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 call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 4th respondent in case No.D114512014 Ot.2311012019 in reversing the orders of the 3rd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy in File No.D/1 1312OO7, Dl.O3lO2l2O13 by declaring the same as illegal, and contrary to law and in consequence thereof, set aside the impugned order of the 4th respondent in.Case No.D1l45l2O14 Dated 2311012019 and also the consequential order of the 4th respondent in file No.D'l/0912016 DI.23l1Ol2O19 by issuing writ of Mandamus any other writ or direction or order by restoring the original entries of the petitioners mother, as otherwise, the petitioner will be put to heavy and irreparable loss. 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 suspend the impugned order of the 4th Respondent in file No. D114512014, daled 2311012019 and also consequenlial order in file No. D110912016 and continue the original entries as issued in proceedings No. No.8/52212013, dated 1811012013, Pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.V.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1to5 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.6&7 : SRI K.GANI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH W.P.No.687 of 2O2O This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the respondent No.4 in Case No.D1/ 45l2Ol4 dated 23.10.2019 in reversing the orders of the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy in FiIe No.D/ 113/2OO7 dated 03.02.20 13 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri K. Gani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the mother of petitioners late Chinna Nagamma was the pattadar of iands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0-32 gts tn Sy.No.127, Ac.0.1O gts in Sy.No.158, Ac.4.13 gts Sy.No.159, Ac.O.13 gts IN Sy.No.175, Ac.0.O7 gts 1n 1n Sy. No. 1 76, Ac.l .26 gts 1n Sy.No.177, Ac.4. 13 gts 1n Sy.No. 195 and Ac. 1.06 gts in Sy.No.199 situated at Kanmanoor Village of Peddamandhadi Mandal, Wanaparthy. The unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 by creating the bogus documents and misrepresenting the facts before the respondent No.2-Tahsildar got mutated their names in the 2 SK, J W P No.687 of 2O2O revenue records without having any right and the respondent No.2 did not issue arrv notice to the mother of petitioners prior to said mutation. The mother of petitioner fited appeal bearing No.D/ 1 13/2ooz before the respo^dent No.3_Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was allowed on 03.02.2013 setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 and thereafter, the respondent No.2 has restored the name of the mother of petitioners in the revenue records for the subject lands by order dated 18.10.2013 File No.B/S22/2}ts. Against the said orders, the unofhcial respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed two revisions before the respondent No.4 after formation of new Districts and the village of the petitioners comes under Mahabubnagar District. During pendency of those revisions, the mother of petitioners died on 16.05.2019 ald the petitioners being legal heirs were not brought on record by the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the Revision Case No.DI/45/2014. The respondent No.4 has ctubbed both the revisions and a_llowed the revisions by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 in File No.D/ 113/2OOz dated 03.02.2013 and the consequential order passed by the respondent No.2 in File No.B/52 2/2013 dated 18.10.2O13. I J SK, J W.P.N0.687 of 2020

4. l,earned Counsel for the petitioners further submirs rhat though the respondent No.4 has mentioned the names of petitioners as legal heirs in Revision Case No.D1/ 09/2016, he has not given an opportunity to the petitioners to be impleaded as legal heirs in Case No.D / 45 /2OIS dated 23. l).2olg, which is a main case and as such, the order passed by the respondent No.4 in Case No.D1/ 45/2014 dated 23. l).2olg is void as it was passed against a dead person. He submits that aJter the orders passed by the respondent No.3 in File No.D/ t13/2OOZ dated 03.02.2013, the subject lalds were gifted in favour of the petitioner No.1 and his daughter as those lands are ancestral lands and the mother of petitioner got share out of the other shareholders in the subject lands- He further submits that the other share holders have sold the lands to the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 and some others because of illiteracy of the mother of petitioners and they got mutated their names in the revenue records by misrepresenting that the mother of petitioners has sold the lands. He further submits the respondent No.3 after thorough enquiry fou,d that the rn61fis1 of petitioners did not alienate her share of larrd to anybody and passed orders &r_ ./ a \ 4 W P No 687 of2020 SK, restoration of the name of petitioners in the revenue records in File No.D/ 1 13/2007 dated O3.O2.2O13. He further submits that the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 have created forged documents in collusion with other co-sharers of the lands and got mutated their names in the revenue records and the respondent No.4 without taking into consideration of the grounds raised by the mother of petitioners and after her death without bringing the LRs i.e, petitioners, on record allowed the revision by the impugned order in Case No.DI/45l2Ot4 dated 23.lO.2otg and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugrred order dated 23.lO.2olg.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 based on the counter submits that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 are absolute owners a,d possessors of certain extents of rands in Sy.Nos.195/8, 199 /8, tgllA and tg|/AA situated at Kanmanoor Village, pedda Maldadi Mandal, Mahabuubnagar District through registered sale deeds and the respondent No.2 has mutated their names in the revenue records, issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. The mother of petitioners sold her land admeasuring to an extent /q 5 SK, J W.P.No.687 of 2020 of Ac.4-13 gts to Musti Chinna Buchanna through registered sale deed dated 25.05.1994 and after 13 years of her sale, she lrled case against the respondent Nos.6 and 7 before the respondent No.3, who in turn passed order on 03.02.2013 in File No.D/ 113/2OO7 without giving opportunity to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and entered the name of Chinna Nagamma by removing the names of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 in File No.B/52212OI3 dated 18.10.2013. Against the said proceedings, the respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed. two appeals before the respondent No.4 and in one appeal, they included the petitioners and their mother. He submits that the petitioner No.1 has created a sale document in respect of the disputed land from his mother Nagamma and the respondent No. 1 passed the proceedings in File No.B/10183/2016 and entered the name of the petitioner No.l in the revenue records without any notice to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and when they filed objections, the respondent No.4 passed cancellation of the proceedings of the respondent No.1 in File No.B/10183/2016.

6. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 further submits that as per the records, Sri Narayana, grandson of ( 6 W.P.No 687 of 2020 SK the original pattadar Sri Thimmanna ald yerranna(son) sold the subject lands to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 through registered saie deeds and Sri Thimmalna, original pattadar is survived by one son and two daughters. The mother of petitioners is one of the daughters and the petitioners being legal heirs are claiming the share in the lalds of the respondent Nos.6 and Z. He further sr ':: t""t submits that the respondent No.4 after considerin* all the aspects allowed the ""..,^^_,-. revisions and requeste, I to dismiss the writ petition..

7. After hearing both sides and perusal of tl_re record, this Court is of the considered view that the mother of petitioners filed ROR appeal No.D/1 13/2OOZ before the respondent No.3 against the mutation proceedings in favour of the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and Z with regard to the suit schedule No 3 has he ground that the Property. After hea: . arowed the said "rJ-":::jf;:,Ijespondent record discloses that no nodce was issued to the pattadars at the time of mutation of the names of the unr Nos.6 and 7 and set .-,r^ .] the mutation proceedings' As per the RoR Act, if ,t ""r" by the pattadar, the Tahsiidar has to issue notice ,o*, the pattadars before mutation even if "' tne unofficial respondent "t "il { 7 SKJ W P.No 687 of 2O2O the sale deeds are true and genuine one. Aggrieved by the said orders, the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 have frled revision before the respondent No.4. _The respondent No.4 has allowed the revision petirion on the ground that the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 have purchased the subject lands through registered sa.le deeds ald continued possession over the subject lands tilt date. The finding of the revisional authority is without any basis as the respondent No.3 has given a categoricar finding that the Tahsildar without following due procedure has mutated the names of the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the records.

8. Once the appellate authority after verifying the records has stated that the mutation proceedings have taken place without following due procedure, it is has to be remanded back to the preliminary authority for conducting enquiry for mutation of the records. In the instant case, the revisional authority without directing to conduct de nouo enquiry has allowed the revision filed by the unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7. The respondents herein have failed to produce any document to show that the Tahsildar while mutating the records has followed due procedure as required under the ( ( I 8 SK, J W P.No.687 of 2020 ROR Act. Without following due procedure as contemplated under the ROR Act, the revenue authorities cannot mutate the records in favour of any one on the basis of registered documents. In view of the same. this is a fit case to remand the matter to the preliminary authority i.e., Tahsildar, for conducting de nouo enquiry by giving opportunity to the contesting parties for mutation of revenue records.

9. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 in Case No.D1/45/2014 dated 23.10.2019 and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.l Tahsildar for conducting de nouo enquiry under the ROR Act by giving opportunity to the both sides and pass appropriate orders as per law and communicate the same to the both parties. No order as to costs

10. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stald closed. \ To, //TRUE COPYII SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT R ISTRAR SECTI OFFICER

3. 4 5 The Tahsildar, Addakal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. The Tahsildar, Peddamandhadi Mandal, Wanaparthy. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar Division, Mahaboobnagar District. The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar. The Principar. secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, state of Tal.h,1ah. t-lrrdoraFrai t

6. One CC to SRI V.V.NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate. IOPUCI 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. TOUTI B. One CC to SRI K.GANI REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies. BSK LS HIGH COURT DATED:231041202s \ ORDER WP.No.687 ot 2020 :\. 1:\ , .i,i I .,,i .: / .! :, .$' .\ \-\ $ '73tH i )._'\i I ( DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS * \ \b