Thc learned Counsel for the v. State of Telangana and

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.39483 of 2016 ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is hled questioning impugned orders passed by the respondent No.3 in file No.L/867 l2Ol5 dated 04.10.2016 whereunder the appeal hled by the unoflicial respondent No.5 was allowed and the directed the Tahsildar/Respondent No.4 to delete the narnes of petitioners in the occupation column in pahanies in respect of the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1.20 guntas 1n Sy.No.3O7 situated at Inapur Village and an alother extent ol Ac.3.14 guntas in Sy.No. l24/A situated at Ramasagar Village of Cheriyal Mandal.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents and perused the record. 2 SK, J

3. The learned Counsel lor the petitioners would submit that the unofficial respondnet No.5 and one Bana-la fiambaiah have jointly purchased agricultural lands adrneasuring to an extent of Ac.6.28 guntas 1n Sy.No. 124 of Ramasagar Village ol Cheriyal Revenue Mandal under a registered sale deed No.84 1/1986 dated 2,+.O8.1986 and another extent of Ac.2.2O guntas in Sy.No.3O7 of Inapur Village of Cheriyal Mandal (nereinafter referred to 'as subject lands') and their nanres were also mutated in the revenue records and allor.ted sub-division Nos.I24 lA and 124/8 rn respect oI lands of Ramasagar Village. Subsequently, the said unofficial respondenr No.5 and Banala Sambaiah have jointly sold the subject lands on

17.O4.2OOO to the petitioners through t',vo simple sale deeds a:rd also handecl over possession to the petitioners agreeing to execute the sale deeds as and when delnanded by the petitior-rers. Subsequently, 3 SK, J when the petitioners approached the unofhcia-l respondent No.5 and Banala Sambaiah to execute the sale deeds in terms of simple sale deeds, the unofficial respondent No.S postponed on one pretext or the other, however, Bana-la Sambaiah executed sale deed No.l236/2O 12 dated 3O.O3.2012 in respect of lands in Sy.No. 124 /B to an extent of Ac.2.27 guntas of Ramasagar Village and another sale deed No.l237/2012 dated 30.03.2012 in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1.0O guntas in favour of the wife of the petitioner No.l and petitioner No.2 and got mutated their names and also obtained pattadar pass books in respect of the said lands.

4. The learned Counsel lor the petitioners would further submitted that while the matters stood thus, tlre unoflrcial respondent No.5 filed O.S.No.3l8l2Ol2 on the hle of Additonal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon against the petitioners [or perpetual injunction 1n \ 4 SK, J respect of the subject lands and subsequently rvithdrar.,,n. During the pendency of said suit, the uno{ficial respondent No.S filed application before the Respondr:nt No.3 questioning entries irr the revenue records in the narne of the petitioners and to enter his name in :'espect of the subject lands, however, without any jur.sdiction, the respondent No.3, passed impugnecl orders deleting the names of t.he petitioners and orde:red to enter the name of the unofhcia-l respondent No.5.

5. The learned Counsel for the petit:ioners would further srrbmit that as per Section 3 (3) of the A.P Rights in Lald and Pattadar Pass Books ,\ct, 1971 (for short 'ROR Act'), if any person eflected b], ,r-, t, "rrary such Record of Rights may within a period of one year they have to sought rectihcation o[ the entries. The unofficial respondent No.5 hled appeeLl before the responder:Lt No.3 in the year, 20 15 seekrng correction 5 SK, J in the occupation column in respect of pahanies for the year 2Ol2-13. Beyond one year, if the person wants to seek rectification of entries in ROR the aggrieved party has to hle revision before the District Collector under Secton 9 of the ROR Act, but the unofficial respondent No.S filed application before the Revenue Divisional Officer and therefore the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is without any jurisdiction.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that after refusing the execution of sale deeds by the unofficial respondent No.5, the petitioners frled two suits in O.S.No.268/2O15 and 269 l2OI5 on the hle of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Janagon for specific performance and the said suits are pending and requested to a-llow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order 6 SK, J 7 Thc learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions, placed reliance on the lollowing Judgment: l. G.Prabhakqr Vs. <tthers I State of Telangana and

8. Dur ing the pendency of Writ Petition the unoffrcia respondent No,5 expired zrnd his iegal represenr-atives were brought on record as respttndent Nos.6 to 10

9. The learned Counsel appearing lor unoflicial respondents, basing on the counter ftled by the responde et Nos.6 to 10 would submit that the responder-rt No.S and Banala Sambaial'r have joir-rtl1, purchase,l the subject property through sale deed No.84 1 / 1986 dated 24.08.1986 and as per the recirals of the said document, 600/0 share belongs to respondent No.5 and 40% belong to Banala Sambaiah | 2015 {4) AL.L) 427 7 SK, J and their narnes were recorded in the revenue record as per the said ratio. The unofhcial respondent No.S never sold any land to the petitioners as alleged. The subject property was not partitioned with metes and bounds and the said Banala Sambaiah is not entifled to sell the subject property. After obtaining the sale deeds from Banala Sambaiah, the petitioners have started interfering with the possession as such the unoflicial respondnet No.S hled suit for injunction against the petitioners in O.S.No.318 of 2Ol2 on the file.of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Janagon. After coming to know about the illegal mutation of the narnes of the petitioners, the respondent No.5 frled appeal before the respondent No.3. Subsequently, the suit filed by the respondent No.S in O.S.No.318 of 2Ol2 was withdrawn and filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.64 of 2OL9 for the relief of declaration of title, partition and for possession of his 607o share in the 8 SK, J subject I)roperty. The suit for injunction is nothing to do r,l.ith -he mutation proceedings and the respondent No.3 has jurisdiction under Section 5 (5) of ROR Act. After forrnation of new Districts and new Courts all the suits fil-.d by the petitioners and the unofficial respondent No.5 were transferred to 2"d Additonal Junior Crvil Judge, Siddipet and they are still pending There are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ pe tition

10. The learned Counsel for the unofliclal respondent Nos.6 to tO placed reliance on the following Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court: Chinnrrm Pandurangam Vs. Mand.al Reuenue OfJicer, Serilingampallg Mandal 2 I 1. Alte - hearing both sides and on perusing the entire mirterial on record, this Court is of the considerecl view that the petitioners are challenging the i ) (2OO7l 6 ALD t34 {DB) 9 SK, J impugned orders passed by the respondent No.3 in appeal No.L/86712015 dated 04.lO.2016 in which the appeal filed by the unofficial respondent No.5 was allowed by deleting the names of the petitioners in occupant column in the pahanies in respect of the subject lands and directed the respondent No.4/Tahsildar to enter the narnes in the occupalt column as per Rules.

12. The case of the petitioners is that, the respondent No.5 and one Banala Sambaiah have jointly purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6.28 guntas Sy.No. 124 of Ramasagar Village of Cheriyal Mandal under registered document No.84 1 I 1986 dated

24.08.1986 and another extent of Ac.2.2O guntas in Sy.No.307 of Inapur Village of Cheriyal Revenue Mandal and they got mutated their names in the revenue records and allotted sub-division Nos. 124/A and l2a/B in respect of lands in Ramsagar Village. 10 SK, J Thereaft,:r, the respondent No.5 and Banala Sambaiah havc joirLtly sold land entire extent of said lands to the petitioncrs through simple sale deeds dated

17.O4.2OOO. In spite of several requests made by the petitione;-s, the respondent No.5 did not come forward to execute the regular sale deed, but Banala Sambaiah had exec -rte:d t',vo registered sale deed Nos. 1236/2012 and 1237 12012 dated 30.03.2012 in respect of an extent of Ac.2.27 guntas of land in Sy.No.l24 lB of Ramasagrrr Village and extent of Ac. 1.OO guntas in respect of land in Sy.No.307 of Inapur Villages respectivcly in favour of the wife of the petitioner No.l and petiti:nc r No.2.

13. The contention of the petitioners is tJrat, as per Rule-3 (3) oi ROR AcL, 197 l, if any person affected by an entry in such record of rights may within a period of one year they have to sought rectification of the entry. As thc respondent No.5 fiIed appeal in the year 11 SK, J 2015 for correction of entries in the pahanies for the year 2Ol2-13, beyond one year, without filing any condone delay petition, the respondent No.3 allowed the appeal hled by the respondent No.S without any jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside.

14. After hling the appeal, the petitioners hled two suits in O.S.No.268l2OI5 and269l2O15 on the hle of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Janagaon against the respondent No.5 for specific performance 1n pursuance to the simple sa-le deeds dated 17 .O4.2OOO executed by the respondent No.5. Subsequently, the respondent No.5 had withdrawn the injunction filed by him in O.S.No.318 of 2Ol2 with a liberty to hle comprehensive suit and Iiled O.S.No.64 ol 019 for declaration of title, partition and possession of his 600lo share in the subject property and all the suits filed by both parties are still pending before the competent Civil Court. t2 SK, J

15. There is no dispute with regard to joint purchase of schedule property by the respondent No.5 and Ban a.la Sambaiah through regis(ered sale deeds and the llercentage ol shares of respondent No.S and Banala Sambaiah. The petitioners have not filed any document with regard to partition of the schedule property betu,cen the respondent No.S and Banala Sambaiah rrnd u,ithout hxing any boundaries, Banala Sambaiatr unilaterally sold the propert5r to the petitioners through the registered documents. Admittedly, the names of the petitioners in the enjoyers column \,\rere entered after registered documents exccuted bv Banala Sambaiah. The narrres of the respondent No.5 and Banala Sambaiah were rec,rrded in the possession column of the pahanies belorc 20 12- 13

16. As per the Rules and Regulations of ROR Act, before changing ol the names in the pahanies, the SK, J Tahsildar has to issue notices to the affected parties The respondent No.3 in the impugned order categorically held that the pahanies are being prepared for every Fasli Year in terms of G.O.Ms.No.265, Revenue. As per Rule-3 of Telalgana Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 pahani is not a record of right and therefore the appeal is maintainable for rectification of wrong entries in occupant column of pahani under Section 158 ofTelangana Land Revenue Act. The respondent No.3 further held that the petitioners have not frled any valid document in support of their contention and given a categorical finding that the Tahsildar has not followed the procedure under Rules and Regulations while recording the names of the petitioners in occupant column.

17. As per Section 5(A) of ROR Act, 197I, the Talrsildar has to follow the procedure for regulartzation t4 SK, J of certain alienations or transfer of land and also has to follou'Rule 22 (1) of the Act before recording the changes in the Pahanies/Adangal by virtue of an alienatio n or transler made or effected otherwise than by registered document for declaring such alienation as valid by using notification in Form-IX. In the lnstant case the Tahsildar has not followed the said procedur: and not communicated to the respondent No.5 with regard to changes in the pahanies. When there is rro such commutation to the respondent No.S with rege.rcl to changes in the revenue records, the question of delay does not arise as per settled law. Moreover, the suits filed by both the parties are still pending itefore the competent civil Courts. Without following the procedure, the Tahsildar changed the entries tn the pahanies and the same were righfly rectif-red by the respondent No.3 in the impugned L l5 SK, J

18. The Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in G.Prabha,kor Vs. Stnte of Telangana (surpa I/ not apply to the facts of the rnstant case.

19. The Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 in Chinnqm Pandurangam Vs. Mqndal Reaenue OlJicer, Serilingamapallg (stl,pra I/, squarely apply to the facts of the instant case, wherein this Court held as follows: "1O. TLte issue dcserves to be considered from another anglc. lf an upplicttion is made for amendment of the cxisting entria.\ in thc Racord of Rights, the person whose numc ulreudt' t,ti.yts in such record is entitled to contesl the proposed umendmcnt. He can do so only if a notice regarding the proposcd urnendment is given to him by lhe recording uulhority. .-ln ordr:r pussed ugainsl a person whose name ulreudS, axist in rhr Record of Righs without giving him noticc of the proposccl amendmenl and elJective opporlunity of hearing is liuble to be declared nullity on the ground of violution of thc rulc of audi alteram partem, which, as mentioned aho,'v. represcnt the most important facet of the rules of nuturul iustiL'c It need no emphasis that the rules of noturol justrce ure upltlicable in all judicial and quasi' 16 SK, J .judiciul proceedings. l'he rulc of hcoring is also appliccble in pLrely adtninistraliv proccedlngs and uctions v'here any p tblic authority passc.t an order af/ccting th,z riqht.s of any ir,dividual -l'he applitubilit.y of the rule.s ol nutural justice lo ptrely udntinistrulive o(tions hus hacn recognized by lhe Suprcme Court in State o.f Orissu v. Dr (Miss) Rinupani Dei (llR 1967 SC 1269) and has been reiterated in vurious juCgments including thosa o./'A. K. Kraipak v. IJnion of India (air 1970 sc I 5()1 . !\,luneka Gantlhi r. [,nion ol lnclia (AlR 19789 SC 597: .5.1.. Kapoor v .Iagmohun i.4lR l98l SC 136),., Swadeshi L'otron lvlills v. Union of India (AlR l98l SC 818) and Olga Tellis v Bombal. .l,lu,titipal Corporotion (AlR t986 SC t80

20. In the instant case also the Tahsildar, without following procedure changed entries in the pahanies and not communicated the orders to the respondent No.5. Therefore, the orders passcd by the respondent No.3 doer; not require any interfcrence by this Court and the writ petition is liabte to be dismissed as devoid of any merits.

21. Ar:cordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid arly merits. However, this orcter does not I7 SK, J preclude the petitioners to agitate their rights in the suits pending before the competent civil court. No order as to costs.

22. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shali stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A. SRINIVASA REDOY ANT REGISTRAR ASSI N OFFICER One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARAT+I (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

1. The Principal, Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Siddipet, Siddipet District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Jangaon Revenue Division, Jangaon District.

4. The Tahsildar, Cheriyal Revenue Mandal, Siddipet Distric't. 5. 11 L.R. Copies. 6. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia. Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 7, The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, HQh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

8. One CC to SRI ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA. Mvocate[OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 1 1 . Two CD Copiesq To, KKS MP (r tHE STe ,t .\ c 5 i) ,o 0 t t,l; Zli5 ( ) I \ '.:"r') .._ -\=-.-:= / i'' I .? H!GH COUIRT DATED:1010112025 ORDER WP.No.39483 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ i(d)'' W