High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Medak District, Medak

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur Division, Medak District Tahasildhar, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District

Smt.Amatulfatima Begum, Wo Mirmohammed Ali Khan Aged Major Occ.Not known to petitioners Fl/o Mohammad Nagar, Kowdipally Mandal Medak District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent in issuance of pattadar pass book bearing No.T08050200712 with katha No.60199 in favour of sth respondent in respect of land in Sy.No.284l9A admeasuring Ac 8.00 gts situated at Mohammed nagar, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of RoR Act and consequently to direct the respondents to inquire and cancel the pattadar pass book bearing No.T08050200712 with katha No.60'199 as issued in favour of 5th respondent in respect of land in Sy.No.284l9A admeasuring Ac 8.00 gts situated at Mohammed nagar, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant interim suspension of pattadar pass book bearing No.T08050200712 with katha No.60'199 issued in favour of 5th respondent in respect of land in Sy.No.284i9A admeasuring Ac 8.00 gts situated at Mohammed nagar, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District as othemrise petitioner stand to suffer serious hardship and irreparable loss. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: Smt.Amatulfatima Begum, Wio Mirmohammed Ali Khan Aqed Maior Occ.Not Known to petitioners Rl/o Mohammad Nagar, Kowdipally Mandal Medak District ...pETrroNER Lambadi Peerya, Sio Lambadi Ganya Aged 55 years, Occ.Agriculture Chakali Durgaiah, S/o Pentaiah Aged 63 years, Occ. Agriculture Megavath Kamli, W/o Dasuru Aged 45 years, Occ.Agriculture Manthuri Venka Goud, S/o Naragoud Aged 60 years, Occ. Agriculture lsmail, S/o lmamsab Aged 60 Years, Occ. Agriculture Katroth Shanker, S/o Chandru Aged 50 years, Occ.Agriculture All are Rl/o. Mohammad Nagar, Kowdipally Mandal Medak District AND ,|

4. 5

6. ...RESPONDENTSMRIT PETITIONERS 7. The state of reranoana, Represented by its principal Secretary Revenue, Secretariat Buildingsl Hyderadad.

8. The District Collector, Medak District, Medak 9. The Revenue Divtsional Officer, Narsapur Division, Medak District '10. Tahasildhar, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District ...RESPONDENTS i Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the status quo order dated 11.02.2022 and dismiss the writ petition with heavy exemplary costs in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N.MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRt MADAS BHARATH CHANDRA The Court made the foltowing: ORDER C:] )i THE HON'BLE SRI Jt,STICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.76 85 of 2o22 ORDER: This writ petition is frled seeking to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly respondent No.4, in issuance of pattadar pass book bearing No.T080502OO712 with katha No.60199 in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of land in Survey No.284 /9A admeasuring Acs.8.OO guntas situated at Mohammed nagar, Kowdipally Mandat, Medak District, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequenfly direct the respondents to inquire and cancel said the pattadar pass book issued in favour of respondent No.5.

2. Petitioner Nos.l to 6 herein claim that they are the absolute owners and possessors of different extents of land admeasuring Ac. 1 .O0 guntas in Survey No.284 /9 / l, Ac.2.OO guntas in Survey No.284/LU3, Ac. 1.0O guntas in Survey No.284lRU/9, Ac.1.0O guntas in Survey No.284lU5, Ac.2.00 guntas in Survey No.28a /LUa /1 and Ac.l.00 in Survey No.28a / 10 /2 /2 / respectively situated at Mohammed Nagar, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District, having purchased the same under un-registered sale deeds, which in turn were subsequently va-lidated by respondent No.4 under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, 2 . It is also stated that 1971 (for short "the ROR Act' 1971") of the Petitioners we re the names pursuant to validation' records and pattadar pass books were mutated in the revenue also issued in their favour and they are receiving the subsidies under Rythu Bandhu scheme from the State Government resPect of the subject lands' 1n The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the same' 3 without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without taking any steps either for cancellation of the pattadar pass books or the regularisation proceedings issued in favour of the petitioners, respondent No 4 straight away issued pattadar pass books in favour of respondent No'5 in respect of the subject lands and taking advantage of the same' respondent No'S is now trying to create third party interest over the subject lands' Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends 4. that the procedure adopted by respondent No'4 in issuing pattadar pass book in favour of respondent No'S is not only contrary to Sections 5(3) or 5(5) of the ROR Act' 1971 but also the guidelines issued by a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Chinnam Pandutangam us YlcrndoLl Reoenue officerl ' ' ltR 2oo8 AP 15 3 ['

5. lrarned counsel appearing for respondent No.S, on the other hard, relying upon the counter alfidavit filed by respondent No.5, submits that respondent No.5 is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject lands; she never sold the subject lands to anyone much less the petitioners; even though the petitioners allege that they have purportedly purchased the subject lands through sada bainama, the same were not produced during the enquiry nor the same are enclosed to the writ petition; the alleged 13-B certihcates have been obtained by the petitioners in collusion and by playrng fraud without the existence of sada bainama; acting upon the representation submitted by respondent No.5, the District Collector, Medak District i.e., respondent No.2 herein conducted enquiry and submitted a report stating that there are no files available regarding 13-B proceedings and there is no evidence regarding payrnent of stamp duty as contemplated under the ROR Act, l97l and as such no pattadar pass books can be issued in favour of the petitioners; and having participated in the said enquiry, the petitioners are not having any right to question the enquiry report and issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of respondent No.5.

6. Considered the submissions of leamed counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. J 4 7 . While the case of the petitioners is that they purchased the subject lands through un-registered sale deeds (sada bainama) and the szune were subsequently validated and consequential pattadar pass books were also issued in their favour, the case of respondent No.5 is that the petitioners by playng fraud and without ha,ring any valid documents in their favour, obtained pattadar pass books in respect of the subject lands. Admittedly, respondent No.5 did not file any appeal either 8 under Section 5(5) of ROR Act or revision under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971, questioning the validation proceedings issued in favour of the petitioners. The question as to whether respondent No.4 is empowered to issue pattadar pass books in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of the subject lands, in the absence of questioning th.e validation proceedings issued in favour of the petitioners and cancelling the earlier pattadar pass books issued in their favour by following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the ROR Act' 1971 and that too without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without following the guidelines issued by the Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Chinnam Pandurangam (l supra), requires to be decided by the competent authority duly examining the relevant records ald Y reports being submitted by the concerned authorities and considering the elaborate evidence' g. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the pattadar pass book bearing No'TO805O200712 with katha No.60199 issued in favour of respondent No'5' The matter is remanded to respondent No'2 herein' who in turn shall conduct enquiry afresh and pass appropriate reasoned orders, duly examining the relevant records and reports being submitted by the concerned authorities and taking into considerationtheevidencebeingadducedbytheparties,within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of ttris order. closed { n Pending miscellaneous applications, if any' shall stand There shall be no order as to costs' ilrRUE coPY// sD/-P-smm#5,E!ffi t I 0 SECTION OFFTCER \ \ 'o'',. ,n" Principat Secretary' Revenue' Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad' State of 'rn5t'Y3'??i"""-"if 3. The Revenue ulvrslo b?[$i$'gqr**,.;";,;rueansanaa, q, el: at$s'[}lE 8. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUTI BSR */ HIGH COURT DATED: 1210212025 ORDER WP.No.7685 of 2022 ( ) o (.) q ,l TSeH1 A E I4 tsL 2 25rl 7 * c , IFJ -;-- ( c DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ,v("0 \\ W