Smt. Anasu v. 1. The State of Telangana

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction(s) particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed in proceedings Orders in D1lsl2OOO, dated-06-08-2019 by the 2nd Respondent, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 Constitution of lndia and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the orders passed in proceedings in D11512020, dt: 06-08- 2019 by the 2nd Respondent. ) lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in proceedings Orders in D1/5/2000, dated:

06.08.2019 by the 2nd Respondent. Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRAMOD MALIGI Counsel forthe Respondents No.l & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE REPRESENTING GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SMT. G. SAMPADA, S.C. FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.3729 OF 2O2O ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings order No.Dl / 5/2OOO, dated 06.08.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Smt.G.Sampada, learned Standing Counsel appearing fgr 3'd respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the successor-in-title to her deceased husband, late T. Satyanarayana Reddy, who h"( ,i. .1. , ,: {il: purchased land admeasuring Ac.1.10 guntas in Sy. No. l48lD, situated at Boyapalli Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (hereinafter referred to as "the subject property"), for valid sale consideration from Bathula Kondaia, Bathula Tirumalaiah, and Bathula Nagaiah, through a registered sale deed bearing Document No. Ll52/L976, dated L2-O7 -1976-

4. Learned counsel further submits that, upon an application made by the petitioner's husband, the then Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), vide proceedings No.A/ROR/ 1999, dated 17 .O3.1999, issued orders incorporating necessa-ry changes in the Record of Rights of Boyapalli Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal, and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his narne. The narne of the petitioner's husband was duly mutated in the revenue records from the date of purchase, and he remained in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said propert5r until his demise in the year 1999 - Subsequent to his death, the petitioner's name was \- Page 3 of8 entered in the revenue records. Thereafter, she sold portions of the subject property by dividing it into plots through registered sale deeds, and some of the purchasers have constructed houses after obtaining valid permissions from the competent authorities

5. Learned counsel also submits that, in the sarne survey number, i.e., Sy. Nos. 148/AA and L48/8, situated within the limits of Boyapalli Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal, a parcel of land admeasuring Acs.2.OO guntas was allocated to the Superintendent of Posts without following the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. He contends that this allocation was made without considering the fact that the petitioner's husband had already purchased the subject propErty and without issuing any notice to either the petitioner or her husband, as mandated under Section 4 ( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The subject property was thus allocated in favour of the / Superintendent of Post Offices, Mahabubnagar, vide Award No.86, dated 23.09.1986.

6. He further submits that, pursu€u1t to a revision filed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mahabubnagx, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings in Revision Case No.D L / 5 /2OOO, dated O6.O8.2OL9, thereby setting aside the MRO's proceedings in File No.A/ROR/ L999, dated 17.O3.L999, cancelling the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner's husband. He asserts that the petitioner's rights have been taken away despite her continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property, which was validly purchased by her husband through a registered sale deed in 1976 for lawful consideration. The petitioner, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 06.08.2019.

7. On the other hand, reiterating the averments made irl. the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, \ ^.- ,-t E i I I l j a Page 5 of8 learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the appellate authority, i.e., the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, has rightly appreciated the facts and the material evidence placed before him, and, based on the factual scenario, passed the impugned proceedings holding that the subject property was acquired by following the due procedure contemplated under law. It is further submitted that the land admeasuring Acs.2.oo was allocated for a public purpose, and as such, nothing survives for the present case warranting consideration in interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

8. Learned Assistant Government pleader, representing . the learned Government pleader for Revenue, upon instructions, submits that the proceedings issued by the then Mandal Revenue officer in File No. A/ROR/ L999, dated LT.o3.Lggg, were issued ?r?bneously, ,rr] ihis fact was brought to light during ...a_ .r. r ..r ! I I the course of proceedings before the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, in Revision Case No. DL /5 /2OOO. It is therefore submitted that nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition, and accordingly, he prays for its dismissal.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3'd respondent, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenlre, and upon perusal of the material on record, particularly the proceedings of the 2"d respondent/Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate (FAC), Mahabubnagar, dated 06.08.2019 in Revision Case No. DL / 5 /2OOO, this Court is of the considered opinion that ti:'e 2"d respondent has followed the due procedure established by law by issuing notices to all concerned parties, affording sufficient opportunity, and verifying the records relating to the allocation of the subject land to the 3rd respondent, before passing the impugned proceedings. \- .I Page 7 of8

10. Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, and considering that the factual aspects require adjudication through a full-fledged trial, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of her grievance, in accordance with the procedure established by law. 1 1. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if aray, pending shall stand dismissed. /TRUE COPY// Sd/.L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (9 SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Depbrtment, State of Telangana, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad

2. The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar, fVlahabubnagar Dist.

3. The Superintendent, R/o. Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mahabubnagar, Mahaboobnagar District

4. One CC to SRI PRAMOD MALlGl, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.tOUTl

6. One CC to SMT. G. SAMPADA, S.C. for Central Government [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies Vl- MP PMK HIGH COURT DATED:04/0912025 :--- i:4f ,:i .-) 20 t:C Z&i z * _l/',^..-.,.,.. ..,- _':'' ORDER WP.No.3729 ot 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS r \<)... t)\ d