High Court · 2025

Judgment

5. TheStateofTelangana,.Rep.!vitsPrincipalsecretetry,RevenueDepartment Secretariat building' Hyderaoao' TheDistrictCollector,Asifabad,KomarambheemAsi.labadDistrict. TheRevenueDivisional.officer,KagaznagiarRevenueDivision Xoi Asifabad District' "tirnnu"m TheTahsildar,KagaznagalMandal,Kagaznagar,KomarambheemAsifabad District. Aashti Lasmaiah, S/o' Late.Rajaiah' Aged' At-,"'c;6s;d; Virrig"' Kaeiaznasar M District. Not Known, Occ. Agriculture ''X.,r*ii"*bh""* isifabad andal, ...RESPONDENTS

petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rrqdia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High court may be preased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of wRrr oF MANDAMU' decraring the proceedings No' D1 t652'12022 stated that the Sth respondent was not recorded as pattadar and arso observed that the husband of the petitioner being an ex- revenue employee is claiming that hiswifehaspurchasedthelandasSadaBainamaintlreperiod*n:.nn:*:: arready working in the revenue department itserf raises ,roubts regarding how a' datedoT.l2.2o22totheextentofobservationofthe2ndresnon]elthereinwho revenueemployeecanpurchasealandthroughsadabainamaisbeingillegal, . i r' ...t. .l:1 - !i t I I I I I arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of article 14 and 300 A of the constitution of : rndia and vioration of the principres of naturar justice and contrary to the provisions contemplated r.rnder the records of rights Pattadar Pass Book Act and rules made there under artd consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to delete the observationmadeinproceedingsNo.D1165212022dated07,12.2022. lA NO: 1 OF 2(t23 petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court rnay be pleased to direct the2ndrespondenthereintodeletetheobservationmiadeinproceedingsNo. D1t652t2O22 claled 07.12.2022 that " the 5th responderrt was not recorded as pattadar and also observed that the husband of the cetitioner being an ex- revenueempltlyeeisctaimingthathiswifehaspurchasedthelandasSada Bainama in th,: period when he was already working in the revenue department itself raises dcubts regarding how a revenue employee can purchase a land throughssflstrainama,,pendingdisposaloftheabovewril:petition. Counsel for ttre Petitioner: SRI KOPPULA GOPAL Counset for ttre Respondents No'1 to 4: SRI L' RAVINDER' AGP FOR REVENIJE Counsel for ttre Respondent No'S: SRI G' MADHUSUDH/\N REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.198 of 2023 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "...to issue ar appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.Dl/65212022 dated 07.12.2022 to the extent of observation of the 2nd respondent herein who stated that the 5th respondent was not recorded as pattadar and also observed that the husband of the petitioner being an ex-revenue employee is claiming that his wife has purchased the land as Sada Bainama in the period when he was already working in the revenue department itself raises doubts regarding how a revenue employee can purchase a land through sada bainama is being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 300 A of the constitution of lndia and violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions contemplated under the records of rights Pattadar Pass Book Act and rules made there under and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to delete the observation made in proceedings No.D l/652 12022, dated 07 12 2022 - . ."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.2.l2 guntas in Survey No.40/l/1 situated at Vallakonda : ,' -\ Villai;e, Kagaznagar Mandal, Komarambheem Asifabad District ('subiect land' for brevity) which has been acquired from respordent No.5 by paying valuable sale consideration through Sada Bainama dated 16.04.2017 which is subsequently regulrrrized under Section 5,{ of 'felangana Rights in Land and Pattac:ar Pass books Act, 1971(ROR Act, I97l for brevity). 'faking advantage of pendency of incorporation of petitioner's name in the revenue records, respondent No.5 has filed a representation dated 05.03.2021, for issuance of pattadar pass books for the subject land and being aggrieved by the non consideration of the said representation respondent No.5 filed w-P-No.27002 of 2021 and this court vide order dated zl.Io-tozt directed respondent authorities to pass necessary orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy c f the order, duly putting the interested parties, if any on notice and considering the objections, if any.

3. Le;rrned counsel would further submit that basing on the said direction, the matter has been take up for consideration vide impugrred proceedings No.Dl/652/2022, dated 07.12.2025 as against the grievance of the petitioner herein, respondent No.2 had rejected the application and advised respondent No.5 to approach Competent Court for title declaration over the subject land, as there is clear title dispute. He would further submit that respondent No.2 ought not to have observed that the petitioner herein being wife of ex-revenue employee has purchased the land through Sadabainama in the period when her husband was working in Revenue Department and that raises suspicion on him regarding how a revenue employee can purchase a land through Sadabainama depriving the Government of valuable income which is otherwise credited to Government exchequer and also observed that the sada bainama reveals that the seller was not recorded as pattadar at the time of sale of subject land, hence the transaction as well as subsequent proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, Kagaznagar are liable for cancellation. He would further submit that this matter has no relevance as the said sadabainama was validated by paying requisite fees. Hence, he would seek to set aside the said order and allow the writ petition. /:-\

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 would submit that respondent No.5 has not sold the property to the petitioner herein and rame of respondent No.5 has been reflected in the revenue reconJ. Respondent No.2 ought not to have observed that name of rer;pondent No.5 is not reflected in the revenue records and woukl further submit that respondent No.2 ought to have decided the matter on merits, inspite of relegating the parties to approach corlp,lfsnt Civil Court for title declaration and thus, submit that the orders passed by the learned Tahsildar dated 10.05.2016 are appro'triate and in accordance with law and respondent No.2 ought to have upheld the orders passed by the Tahsildar dated r 0.05.20 r 6.

5. Le,arned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submi: that respondent No.2 has rightly observed that in the absenc:e of entry in the revenue records, the question of execution of sadabainama in respect of subject land by respondent No.5 does not have any validity. He would however submits that petitioner and respondent No.5 has got every opportunity to approach the competent civil Court and the order of Civil Court i I It. /. l-r lEjri{EtriCEf Sw/ .{ I t,t after conducting trial is binding on the revenue authorities. Thus, would seek to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, this Court cannot decide the disputed questions of fact and accordingly, deems it appropriate to relegate the parties to approach the competent civil Court to work out their remedies as contemplated under law. However, rt rs made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits and demerits of the case.

7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, stands closed. SD/.T. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTR4R 6 sEcfloN OFFTCER IITRUE coPYL To l.ThePrincipalsecretary,.RevenueDepartment,stateofTelangana' Secretariat building, HYderaoao

2.TheDistrictCollector,Asifabad,KomarambheemAsilabadDistrict. v' 3.TheRevenueDivisio.nal.officer,KagaznagirrRevenueDivision foiraramOheem Asifabad District'

4.TheTahsildar,Kagaznaga(Mandar,Kagaznagar,KomarambheemAsifabad District.

5. One CC to SRI KO 6. Two CCs to GP HYderabad' [OUT] 7. OneCCtoSRl G \f a. Two CD CoPies PPULA GOPAL, Advocate IOPUC] for Revenue, High Court for the' State of Telangana at MADHU,SUDHAN REDDY' Advocrte [OPUC] :,:, , i, \ \ HIGH COURT DATED ;1311012025 THE S ,J i_) 1 * 2 5 F[8 2tl26 * ORDER WP'.No.198 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\."td S8"