High Court · 2025

Aged about 51 years, Occ: Sri Krishna Residency, Alwal,

8. S.S. Kishorilal S/o. Late S.P. Suklal, Aoed about 46 years, Occ: Agriculturist, F/o. 1-10-89/3/10'l & 301, Sri Krishna Riesidency, Alwal, Secunderabad. 9. S.H. Kishanlal S/o. Late S.P. Hiralal, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. 2-5-33, Macha Bollaram, Secunderabad.

10.S.H. Prakashlal S/o. Late S.P. Hiralal, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. 2-5-33, Macha Bollaram, Secunderabad.

11. S.H. Maheshlal S/o. Late S.P. Hiralal, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. 2-5-33, Macha Bollaram, Secunderabad. (Respondents No.7 to 11 are lmpleaded as Per Court Order dt.5/10/2018 in lA'No'1/17(wPMP No'11503/17) ...RE'''NDENT Nos.7 to 11 Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the first respondent in Case No.D5/13/2001 & D5/18/2001 dt. 2-12-2003 common order dated 2-12-2003, in file no: Case No: D5l13l2OO1 and Case No: D5/18/2001 as illegal, arbitrary, . un-tenable and set aside the same. l.A. NO: 2OF 2004(WPMP. NO: sg95OF44) Petition under Section '1 5'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the common order of the first respondent passed in Case No. D5/1 3 I 200 1 & D5 I 1 8 I 200 1 daled 2-1 2-2OO3 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. NAGA DEEPAK Counsel forthe Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A.V. SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.5 & 6: - Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.7 to 11: SRI CH. JAYAKRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER Y {t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4503 of 2004 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "to declare the orders passed by tfu first respondent in Case No.D5fl3/2001 and D5/18/2007 dated 2'12.2003 common order dnted 2.12.2003 in'fle No.Case No.D5/13/2001 and Case No. D5/182001 as illeSnl, arbitrary, un-tenable and set aside the same."

2. Facts rising to file the Present writ petition are that Petitioners claims that originally their father Sri.S.P.Mohanlal was the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.32-23 guntas iorming part of Sy.No.160, "161,,'162, 163 and 765/3 of Toomkunta Village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R District, having acquired the same through rpgistered sale deed bearing Doc.No.463/1358 fasli dated 3'd Asfandar, 1358 fasli' Petitioners' further claims that their father did not sell his holding to anyone, except for an agreement to sell land to extent of Ac.2.00 to one Sri.P.Devaiah. However, the sale deed could not be executed as the said person did not come forward to pay the sale consideration.

3. Petitioners further case is that the respondent No.3 without issuing any notice had unilaterally incorporated the names of respondent Nos.4 to 6 as pattedars in respect of *re subject ProPerty' Challenging the action of respondent No.3, Petitioners under Section 5(5) of A.P Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act,7977, with amended rules, 1989 filed appeal bearing No.A2/542/99 and the 2 lespondent No.2 uide order dated OI.72.ZOOO alkrwed the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:_ appeal, i'' .the. ,,., " Heard the arg.wnents of both tfu counsel and perused the material papers attailable. It is seen that Ihe appellants in their appenl haae s_tnted thnt thty are tle patte_d.ars ora pourrror" oJ. suit lands thro.uglt tlrcrr father uln u,as the ortginal'patrrarrc q rn, suit land :.1 ,:lV in fhLt year lanuary, 19991 they came to kroru that their father's tntne hns been cilanged in in" ,ror""'e records antl respondents names haue been iicorporated in the reaenue records irt respect of suit rands. But tfu respondents in twi, counter ltaoe stated tltey lnoe purchase.d surt lands from ti'righ l owner of the suit lnntls from pinjarta Deaaiah inrouii,n"i, fatlrcr Sri lnngeli Rnjarah nid mutation uas also effected'on thtir nnmes in tle reoenuc records. lt is seen V"*'in ,rpiy gruen by the resportdertts fu their counter ityt *"y ,lrr" ,iot dispututg relationship trtith the original pattedar Sri.ioprtoL. lhe appellants,. ,::,,,r:,:::,., ,!at n{tey r,heir father and morher,s deattt,t'hen on[y urv canrc to k,totu that their names haoe been iteteted fro* ,rr,rn.i, re.cords,.but not prior to their father,s death and tiy tut e no iclen alortt their t\,,up At alt. Tfun1fuy haae oppr:oorn"it,ni, Court for justice. Thc respotrdents in thei*ourir, ;;;';;;;;i;;;r' l; appellants cntrnot file thrs appeal in ordcr to cancel all tlte tarufut p,roceed_utgs already taken without setting osii the regd. Sale deeds. It is setn that sinryly be.c.ause ,lt i*rfrl proceedings took plnce, tlr rcqnndt.trts aie'stating thh the *gi'Si, deeds to be cancell.ed, lrrcy ore not atoare about the en"tries that haue tar<en place in tlu, rutenue records. .But this ffice i, *i'f,*pnrurrra to carrcel the sale deeds if at att they orc noi'grnuin*. Bly saytng these words, the respondents cannot escape uhen a nghtful owner is quesfiottirtg tlu entries that haae'taken place inr rh, ,rrrnu, records, ruhrch is not correct and bad in lazu. The material paper prodrced.hy h.oth the parties haoe been perused. As seen Vom the registered snk, deed certified copy.Ni.+as oy isia6*h ttot n r nt, S/o. p a p il a l, p t i i r rl ti, p|p, ti, S n 5,. P. M,o I ri' iirl i r"#', purcnasect urc palta lands in 5y.No.161, 162,'i60, 163 and 165/3 !:n,t,:::g Ac.e-)j gts of Thoomuru"n oiitoge yrim Sri Nasar Moltd.Khan,S/,,.Arneei Mohd Kha.n. yn, *rifra, ,riy of pahani for 1953-54 tstnblish thnt tl rmmesof Sri.Mohanlal.r;:r,t:';r:::!;:;:::r';:l'::;r;;;r:y, Pahani 1954 53 tlisclosc tltat the ,o*, of Sri.Uoiniroi i, ,rrorara i.n Col.No.8 against the suit lands of pattedar. In Column No.13 the nante -of penjarra Deraiah, s/o.Malraiah is recordtd. The remnrks of tha pnttoari noted.in Col.No.l4 ari'ti ,rl,iirn represent the nature of occrryntion, antl other rights. It is noted as ,,The .but "f " :a lantis 3 purchased orally on lanuary,1954 for aru amount of Rs.L,200/- from pattedar and in Khareez. Thus, it is clear from the said entries that there is no sale deed executed. by Sri Mohnnlal S/o.Papalal transfening his patta rights in faaour of Sn.Panjena Deuaiah. The subsequent year pahanies shows that said entries haae continued in the name of Penjerla Deaaiah. The respondents did not file any material document to the ffict acquisition of ights by Panjerla Deaaiah from S.P.Mohallal, father of the appellants, tohich clearly goes to show that the name of Penjarlal Deaaiah was brought on record without any aoidence of purchase where Panjerla Deaaiah himself do not hold or possess any oalid document with regard to acquisition of right oaer the suit lands, mere entries appearing in reaenue records does not gizte any right ooer thz property in faaour of Panjarla Deoaiah, through whom the respondtnts are claiming and not supported by any documentary eaidence Hence, the said entries are hereby quashed. The Mandal Reoenue Offcer, Shnmeerpet Mandal is hereby directed to incorporate the nanre of the appellants in the reaenue record in respect of suit lands. Appeal is allowed."

4. Aggrieved by order dated 08.12.2000 passed in Appeal No.A2/5a2/ 99, respondent Nos.4 and 6 preferred rgvision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act,7977 bearing case Nos.D5l13/2007 and D5/18/2001 and the respondent No.1 uide common order dated 02.12.2003 had passed the following order:- "ln aiew of the aboue it is found that the Reaenue Diuisional Offcer, R.R.East Dioision has passed tht orders Dated 08.12.2000 in oiolation of the law of limitation beyond his jurisdiction and thus misused, his authoity and therefore the orders of the Reuenue Diaisional Offcer are found to be in aiolation of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadnr Pass Books Act, 1977 and Rules made there under. Therefore the orders of the Reuenue Diaisional Offcer, R.R.East Dioision, Dated 08.12.2000 passed in File No.A2/542/1999 are liable to be quashed and as such are hereby quashed. Accordingly the reoision is allowed."

5. Challenging the common order dated 02.72.2003 passed in Case Nos.D5l13l2001 and D5l18/2001, petitioners filed this writ petition 4

6. L,earned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent ,. No.2 uide ordcr clared 08.12.2000 has rightly allowed the Appeal No.A2/542/99, however, respondent No.1 rrlde orrler 02.12.2003 in revision casc bearing Nos.D5/13/2001 and D5/79/2001, has quashed the order ciatecl 08.12.2000 passed in Appeal No.A2/542/99, on the following grounds:- "Ott perusnl of tlrc petition fited by the respondents 1 to 4 before the Reunuc [)it'isional Officer. it is seen that the application uas fled on 03.02.1999 along uith copies of certain tliurments but not tlrc certifcd copy of the entry ftom the record of rights tohiclr is required to be rectified. Moreooer the prayer of tfu rispondents 7 to 4 lrrcrtt toho zoere petitioners before the Reuenue Dittisional Ofi.cer. R.ll. East Diuision is to rectifu the Rer.tenue Records by incorporating their nanrcs in proper columns. But on perusal if the ordcr of tlrc Reaenue Dioisional Officer. R.R. East Dioision Dated:08-12-2000 rt is seen tlat the matter uas talgn as an appeal. Tht tL,ortl " appeal', is defnetl as judiciat exaninahon of tlrc decisron hy n hi gher court of tfu decision of an inferior couri, Laxmt Ratan Engineering Vs. Assistant CommissiorLer (A.l.R. 1968 S.C. 4BB). As per Secr)on S (S) ofthe Act an appeal shall be w.ithin n pcriod of sixty days from the date of comm.unication of the ordcr of thc Recoding Authority and as per rule 21 (2) eaery nppeal slnll be accompanied by copy of the order appealed. against. But ur tlu instant case there is no order against tuhich tlrc appeal r fled uns accompanied. The petitioners in the appeat e respotrderrts 1 to 4 herein insisted in thzir applicahon to rectifu the reoenuc rc.cords and nowhere they haae mentioned about any order pnssed by llw lozoer authority against which the said appeil ruas filcd. For rectifcation of enties as already menhoned aboue Section,3 (3) of the Act prooides an opportunity to any affected person by ntt entry in such record of rights may, within a peiod of one yenr .from the date of notifcation in the Andhrn prndesh Cazette (or tfu Drctict Gaz,ette) to the Mnndal Reuearc Offcer as protridcd rrnder n e 15 (3) of the rules. Further the Reaenue Diuisionnl Offcer has acted beyond ltis juisdiction by ,.*r:t:,l8 r't.t.yuiry regarding the enties relating to the yeai, 1954-b5 t.t:., Khnsrn pahani and came to a conclusi-on arbitririty, itleqallV nnd quashed the entries in respect of the land in question and directed tlp Mandal Reaenue'Oficer n incorporate the w 5 names of the appellants tlrcrein. The Reoenue Diaisional Officer has forgotten to mention the entries relating to specific year which are quashed by his orders, The Reuenue Diztisional Officer has also fniled to obsente the law of limitation in the matter. From tht period of preparation of Khasra Pahnni in the year. 1954-55 to till date thue were two times taken up for preparation and updation of record of rights i.e., once in the year. 1.978 and secondly in the year. 1989. During this period the respondent haoe nerter put-forth their claim before the coflpetent authorities and neoer raised any objection in respect of thc enties with regarrl to Pattadar and possession columns in the reaenue records. On the other hand it is seen that one Penjarla Deoaiah S/o Mallaiah has been recorded as Pattadar i.c..column No. 73 and in tfu columns of record of rights i.e.. column Nos.14 €t 1.5 tht person in column No.13 is recordrd as purchaser is (Khnbeez) by uay of oral agreement zoith Mohanlnl in lanuary. 1954 for possessor Rs.L200/- As per procedure the names uhich are recorded in column No. 13 of the Khasra Pahani i.e.. for the year, 1954-55 their names are recorded as Pattadar in the subsequent Pahanies i.e., thc Pahani for the year. 1955-56 onwards ie.. Sesala Pahani (Three years Pahani i.e. 1955-56. 56-57 A 57-58). Thereafter the father of the petitioners htrein purchased the land in question ftom tfu said Pattadar through registered sple deed an got mutated his name in reaenue records and conselquent on death of the father of the petitioners succession was granted by the Mandal Reaenue Officer in the names of tht petitioners herein. The order of the Reztenue Diaisional Officer, R.R East Dioision Datud 08.12,2000 for correction of entries in respect of land in question is misconceitled passed beyond his jurisdiction and without following tht law of limitation. " Correction of entry after 43 years is illegal and tht power under Secfion 25 of the Karnatakn Reztenue Act is to be exercised within reasonable time 1997 AIHC 3032 (Kar). See also Commissioner of Suraey Settlements and Land Records Vs. G.Padmaoathi, 1999 (4) ALD 61 (DB):1999 (4) ALT 209 (DB) :1999 AIHC 4362 (AP)"

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that unofficial respondents by virtue of oral agreement are claiming title over the subject property and further submitted that only registered sale deed confirms title over the property and any such orai agreement cannot be heated as*proof of titte over the property. To support his contentions, 6 learned counsel relied upon the order dated 05.09.2003 passed by the then Andhra pradesh High Court in Konkana Ravinder Goud and others Vs. Bhavanarishi Co_Operative House Building Society, Hyderabad and othersr a,

8. With respect to objection raised with regard to jurisdiction and applicability of law of limitation, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on judgment dated 77.72.2024, passed. by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Daliben Valj ibhai and others Vs. prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai and another2

9. Heard and perused the material available on record. 10. Upon perusal, it is noticed that respondent No.4/ in the Appeal No.A2/542/1999 before respondent No.2 had filed counter wherein they claimed that they had purchased the subject property from its lawfull owner i'e', sri.p Devaiah and the same was registered ,irle sare deed bearing document No.154 oIL9s9 dated 23.10.1959 and from then onwards, they were h peaceful possession of the subject property. However, respondent No.2 in the order d.ated, 0g.72.2000 had only considered the title proof of the petitioners, father and had not considered the proof of titre of the respondents and there are no specific findings to the extent of the respondents rights over the subject property and without discussing the said issue had allowed the appeal. ' 2oo3 ALo s 6sq ' 2oza INsc to49 Y 7

11. In the case on hand it is relevant to refer to the Sections 3(3) and 5(5) of A.P.Record of Rights in Lands and Pattedar Pass Books Act,1977 (hereinafter referred as Act), relevant portion is exhacted here under for facility:- Section 3(3) reads as follousi 3. Preparation and flraintenance of recoril of rights in all lands:- (3) Any person affected by an entry in such record of ights may, within a period of one year from the date of the nohfcation referred to in sub-section (2), apply for rectification of the entry to such offcer as may be prescibed. The said officer may, after such inquiry ns may be prescibed, gite his decision on such application and direct thc rectifcafion of the record of ights in accordance uith such decision uhich shall, subject to the proaisions of section 9, be fnal. Sectiorr 5(5) reads as follous:- 5. Amendment and up-dating of recoril of ights:- (5) Against euery order of the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of ights or refusing to makl such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to such authoity as may be prescribed, toithin a peiod of sixty days ftom the date of communicatiotr of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall, subject to tht protsisions of section 9, be fnal.

72. It is perhnent to note that petitioners' father expired on 04.02.1997 and even after demise of their father, petitioners have not taken any steps to mutate their names in revenue records in respect of the subject property. Thus, the petitioners at this belated stage cannot question the order of respondent No.1 h this writ petitiory as such, the petitioners has no locus standi to file this writ petition. That apart, the respondent No.1 in the revision case bearing Nos.D5/13/2001 and D5/18/2001 aide common order dated 02.12.2003 observed that the petitioners under Section 3(3) of A.P.Record of Rights in Lands and Pattedar Pass Books t_ 8 Act, 1971, ought to have approached respondent No.3 i.e., Mandal Revenue Officer, however, the petitioners instead of approaching the respondent No.3, directlv filed appeal No.A2/542/99, under Section 5(5) of the act, before respondent No.2 and when this Court made a query to this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners could not make any submission to the extent of power confined to the respondent No.2 in passing order dated 08 12.2000 in Appeal No.A2/542/99 filed under Section 5(5) of A.P.Record of Rights in Lands and Paftedar pass Books 4ct,7977

13. As per Section 3(3) of the Act, any person affectef by an entry in records of right, shall apply for rectification of entry, within a period of one ),ear from the date of notification. However, petitioners instead of filing application under Section 3(3) of the Act, directly filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. Thus, respondent No.1 in the revision case bearing Nos.D5/13/2001 and D5/18/2001 aidz common order dated 02.1.2.2003 had rightly observed that respondent No.2 by misusing his authoriry has passed the order dated 08.12.2000 and the same is in violation of the law of limitation and beyond his jurisdiction and quashed the order dated OB.72.2OOO passed in Appeal No.A2/542/99 and allowed the revision Case Nos,D5/13l2001 and D5/78/2001 It is pertinent ro mention that the Judgments relied upon \ -t"/ 9 by the learnecl counsel for the petitioners do not apply to the facts and legal position in this writ petition

74. For the foregoing reasons, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the common order dated 02.72.2003 passed by respondent No.1 in Case Nos.D5/.13/2001 and D5/18/2001 and the writ petition being devoid of merits, fails and is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed No order as to costs SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI M. NAGA DEEPAK, Advocate [OPUC] 2. fwo CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to SRI A.V. SWAMY, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI CH. JAYAKRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies MP BS I HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 1tlE STAIF o >t 12 nrq il6 z () lr' I o^-" \i,_-:- 'l n.l (:.urto ? ORDER 6 WP.No.4503 of 2004 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @or'W