The High Court · 2025

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Orders in (1) Case No.D1 1458012018, dated 2611012019 passed by the 2nd Respondent-Joint Collector, (2) No.C/274212O15, dated 1210712018 passed by the 3rd Respondent and (3) [\rlemo No.8/289912015, Dt.2911012015 issued by the 4th Respondent- Tahsildar, as illegal, void, arbitrary, violative of principies of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 21 & 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to make necessary corrections as per the proceedings No.G/RS/4198-lll of the 4th Respondent-Tahsildar dated O511211998 in respect of lands to an extent of Ac.1-00 Gts in Survey No.286 and Ac.3-00 Gts in Survey No.287 situated at Urella Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ( Prayer amended as per C.O. dt: 1210912025 in l.A.N o. 1t2021l i lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to issue e-Pattadar Pass Books in place of Pattadar pass Books ind Title Deeds to the Petitioners as per the Extents and Survey Numbers mentioned in their Pattadar Pass Bboks and Title Deeds in respect of lands to dn extent of Ac.1-00 Gts in Survey No.286 and Ac.3-00 Gts in Survey No.287 situated Urella village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. ( Prayer amended as per C.O. dt: 1210912025 in t.A.N o. 1l2021l Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. PARMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. I to 4: AGp FOR REVENUE Counset for the Respondent No. 5 to 8: SRI B. BAL REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.442 OF 2O2O ORDER This Writ Petition is fiIed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles L4, 21 , and 3OO-A of the Constitution of India, namely: (i) Order in Case No. Dt I 4580 l2OL8, dated 26.1O.2OL9, passed by respondentJoint Collector ; (ii) Order in Case No. C /2742 /2OL5, dated the 3'd 12.O7.2OL8, passed by respondent; and 2nd (iiil Memo No. F12899/2OL5, dated '29.L0.2015, issued by the 4th respondent - Tahsildar. . The petitioner further seeks a consequential direction to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to carry out necessarJr corrections in accordance with the proceedings No. G/RS/4 lg8-1il, dated 05.12.1998, issued by the 4th respondent/Tahsildar, in respect of land measuring Acs. 1.00 guntas in Survey No. 286 and Acs. 3.O0 guntas in Survey No. 287, situated at Urella Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsei for the petitioners submitted that originally one Mr. Trrppari Chandra Reddy, the father of the petitionel's, was the pattadar of lands in the entire Sy. Nos. 95, 96,97, gg, gg, 293,294,295, 296,297,299, and 2gg, totaling Acs. 155.38 guntas, situated at Urella Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The names of the father of the petitioners, i.e., Chandra Reddy; the respondents 5 to 8, namely Tuppari Parma Reddy, the junior paternal uncle of the father of the petitioners; and one Tuppari Ramchandra Reddy, who is a cousin of the father of the petitioners, have been recorded in the Khasra as per the partition between them.

3. Since the date of partition, the father of the petitioners had been in possession and enjoyment of lands measuring Acs. 52.31 guntas as the absolute owner and pattad.ar. After his death, the petitioners have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said lands. However, upon noticing discrepancies in the revenue record.s, the petitioners made an application to the then MRO, Chevella, during the \ Page 3 of l0 Revenue Sadassulu for correction of the records in accordance with the correct revenue records pertaining to the year 1951-1952

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the then MRO, Chevella, after issuing notices to respondents 5 to 8 and conducting a detailed enquiry into the old records and actual possession of the petitioners, passed an order in File No. G/RSl4l98-lII, dated 05.12.1998, under Section 3(3) of the ROR Act, sanctioning mutation in favor of respondents 5 to 8, the petitioners, and Ramchandra Reddy for extents of Acs. 50.15 guntas, 52.31 guntas, and 4?.O9 guntas, respectively. The MRO also directed the VRO of Chevella to make the necessary changes in the revenue records.

5. l,earned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have sold part of the land from their share and retained land measuring Acs. 5.06 guntas in Sy. No. 286 and Acs. 6.10 guntas in Sy. No. 287, situated at Urella Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. However, in the revenue records, land measuring Acs. 1.00 Page 4 of10 guntas in Sy. No. 286 and Acs. 3.OO guntas in Sy. No. 287 was not recorded in the n€unes of the petitioners.

6. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners submitted an application on 28.07.2015 to the Tahsildar, Chevella (4.h respondent herein) seeking implementation of the ord.er passed by the then MRO in File No. G/RS/4198-III, dated

05.1o.1998, by correcting the entries in the revenue records with respect to the land measuring Acs. 1.OO guntas in Sy. No. 286 and Acs. 3.OO guntas in Sy. No. 287. However, the 4tt respondent, without conducting €rny enquiry, issued Memo No. B/28gg /2o15, dated 29.1o.2o15, stating that the said order could not be implemented due to the long lapse of time- Aggrieved by this, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent/RDO in File No. C/2242/2OIS.

7. The 3rd respondent, without considering the material placed before him by the petitioners, d.ismissed the appeal vide proceedings No. c/2742 /2015, dated L2.oz,2olg, on the ground that the petitioners filed the application beyond the limitation period, after a lapse of 17 years. Learned t: t, counsel submits that the 3rd respondent ought to have - $ A '?4 - Page 5 of l0 called for the records pertaining to the Tahsildar, Chevella's proceedings in File No. c IRS / 4 198-III, dated 05. 10. 1998. Aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector. The 2'd respondent, without calling for the records and without affording an opportunity of hearing, passed a cryptic order dismissing the revision petition vide proceedings in Case No. Dll4580l2OlB, dated 26.1O.2OL9.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the then MRO, Chevella, after conducting a thorough enquiry, passed proceedings No. G/RS/ 4198-III, dated, 05.10.1998, which were carried out between the ancestors of the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents. He further submits that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 26.10.2019 without proper application of mind and in a mechanical manner, and therefore, prayed. for setting aside the same

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents 5 to 8 submits that no perversity ca.n be attributed to the orders passed by the 2'd respondent/Joint Page 6 of l0 Collector. He submits that after examining the order passed by the 3'd respondent and the material placed before him, the 2'd respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated

26.IO.2019 in accordance with law. He further submits that the petitioners sought implementation of the 1998 order only in 2O15, after a lapse of more than 2O years, which is beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, l97l (for short, 'the ROR Act), and therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, ?ppearing for the learned Government Pleader for RevenlLe, submits that the petitioners have no locus standi to lile an application for correction of entries in the revenue records after a lapse of LT years. He further submits that the 3rd respondent considered the material placed before him by both the petitioners and the unofficial respondents and rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners, which decision has been confirmed by the 2.d respondent/Joint collector. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the impugned ord.ers i t: :: I H n I E $ l t f I t t i I I I I I I I i j PageT ofl0 passed by the 2"d and 3.d respondents, and he therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 1 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents 5 to B, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners filed an application in the year 2015 seeking implementation of the proceedings of the then MRO in File No. G/RSl4l98-1il, dated 05.12.1998, which was admittedly after a lapse of 17 yea-rs. The 3.a respondent also took note of this delay and observed that the petitioners sought implemerltation of the orders passed by the then MRO only after more than 20 yehrs. Accordingly, the 3'd respondent dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners on the following grounds: "1. The then MRO Cheuella uide proceedings No.G/RS/4/9A- III dated 05.10.1998 tns bsued partition proceedings. But on pentsal of the aboue proceedtngs, there i.s no speciftcation, on ushat basis the said orders utere issued, and moreouer the file i,s nottraced out.

2. tIE appellants haue not produced the certified copg of tte proceedings No.G/RS/4/98-IIL dated 05.10.1998 and the same is in questiory whether it is genuine or not.

3. the appellants before fili"g tlrc in"stant co.se, must haue been obtain a certified copA of the proeedings *N6fr/RS/4/95-il dated: 05.10.1998 for anfirming irs Page 8 of l0 genuinitA, as such in absence of originalfile it i,s untaarranted to interfere the proceedings of Tahstldar.

4. the appellants all these Aears haue kept quite since from the date of bsue of said proceedings, and now applied for implementation of the then Tahsildar Cheuella proceedings No.G/RS/4/98-III do.ted 05.10.1998, and this authority haue no jurbdictton to entertain the proceedings of the Tal.s;itdar afier lapse of more than 2O Aears. L2. For the sake of convenience, Sub-section 5 of Section 5 of ROR Act is extracted hereunder: "5(5) Aoair*t euery order of the recording autLrcritu either makinq an amendment in the record of rights or refusinq to make such amendment, fan appeal shnll tie to the Reuenue Diubional Officer or such authoritu as may be prescribedl lsubstituted bu Act No.l of l99g.l, within a period" of sirtu days .from the date of communication of the said. ord.er and the decbton of the appellate authority th.ereon slull, subject to the proui.stons of section 9, be finol." 13- upon perusing the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 12.07.2018, no perversity can be attributed to the 3rd respondent. Even as per the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the RoR Act, any order passed by the recording authority, whether amending the record of rights or refusing to do So, must be challenged within six days from the date of communication of the said order, and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall be final. In view of the sarne, there is no illegatity in the Page 9 of l0 order passed by the 2nd respondent dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners herein. L4. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not Iind any merits warranting interference in. the orders passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. However, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach a competent civil court to agitate their rights in accordance with law, if they are so advised

15. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. sD/- s. ALLIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To, Telangana, Hyderabad. 1 . The Principal. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, State of 2- The Joint collel?tor, Rang_q-Reddy District, office at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 3. The Reve n ue D ivisio n a I Officer, Ctrevel ldoivisio n, RinG *aAy'bis-trict. ! The T_ahsildar, chevelra Mandai, Ransa Reddv 5. One CC to SRt M. PARMA REDDY, -ndvocat'e 6. Two ccs to GP FoR REVENUE, High court roiirre stlte of rerangana. 7. One GC:to ERrB. BAL REDDy, Advocate [OpUC] 8. Two CD,Oopies -oiitrict.- tOCUCt MMT PVL tr"c. HIGH COURT DATED :1210912025 ORDER WP.No.442 of 2020 t ? ,_ ( () ,-) ST4 O g JAN ?[?[ t iti a DISPOSING;OF THE WRIT PETITON WITHOUT GOSTS P'.{(, a\r\>a