The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Cc urt may be pleased to suspend the orders of the 2nd respondent issued vide corrpt.No,Ell1877212019, dated 02-01-2020 to the extent of the part against the writ petitioner i.e., setting aside the orders No. 81258912017, dated 2510812018, Nr 8/5092/2018, dated 22-01-2019 and initiation action under the provisions of Sec 3(1) of TS Assigned Land (POT) Ac:, 1977with a direction to the 4th respon:l(: nt to implement the proceedings Bl5092|2018, dated 22-01-2019 pending disr<;sal of the main Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAGHAVENDER REDDY IIE:P SRI VENKATESHWARLU GUMMADAVELLY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: SRI H. RAKESH KUVIAR, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K. AJAY KUMAR The Couft made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.124O OF 2O2O ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus; 1) To declare imPugned Compt.No.EIl 1877212019, dated 02.Ol'2O2O as iliegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. 2) The orders passed by the 3'd respondent vide Bl25S9 l2ol7, dated 25.08.2018 and consequential orders issued by the 4*' respondent vide orders bearing No.Bl5092l2Ol8' dated 22.01'2019 are holds good. 3) Further hold that sub-section (1) of Section 3 of T.S.Assigned Land (POT) Act, 1977 (for short the Act, 19771 is not applicable to present case.

2. Heard Sri Raghavender Reddy, Iearned counsel representing learned counsel on record for the petitioner, Sri H.Ral<esh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue Page 2 of l0 appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Aiay Kumar Kulkarni, learned counsel for the 5th respondent

3. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is thi, t her late husband, Shivappa, being a landless poor persc.:r, made an application to the Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hydera:rad, for the a-llotment of agricultura.l land for cultivation. F--rrsuant to this application, the Bhoodan Yagna Board iillotted land measuring Acs. 3.18 guntas in Survey No. 652, situated at Ponnakal Village, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnrr5zar District (hereinafter referred to as the subject prol>erty'), a-fter collecting a donation of Rs.87.50, vide proceedi-t;:1s No.7138 dated 18.03.1983, with a direction to the 4th rt's'rondent to issue a consequential patta to him.

4. Based on the directions of the Bhoodal Ya51na Board, the 4th respondent issued an order bearing No.D.Dis.C/ 1108/ 1985, dated 10.10.1985, mu'-ating the name of thr: petitioner's husband in the Recolc of Rights (ROR). The petitioner's husband remained in posst:ssion and enjoyment of the said property by cultivating it. until his deqgh on 04.lO.2OO7. Since then, the petitioner htl.s been in Page 3 of l0 continuous possession and enjoyment of the property However, the name of one Ghattanna was recorded as pattadar in respect of the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner approached the 3'd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar District, requesting the deletion of Kavali Ghattanna's name from the ROR and entry of her narne as pattadar. The 3.d respondent, after issuing notices to both the petitioner and Ghattanna and examining the material placed before him, directed the 4th respondent to delete the name of Ghattanna artd enter the name of the petitioner in the ROR, vide proceedings No. B/2589/2017, dated 25.08.2018. Based on these directions, the 4Lh respondent deleted Ghattanna's name and entered the petitioner's name in the ROR, a-fter following the due procedure established by Iaw.

5. While things stood thus, the Sth respondent, claiming to be the legal heir of the donor of the subject land, filed a petition dated 31.08.2019 before the 2"d respondent/Joint Collector, seeking a stay of the proceedings initiated by the

3.d respondent. Based on the said representation, the 2"d respondent passed the impugned proce(:ciings dated

02.Ol.2O2O, wherein not only was the petition lil:d by the 5th respondent dismissed, but the orders passed tr1 the 3'd and 4th respondents were a-lso set aside. Furtl-rr:r, the 2nd respondent directed the 4th respondent to restrrr,: the earlier entries ald record the subject property :ir: "Bhoodan Sarkari, " zrnd to initiate proceedings under S -'r: tion 3 ( 1) of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1977

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the a-ffidavit liled in supporl. of the writ petition, submits that the 3'a respondent p a,,;sed orders dated 25.08.2018 based on the proceedings of th,: Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hydera)tad, in File No.7138/1983 dated 18.03.1983, allotting t1e subject property in favour of the petitioner's husband. .rt.s such, no perversity <:an be attributed to the orders pass:r(. b\r the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the directions of the 3,rL :espondent, the 4th respondent entered the name of the p::tittoner AS pattadar by deleting the name of one Kavali Ghirt tanna from the pattadar column in the Record of Rights (RO R). Page 5 of l0

7. He further submits that the 2"d respondent committed an error in conciuding that the petitioner approached the 3.d respondent after a lapse of 32 years from the date of grant of patta, and also erroneously found that neither the petitioner nor her husband was ever in possession of the subject property. It is further submitted that once the Bhoodan Yagna Board has allotted the property by way of a notification, it cannot unilaterally retract or cancel the same. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Kambala Sesharatnam and others v. Government of Andhra Pradeshl, wherein it is held as follows: "13. In fact, as per the provisions of the A.P.Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 once a donation made to Bhoodan Board is vested in the Board under Section 15 of the said Act, there is no provision for denotification. On the other hand, as per Section 29 of the said Act any person whose interests are effected as a result of the donation of any land for the purpose of Bhooda;r Yagna or Gramdan whether before or after the commencement of t]"e Act has to institute a suit in a civil Court having jurisdiction."

8. lharned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, in I the counter filed before the 2.d respondept, tlrg petitiqner ' 2ot21q l.ro zss I has enclosed the following documents: (1) true e)(tract of the pahani for the year 197 l-1972; (21 true extract ol'the pahani for the year 1976-1977; (31 cash receipt issuel by the A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board; (a) copy of the proceedi:rp;s issued by the A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board vide No.104/ 1,/ . 983, dated

18.03.1983; (5) copy of the proceedings isr;r-,ed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Moosapet, vide No.C,/ 1108/1985, dated 10.10.1985; (6) copy of the proceedings o1 1.he Revenue Divisiona-l Officer, Mahabubnagar, vide No.B,r ',2569 12Orr, dated 25.08.2018; and (7) copy of the procee dings of the Tahsiidar, Addakal, vide No.B/5092 12O18, dated

22.O7.2019.

9. He further submits that, based on t;-rr aJoresaid documents. the petitioner has perfe.e ted her trt. e over the $ subject property. Therefore, tlne 2"d respondent ortght not to have passed the impugned proceedings settirL6, aside the orders of the 3'd and 4trr respondents. Accordinld'r, he prays that the writ petition be allowed. I I - Page 7 of l0

10. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, upon instructions, would submit that the Bhoodan Yagna Board was not made a pafiy to any of the proceedings either before the 2'd respondent or the 3'd respondent. The said Board has also not been impleaded as a party in the present writ petition. The 2"d respondent, based on the documentary evidence produced by both the petitioner and the 5th respondent, rightiy set aside the orders of the 3'd and 4tr' respondents and directed initiation of action under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1977, after duly serving notices in Form-l and Form-ll to both parties. As such, no perversity can be attributed to the action of the 2"a respondent, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order insofar as the subject property is concerned. 1 1 . Learned counsel for the unofficiai respondent would submit that the 2"d respondent, upon perusal of the materia-l placed before her, found that the narne of one Sri Kava-li Ghattanna had been recorded as pattadar 1n respect of the subject property without any supporting documentary evidence. As such, the 2'a re,lF ondent has rightly passed the impugned proceedings. He further submits that the petitioner has not liled an1' clocumenta-ry proof to substantiate her claim. Moreor el-, the 2nd respondent has rightly observed that, althouql-t patta was granted in favour of the petitioner's husbanci in the year 1983, the petitioner approached the 3'd res':rondent for correction of revenue records only after a laps(t ,;f 32 years, which is barred by limitation. He therefore sr,tbmits that there is no illegality in the order passed try the 2nd re spondenl

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the f,e.-itioner, the learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Revenrre, and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, and upor: perusal of the material placed before this Court, this Co rrr-t is of the considered opinion that the 2"a respondent passed the impugned orders based on the documenta.rv evidence submitted by both the petitioner and the 5th resrl:ondent. As such, no illegality or infirmity can be found r:. the order passed by the 2"a respondent. Page 9 of l0 1 3. In fact, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, the Bhoodan Yagna Board was not made a party to arly of the proceedings before respondents 2 to 5, nor has it been impleaded in the present writ petition before this Court

14. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the sarne is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly, dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent to assert their respective rights before the competent civil Court, in accordance with law, if they are so advised.

15. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if arly, pending, shall stand dismissed. \ To, ,TRUE COPYII SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRl. VENKATESHWARLU GUMMADAVELLY, Advocate [OPUC] 2, Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at 3 One CC to SRI K AJAY KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] BM GJP / AY"Ut' HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 610912025 ORDER WP.No.1240 of 2020 4:. , -,,'- 2E lif,2$A \..., DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS r1 7* \'\