The High Court · 2025

- lemple, Karimnagar town, Karimnagar District. 2. Arkala Krishna Rao, S/o A.V. Narsaiah, Aged. 59 years, Occ. Govt. ^ !mployee,. R/o. H. No.8-6-92/2, Kothiramp-ur, Karirirnagar, Ka rimnagar District. 3. Arkala Prabhakar Rao, S/o.A V.Narsa]ah, Aged. 53 yeirs, Occ. Emiployee, 4. Arkala Kavitha, Wo Late Srinivasa Rao, Aged.50-years, Occ. House Hold, p9. H.f!o.a;1 -57, Govindgiri Nagar, Korufl aI Jasityaj district. R/o H.No.8-6-9212, Kothirampur, Karimnag-ar, Karirirnagir District. ...RESPONDENTS AND 'l . Alug.am Kamala., Wo.llaiah, Aged. 52 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o.Kundurupally Village, Ghanpu(tViulug) tVlandit, Jayashankar Btiupalpally District. 2. Nadem Narsaiah, S/o Buchimallu, Aged. 55 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o ^ KundurupallyVillage, IVlandal, JayashankarBhu[alpaliyDistrictl 3. Puttapaka Odelu, S/o .llaiah Aged. Major , Agriculiurist, Fl/o Kundurupally . Village,. Ghanpur(lvlulug) Mandal,-Jayashdnka r B iiupatpally District.. 4. Ammallaiah, W/o.Bond_yalu Aged 56 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Kundurupally Village, Ghanpur(-Mutug) Mahdat, Jayashankir Bhupalpally District 5. Egurla Thirupathi, S/o.llaiah, Aged. 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Kundu.rupally Village, Ghanpu(Mulug) Mandal, JayashankEr Bhupilpally District, 6. J_adpula S?.mp.all.r, S/o Kasna Naik, Aged. 54 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Kundurupally Village, Ghanpur(Mulugl Mandai, Jayashanka"r Bhupaipally District 7. EOurla Chainna Ellaiah, Sio Komuraiah, Aged.47 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Kundurupally Village, Ghanpur(Mutug) Mandal,' Jayashankai Bhupalpalty District. 8. Ammallaiah, W/o Bondyalu, aged 56 years, Occ. Agrl., R/o Kundurupally 9. Allam Madhukar, Sio llaiah, Aged. 30 years,' Occ. Agriculture, R/o Kundurupally .Village, Ghanpur(Mutug) tMan'dat, Jayashanklr Bhupitpaily District. Village, Bhupalpally Mandal, fayashankai Bhupatpatty DIst,

10. thawala Komuraiah, S/o.Rajaiah, Aged. 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Kundurupally Village, Ghanpur(tr/ulug) Manddl, Jayashankai Bhupalpally District.

11. Lavudya .Namuku Nayak, S/o.Rama Naik Aged. 60 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o Kundurupally Village, Ghanpu(Mulug) Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

12.Egw1a Yellaiah, S/o Lachaiah, Aged. 55 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ri/o Kundurupally Village, Ghanpu(Mulug)Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District 1 3. Azmeera Dhan Singh Naik, S/o Late Azmeera Jaggu Nayak, aged 38 years, Occ. Agrl., Rio Kundurupally Village, GhanpurMandal, Jayash'ankar Bhupalpally Dist.

14. Jqrpula Santhosh Nayak, S/o.Chandu Naik, Aged. 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Kundurupally Village, Ghanpur(Mulug) IVlandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

15.Alugam lih'avan Kumar, Sio llaiah, Aged. 28 years, ft66:. ,{qd6ulture, Fyo Kundurupraly Village, Ghanpu(Mulug) Mandal, Jayashanl,:ar Bhupalpally District l6.Nunavatl BabLr Naik, S/o.Chandru, aged 47 yearsi, C)c:. Agrl., R/o Kunduru6ral y Village, BhupalpallyMandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally Dist. 17. Shetty Laxrni V/io.Ghattaiah, aged 49 years, Occ. Agrl., R,o Kundurupally Village, Bhupa pally Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally Dist. ...RESPONDENTSM/R.II F'ETITIONERS

18.The State, ot 1'r:lilngana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenr.re Department, Secretariat 13ld 3r; Saifabad, Hyderabad

19. The Joint Crrllector, Jayashanker Bhupalapally Dist 20.The Tahsildar, Gunpur, Mulugu Mandal 21. The Revenr"re [)i visional Officer, Jayashanker Bhupalapell,/ Dis,t ...RESPONDENTS/FTESPONDENTS Petition uncer Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumst:rrrces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay t,e pleased to vacate the inte'inr ,:.cler dated 20.4.2020 passed in WP.No 590,1 of 2O2O and dismiss the above wr t petition with costs. Counsel for the P':titioners: SRI KIRAN PALAKURTHI Counsel forthe Resgrondent Nos.1 TO 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the ResJrondent Nos.5 & 8: SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: SRI R.A.CHARY The Court made ttre bllowing: ORDER 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.59O4 of 2O2O ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the oflicial respondents and learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents and perused the material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are owners and possessors of the agricultural lands out of Sy.Nos.95 to 100, situated at Chelpur Village, Ganpur (Mulugu Mandal), Jayashanker Bhoopalapally District and they purchased the said property by way of unregistered sa-le deeds and were put in possession of their respective properties by their vendors. Since then they have been in continuous possession of the same without interruption from any corner and their names have been entered in revenue records as possessors and some of them got pattedar passbooks and title deeds for their respective 2 SK'J r,r'.P.No.5904 of 2O2O \.1 shares. While it being So, the unofllcial lespondents approacl-iec1 rr:spondent No'2 by frling a revisiotr claiming to be the le:grll l=irs of one Sri Arkala Narsaiah an<1 s -ating that one Sri A-krrla Narsaiah has not sold an)' extenr- of land to anyone inchr<1ing the petitioners till his death a:r'l after his death,t--re,r.rrcflicialrespondentssucceederlthep.cperties. Lr:arn:r1 counsel for the petitioners f'rrtl re rr submits 3. that the rerspondent No.2 without taking into ac':ount of the submist;iolts, made by the petitioners by allowing the revision petition, rle leLing the names of the petitioners in the revenue records antl r.ecorded the names of the unoffic:ial rr:spondents in the rel'cr l.le records and issued pattadar pass l:oks to the unofhcial respondents for Sy'Nos'95 to 1OO in Chelpur Viilage, 3anpur (Mulugu Mandal), 'l:'yashanker BhoopzJapally District. The impugreed orde:- prts'sed by the respontlent l'1o.2 is illegal, arbitrary and against the principie of nature1 jr-rstice. The respondent No'2 clid rot consider the docum,:nts; t>rod.uced by these petitioners al-rd ')ll the other hand, :he 'l,spondent No.2 observed in the im1'rLgned order 3 sK,J W.P.No.59O4 of 2O2O that no documents are hled by these petitioners. The respondent No.2 failed to consider the materia-l to say that the petitioners have been in continuous possession of their lands. The Revenue Authorities have entered the names of the petitioners in revenue records by following the procedure under ROR Act and the rules framed there under and the petitioners are in possession of the same and mutated the records in favour of the petitioners and issued pattadar passbooks. The unofhcial respondents without exhausting the remedy of appeal under Section 58 of ROR Act, had directly hled revision petition and the sarne is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitionersfurther submits that the unofficial respondents after lapse of long period, hled revlsl0n petition and the same was entertained by the respondent No.2 with a malafied intention to grab the properties of the petitioners. The respondent No.2 without noticing the legal implications allowed the revision which is not permissible under revenue laws. If the unofficial 4 SK,J W.P. No.59O4 of 2O2O ! responcleltts have a right, they have to appr,)ac.1 competent court t. clec lrare the title unless the competen': Cc)L.rt declares the title itr llrour of them. The respondent No..l >rrght not to a1low the rerision petition hled by the unofficial :-r:spondents and reqrrestr-.rl to set aside the impugned or.ders.

5. On 1,lrr: other hand, the learned cr)un,i(,1 for the unofficieLl re spondent Nos.5 to B basing o n t he counter submits tireii cne Sri Arkara Narsaiah @ Arkalrr 'v.rikata Ram Narsaiah wa s pattadar a,d possessor of the su i1 schedule lands in Sr., Nos.95 to 1OO situated at Che1tr,u.r Village, Mulugu Ghilnpur Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalprrlly District apart fron-' '' LLer lands in sy.Nos.1o4 to 1 1 1. 'rhLe lletitioners in collur;i.n 'r'i th the revenue officiars obteine,r pattadar passbooks irL their favour without notice to th,xn ald in contrary t. 5 1- provisions of ROR Act and rules : nade there under. l'he 'f..hsildar, Murugu Ghanpur withc,ut r:rnducting any enqrrir-v', .without issuing any notice to the pattadars, mutated the -rames of the petitioners in the revenue records and issur:d prirttadar passbooks in their favour. r\f.r:r coming $ 5 SK,J W.P.No.59O4 of 2O2O to know about the mutation of the suit schedule lands in favour of the petitioners, filed Revision before the respondent No.2- The Joint Collector herein for correction of revenue entries in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.95 to 100. The respondent No.2 aJter conducting enquiry and after hearing the parties to the revision, allowed the revision by an order dated 01.02.2O2O by directing the respondent No.3 herein to delete the nzunes of the petitioners by holding the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners are fake, fabricated, which has no effect in the eye of law

6. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents further submits that the petitioners stating that they have purchased the lands in Sy.Nos.95 to 100 under unregistered sale deeds, but copies of unregistered sale deeds were not frled and it is also not stated the name of the vendor from whom they alleged to have purchased the aforesaid lands is not mentioned in their affidavit before this Court and a-lso before respondent No.2. The petitioners also not stated in their aflidavit that unregistered sale deed was regularized under 6 sK,J w.P.Nrr.5904 of 2O2O ..1 '...1 Section 5A ol ROR Act by following the procedurr: laid down in the :ules,. The petitioners failed to show an" documents about thr: c.Erte and extent of land and surve v rumbers, the narnes o' t:re persons from whom they purchzsed in their afhdavit. 'l'he respondent No.2 rightly a-llovred the revision petitior. b1 directing the concerned Tahr;ild r- to issue pattader passbooks to the unofhcial responttt:nts. The responrlent lrlo.2 rightly given a hnding '.hat th: petitioners faiied :o :[ik: any documents 11r.1 5fiorvs tLLa| they have purchase d the suit scheduie property and tke 'lahsildar has mutated th: revenue records without follorvir,g t.rr: procedure conternplat,rrl under ROR Act. The petitionets kave failed to fi1e an1, rlot:ttments showing their ownership an'1 a-lso about the m.rtat.ion proceedings. The respondent. Itlo.2 rightiy allowecl the Revision Petition ald there is no va itl ground to a1low t h,: ',r'rit petition arid requested to c isrrri ss the writ petitiort. .r\fter hearing both sides and perusing tht material on

7. record, tLL.s Court is of the considet:ed i'it 'u that the - SK,J W.P.No.5904 of 202O petitioners afe questioning the orders passed by the 7 respondent No.2 vide Proceedings No.E/1772/20L7, dated

01.O2.2O2O for deleting the names of the petitioners from the revenue records ald issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioners and the mutating the records. The main contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners are in possession of the schedule property since long time and they purchased the properties through unregistered sale deeds with regard to their respective shares. Thereafter, the revenue authorities had mutated the names of the petitioners in different extent of lalds in Sy.Nos.95 to 100 situated at Chelpur Village, Ganpur (Mulugu Mandal), Jayashankar Bhupalpally District. The respondent No.2 has entertained the representation hled by the unofficial respondents under Section 9 of ROR Act and allowed the Revision Petition hled by the unofficia-l respondents on the ground that the petitioners failed to hle any document to show that they purchased the schedule property through unregistered sale deed and a-lso there is no record available with regard to the a SK,J w.P"I'o 5904 of 2O2O i mutatio :r p roceedings granted in favour ol the writ petitiont:rs;

8. Ar. thr: time of hearing, this Court specifical y asked the learned c,)Lr :r se1 for the petitioners to shou, th, : sale deed obtainecl b / the petitioners and also the mutation proceedrnigs rssued by the Tahsildar in lavcur: of the writ petitionr:rs;, lrut the learned counsel for the pr:titi,l rers failed to show any document and stating that t he pr:t ttioners are poor farmers; having possession of small oxtent ,r1 land and they are unat,le to produce any document anc. thr: same was purchasecr l:r:,m the ancestors of the unoflicietl r( )sipondents. The resJro:r<1::et No.2 in his impugned proceecings has given a findinlJ the,t the Tahsildar, Ganpur Mandal issued a memo in which th: Tahsildar stated that there, is nc procedure under ROll .,\r:t was followed while mutating the r ecords arld no app1i,:ati,cn is hled by any of the petitioners here.n and the respondr:ntsr had validated their documents ald the petitioners zr so failed to file any document to :;ho',v that they .7 9 sr(,J W.P.No.59O4 of 2O2O have purchased the land in the suit schedule property from the original pattadar i.e., Arka-la Narsaiah.

9. There is no proof that the Revenue Authorities have validated the documents of the petitioners by paying starnp duty and penalty and there is no 18 certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Ganpur Manda,l. The petitioners have not hled any document showing payment of stamp duty arrd penalty.

10. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.2 has failed to consider the documents filed by the petitioners. When this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to h1e the documents, he failed to iile any document with regard to the Sada Sale Deed or the mutation proceedings. Without aly va,lid document, this Court cannot set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 as arbitrar5r and illegal. It is the settled law that without filing appeal ( ! under ROR Act, can hle Revision under Section 9 of ROR Act and the contention of the petitioners is that the unofficia-l respondents without exhausting alternative remedy, has hled- sr(,J w.P.No.li9O4 of 2O2O .-\1"t revision be:fo -c: the respondent No'2 arrd the si1nl( :arnot be 'rI view of the same, this Court dorls r ot interfere acceptatle. with the crders passed by the respondent Nc'21 rader ROR Act.

11. Invie"roftheabovefindings,thisWritF'etitLc'nisliable to be dismiss;e:d. L2. Ar:c,rrrlingiy, this Writ Petition is dismisserl rr'; devoid of merits, Thele shall be no order as to costs' As r;e rpei to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending' shall stzrnd,lismissed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.L.Lr\l(SHMI BABU DFPUTY REGISTRAR ..1 SEC'nrCN OFFICER To i I

1. One CC nr S;Rl h:IRAN PALAKURTHI, Advocate [OBtttC] 2. Two CCs to GF' FOR REVENUE, High Court for theState rf Tt'lirngana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC trr SiRl F,.PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC trr S;Rl FI.A.CHARY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Oopiet; PSK./BSK s I_ HIGH COURI- DATED:21 10412025 ORDER WP.No.5904 of 2020 I !| ,/ o (J ., -7: :..: r-- =---- -.1--tir: ' ;,,/1 ..'r -t ( 12 Jiil 2025 1$ I t\i 'l ..1:: r,. . .,,. ' + -.i/ --r-l _'-:.-: DISMISSING'THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @q'4 W