High Court · 2025

9. Jangili Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Mallaiah Aged about 72 years Occ. R/ o H No 1-1-42212 Vijaya Puri Colony Near Sai Baba Temple Wyra Road Khammam District

10.Smt. Uppu vasantha, W o. Nagaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. House wife, R/ o. Plot No. 21, Mythri Kuteeer, Laxma Reddy Palem Bus Stop, Besides Anpneya swamy temple Hayath Nagar, Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict, State of Telangana. ,,*Xlgg?f buryaPet Town and District l''f,n'nfl "llf,irtiil^i,if3,0,1ffi "1,";a?i"^[:]'ff Llt::i:'":l occ Ag ri cu rtu re " *? X "i,ii,lil,l. ti &131fu 8j%li'i^ 3,#5' 31 09;$l 5,#3i:' 1 3 Aku I a Ve n ka n n a, 919 E:T[ Telangana Grameena District, | +h fr%?tffi #"v,, 333 f.,nJ' "# :H!:, %", ooif;8

14.Akula Mangamma' Ooo.to Telangana SurYaPeta District, Y:f ::'I",i5"f fl "+ff""#,f ,?,.lnf u?i""a"':Y."f \E#:: .to Telangana District "tTlli#illT;'y+"*il5,ixilf ll?f"!3""*i,'"ffi :''lslii;8H ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the 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 particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the impugned order Passed by the 3rd Respondent herein in ProcNo' E4lE-1478312024' Daled 1601'2025 without considering the title document of the Petitioners i'e" Khasra Pahani for the year lg54.lg55andDeniedtoconsidertheonlineApplicationSubmittedbythe Petitioners, vide in application No 2400056900 for alter the extent of land in the name of the father of the Petitioners herein' in Sy'No'628 to an extent of land Ac.7.05 guntas instead of land Ac'5'05 guntas for grant of succession in favour of thePetitioners,ontheGroundthattheCivilsuitfiledbytheRespondentNos'8 and 9 against the Petitioners herein in O S'No'97 of 2019 dated- 24'06 2019' on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet' even after Set aside the fraudulent registered Gift Deeds executed by the father of the respondent Nos' 8 AND I herein, by the Respondent Nos'2 and 6 herein' vide in Regd'Doc'Nos' 525411992 86 5255l1gg2dated. 02-11-1992- as per the orders Passed by this Honorible Court and even after set aside their illegal Pattas by the Respondent Nos'4 to 6 herein, vide in Lr No.E4lE- 1478312024'dated 03 10'2024' but the said fraudulent Regd Gift Deed Documents are no way concerned and not binding to the Petitionersandnotvalidintheeyesoflawandnullandvoidandvoidabinitioas per the orders of the Honorable Supreme Court of lndia vide in Civil Appeal Nos.2752-2753of2o22,dated-04.05.2o22andthePetitionersnotgetany benefits from the Government of Telangana from the yeat-2016 onwards till today, Due to Mistake on the Part of the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 herein, is illegal' arbitrary, violative Principles of natural justice and against the article 14, 19,21 AND 300-(A), Constitution of lndia. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the Respondent No.3 herein to alter the extent of land in the name of the father of the petitioners herein, in sy.No.628 to an extentof land Ac.7.05 guntas instead of land Ac.5.05 guntas, Situated at Phanigiri village, Nagaram Mandal' suryapeta District, TS- For grant of succession in favour of the Petitioners herein, forthwith lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the main prayer as ; "lt is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of wRlT OF MANDAMUS, Declare the impugned order Passed by the 3rd Respondent herein, in Endorsement's No.E4151712025' Dated: 21.08.2025 & Proc.No. E4tE-1478312024, Daled 16.01.2025, without considering the title Document of the Petitioners i.e., Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-1955 and Denied to consider the online Application Submitted by the Petitioners, vide in application No.2400056900, For alter the extent of land in the name of the father of the Petitioners herein, in sy.No.628 to an extent of land Ac.7.05 Guntas instead of land Ac.5.05 Guntas For grant of succession in favour of the Petitioners, on the Ground that the Civil Suit- filed by the Respondent No's' g and 9 against the Petitioners herein on file of the senior civil Judge at Suryapet in o.s.No.97 0f 2019 Dated: 24.06.2019, even after set aside the fraudulent registered Gift Deeds executed by the father of the respondent No's. 8 & t herein, by the Respondent Nos.2 and 6 herein, vide in Regd. Doc. No's. 525411992 & 525511992 Dated: 02-1 1-1gg2, as per the orders Passed by this Hon'ble court and even after set aside their illegal Pattas by the Respondent No's.4 to 6 herein, vide in Lr.No.E4lE-1478312024, Dated: 03.10.2024, Bul the said fraudulent Registered Gift Deed Documents are no way concerned and not binding to the Petitioners and not valid in the eyes of law and null and void and void abinitio as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, vide in Civil Appeal No's.2752-2753 ot 2022. Dated: 04.05.2022 and Due to Mistake on the Part of the respondents No's. 2 to 7 herein, the Petitioners not Get the any Benefits from the Government of Telangana, from the year-2016 onwards till today, is illegal, arbitrary, violative Prlnciples of natural justice and against the article 14, 19,21 & 300-(A), Constitution of lndia and consequently Direct the respondent No.3 herein, to alter the above subject land for Grant of Succession and issuance of E- pattadar Pass Books in favour of the Petitioners herein fohn*itn and Pass such other order (or)orders as this Hon'ble Court may Deems fit and Proper in the interest of the justice." lnstead of to Declaring the impugned order Passed by the 3rd Respondent herein in Proc.No. E4lE-1478312024, Dated. 16.01.2025, without considering the title document of the Petitioners i.e., Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-1 955 and Denied to consider the online Application Submitted by the Petitioners, vide in application No.2400056900, For alter the extent of land in the name of the father of the Petitioners herein, in Sy.No.628 to an extent of land Ac.7.05 Guntas instead of land Ac.5.05 Guntas, For Grant of Succession in favour of the Petitioners, on the Ground that the Civil suit filed by the Respondent No's.8 and 9 against the Petitioners herein in O.S.No.97 of 2019 Dated: 24.06.2019, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, even after Set aside the fraudulent registered Gift Deeds executed by the father of the respondent No's. 8 & t herein, by the Respondent No's.2 and 6 herein, vide in Regd. Doc. No's. 5254/1992 & 525511992 Dated: 02-11-1992, as per the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and even after set aside their illegal Pattas by the Respondent No's.4 to 6 herein, vide in Lr.No.E4lE-1478312024, Dated: 03.10.2024, But the said fraudulent regd Gift Deed Documents are no way concerned and not Binding to the Petitioners and not valid in the eyes of law and null and void and void abinitio as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, vide in Civil Appeal No's.2752-2753 of 2022, dated: 04.05.2022 and the petitioners not get any benefits from the Government of relangana from the year-2016 onwards till today, Due to Mistake on the Part of the respondents No's. 2 to z herein, is illegal, arbitrary, viotative Principles of natural justice and against the article 14, 19,2'l & 300-(A), Constitution of lndia." Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAMESH KADARI Counsel for the Respondents No.lto7: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.8to15 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER ",) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL IITRIT PETITION No.5326 of 2o25 ORDER: - The Petitioners have filed the present writ pt:tition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the order dated 16.01 .2025 in Proceedings No.E4/E- 1478312024, passed by the 3.d respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. The impugned order was purssed without considering the petitionrlrs' title document, namely the Khasra Pahani of 1954-1955 and by rcjecting their online application No.240O056900 seeking correction of land extent in Sy.No.628 from Ac.5.O5 to Ac.7.O5 Gts., in their lather's name for succession purposes. The rejection was solely basec, on a pending civil suit in O.S. No. 97 of 2Ol9 filed by respondent Nos.ti ernd 9, despite the fact that the fraudulent gift deeds bearing documenr- Nos.5254 of 1992 & 5255 of 1992 executed by their father were already set aside by competent auth<.rrities and their pattas cancelled. These gift deeds, being declared null and void by the Hon'ble Supre:me Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 275 2-2753 of 2022, are not binding on the petitioners. The petitioners contend that they have not received any government benelrts since 2016 due to errors by respondents 2 to 7. The impugned action is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, hnd contrary to Articles 14, 19, 2I, a:-rcl 30O-A of the Constitution of India. 2 Heard rearned counsel for the petitioners, rearned Assistant Government pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counser for the respondent Nos.7 to 9 and I 1.

3. The petitioners respectfu,y submit that their grandf,ather, Late Sri Jang,i Narasaiah, was the absorute owner and possessor <if the lands in Sy'Nos'sgg, 60z, 6r r-6 13, 62642g, 63'0,6s2,637, 640_647, 65o-6s2, and 65s, situated at phanigiri village, Nagaram Mandar, Suryapet District, Telangana, as evidenced by the Khasra pahani (1954-55) and Sethwar Regisrer (1932-3s). The Khasra pahani, recognized as a historical and conclusive title document by this Hon,rrre court in w.p. No. 27103 0f 2021 (20.11.2023) and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, confirms the petitioners, tifle. (a) owing to erroneous entries between 1955_1 9zs infavour of the respondents'forefiathers, the revenue authorities duly rectifie& the records in 1976-77, restoring title to the petitioners, father and the father of respondents 11 and 12, issuing a joint patta. subsequently, respondents 11 and 12',s father arienated a portion of his share and transferred the balance through succession (vide RoR proceeding Nos. 8/683/2008 & 8/267 /2019). \ i I l' I 7t Page 3 of6 (b) The petitioners' father's ownership continued in the revenue records from 1976 to 2OOl. Hou.'ever, respondents 8 and 9 fabricated gift deeds bearing document Nos.5254 & 5255 I 1992 without title, unlawfully deleting his name and procuring pattadar passbooks and 'title deeds by fraud an act uoid ab iruitio in law. Further, respondent 10 deceitfully obtained a fraudulent sale: deed bearing document No. 8495 /2O1O exploiting the petitioners'.father's ill-health, which stands void as per the judgments in Civil Ap1>eal Nos.2752- 275312022 dated o4.o5.2o22 and is pending adjuclication before respondent No.6 vide Memo No. G2lI2716l2024. (c) Despite clear title, the 3.d respondent, in online application No.24OOO5690O, rejected the petitioners' request for m,rt.ation on the erroneous ground of a pending civil dispute, with,tut notice to necessary parties, thereby passing mechanical orders contrary to w.A. No. 2o8/2023 dated 28.ro.2024. The admission by resp,rndents 8 and 9 that the petitioners' father's name appeared in recr>rds till 2oo2 negates their claim under the alleged gift deeds. (d) The appellate authority / respondent 5 rig.rdy set aside fraudulent pattas and the revision was dismissed by respondent 4, granting liberty only to approach civil court. Nonetheless, respondents 8 and 9 instituted a suit based on void documents contrary to the r[- I I I I ) I Il Page 4 of6 "l settled law in Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersl, holding that a judgment or title obtained by fraud is a nullity. (e) This court, in w.p. No. r247o of 2o2o dated r4.og.2o2o, recorded the State's submission that no interference existed with the petitioners' possession over Ac.7.o5 guntas in Sy.No.62g, affirming their peaceful possession. In similar cases (w.p. No..27g5 6 of 2022 and, w'A' No' 790 of 2022), this Court held that pendency of civil litigation does not preclude correction of revenue records and the same principle is ignored in the present case. (0 Due to inaction by respondents 3 and z, the petitioners suffered grave prejudice, including denial of statutory agricultural benefits and wrongful criminal prosecution, later stayed by this Hon,ble Court in Crl'P' No.6295 of 2022. The civil proceedings initiated earlier in O'S' No' 5 L 12016, CMA No. 8 L7 12O17 were rendered infructuous as the title stood conclusively in favour of the petitioners,family under the Khasra Pahani (g) In analogous circumstances, this court, in w.p. No.16o47 of 2023 dated 23-01.2025, directed the mutation of names in revenue records, holding that disobedience of earlier orders amounts to violation ' 1zoz.z1t4 scc I j Il: i i i I I I I I I '\., t' Page 5 of6 on the face of record. The petitioners, case squarel). falls within the ambit of the said order. 4' On the other hand, learned Assistant Government pleader and.learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 9 and 11, have submit that the writ petition is not maintainable under A.:ticle 226 as it involves disputed questions of title and ownership, which can be adjudicated only by a competent civil court. The petitioners themselves filed and withdrew o.s.No.S112016 and cannot no,,r, seek the same relief through writ jurisdiction to bypass the civil process. The matter concerns conflicting revenue entries and r,:gistered deeds and their validity can be determined only through trial ilnd evidence, not in summary writ proceedings. The 3rd respondent rightly refused mutation pending resolution of the civil dispute, acting within jurisdiction and following judicial prudence to avord sub judice interference. There is no infringement of Article 30o_A, as the Petitioners have not been dispossessed by the State; their grievance is purely inter-se private. Stating thus, they seek to dismir;s the present writ petition.

5. Having heard the rival contentions and upon lrerusal of the material, this court is of the opinion that the controvers' raised in the writ petition involves complex and disputed questions of fact relating to title and ownership over immovable property. Such issur:s cannot be i I i i ( ( Page 6 of6 l adjudicated in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The revenue entries and subsequent registered transactions are contested by both sides and their validity can be determined only upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence before a competent civil court. The writ jurisdiction, being limited to examining legality of administrative action, cannot be invoked to decide civil rights or title disputes between private parties. Accordingry, the writ petition is disposed of granting riberty to the petitioners to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of their title and other consequential reriefs, if so advised. It is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not influence the civil court, which shall decide the matter on its own merits and in accordance with raw. The revenue authorities shall abide by and give effect to the decree or order that may be passed by the civil court in due course.

6. with the above directions, th: present writ petition is disposed of. No opder as to the costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SE SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR kcTtoN o FFICER

1. fhe Principal.Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Telangana State Buildings Hyderabad

2. The. lnspector General of Registration AND Stamps Department, M.J.Market at Hyderabad

3. The District Collector, Suryapet District 4. The Joint Collector, Suryapet District j i I I i I r i I ! I 5' The Re'Yenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet Revenue Division Suryapet Town and District,

6. The Sub legistrar, Suryapeta Town AND District, 7 ' The Tahsildar -cum- Joint Sub-Registrar, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District 8. One CC to SRI RAMESH KADARI, Advocate. tOpUCl 9. Two ccs to GP FoR REVENUE, High court for the state of relangana.

10.Two CD Copies. BSK BS I I t f HIGH COURT DATED:1611012025 ( e') o o 1rt E SrA rq- ( 10 tl UJ 7ffi , f5. -a 1gr.rr'^ a ORDER WP.No.5326 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?I tslrtlu'-