1. Bandi Anjaiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to iSSUe a appropriate writ, order or orders, more pa rl.'l|r.rla rly one in the nature of wRlT oF CERTIORARI calling the Records relating'tdthe proceedings No. 81143t2020, dated 31-08-2020 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act 1971. and set aside the , ".ll sa me |.A.NO:1 OF 20 21 Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the c roumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the orders passed by the 4th resp.ndent in B/ 143r2ozo. pending disposal of the above writ petition. |.A.NO:2 OF 2021 Between: K. Savitha Sagar, W/o Gyan Sagar, Aged about 26, Occ. Busiress H.No. Plot No 26, Paigah House Colony, Phase-ll, S.P. Road, Secunderabad. ....PET|T|ONER/RESPONDENT No.5 AND

1. Bandi Anjaiah, S/o Venkatadri, Aged about. 60 years Occ H. No.9-5214/3/A, Teachers Colony, Palvancha Badradri District. Business, Rl/o. Kothagudem

2. A Srinivas, S/o Veera Somulu Aqed about. 40 years, Occ. H.No.12-4124, Gudur Villsage f<"Mandal, Warangal District. Business, Rl./o ..... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. The Joint Collector, Yadadri- Bhuvangiri Yadadri- Bl- uvangiri District. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir Division Yaladri- Bhuvangiri District.

6. The Tahsildar, Bhuvangiri Mandal, Yadadri- Bhuvanqi-i District. .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Nos.1 to 4 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci|cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Orders Daled 0210212021 in l.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.'1648 of 2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court thereby to DISMISS th3 writ petition rn the interest of lustice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J.VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI H.RAKESH KUMAR, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : M/s PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No. 1 64A OF 2021 ORDER: This Writ Petition is rrlecj under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the follo'"r'ing relief/s:- ".Ui,trty, "... to issue a appropriate writ, order or orders, more -t] e nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI Darticularlv one in Records relating to the . proceedings No ;;;;;" W tiStzozo, dated 31-08-2020 and declare the sarnc as violation of principles o[-natu ral ju,stice and Iff.grl,' to the provisio,'" of r"l"tg".ta tughts in Land and ;;;1;; ;";A; Passbooks Act 1971 arrd set aside the same and to pass such order or other orders -'" Heard Mr.J.Venkateshr'l'ar Redd-v, Iearned coutlsel for the Petltloner, Mr.H.Rakesh Kumar, [earned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos'1 to 4 and 2 Ms.Shivanandini,Iearnedcounselappea-ringforM/s.Pearl Law Associates

3.Thebrieffactscfthecasearethatthepetitioneristhe absolute ow'ner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.28 gts in Sy No.526/UU and Petitioner No 2 is the owner ald possessor of the land admeasuring Ac'O'28 gts in Sy No' 526 IUU situated at Ravagiri Village' Bhongiri (M) Yadadri- Bhuvangiri District erstwhile Nalgonda District' that the 2 '-\, .* -- il \ petitioners purchased the same under regi:;tered sale decd document N<t.4322 l20 i2 dated 2I.06.2Ol'2 lrom its righrful orvner Sri Donda Venkat Reddy; that frcnr tlre date of purchase t,he petitioners are iri the peaceful l)L,ssession arld enjoyment of the same; that originally Murrl<lasani Ashallu was the patteda-r and possessor of the lan,lr; admeasuring Acs.2.O2 gts in Sy.No.526 lUU, situated at Ra.giri (V) Bhongiri (M) erstu'hile NaJgonda, presently Yadz d ri-Elhuvanagiri District; that Sri Muddasani Ashallu i.e., pirrtedar sold the entire land in favour of Donda Venkat Reddv i.e., the vendor of the petitioners under registered sale rlced document bearing No.z179 I /2O2O dated Ol.12.2OlO and rectificarion deed bearing No.a24 12011; that since the di,t: ol'purchase, the petitioner's vendor \,\,.as in possession and enjoyment of the same; thar out of the land admeasuring ltc.s_2.0,2 gts, an extent of Ac.O.26 gts was effected in road wi<lening; that the remaining land admeasuring Ac. 1. 16 gts was rn possession of the petitioners vendor; that the petitioners f,ur( hased the same under registered sale deed dated 2 1 06..2012 from D.Venkat Rerldy and since the date of p,upc6,,"., ,n. petitioners arr: in the peaceful possession an:l enjolrment of 3 the same; that the Petltloners obtained constructlon permission from the Gram PanchaYath and constructed a cattle shed and obtained electric connections for the shed; that the petitioners matie ai application to respondent No 4 for effecting mutations in the revenue records in respect of the Iands purchased by the petitioners' While so' respondent No'5 made arr application dated 23-02-2012 to respondent No 4 for effecting mutation in the revenue records in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.O2 gts in Sy'No '526 ot the basis of the documentdated2o.05-1992;thatrespondentNo.4after conducting enquiry issued memo vide proceedings No.Bl37a3l2O12 dated ll-O7-2012 intimating respondent No.5 that the said iand is already transferred to others through registered documents and the mutations were also effected in the revenue records; that respondent No'4 directed respondent No.5 to approach the appellate authoritv for redressal of her claim; that during the vear 2018' respondent No.5 and her agents tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners and aggrieved by the same' the petitioners filed OS.No. 175/ 2OlS and O SNo'176 of 2018 on the fiie of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge' Bhongir against r! 4 respondent No.S and oihers for the Decret of Permanent Injunction ar-rd the sarne is coming up fcr trial; that respondent No.5 filed Appeal in Case No.D1266812012 under Rule 5(5) of A.P. Rights in. Land and Pattedar l)as-"bocks Act, 197 l; that the petitioners and the vendor of lletitioners are parties to the said Appeal; that vide order datr:d 23 05-20 15 the Appeal r'vas allowed by setting aside the tnutation orders salctioned in favour the respondents. Assailing the same, the petitioners filed Revision before respondent No.2 vide Revision No.F2 1626812016; that the revisional authority after hearing both sides allowed the Revision vrde order dated 15-72 2Ol7 setting aside the orders passed by respondent No.3 and remanded the matter to respondent \o.3 to examine the issue u'ith reference to the boundaries and physical possession duly giving an opporturiity of hearing to all the purchasers and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (3) months from date of the order; that the appellate authority after hearing both sides passed :he orders vide proceedings in Case No.D1266812012 dated 1'5-12-2019 disposing oll the appeal without assigning r€asons; that the petitroners received notices in the caveat p<:titions filed b1' 5 respondent No.5 stating that respondent No.:+ had passed proceedings No.Blla3 l2O2O dated 31-08 2020 directing cancellation of pattedar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner.i ';endors vendor and others and ordered mutations in the revenue records in favour of respondent No.5 1n respect land admeasuring Acs.2.O2 guntas in Sy.No.526; that respondent No.4 in collusion rvith respondent No.5 passed impugned orders dated 31-OB-202O, which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred the present Writ Petition. 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.4 had not issued aly notice to petitioners or other effected parties who are claiming rights over the land in Sy.No.526 situated at Rayagiri Viliage, Bhongir Mandal Yadadri-Bhr.uargiri District. He states that respondent No..1 in collusion with respondent No.5 passed the impugned order contrary to the provisions of the Telargana Rights in Land ald Pattedar Passbooks Act 1971 and hence, seeks to allow the Writ Petition 6

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 br' {-liing counter affidavit subrr,its that respondent No.5 is the bonafide purchaser of the subject property and her name is mutated in the revenue records; that after a lapse of :en (1.)) i'ears, r'vithout having regard to the limitation period the petitioners preferred an Appeal before the authorities cont:e:rned which is impermissible under la'"v. She denied the contr:ntions of the petitioners that respondent No.4 in collusion !/ith respondent No.5 passed the impugned order dated 31-08-2020; thal respondent No.4 after considering the records coupled with documentarv evidence rightly passed the imp ugned orders. Therefore, sh e states that indulgence of this Court is unwarranted artd seeks to pass appropriate or<lt:rs.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue concedes to the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.5.

7. This Court vide order dated O2.O2.2O21.1 directed the parties to maintain status quo as on today. 8 . Having regard to the submissions of a.l the learned counsel-.ared on careful scrutinv of the materi:1l avaiiable on 7 record, it is apparert that there is flaw w'ith regard to the flou ol titlc of the petitioners from their vendors and an)' inconsistency n ith respect tr the title of the propert] lvould adverseh' effect the rights of the parti-s. 'jen^e, the impugned proceedings No.Bll43/2020, dated 31-08-2020 are set aside.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allow'ed artd remanded back to respondent No.4, for fresh consideration in accordance r,vith law, as expeditiously as possible, preferabl-v '"vithin a period of tu'elve r.t eeks from the date of receipt of a cop,v of this order, by putting the effected parties on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions p.t dit g, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGI2TRAR V SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Joint Collector, Yadadri- Bhuvangiri Yadadri- Bhuvangiri District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir Division Yadadri- Bhuvangiri District. 4. The Tahsildar, Bhuvangiri Mandal, Yadadri- Bhuvangiri District. 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at 6. One CC to SRI J.VENKATESWARA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to tr//s PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] To SA LS ,M HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 810912025 ORDER WP.No.1648 of 2021 2a i't- .; r{: ( 06 tl0l/ &5 6, (. a\ \ l\4I.,: .4 I -'f ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS, 1 b 1^