Murmur Venkat Ramulu vs State Of Telangana

Heard Sri Ramakrishna Reddy Malyala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.Amruth Rao, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Revenue. Perused the record.

This writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of the respondents in non-carrying on the entries of the missing non-sold land admeasuring Ac.5.22guntas in Sy.No.148 and Ac.0.17guntas in Sy.No.149 situated within the limits Rajapur Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District in Dharani Portal as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to carry on entries of the missing non-sold land in Dharani Portal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:-

i. They are legal heirs of original pattadar of the land admeasuring Ac,.16.09guntas in Sy.No.146, Ac.16.24guntas in Sy.No.148 and Ac.14.16guntas in Sy.No.149 total admeasuring Ac.47.09guntas situated at Rajapur Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (for short, ‘the subject property’).

ii. The above properties originally stands in the name of Munnuru Venkat Ramulu S/o Buchaiah as per Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55.

iii. The said M. Venkat Ramulu succeeded to the aforesaid properties after death of his father, the original owner.

iv. After the death of said M. Venkat Ramulu, his wife Kishtamma and his five sons succeeded the aforesaid property and divided the same into equal shares.

v. The petitioners jointly sold the land admeasuring Ac.10.09guntas in Sy.No.146 in favour of R.Swarajya Laxmi W/o Sitarama Raju under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.76/1994 and also sold an extent of Ac.6.00guntas in Sy.No.146 and an extent of Ac.4.00guntas in total Ac.10.00guntas under registered sale deed Doc.No.77 of 1994, dated 17.07.1994 in favour of Sri C.Budhavatharam Raju, S/o Sithrama Raju with specific boundaries as mentioned in the aforesaid sale deeds.

vi. The petitioners have sold the land admeasuring Ac.16.09guntas in Sy.No.146, Ac.4.00guntas in Sy.No.148. After selling the aforesaid land, the land admeasuring Ac.12.24guntas in Sy.No.148 and Ac.14.16guntas in Sy.No.149 stands in the name of the petitioners as pattadars.

vii. Again same vendors’ legal heirs sold the land and ratified in the name of purchasers vide Doc.Nos.1263 of 1984 and 1264 of 1994 respectively.

viii. Elder son of Munnur Kistaiah and his legal heirs sold an extent of Ac.3.08 gutnas out of Sy.No.149 an extent of Ac.05.00guntas in Sy.No.148 and an extent of Ac.03.00guntas in Sy.No.149 to Smt. Chekur Sathyawathi W/o Rama Raju, Smt. Kanaka Durga Devi w/o Srinivas Raju and Smt. Krishnaveni with specific boundaries mentioned in the above said registered documents.

ix. 5th son i.e. Munnuu Rajalingam sold an extent of Ac.05.00guntas out of Ac.9.16guntas in favour of the first son’s son by name M. Venkat Ramulu.

x. After the execution of registered sale deed only, 5th son i.e. M. Rajalingam and his legal heirs executed registered sale deeds Doc.Nos.1703, 1705 of 1986, dated 31.10.1986.

xi. Some of the legal heirs of Munnuru Krishnaiah i.e. Ramulamma and others have executed rectification deeds.

xii. The purchasers, who in turn, sold the said property to Smt. Joyes Jubani W/o M.V.Jocob and Sri Sathish Kumar Bose by way of executing registered sale deeds, who in turn, sold the aforesaid property in favour of M/s Vinis Bio Products Company Ltd. under registered sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.1609 and 1611 of 2002 dated 26.07.2002, after being mutated their names in revenue records, they have obtained pass books and title deeds respectively.

xiii. An extent of Ac.5.22guntas in Sy.No.148, and Ac.0.17guntas in Sy.No.149 of Rajupur Village is missing in Dharini Portal and it should be carried out in the names of legal heirs of Munnuru Venkat Ramulu.

xiv. Therefore, the petitioners herein are seeking a direction to the respondents to include the aforesaid land in Dharani Portal in the names of legal heirs of Munnuru Venkatarmulu i.e. Munnur Yellaiah, Narasaiah and Kistaiah respectively as such an extent admeasuring Ac.05.22guntas missing in Dharani Portal should be carried in the name of above said legal heirs of Munnuru Venkatramulu.

The 5th respondent/Tahsildar has filed counter contending as follows:-

i. As per revenue records, the land to an extent of Ac.16.24guntas in Sy.No.148 and an extent of Ac.14.16guntas in Sy.No.149 of Rajupar village is classified as patta land.

ii. As per online pahani, the land admeasuring Ac.9.20guntas in Sy.No.148/AA is recorded in the name of Siddartha Daga S/o S.N.Daga with Khata No.1426 and Ac.1.18guntas in Sy.No.148/A recorded in the name of VINS BIO Tech(Company). The remaining extent Ac.5.22guntas is recorded in the name of Smt. Jaya S.Daga W/o S.N.Daga.

iii. The land to an extent of Ac.4.34guntas in Sy.No.149/E is recorded in the name of Sri Laxmikanth Chavan, S/o Mothilal Chavan. Land Ac.1.00guntas in Sy.No.149/AA is in the name of Smt. Jaya Daga, W/o S.N.Daga and an extent of Ac.08.05guntas Sy.No.149/A is in the name of Sri Siddartha Daga S/o S.N.Daga and the remaining extent of Ac.0.17guntas has been acquired for National Highway No.7 (Now N.H.44) vide Ref.No.G1/5427/ 2005 of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar.

iv. In proof of the same, 5th respondent has filed copies of Dharani Status and list of awardees etc.

v. The request of the petitioners with regard to recording their names against the land to the extent of Ac.5.22guntas in Sy.No.148 and Ac.0.17guntas in Sy.No.149 of Rajapur Village cannot be considered. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.

As stated above, even according to the petitioners, most of the land was sold by them and the details of the sale deeds were specifically mentioned in the writ affidavit. Though they have referred about kasra pahani of the year 1954-55, they have not filed a copy of the same. The petitioners have not filed pahani copies issued by competent authority. They have filed only copies of pahanies for the years 1965-67, 1970-77 issued by Naib Tahsildar who is not competent to issue the said pahani copies. Thus, the petitioners themselves are not entitled to claim all the extents and survey numbers etc. which the original owner Sri M.Venkat Ramulu was owner. They have not filed any document to show that the aforesaid property was partitioned. However, they have sold the property to the aforesaid persons. The said sale deeds and rectification deeds were also filed.

It is relevant to note that the petitioners herein never approached the respondent authorities with a request to correct entries. Thus, the petitioners herein failed to establish what are the correct entries, wrong entries and missing entries by producing sufficient documentary evidence. They have not filed any representation with respondents with a request to correct the aforesaid entries by producing documentary evidence including kasra pahani and other relevant documents. They have not made the aforesaid purchasers as parties to the present writ petition. As per CCLA Circular No.1/2021, dated 15.01.2021, the petitioners have to make online application with a request to correct the wrong entries. The petitioners herein failed to file aforesaid online application with 2nd respondent. Thus, the petitioners failed to establish the extents that are said to have missed by producing proper documents.

Whereas, 5th respondent/Tahsildar has filed counter wherein he mentioned the total extent of land in the aforesaid survey numbers and the land sold by the petitioners. There is no land available either in Sy.No.148 or 149 of Rajapur Village. In proof of the same, he has filed copies of list of Awardees, passbooks and Dharani Status etc.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners herein much less relief sought in the present writ petition. Thus, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.