1. Mr. Manoj Vishwanath, learned counsel representing M/s. Om Law Firm, for the appellants.
Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.
2. This intra court appeal is filed against the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants, namely W.P.No.11759 of 2023, has been dismissed.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellants claim to be the owners and possessors of land measuring Acs.17.33 guntas in Survey No.21 of Narsimhulagudem Village, Nellikudur Mandal, Mahabubabad District (hereinafter referred to as, “the subject land”). It is the case of the appellants that the subject land is an ancestral property of the appellants and the same has devolved on them from the father of appellant No.1. It was averred in the writ petition that the appellant No.1 was issued e-pattadar pass book on 19.06.2018 and he had executed a gift deed in respect of the subject land in favour of the appellant No.2.
4. The official respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the appellants over the subject land. Thereupon, the appellants filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.28319 of 2021, in which a Bench of this Court had granted an interim order restraining the official respondents from interfering with the possession of the appellants. It has further been averred in the writ petition that the respondents No.5 and 6 filed a suit, namely O.S.No.49 of 2020, seeking the relief of declaration of title as well as mutation in respect of the subject land, which is pending before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur.
5. Thereafter, the respondents No.5 and 6 filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.17862 of 2022, in which the factum of filing the civil suit was not disclosed. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.04.2022 by which the Collector was directed to consider the representations of the respondents No.5 and 6 within a period of six weeks. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Collector, by an order dated 04.03.2023, directed the Tahsildar to delete the names of the appellants in the revenue records and to enter the names of the respondents No.5 and 6 in respect of the subject land. The appellants thereupon filed the writ petition.
6. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 05.02.2024, inter alia, held that one Nammula Guttaiah was the pattadar and was in possession of the subject land and not Guttaiah, who is alleged to be the father of Komuraiah, Ilaiah and Balaraju. It was further held that the appellant No.1 took the undue advantage of the similarity of the names and got the name mutated. The learned Single Judge further held that no explanation has been furnished as to how the Tahsildar has entered the name of the appellant No.1 in the pahani for the year 2018-2019 by deleting the name of Nammula Guttaiah, whose name was appearing in the pahani for the year 2016.
7. Thus, it is evident that the dispute between the parties pertains to mutation in the revenue records. It is trite law that the entries in the revenue records do not confer any title. It is also not in dispute that the respondents No.5 and 6 have already filed O.S.No.49 of 2020 seeking declaration of title and mutation of their names.
8. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the Collector shall be subject to outcome of O.S.No.49 of 2020, wherein the relief of declaration of title is pending.
9. To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified.
10. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
