (2021) 6 SCC 771
6
9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any
ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge.
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
____________________________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 24.12.2024
mar