The High Court · 2025

6. Vanishetty Srinivas, S/o. late Shivanandam, aged 60 years, R:/o. Sulthanabad village and Mandal, Near Old Jenda Chowrastha, Tank Road, Sulthanabad, Peddapalli Diskict. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, calling for the records relating to and in connection with the Order passed by the Respondent No.2 in File No. D1179112018, daled 2510112020 confirming the Order of the Respondent No.3 in File No.B21154612O15, dated 1710212018 and to quash the same being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and 300A of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co" t may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order passed by the Respo I ent No.2 in File No. D1179112018, daled 251O112020 pending disposal of the a5 ) e writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MADDELA RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 4: AGP FOR REVEtlr E Counsel for the Respondents No 5 & 6: MRS C AVANI REt ,DY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JIISTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.2OS of 2O2L ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the following prayer ". .. lo issue a utrit, order or direction more in the nature of Certiorai or anq other appropiate writ, callinq for the records relotinq to and in connection uith the order passed btt respondent No.2 in File No.Dl/791/2O18, doted 25.O1.2O2O confirminq the order of respondent No.3 in File No.B2/ 1546/2015, dated 17.02.2018 and to quash the same beinq illeqal, arbitrary, and uiolatiue of Article 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of Indio... "

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and learned counsel for un-ofhcial respondent Nos.S and 6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband filed a revision petition under Section 9 of the AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 read with Rule 23 of the AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Rules, 1989 before the respondent No.2 Joint Collector, Peddapalli, challenging the order of respondent No.3 - Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, in File No.B2l 154612015, 17.O2.2018. The respondent No.2, vide orders in File 2 No.Dl/791/2O18, dated 25.01.2020 conhrm:1 the order of respondent No.3 and dismissed the revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further ubmits that the entire proceedings before respondent No.3 rev: vecl around the aspect of non- issuarce of notices to the 'ap 1 ellants therein. During the course o[ proceedings, the resl ondent No.4 Tahsildar, addressed a letter dated 06.07.20 1 to respondent No.3 stating that the records pertaining to mutrr ion proceedings in favor of the petitioner's husbald in File No.R / <ORl 129 l2OO9, dated 26.1 1.2013, were not available. In view :'the said letter, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 concluded that noti es under Form- 12, as mandated under Rule 22(3) of the RuL: , had not been issued, and accordingly allowed the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner furtht r submits that unless the mutation file dated 26.11.2013 s examined, a conchrsion as to issuance or non-issuance of r, tices cannot be reached. In the absence of such record, he hndings of respondent Nos.2 and 3 are perverse and there I rre prays to set aside the impugned orders and remand the r ratter for fresh consideration. 3

6. Learned counsel for un-official respondents contends that no sada bainama was ever executed by their father in favor of the petitioner's husband. In the absence of any notice being issued to their father or to them, the question of mutating the land in favor of the petitioner's husband does not arise. He further submits that compliance with Rule 22(31 of the Rules is mandatory, and failure thereof vitiates the proceedings. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Having considered the submissions and on perusing the record, it is evident that the proceedings in File No. B/RORl129 l2OO9, dated 26.1 1.2013, are not.traceable in the ofhce of respondent No.4, as admitted in his letter dated '

06.07.2017. In the absence of the said frle, a definite finding as to whether Form-l2 notices were issued under Rule 22(3) of the Rules cannot be recorded. The conclusion of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that no notices were issued, without the f,rle, is therefore unsustainable. , 8. Accordingly, the orders passed by respondent No.3 in File / No.B2l 154612015, dated 17.02.2018 and conhrmed by respondent No.2 in File No. Dl/791/2018, dated 25.O1.2O2O arc set aside. The petitioner 1S granted liberty to file a fresh 4 application under Section i5(1) of the Bhu Bh: rathi Act, 2025, before respondent No.3, who shall examine the I ase afresh, after issuing notices to a-11 concerned parties, grantir L , them sufficient opportunity of hearing, and pass appropriate r rders strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously AS pc: sible. Ti1l such exerclse 1s completed, both parties are diret: ed to maintain slafus quo wtth respect to subject property as or -oday.

9. With the above observations, this writ pr1 tion is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applcations, if any pending, in this petition, shall stand closed. SDlSnl P.C. SULEKHADEVI Ali ,ISTANT REGISTRAR (*-" SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Prl. Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department, Star Secretariat, Hyderabad. of Telangana,

2. The Joint Collector, Peddapalti District, peddapalli. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, peddapalli Division, p: 4. The Tahsildar, Sultanabad Mandal, Sulthanabad, pedttr 5. One CC to SRI II/ADDELA RAVTNDER Advocate [Op _ 6. One CC to N/RS C AVANT REDDY Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the S.i Hyderabad [OUT] ldapalli District oalli District. ) e of Telangana at

8. Two CD Copies D.N O BM HIGH COURT DATED:2210912025 ORDER WP.No.205 of 2021 \\ STAIE o o 11ltBm + t .-r'a- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS C-D?l a,l \\ 4 ,\rl 3 w i I !r