The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.5145 OF 2O2O ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order of the Joint Collector, Jagtial District (2nd respondent), dated 2O.OL.2O2O in Revision Petition No. Dl/57112019, and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the provisions of the Telanga.na Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, L971, and the Rules made thereunder.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M.Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri G.Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the sth respondent.

3. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner l I society purchased land to an extent of Ac.O.23 guntas in Sy.No.1O5, situattfl at Raikal Village, for a total of Rs.5,2OO/-, arld took possession from the Sth respondent on 10.05.1978 under an unregistered sale deed for the purpose of using it as a cremation ground. Since the date of purchase, t.le petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of ttre said land, and the has been recorded in the pahanies for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.

4. While so, the 5th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.256 of 2OO7 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of Acs.4. 11 guntas in Sy.No. 105/A of Raikal Village (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject propertyJ. After trial, the said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 13.09.2OL2 on tlre ground that the Sfr respondent failed to prove possession over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the 5*r respondent filed an appeal in A.S.No.22 of 2Ol2 on the lile of the II Additional District Judge, Jagtial. The said appeal was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 27.08.2013 on the ground that the petitioner herein is in possession of the subject land. _- I t r-l

5. The petitioner herein filed a suit in o.s.No.sl of 2oog on the fire of the principar Junior civil Judge, Jagtiar, against the Str' respondent seeking specific performance of the contract of sale based on the unregistered sare deed dated lo.os. rgrg in respect of the subject property. The triat court, while hording that an unregistered sale deed was executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the petifioner, dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation' Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed A.s.No.43 of 2or3 on the fire of the II Additional District Judge, Jagtial. The said appeal was also dismissed on the ground of limitation; however, the finding of the trial court regarding the execution of the unregistered sare deed in favour of the petitioner was upheld. 6' subsequenfly, the Sth respondent filed a representation dated 1o-o2-2o17 before the 3d respondent, seeking removal of the petitioner's name from the possession corumn and for recording his own name. The 3.d respondent treated the said representation as an appeal under Section 15g of the Andhra Pradesh (TeranganbArea) Land Revenue Act, t3r7 Fasri, in 1 I t ,& Blg5}l2O18, and after hearing both parties' dismissed tJle appeal by order dated 18'03'2019' Aggrieved by the said ord.er, the 5tt' respondent filed a revision under Section 166- BoftheAndhraPradesh(TelanganaArea)LandRevenue Act, 1317 Fasli, read' with Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Patted'ar Pass Books Act, L97L' before the 2"d respondent, who allowed the same by order dated 2o.o:.2o2oinFileNo.DtlsTll2olg.Aggrievedbythesaid order, the present Writ Petition is filed' behalf of the

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing ,on petitioner submits that the 3.d respondent erred in treating the representation filed by the 5th respondent as an appeal under section 158 of the Andhra Fradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, l3L7 Fasli, in the absence of any prior order passed by the Tahsildar/4th respondent or any revenue officer. He further submits that although the suit filed by the sth respondent in o.s.No.256 of 2oo7, seeking perpetual injunction, was dismissed and the said dismissal was confirmedinappealbyjudgmentdated27.os.2ol3in ) I /t A.S.No.22 of 2OL2, tJr'e 2"d respondent erroneously confirmed the title of the Str, respondent in the impugned order.

8. He contends that the 3'd respondent ought not to have entertained the representation of the Sth respondent as €ul appeal in the first instance. He also submits that the findings of the 2'd respondent with respect to the title of the 5th respondent are contrar5r to the findings recorded by both the Trial Court and the Appellatb Court in O.S.No.31 of 2OO8 arrd A.S.No.43 of 2013, respectively. He argues that t}re 2nd respondent failed to properly appreciate the technical objection raised by the petitioner herein regarding the maintainability of the representation before the 3'd respondent as an appeal.

9. Moreover, he submits that although the 2nd respondent, in the impugned order, observed that the revenue records must be in conformity with the orders of the Civil Court, he nonetheless elToneously directed that the name of the sth respondent be restored in the revenue records in respect of the subject property. Hence, the petitioner seeks to have the impugned order set aside. I t

10. On the other hand, the Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, as well as the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, submit in unison that the 2"d respondent, after hearing both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, has righfly and passed the impugned order directing incorporation of the sth respondent's name in the revenue records.

11. They further submit that the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.31 of 2008 for specific performance was dismissed by the Trial Court, and the appeal liled by the petitioner against the said judgment was also dismissed by the II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in A.S.No.43 of 2O13, wherein the title of the Sth respondent was upheld. Therefore, they contend that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the 2"d respondent and pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

12. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, and the learned counsel for the Sth respondent, I I .,' .// - I I ! i and upon perusal of tJ:e material placed before this Court, it is evident that the representation filed by the Sth respondent on 10.O2.2OL7 was erroneously treated as €ul appeal by the

3.d respondent under Section 158 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereunder: 'o758. Appealfrom ordq of Reoenue officer. Q)Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being inforce, an appeal shall lie against any decision or order passed by a Revenue fficer under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to his immediate superior oficer, whether such decision or order may have been passed in the exercise of original jurisdiction or on appeal.Explanation. - For the purposes of this section superior fficer with reference to the and orders of Tahsildars shall mean the [*J [Amended by Act No.III of 1355 F.l [CotlectorJ [Substituted for 'Taluqdar' by the A.P.A.O. 1957.1 [*J [Amended by Act No.III of 1355 F.J concerned, or the [Deputy or Assistant [*'r*1 [Substituted'-fo, the words 'Duwam Taluqdar' (Second Taluqdar)' by the A.P.A.O. 1957.J CollectorJ entrusted with the control of the Taluqa and specially invested by the [GovernmentJ [Amended by Act No.III of 1308 F.J with powers to hear appeals against the decisions and orders of Tahsildars subordinate to htm. Q) [ Subject to the provisions of [the Telangana Board of Revenue Regulation, i,358 F, (Regulation LX of 1358F.).1, an appeal shall lie to the Governmentfrom any decision or order passed by a Collector or Settlement Commisstoner except in the cgse of any decision or I t \ -- 4-r, I a\ order passed by such olftcer on second or third appeall [Sub-section (2) substituted by the A.P.A.O. 1957J. Q)l{hen on account of promotion or change of designation, an appeal against any decision or order lies under this section to the same officer who has originally passed the decision or order appealed against, the appeal shall lie to the olJicer competent under this section to hear appeals against the decisions of the said offcer. Q)[ Subject to the provisions of the Telangana Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 F' (Regulation I-Y of 1j58F.), if any decision or order is varied or reversed on revision or review in accordance with the provisions hereinafter laid down, an appeal shall lie from the order passed on such revision or review as d such order were an original order or decisionJ [Sub-section (4) substituted by the A.P.A.O. t9s7.J."

13. As per sub-section (1) of Section 158 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie against any decision or order passed by a Revenue Officer under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to his immediate superior officer, whether such decision or order was passed in the exercise of original jurisdiction or on appeal. L4. In the present case, the 3.d respondent, without there being any decision or order passed by a Revenue Oflicer, I \ \^b z/ much less by any oflicial of the Revenue Department, erroneously treated the representation of the 5m respondent as €u1 appeal and passed orders, which is contrar5r to the statutory scheme and therefore unsustainable.

15. That apart, the 2"a respondent entertained the revision petition filed by the Sth respondent against the order passed by the 3rd respondent and passed the impugned order under Section 166-8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, L3l7 Fasli, read with Section g of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Books Act,

1971. For the sake of convenience, sectionl66-B of the Act, L3l7 Fali, is extracted hereunder: "1668. Revision. Q)[Subject to the provtsions of [the Telangana Board of Revenue Regulatton, 1358 F.J, the GovernmentJ [Substituted for the word 'Sarlrari-i-Aali' (The Government) by the A.P.A.O- 1957.J or any Revenue oficer not lower in rank to a [collectorJ [substituted for 'Taluqdar' by the A.P.A.O. 1957.J the [Settlement .CommissionerJ fsubstituted for the words ,Nazim paimaish Bandobast, Nazim Land Records' (Commissioner of Survey Settlement, Commissioner of Land Records) by the A-?.A.O. 1957-J of Land records may call for the record of a case or proceedings from a sifudinate department and inspect it in order I I ....r:iliG*.&fia;i-.r,, .-. ... . Page l0 of 13 to satisly himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and may make suitable order in that behalf: Provided that no order or decision affecting the rights of the raiyot shall be nodiJied or annulled unless the concerned parties are summoned and heard. Q Every Revenue officer lower in rank to a [Collector] [Substituted for 'Taluqdar, by the A.p.A.O. 1957.] or [Settlement CommissionerJ [Substituted for the words ,Nazim Paimaish Bandobast, Nazim Land Records, (Commissioner of Survey Settlement, Commissioner of Land Records) by the A.P.A.O. 1957.J may call for the records of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and satisfi himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings talen is regular, legal and proper and if, in his opinion, any order or decision or, proceedings should be modified or annulled, he shall put up the frle of the case with his opinion to the [*l [Amended by Act NaIII of I35S Faslll [CollectorJ [Substituted for ,Taluqdart by the A.p.A.O. 1957.1 [*] [Amended by Act No.llt of 1355 FasliJ or [Settlement CommissionerJ [Substituted for the words ,Nazim paimaish Bandobast, Nazim Land Records, (Commissioner of Survey Settlement, Commissioner of Land Records) by the A.p.A.O. 1957.J as the case may be. Thereupon the [*] lAmerrded by ,lct No.III of 1355 Faslll [Collector! [Substituted for ,Taluqdar, by the A.P.A.A 1957.1 trl [Amended by Act No.III of l35S Fasli.] or [Settlement Commissioner] [Substituted for the words ,Nazim Paimaish Bandobast, Nazim Land Records, (Commbsioner of Survey Settlemen, Commissioner of Land Records) by the A.P.A.O. 1957.J may pass suitable order under the provisions.-o;f sub-section (l). , I ' ,/; /'/ ,:,;/ - t I Page ll of13 Q) The original order or decision or an authentic copy of the original order or deciston sought to be revised shall befiled along with every application for revision. "

16. As per Section 166-8 of the Act, the Collector is the competent authority to entertain the revision petition liled by the Sth respondent. However, the 2'd respondent, without exercising the powers vested in him, has usu{ped the powers of the Collector, who is the competent authority under Section 166-8 of the Act. The 2"d respondent/Joint Collector erred in arriving at the conclusion and passing the impugned order allowing the revision petition filed by the sth respondent, which is therefore illegal. L7. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated

20.OL.2O2O passed by the 2'd respondent in Revision Petition No.DLl57Ll2O19 is hereby set aside.

18. The sth respondent is granted liberty to file an appropriate application under the provisions of the Bhu Bharathi Act, 2025 before the competent authority, 1n accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The competent i.. +Cr;il,*''^ I I I Page l2 of 13 authority is directed to consider and dispose of the said application strictly in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. Meanwhile, both the petitioner and the Sth respondent shall maintain the status quo as existing on the date of this order in respect of the subject property.

19. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. //TRUE COPY// S . L. VIJAYA LAXMI TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, B.R GHMC Office, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. Buildings, Near

2. The Joint Collector, Jagtial, Jagtial District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, Jagtial District. The Tahsildar, Raikal Mandal, Jagtial District. One CC to SRI MADAS BHARATH CHANDRA, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI G.PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies

8. BSR GJP { 'l ) HIGH COURT DATED:,2210912025 ORDER WP.No.SI 45 of 2020 '--.-- ---- ('. r.l l-- !rr .,^ 3" 17 Frat H.r, FrE (- ,t'- (\ n. /_ r,! i)rlr .-'. iiEc <r ;t : Ii !f ;i'i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I ; @# \ :: , r a