SRI M v. HANUMANTHA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4 SRI L. RAVINDER AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M. SRURENDER FAO, SENIOR COUNSEL REP SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER a ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.3094 OF 2025 Heard Mr. M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel fbr petitioner, Mr. L.Ravinder, learned Asst.Govt. Pleader l-or Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

2. This writ petition is hled to declare the order dated

25.1 | .2024 passed by the respondent No.4 as illegal and to set aside the same.

3. The petitioner submits that the land admeasuring Ac' 1 26 guntas in Sy.No. 169/E/5 situated at Arempala Viltage, Khammam Rural ( for short, 'the subject properly') was purchased by pctitioncr's flatl-rer namely Pavurala Raghavulu from his matemal grandfhther uncler sada sale deed dated 08.1 1.1979 and he had cultivated tl'rc said land till his death. After the death of his father, the petitioner let out the subject propefty to Respondent No.5 i.e. his maternal aunt namely Boddu Venkarnma, fbr some period. Respondent No'5 and her fhmily .-\ -- 1

2. members are clairning that they have purchased the strrject properly in I the year 2003 tiorn Sri. Pavurala Raghavulu..

4. 1'he pctitioner submits that he has submitted applications dated 18.0 1.2025, 10.01 .2025 and 02.01.202J v7i1[ l.rrspondent Nos.2 to 4 with a request to issue e-passbook in his favour' 'ln conducting spot inspection, detailed enquiry and after following tL e due procedure laid down undcr the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (tbr shon, 'the ROR Act') and the'ie angana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules ( for shot 'the Rules'), Respondent No.4 has issued e-passbook in his lar o rr r,ide Khata No.60424.

5. While the matter stood thus, Respondent No 5 has submitted his application dated 21 .06.2024 through Dharen portal with Respondent No.4 with a request to cancel the e-passbroks issued in f-avour of the petitioner. Vide impugned order dare,l 25.11.2024, Respondent No.4 disposed of the said application diled 21.06.2024 submitted by Ihe Respondent No.5 stating that the l:nl adrneasuring Ac. 1.1550 guntas in Sy.No. 169/E situated at Arer,:prla Village of Khammam RLLral belongs to Respondent No.5 and re,:ommended to 1 delete the subject property tiom Khata No.60424 stands in thc'name of the pctitioner

6. Respondent No.5 has not filed any appeal or revision against grant of'passbook in favour of the petitioner within the stipulated time. When both the parties are claiming the source of title fronl thc same original pattadar on basis of various transactions, the revenue authority has no jurisdiction to entertain such applications.

7. The petitioner and his lamily members filed a suit vidc O.S.No.467 of 2015 befbre thc learned Senior Civil Judge' Khamrnarn. Ibr declaration ol title, recovery of possession and fbr perpetual injunction and the same is pending.

8. Respondent No.4 has no authority to pass the irnpugned order. Therelore, the impugned order dated25.11.2024 passed basing on the application of Respondent No.5 without conducting encluiry and without lollowing the due process of law, is illegal and thc sarnc is liable to be set aside.

9. Respondent No.4 has filed counter contending that Respondent No.5 submitted representation to Respondent No'? at-rd to the Minister for Revenue, Telangana atleging that the petitioner obtained pattadar pass book fiaudulently in collusion with the revenue \-1 l ,l authorities. thor.rgh not in actual and physical possel;sior-r over the sub-iect propeltv and requestcd to delete the entries rriLcle in Dharani Portal in the narne of Pctitioner

10. As per Khasra pahani, thc land admeasurinr r\c. i.l3 guntas in Sy.No.l69l.1 situated at Arernpala village is recor<l,rc as CI{OWTA INAM and one f]oddu Ananthaiah S/o Sheshaiah, ir, f,rrher-in-law of Respondent No.5 rvas rccorded as enjoyer. Subscquer tJy. name of the said lloddu Ananthaiah u,as recordcd as Pattedar an -i en.ioyer of the said land. l'h,: enquiry made by (lirdhawar reveal r thar the family meml;crs of said Boddu Ananthaiah are culti \ ar ing the land admeasuring Ac. I . I 5-50 guntas. During the year 97(), the said Boddu Ananthaiah has sold away the land to an ext,-.nl, ol Ac. I .1550 guntas to Sri [)avurala Raghavulu, his son-in-la'r through sada agreernent of sale. IJe u,as recorded as enjoyer of thi land lrom 1980 Lo 2002 ll. Respondent No.5 has purchased the land ilotr Sri Pavurala Raghavulu thlougl'r sacla agreement of sale during tirc 1.eaL 2003 and she is in actual and physical possession ol land tc, an extent of Ac.l .1550 quntas. Notices u,ere issued to thc )etitioner and Respondent No. 5 on 21.08.2024. The petitioner lrrs subrnirted his \ I I t i I I I I 1 ) written reply on 09-09.2024 wherein he has admitted that the land was lnam land said to bc given to one Boddu China Ananthaiah, being washerman rvho is said to be grandfathcr under CHOWTHA INAM to an extent ol Ac.2.00 guntas. Out ol which, his father purchased an extent of Ac.l.l6% guntas through sada sale deed dated on 08.1 I . 1979 and also purchased part of land from one Gaddam Ramaiah S/o Lalaiah. Aticr death ol his father, he succeeded the said property I ?. F ather ol' the pe titioner has sold away the land to Respondent No.5 through sada sale deed dated 08.04.2003 and all the farnily n-rernbe rs of Pavurala Raghavulu along with the Petitioner scribcd on the said document. Knowing the fact that the land was sold to Respondent No.5, the petitioner obtained Pattadar Pass Book lraudulently fiorn thc t.hen revenue authorities without having physical posscssion over the lar1d.

13. The petitioner subrnitted that pattadar Pass book vide Khata No. 148 issued in respect of the subject property, in favour of his mothcr nanrely Pavurala Venkatamma and subsequently transferred in his lavour. ln the said fabricated pattadar pass book, the caste of his mother was shown as schedule caste, but he belongs to'Chakali'. But thc khata No. 148 belongs to Domala Manikyamma w/o late Bixam in _I l\ 6 respect of land in Sy. No.53/l measuring Ac. 0.20 t untas which was assigned land. Therefbre, the lraud played by the p,: .it ioner is proved beyond doubt. Respondent No.5 is in possession ot the subject land over a period of nearly 22 years i.e., ttom the date ol purchase of land in the year 2003. The petitioner lailed to produce sut,s antial evidence to prove that he is in possession of the subject properlv

14. Having taken into consideration ol the fai t: on rccord and also ground position, Respondent No.4 has made orLr lrroposals to the Respondent No.2 for cancellation of entties in Dhara.ni portal recorded in the name ol the Pctitioner. Respondent No.2 ,'a; approved the proposals. Accordingly, e-pattadal pass book is isr;.r<,d in lavour of Respondent No.5 basing on thc cntries made in re\ r)r ue records and also ground position to protect his rights

15. The petitioner llled O.S.No. 467 of 2015 lb' declaration of title, recovell of possession and perpetual injuncti:n, befbre the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kharnmarn in respe:t ,rl- subject lands and the same js pending.

16. Respondent No.5 turther submits that in sirrilar case, vide order dated 25.11.2024 in WP No.30688 of 2024. thir l'ourt obsen,cd that a Civil Sr,rit ir.r OS No. 74 of 2024 is pending an<l tlre rrratter is sub 1 7 judice, leaving it opcn to thc parties to make appropriate application soon atier the suit being decided in f'avour of either of the parties ror mutation/alterati.n/correction of the revenue records in accordance with the provisions ol'ROR Act.

17. ln the instant case, the matter is sub_judice before the cornpetenr Civil Court fbr deciding rights of the parties in O.S No. 447 of 20 t5. It is open to the parties to make application soon after the suit is disposed ol'tbr rn utat ion/alteration/co'rection or the revenue records in accordance rvith the provisions of ROR Act. However, in order to avoid future cornplications. Rcspondent No.4 is taking steps to block the entries made in Sy.No. I69lE I ro an extent of Ac. 1.1550 guntas recorded in tavour ol'Respondent No.5 till disposal of O.S No. 467 of 20t5

18. With the said subrrissions, Respondent No,4 sought to d isrniss rhe wr.it petition.

19. Thc afbresaid rival contentions would reveal that originally, Boddu Chinna Anthaiah s/o Boddu Chinna Sheshaiah, was rhe absolute owner and possessor o{- the land admeasuring Ac.2.32 guntas in Sy.No. 169/4, Ac.l.l6% gunras in Sy.No. 169/E, situated ar Arempala Village. FIe has sold the said property to father of the 8 petitioner i.e. Pavurala Raghavulu under sadabain tr ta/simple sale \ deed, dated 0ti. I I .1979. The petitioner's lather. narn: \vas nrutated in the revenue records in respect of the said property anl old passbook / ryoth passbook rvas issued in his f'avour. Alter derr.l- ot'his father, petitioner succeeded the said propefty. Latest patta(t rr passbook and title deed was issued in favour of the petitioncr (). 17.03.1024 in respect of the land adnreasuring Ac. I .26 guntas in S. \ o. I 69,rEl5 (lbr short, 'the subject property') of Arempala Vitlagc. y', :c ording to hinr, he is in possession ofthe subject propcrty and cultirar nq the same.

20. Perusal o1- the record u,ould reveal that t te petitioncr's mother i.e. Pavurala Venkatarnma, petitioner, his br.-rlLers and sister. filed a suit O.S.No.467 of 201 5 against respondcnr Ir os.2 ro 5 herein ancl 4 others for declaration of title, recovery of 1rcsscssion liom delendant Nos.l to 5 including respondenr No.5 he-:ir and also lbr perpetual injunction. Suit schedule properry is A,: 0.13 guntas in Sy.No.169/8, Ac.0.23 guntas in Sy.No. l69lAA, sirurr.ed ar Arempala Village, Ac.l.26 % guntas in Sy.No.l69lC and ,A..i.0U guntas in Sy.No.208 o1' Arempala Village. The subject rr)l)cr.t\ is in Sy.No. 169/E. 1 9

21. Whereas, leamed counsel fbr the petitioner would contend that in item No.2 of the suit schedule propefty in O.S.No.467 of 2015 survey number is wrongly rncntioned as Sy.No. 169/C instead of Sy.No. 169/E, therefore, plaintif ls are taking steps to amend the plaint. However, the said suit is pending.'fhere are no interim orders.

22. 5'h respondent is clailning that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the land adrneasuring Ac. | .06 guntas in Sy.No. 169/4, Ac.l.26 guntas in Sy.No. I 69lE (dry land), Ac.0.0g gunras in Sy.No.208, total admeasuring Ac.3.0% guntas situated at Arempala Village, on the strength of sadabainama dated 0g.04.2003 executed by Sri Pavurala Raghavulu, f ather of the petitioner. Her name was mutated in the rcvenue record, pattadar passbooks were also issued in her favour, dated 05.02.2025. In the said latest pattadar passbook and title deed, Iand admeasuring Ac. 1.1550 guntas in Sy.No. 169iEll of Arernpala Village is mentioned.

23. It is apt to note that though the 5,h respondent is claiming right over the aforesaid property on the strength ofsadabainama, dated

08.04.2003 said to have been executed by father of the petitioner, she has not obtained regularization proceedings in terms of Section 5-A of \ -''1 - \ 10 the Telangana zughts in Land and Pattadar Pass Bool: , \ct, t97l(Ibr short, ' ROR Act, 1 97 I ') and 1 3-B proceedings.

24. Though the 5th respondent is clain-rin I that she has purchased the subject land under sadabainama daterl ( 8.0'1.2003, she has not filed any document to show that her name rs rnutated ir-r the revenue recold and old and latest passbooks w'er.: issued. Latest passbooks and title deeds were issued in her lavoul only on

05.02.2025 'fhere is no explanation from 5'l'responJt:nt rvit.h rcgard to obtaining of regularization proceedings regulari;r nq sadabainarna dated 08.04.2()03 interms of Section 5(A) of ROR,\c, l97l and t3- B proceedings.

25. She has submitted a representation dated ll0-5.2024 to the Revenue Minister stating that land admeasuring l','. I .26 guntas in Sy.No.169/E, of Arempala Village is 'Chowtha Inatn l(evenue record discloses the same. Her father-in-law i.e. Boddu Chiirnrr Anthaiah was thc Inamdar. After the death of her father-in-law. h,:r husband Sri B.Sheshaiah succeeded the said propefty. After tlre dcath of her husband, she is in possession of the said propertl )n conducting survey it't the 1,ear 20 10, the land physically avail rbre is Ac.l.l5% guntas in Sy.No.l69lE. Even then, the petitionelb ained pattadar II passbook by playing fiaud. '['herefore, she sought to conduct enquiry and cancel the passbooks issued in lavour of the pctitioncr

26. As discussed supra, even the petitioner is claiming that his father purchased the land adrneasuring Ac. 1.20 guntas Sy.No.l69lE/5 situated at Arernpala Village under a sadabainatna dated 08.04.2003 from Sri Boddu Chinna Anthaiah s/o Boddu Sheshaiah. Even, the petitioner did not file a copy of the said regularization proceedings obtained by his f-ather regularizing the said sadabainama, dated 08.11.1979 in tcrms ol Section 5-A of ROR Act, l97l and l3-B proceedings. I{owever, his father obtained ryoth passbook. Perusal ol the said ryoth passbook would reveal that the land admeasuring Ac. I .?6 guntas ln Sy.No. 169/E of Arempala Village, the petitioner's t'ather name i.e. Pavurala Raghavulu IS mentioned as pattadar. The petitioner has also filed pahanies for the years 1995-96, 1998-99, 1999-2000.2000-01 wherein Sri Boddu Chinna Anthaiah name is lnentioned as pattadar and Sri Pavttrala Raghuvulu as possessor. It is also mentioned that the petitioner's father Sri Pavurula Raghavulu purchased the land admeasuring Ac.l .26 guntas. He has subrnitted represcntations dated 08.0,l.2025,

10.01.2025 and 02.01 .2025 to respondent Nos.2 to 4 alleging that at \ l2 th. instance of 5'h respondent, 2nd respondent is no il;sui,g pattadar passbook. Thcrefore, he requested to issue prr.sbook Finally passbooks werc issued in his f'avour in lespect ol thc :'ubject land on tl .03.2024.

27. It is relevant to note that the original owrt()r i.e. Sri Boddu Chinna Anthaiah, is the maternal grandfather of t're pctitioner and tathcr-in law of 5'h respondent. Both the petitioner t ttc 5'r' respondenl are closely related. The aforesaid suit in O.S.No.46-, ol 2015 filcd by the pctitioner. his mother, brothers and sister seekir g dcclaration ol- title. recoverl' of possession and perpetual injuncticn, is pending. 'Ihere ale no interim orders in the said suit.

29. In the plaint filed in O.S.No.467 of 2015, thr: pctitioner, his rnother', brothers and sister categorically contended hat Sli Pavurala Raghavulu, firther of the petitioner, purchased the Irrd admeasuring Ac.l .26 % guntas in Sy.No.169/E on 08.11.1979 trom Sri Boddu Chinna Anthaiah i.e. father-in-law of 5th respondent. t \ /as attested by husband of 5'r' respondent and his brothers i.e. Sri llt,ddtr Venkanna and Boddu Kanakaiah. The said land is item No.2 o'tltc sLrit schedule propefty. Thus. the petitioner, his mother, brothers attc sister tlled the said suit lbr declaration of title and recovely of pos;:ssion of the suit -) schedule propelties from def'endant Nos. I to 5 including 5,r, respondent and for perpetual iniunction in r.espect ol the suit schedule properties. Even then, the petitioner is clainting that he is in possession ol the subject propetty and lrc has obtained latest pattadar passbook and title deed on17.03.2024.

29. As discussed supra, 5'h respondent is clairning right over the said property on the strength of sadabainarna dated 08.04.2003. She has not obtained regularization proceedings. She is also claiming that she is in possession of the subject property.

30. As discussed supra, at the cost of repetition, though the 5'h respondent is claiming right over the subject property basing on the sadabainama dated 08.04.2003, she has not filed mutation proceedings and old or latest passbooks in respect of the subject property. She has obtained latest pattadar passbook only on 05.02.2025. There is no explanation from 5'h respondent for non-obtair-ring regularization proceedings under Section 5-A of ROR Act, 197 I and l-j-B proceedings. Without obtaining the sarne and in the absence of regularization proceedings, she cannot submit a represcntation with thc Revenue Minister, who in turn, refered rhe sarne to the District Collector i.e. 2nd respondent, wl-ro in tum, referrcd the sarne to the II \ l4 Revenue lnspector for enquiry and repoft. Basing rr L the same, 4th respondent conducted enquiry and passed orders dai':t 25.1l-2024 to delete the sub-iect propcrty and the name of the petiti('ner in respect of the subject [and. ln the said proceedings dated 25 1.2024, there is mention about representation submitted by the p'e.itioner to the I\,linister fbr Rcvenue dated I1.06.2024, Dharani r prlication dated 21 .06.1024 ol- -5'r' respondent, her application daterl ()5.08.202u1 and also the report of'Mandal Girdavar- I . 'fherc I I . is no ref'erence to the sadabainama ilated 08. I I .1979 executcd b1, Sri [loddu Chinna Anthaiah in favour cI father of the petitioner i.e. Sri Pavurala Raghavaiah, old ryoth prsrbook issucd in his f-a','our. Thcre is also no reference with regard tc regularization procecdings obtained by 5th respondent in respect of rc r sada bainatna datcd 08.04.2{)03. ln the absence of the same, witho.lt :onsidering the said aspects, ,1'h respondent has passed order crLtr:d 25.11.2024, dilecting to dclete the name ol the petitioner in respt:ct of the subject properly.

32. As per CCLA No. I of 2024, dated 15.01.2024, 5rr' respondent has to subrnit online application to the I)istrict Collector r.r'' ith a requesl to delete .the name of the petitioner al I cancel pattadar ----7 ) passbooks, if any, issued in his favour. Instead of submitting online application, she has submitted a representation to the Minister lbr [{evenue on 11.06.2024, thereafter, she has subrnittcd online apptication dated 2l .06.2024 and another application dated

05.08.2024. tt is the District Collector who is cornpetent to delete the narrre by considering the said online application.4'h respondent is not colnpctcut authority to cancel the passbooks issued in Iavor-tr of tlle petitioner as on 25. | 1.2024. i3. It is apt to note that as on tl.re date of onlinc application. representation by 4th respondent dated I 1.06.2024, 2l '06'?-024,

05.08.2024, ROR Act, 2020 was in force. The Telangana Bhtr Bharati ( Rccord of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 was notifled only on

04.0 I .1015. 'l'herefore, as per the provisions of ROR. 2025 as per the CCLA No. I of 2025 dated 15.0 I .2024, 4'h respondent is.not the colrpeteut authority to cancel the passbooks issued in lavorrr ol the pelitioncr. 3+. Theretbre, viewed from any angle' the impugned procecdings dated 25.1 1.2025 of 4'h respondent are liable to bc set aside. l6

15. In thc Iight of the afbresaid discussion, thir; r"rit petition is \ allou'ed.'fhc inrpugtied proceedings dated 25.11.202" rasscd by the lcspondent No-'1 is sct asi(l(: As a sequc-1. the misccllaneous petitions, if anl pencling in the Writ Petition slrall stand closed, //TRUE COPY// SC/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISiTANT REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principa_l Secretary_ (Revenue Department), Secrrr,a-iat, T.S.,Hyderabad. 2. The District (lollector. Khammam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. 4. The Tahsildar Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam [) s rict. 5. One CC to SRI Iu V I{ryUM4NTHA RAO, Advocarr If pUCl 6. One CC to SRl. N SRFTED+|AR REDDY, Advocate piJCl 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the'll are df Tetangana at 8. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUTj BIV GJP ) ,1' i \ :;, ., :., 1,:.. , ri] ttT ?fl25 :.' HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 210912025 ORDER WP.No.3094 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \9