The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may h,e pleased to Suspend the Operation of Order d1.19.12.2O24 passed by the Lc,arned Single Judge in W.P.No.16804 ol 2011, pending disposal of the above writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI VEDULA VENKATARAMANA, SENTOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM, COUNSEL FOR SRI C.HARI PREETH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 TO 9: SRI A.RAVINDER REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI N.JANARDHAN REDDY GP FOR REVENUE W.A.NO: 316 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Filed Against the order Dated 1911212024 in Writ Petition No.1B918 of 2011 on the file of the Hi3h.Court. Between: ! Ramesf , S/o.l-ate Vasudevarao Aged 72 years, Occ - Agriculture Rt/o.Near Railway Station, Sirpur Town Adilabad District, Telangana State. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.3 AND

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Asifabad Division, Adilabad District 2. The Tahsildar, Sirpur, Adilabad District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESP.NO.1 & 2 S. A..Mqll, Reddy S/o.Raghava Reddy Aged 89 years, Occ - Agriculture 4. A.Raghupathi Reddy, S/o.A.Malla ReddyAged 6'l years, Occ - E.nployee R/o.Sirpur Town, Adilabad District. - R/o.H.No.1-30-367. Khanajiguda Secunilerabad - 500 015. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER Nos.1 & 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstanr:es stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be: pleased to suspend the operation of order dt.19112t2024 passed by the Learned single Judge in W.P.No.1891B of 2011, pending disposal of the above writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI VEDULA VENKATARAMANA, SENIOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI A.RAVINDER REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI N,JANARDHAN REDDY GP FOR REVENUE . The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENI THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL Nos.3O8 and 316 of 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble Snf. Jl{slice Rerutkct Yora) Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana. Iearned Senior Counsel representing Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned colrnsel for the appellant, Sri I\th-rralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Govlrnment Pleader for Revenue, for the official respondenr s and Sri A.Ravinder Rr:,1d_v, learned Senior Counsei rcpresen:ing Sri N.Ja.nardhan Re,ld-,., learned counsel for respondents No.( to 9 in W.A.No.308 of i;t)25 and for respondents No.3 arrr[ 4 in W.A. No.3 16 of '202.1. Perused the record. 2 The appeals are preferred by the appeliant/ rcsl rondent No.6 in W.P.Nc.16804 of 2Oll and respondent l.lo.3 in W.P.No.1891B of 1){)11 aggrieved by the impugned common order dated 19.12.2O.'.2,+ passed by a learned Single .Ju,1ge 1n W.P.Nos.16804 ancl 18918 of 201 1.

3. For the sak.e of convenience, the parties are referrt d to as they are arrayed irL u'rit petition No.16804 of 2O11 2 WA.Nos.308 & 316 of 2025

4. The writ petition i.e. W.P.No.16804 of 2011 is hled to declare the Memo No.E/1117 l2OO2 dated 29.O1.2OL1 on the file of respondent No.3-The Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Asifabad, Adilabad District as illegal and to take steps based on the survey report submitted by Deputy Inspector of Survey, Asifabad and to direct respondent No.4-The Tahsildar to correct entries in the revenue records by issuing Supplementary Sethwar in respect of the lands held by the petitioners to the extent of Ac.47.83 cents, Ac.38.O2 cents and Ac.21.93 cents in Sy.Nos.S2O and 524 of Sirpur (T) and Mandal, Adilabad District 5 The writ petition i.e. W.P.No.18918 of 2011 is frled to declare the Memo No.E/1117 l2OO2 dated 29.01.2011 on the frle of respondent No.3-The Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Asifabad, Adilabad District as illegal and to direct respondent No.3 and 4- The Revenue Divisional Officer and the .Tahsildar to undertake a fresh survey and identify the old survey numbers which is said to have been converted and included in new survey numbers 52O and 524 (Government Lands) of Sirpur Town arld Mandal in Adilabad District. ) -) WA.Nos-308 & il6 tf 2025 6 Both the said \ rrit petitions were disposecl of u,ith a direction to respondent No.1-The District Collector, A,1ilabad District, to take eLp,propriate action as per the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Sirprrr (T) vide Rc.No.B/I49 l89, dated 2!).12.2OO9 and to communicate the order to the contesting parties u,ithin eight (8) weeks Facts of the case 7 The petitiorrers are the owners and possessors of their respective lands Lr S1,.Nos.685, 658, 673, 687 I l, 691, 69), 694, 685, 658, 673,686,690,687 ll,674,819 ar-rd 689 situ,rtecl at Sirpur \/illage anC \4andal of Adiiabad District. During rer:orcling of Jamabandi lor the vear 1975 76 the aforementioned lands were treated as Mzvi Survey numbers and were convertr:d into Government lands. The petitioners claiming to be pattadarr.; of the land filed declaratic,ns under the provisions of A.P.Lancl Reforms (Ceiling on Agricr-Llr,rrral Holdings) Act, 1973. The said lancs u.ere computed to the holdings of the petitioners. When resp.rnden t Nos. 1 to 5 tried t,r evict the petitioners, a writ petitio n vide W.P.No.369 of 198'l u'as filed and the same was disposecl rf vide orders dated O3.O9.1996 with a direction to the respondenl Nos.l to 5 to conduct en(|tin'and pass appropriate orders q'ith respect to land in Mazi Slurvev numbers, which were subseguently 4 WA.Nos.308 & 316 of 2025 renumbered as Sy.Nos.s2O/l and 524 ll pp. pursuant to the said order, the respondent No.3/The Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Asifabad issued notice on lS.O3.2OO7 for conducting survey. Said notice \^.as questioned by the pattadars and the same was dismissed. B. Consequently, the Deputy Inspector of Survey conducted survey on 23.O7.2OO9 and a report is submitted. A podi sub- division was done by showing the land of petitioners in Sy.Nos.520 ard 524 of Sirpur (T) Village. Then respondent No.3/The Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, addressed a letter to respondent No.S/Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records for providing Wasool Baqui, new and old cadastral maps for identifying the land of the petitioners. In response to the said ietter, the respondent No.5 submitted report vide letter dated

24.O1.2OO9. Respondent No.4/The Tahsildar submitted survey and enjoyment report as per the Joint Collector's order dated

21.O9.2OO9. But without considering the said order, respondent No.3 issued impugned Memo No.E/ IIlT l2OO2 dated 29.Ot.2Oll expressing his inability to demarcate the property due to non- availability of Wasool Baqui register. In addition, respondent No.3 directed the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for redressal. n ) WA.Nos.308 & .it6 )f 2025 9 . Upon co n sicLering the rival contentions and th e sitatiori relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitiol rers in Muramalla Padmavathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and othersl, the learned Single Judge disposed oi writ petitio:rs with a direction to respondent No.1 The District Collector :o take appropriate actio r based on the report submittecl by the respondent No.zl- Ihe Tahsildar, Sirpur (T) vide Rc.No.B/ . 49 /89, dated 29.I2.2OO9 and to communicate the same to the corLtesting parties. Hence, th<: r.r,rit appeal. Contentions of resp ondent No.6/writ appellant:

10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for resJondent No.6/appellant zLrgued that the learned Single Judge fiLiled to peruse the counter arffidavit fiIed by respondent No.6 referring to the previous litilizLr ion in O.S.No.2O of 7997 on the file of the Senior Civii Jud11t: Asifabad, Adilabad District and its disposal vide judgment and clecree dated 13.04.2011 follou'ed b1' a1'peal in A.S.No.3 of 2O12 ,:n the hle of the Judge, Family Court-':um-lV Addl. District ar ci Sessions Judge, Adilabad and its di';missal vide judgment and ,lecree dated 20.O2.2014. 'tol6 (llAr.D 6io 6 WA-Nos,-108 & 316 of 2025

11. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6, in case, counter was perused, the writ petitions would have been dismissed for suppression of material facts. A team of surveyors have completed the enjovment survey work and report is submitted to respondent No.4 The Tahsildar reporting that there is no sub-division record and therefore survey work cannot be taken up. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.3-The Revenue Divisional Officer issued impugned memo dated 29.O1.2011 relegating the parties to the Civil Court.

12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6/appellant further argued that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the father of respondent No.6 purchased the property and became pattadar and therefore his n ame is reflected in the Kasra pahani and orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 1 7. 1O .1977 . A patta is issued in the name of father of respondent No.6 and therefore, non consideration of the same resulted in material irregularity. Further, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 referred to the decision of this Court in W.P.No.369 of 1989 for conducting denova enquiry and found that survey of disputed land cannot be done. Further, ernphasis 7/ t 7 WA.Nos.303 & 316,'f 2025 is made on the prrr.,'er for issue of Supplementary Sethu,al. which was considered [),\ a ]earned Single Judge in W.p.No.25,795 of 2006 and said \{.rir petition uras dismissed vicle order dated

75.12.2006. The lerrned counsel for respondent No.tr emprLasized that in pursuance of the order passed in W.p.No.369 ol. 1989 dated 03.09. 7996 |cr conducting of enjoyment sun/ey, a r,:vision was filed before tt-le Joint Collector and it was disposed on 30.O4 .2OO9 rema r_-, tling the matter to respondent No 4_The Tahsidar for initizLtir-rg fresh action regarding enjoyment s Ltrvey. According to responrlent No.6, the sequence of events shori. that there are no survel-c,r cadastral maps in the achieves depar[ment and therefore sur-\ €,y cannot be taken up with the ht,lp of geographicai maps iis complicated questions of fact are inr.olved and therefore, the lr:arneri Single Judge erred in grantin,q the relief to deal with conplicated questions of fact. Hence, pral.ed to allow the appeals bv s;etting aside the impugned order. Contentions of the writ petitloners:

14. The learne d Senior Counsel appearing for the urrit petitioners i.e. respo,rdents No.6 to 9 in w.A.No.3og of 202s and respondents No.3 eLrrl 4 in W.A.No.316 of 2025, supportecl the order of the learnerl Single Judge alleging that a survev r(.port has been submitt.cr' b1' respondent No.4-The Tahsildar vide 8 WANos.308 & 316 of 2025 Rc.No.B/149/89, dated 29.12.2OO9 and therefore, action needs to be taken pursuant to said report. It is argued that non- availabiiity of Wasool Baqui Register and Old Map cannot be a ground to reject the relief sought by writ petitioners. It is argued that relegating the parties to a civil court would result in inordinate delay culminating in the matter reaching the revenue authorities for execution of the decree. Contentions of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue:

15. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue argued that the writ petitioners are not in possession of the subject land and that the said iand is Government land for which Mazi survey numbers are given new survey numbers. Further, it is submitted that relevant cadastral maps in respect of the subject land are not availabie in the Land and Survey Department, as they are in crumble condition and therefore, the relief sought by the writ petitioners i.e..location of Mazi survey numbers in the new survey numbers cannot be implemented. Analvsis of the Court:

16. A perusal of the record reveals that the learned Single Judge considered the version presented by the writ petitioners about their ownership and possession of lands in Sy. Nos.6B5, EE () WA.Nos.308 & 31(, of 2025 658, 673, 687 I 1, 69t, 692, 694, 685, 65A, 673. 686, 690 687 I 1, 674, alg and i539 situated at Sirpur Village and Marndal of Adilabad Districr-. t heir conversion into Government 1ands, during lhe Jamabandi f ,' rhe vear 1g75.76 ald the order passed b1. lhis Court in W.P.No 1169 of 1989, dated O3.O9.1996, u.l-rt,rein, a direction \ ras given 1cl the respondent authorities to r:onduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders with respect to tl.Le Mazi survey numbers, rvhich are newly numbered as Sv.Nosr.S20/ 1 and 524 / I PP ,,,t,h ich cover the lands of the writ peti -ioners. Further. notices have been issued by respondent N,r.3 The Revenue Divisional Ofhcer pursuant to the orders of this C ourt in W.P.No.369 of 1939, dated O3.09.1996 and said notices have been subject of ;rppeal followed by survey conclucted by the Deputy Inspector of Survey on 23.02 .2OOg . There i s also reference to comrnunication of respondent No.5-The Asst. Director of Surve-v and Land Records about non-availab ility of records of Wasool Baqui, new and old cadastral maps for identifying the lands; of the petitioners on ground.

17. The learn,:rl Single Judge relying upon the legal ralio laid down in Muramalla padmavathi,s case (supra), proceerled to direct responde.t Nlo.3-The Revenue Divisional officer t, take IO WA.Nos.308 & 316 of 2025 action as per report submitted by the Tahsildar, Sirpur (T) vide Rc.No.B/ 149 /89, dated 29.12.2009

18. In the entire above sequence of events, there is absolutely no reference to the version presented by respondent No.6 i.e. writ petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.16804 of 2O11 fiiing a suit in O.S.No.2O of 1997 against respondent No.6 seeking perpetual injunction and disposal of said suit vide judgment arid decree dated

13.04.2011. As per the said judgment and decree, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad categorically held that no documents are produced by the writ petitioner No.2 to prove her ou,nership and possession over lands claimed by her and therefore, the suit has been dismissed. Further, the said judgment and decree have been challenged vide A.S.No.3 of 2OI2 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-lV Addi. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad and the said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Over and above, there is no reference to W.P.No .25795 of 2006, wherein, the prayer is as follows: "a writ of mandamus directing respondents, namely, District Collector, Adilabad, Sub-Collector, Adilabad and Mandal Revenue Officer, Sirpur to issue supplementary sethwar in respect of lands in survey Nos.52O/1 and 524/ 1 admeasuring Ac.38.2 guntas situated at Sirpur r r llagc". 1l WA.Nos.308 & 31,t of 2025

19. The above pra_ver is similar to the prayer 01- the current writ petitions, wherein reiief sought is to correct the entrit:s in the revenue records 1r.,. issuing Supplementary Sethu.ar in respect of lands held by thr: petitioners. in W.p.No.2SZ9S ol 2006. the subject land is .4c.38.2 gts., in Sy.Nos.S2O/ I and 524/t u,hich are the subject survey numbers of the current writ petitio ns. The writ petitioner N'o 1r and her counser did not cooperate rvrth this Court in providing information as to the relevant la w ancl regulations deal rrg with preparation of Sethu,at Supplementary Set)-rr.r,ar or the competent authority u,ho orders preparation of Stroplementary Sethwar as per the rclevant revenue iaws. Sincr: there was no assistance in providing rt.levant information in spitr, ol giving suffrcient time, the said q,rit p:tition has been dismrssed. Once the writ petitioner No.2 suffered an adverse order by ttLis court in W.p.No.2S Z9S of 2O06, r;he is precluded from fiting subsequent writ petitions seeking same relief i.e. with respect to u,rit petitioner No.2, the order in W.P.No.25795 of 2()()5 operates as res_judicata. ,

20. Last but nci. least, the prayer in one of the currenr writ petitions 1. e. W.F.No.18918 of 2Ol1 shows that the writ lpetitioners do not have any knowiedge about the loca tion, 12 WA.Nos.308 & 316 of 2025 boundaries and identity of the old survey numbers which are included in new survey numbers 52O and 524. In case, the writ petitioners were truly in possession of the subject lands, there would be no occasion to seek relief of location and identification of the land on ground of old survey numbers in the new survey numbers. The relief sought by the writ petitioners is sufhcient to conclude that thev do not have possession over the subject iands and therefore, do not have any locus standi to seek any kind of relief. 2I. As per the law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Ramjas Foundation and others vs. Union of Indiaz and Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.p. and others3, a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitied to any relief and that a litigant is bound to make full and true disclosure of facts. The writ petitioners herein approached the Court with unclean hands. Therefore, the legal ratio of the aforementioned citation is squarely applicable to the writ petitioners for suppression of facts with respect to civil '1:o to; t.r scc :t ' 20 r3 (2) SCC i98 7 WA.Nos.308 & 3 i6 of 2025 litigation and also in view of previous u,rit petitions, ther,:fore, the writ petitioners are not entitled to grant of any relief on nrerits.

22. In the rr:,;ult, the Writ Appeals are..allou.ed setting aside the impugned r:ommon order of the Iearned Single ,Iudge 1n W.P.Nos. 16804 and 189 18 of 2O11, dated 19.12.2021. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pendir-r,:1 if any, stand disposed of //TRUE COPYII SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO o UOINT REGISTRAR becrroN oFFtcER \\ The District Collector Adilabad District, presently in K5[raram Breem Asifabad District, State of Telangana. The Joint Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District, presently in Konraram Bheem Asifabad District. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector, Asifabad Division, Adilabad District, presently in Komaram Bheem Asifabad District. The Tahsildar, Sirpur (T) Mandal, Adilabad District presently in liomaram Bheem Asifabad District. Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Adilabad, Adilabad District presently in Komaram Bheem Asifabad District. One CC to SRI C.HARI PREETH, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N.JANARDHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the'State 5f Tetangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies t+ To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I PSK. PSK. HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.308 AND 316 of 2025 ,\ ,riij ,s [ ] rt;"i ?'$ t-j I Ct t , \:- ./,,1. \.,, ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS Tt- 5 v{