Writ Petition No. 7052 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

Order

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.7052 OF 2025 l{eard Mr. Naresh Rcddl C]hinnolla lcamed counsel lor thc pctitioners and leamed Assistant Govemmenl Pleader for Rcvenue appearing on behalf of the respondcnts

2. l his writ petition is filcd challenging the order dated

22.01.2025 in Casc No.F3/241412023 passcd b1'respondent No.2

3.C ASE OF THE PETITIONERS i) 'the pctitioncrs hercin are thc absolute owners and possessors of the land admcasuring Acs.2.36 guntas in Survey No.2l, situated at Ganeshpur Vitlage. N-valkal Mandal, Sangareddy District having purchascd the same under a rcgistercd sale deed bearing documcnt No.1

of 1986, datcd 02.0 t.l9116 trom Mr. Mir Hameed Ali Khtan. They are in possession of'thc said Property. ii) Originally. the land admcasuring Acs.10.20 guntas in Survey No.2l belongs to one Mr. Azhar Ali Khan (@ Mazhar Ali Khan After his death. the said tand fell to the share of the pctitioners' vendor pursuant to thc partition decree in O.S. No.72 of 1975 passed by leamed l I l .1 1 II-.] U '} No 70 ol20l5 '2 namc of thc pctitiorrers' r,endor was Munsilf Clourt, Zaheerahad. .I'hc also recorried in rcvcnuc rccorcls iii) After purchase of the land b1' the petitioncr: hcrein under the aforesaid registered salc deed, they rvcre under thr irnpression that mutation is not requircd and. thcrcforc. thcy did not procecd with mutation and wcnl. to tlAIi iv) Recently. thc pctitioners came to kno* that thc sultiect land is shown as 'Kari: Khala ' in revenue records and tlrc ufirresaid survey number is also rnissing in online Poftal. lmmediatclr. the petitioners madc online application Nos.2300089530 and 23 )(X)65j72, dated

29.05.2023 and 1 0.04.2023, respectively seeking rccti l ication ol cntries Despite receiving and acknowledging the said applicrtions. respondent No.2 did not act upon thc sarnc. Aggricvcd bv thc ;aid inaction. the petitioners llied a "vrit petition vide W .P. No.22 104 ol 1023. Vide order datcd 16.08.2023. this Court directed respondcnt Nos..l to 41o cotrsider and disposc of thc said applications in accordance with atr. v) ln compliancc with the said order. vide impL gned order dated

22.01.2025. respondent No.2 rc'iected the albresaid applications of the pctitioners on thc ground that atter coming into ltrrcc the cttactment of A.P. I-and Relbrms (Cciling on Agricuhural flolding;t ,\ct. 197.i (1br 4 -l KL.J w P No 7052 oll025 short 'Act, 1973'), the subject land was declared as 'ceiling surplus'. ln view of the same, out of Acs. 10.20 guntas. an extent of Acs.7.20 guntas was assigned to third parties. rvhile the balance extent of Acs.3.00 guntas was rccorded as 'Khari: Khata . vi) Challenging thc said order, the petitioners field the present writ petition contending that as per thc ordcrs in C.C.Nos.1396, 1397 and 1398 of 1975, the subject land was never declared as 'ceiling surplus'. Contrary to the same, rcspondent No.4 submitted a report to respondent No.2 stating that the subjcct land is 'ceiling surplus'. vii) In support of thc same. leamed counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision rcndcrcd by thc combincd High Court of Ardhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Ande Cangaiah v. M. Krishna Reddyt.

4. CONTENTIONS QLTHE RESPONDENT$ Whereas, rcspondcnt Nos.2, 3 and 4 flted counter denying the claim of the petitioners contending as fbllows: i) As per Khasra, Sessulu pahanies and subsequent revenue records available in the oftice, the extent of the land in Survey No.21 is Acs.10.20 guntas and the samc is recordcd as Patta. After coming into lorce of the Act, 1973, thc said land was dcclared as 'cciling surplus' (20t0) I ALD 3 4 IiL J \\ I' No 7t5l oll0l5 As per Faisol Patti lor thc ycar 1984-85. thcrc is shara stating that Survey No.21 to an extent ol Acs. 10.20 guntas was rclinqtnshcd under Ceiling, as such. Bandobasth Kami was recommendc,l and acceptcd hy No:im-e--lannbondi in Filc No.Ul/77311983 ol thc fahsildar, Zaheerabad- ii) Out of the said total extent. an extent of Ats.--j.3() -quntas assigned to one Mr. Lateef and an cxtent ol Acs-i.i0 guntas to orre Mr' Moulana and [,avunilzafa. I'he balance extcnt ol Ac s.3.00 gutnils was rccorded as Khariz-Khata and Nozim-e-Janrubandi aglccd to include the said land as Govemment Land Statcment No.2 as rccommended by thc Tahsildar. In view of the same, thc request madc by thc petitioncrs w:as rejectcd. Thercfore, the petitioners are not cntitled lbr anr'.relic[.

5. ANALYSISANDFI NDINGS OF THE C()URT i) I hus. the aforesaid rival submissions rr otlld reveitl that accordinEi to the petitioners. it is patta land, whereas. according to the respondents. it is Govcmment Land (Khariz Khata). As discussed above. according to the petitioncrs, originalll' thc land admeiLsuring Acs.10.20 guntas in Survey No.2l bclongs to onc M- Azhar Ali Khan (i,. Mazhar Ali Khan. Alter his dcath and pursuant to thc parlition dscree in O.S. No.72 ol 1975 passed b1' lcarncd Munsifl'Cou't Zaheerabad' the -t ,1 Kt r \,'v' I No 7r)i: of:025 said land lell to the share o[' the petitioncrs' vendor i.c., Mr. Mir t Iamid Ali Khan. 1he name of the petitioners' r,endor was also recorded in revenuc records based on the said decree. It is also thc specific contention ol the petitioners that the subject propcrty is not a cciling surplus and it is not covcrcd under thc ordcrs in C.C. Nos.1396 to 1398 of 1975. dated 14.10.1976 ii) In the light of thc alorcsaid submissions, it is relevant to note that the potitioners herein havc lilcd Photostat copy of attestcd copy of order in the said C.Cs and thc certified copy' ol'the said sale deed is in hand written. He has also lllcd its translatcd copy. ln thc said sale deed, there is specific mention with regard to the immovable property describcd in the schedule givcn therein, admeasuring Acs.30.20 guntas of agricultural land, situated at Cancshpur Village and somc other property has fallen to thc sharc o(' the petitioners' vendor lamily in partition which took placc between the Ver'rdor and his brother as per the decree in O.S. No.72 of 1975 and in C.C Nos. 1396 to 1398 of 1975 on the file of Revenue f)ivisional Officer (lribunal), Sangareddy. 'l'hcre is no schedule including extcnt, surve) numbcr, and only boundaries are mentioned in respect of sub.ject land either in thc said salc dccd or in the said judgment and decrce in O.S. No.72 ol 1975, whereas, in the writ I 6 It..J ',{ | No Triil oil0li at'lldar it. the petitioners have also mcnrioncd the stid jud_unrcnt and decrcc in O.S. No.72 of 1975 iii) In the order dated 14.10.1976 in C.C. No; l.l9(r to l.l9tl ol 1975 of' l.R'['. Sangarcddy Division. Medak District. thc judgmcnt and decrcc is rncntioned as O.S. No.7t ol 1975. In the said ordcr. it is also specilicalll' mentioned that there are three declarants i.c., Ntaqsood ali Khan. Zahid Ali Khan and l{amccd Ali Khan, are real brothcrs and thel' lilcd scparatc declarations each showing thc land sa d to have rlor in famill'scttlcrnent oul- of anccstral property. All the larLds are situatcd in Gancshpur Village. 'fhe Verilying Officer madc a cornmon reporl of a total cxtcnt ctl' 228.66 acres computed at 4.6006 standa'd holding. A ftcr allorving one standard holding to declarant No. l, he ,-ptp..l a slrrplus area of' 3.6006 standard holding. Vendor.o[ the pet'tioners hercin is dcclarant No.3. He is also holding surplus area ot 3.6006 stantlard holding. It is further ntentioned that all thc threc declarants Iitcd scparal.c oh.jcction petitions against the Verillcation reoort with similar contcnts. [t is stated that their fathcr. Mr. Ma;drer Ali K]ran. dicd on | -5.0-.i.195 I lcaving six (06) sons and rwo (02) daughten. I-lc left agricultural lands in Zahcerabad Taluq ol- Medak District in Andhra Pradcsh and in Bidar I)istrict of Kamataka Statc. 'l'he lands in Andhra 7 KL,] W P No 7052 oflo2i I l Pradesh are in Gancshpur village, and the land admcasuring Acs.2.00 guntas is mentioned in Survey No.2l of Ganeshpur villagc. iv) tt is further mentioned that the declarants statcd that after the death of their father, among the brothers, namcly Azher Ali Khan used to manage the property on behalf of other members. On 19.05.1969, they claimed to have made a family settlement and in terms of the family settlement, partition deed was executed by all the successors on

20.02.1971. It was registered on 30.04.1971 in llidar vlde document No.744 of 1971 . According to the said scttlcment. threc declarants got the lands of Ganeshpur village and their brothers got the lands in Bidar District. Three brothers also divided the lands among themsclves in the same year i.e., l97l by metes and bounds. Thcy have also obtained a decree from the District Munsiff Court in O.S. No.7l of 1975 v) It is relevant to mention that the vendor olthe petitioners and his brothers filed copies of the said rcgistered family settlement deed dated 30.04.1971 and partition agreement along with -iudgment in O.S. No.7l of 1975 before the Land Relorms Tribunal in the aforcsaid proceedings. On consideration of thc same, the LR'l', Sangareddy Division held that the Verifying Officer has correctly classified the lands in his report. The joint holding of three declarants is also specifically 8 KL,J \\ P No 7051o1 :(l:i mentioncll. Acs.2.00 guntas of land in Surrycy No 21 is specificalll,. mcntionerl. Dcclarant No.3, vendor of the petitione -s herein i.e .. Mr. Hameed AIi KIan, as an individual, he is entitletl to onc-standard holding. ['hc land hcld by declarant No.3 is less rhan onc standard holding. lhus. the l'ribunal dctermincd that thc vendo. of the petit-ioners did not hc,ld thc Iand in excess of the ceiling on the nor lied date. vi) 1'hcretbrc. therc is variation with regard tc the suit nrLmber. Accordintr to thc petitioners, it is O.S. No.72 of 1975, ,r'hereas as pcr the order datcd I 4. 10. I 976 of the LRT, Sangareddy )ir.ision in C.C. Nos. 1396 to 1398 of 1975, it is menrioned as O.S. No.7l of 1975. T'hc pctitioners; did not filc copy of the said judgment and debree. Thel,havc not filed copl ol the aforesaid registered family settlencht deed bcaring No.744 ot' 1971. dated 30.04.1971 and also link documents of rhe pctitioncrs. vii) lhe pctitioners are contending that the d,rcumenf filed by lhem is Set]rtar. It conlains file No.Al0/15 4712023 anrl in the translated cop1r. it is rncntioned as Classer Register, village name s also mcntioned as Ganeshpur, Mandal as Nyalkal. viii) [t is relevant to note that Kharij Khata neans cleletion of account.. The land of a private pattadar wi I be declared I I\1..i $ l' No 705: oil0l5 as Kharij Khata for various reasons. It may be non-paymcnt of land revenuc or State dues or il also may be because the land is abandoned or not in cultivation of any person, Se//zwar (also known as "A" Rcgister), is thc basic land rccord which contains details ol'sun,e1, numbers o1'the revenuc village, total area, ownership, naturc of land (lnam, Govemment/Poramboke), type of soil. source of irrigation etc.. The Mandals were fbrmed in the year 1985. 'I'he Classer llegiste r/Sethwar is of the year 2023. 'l'herefore, in the Sethwar, thc namc o f the Mandal cannot be mentioned. ix) Even in the said document, in respcct of'thc land in Survey No.2 I . admeasuring Acs. 10.20 guntas is me ntioned as 'Shrkarl '. namc ol Khatadar as Mazar Ali son of Mohammed Ali. 'l'hcrc is also proceedings number as' Cl 12172184' . x) Evcn in the pahani filed by thc petitioners fbr thc 1,car 2017 of Ganeshpur Village, the land in Survey No.2l is mcntioned as 'Khoriz Khata'. In Dharani Portal also. the said land is mcntioned as 'Government Land'. The petitioners filed lrorm - I (Abstract) of Ganeshpur Village. There is no survey number. [:ven in the encumbrance certificatc filed by the petitioners, though the document number is mentioned as I of 1986 and the names of'the pctitioners herein I I l t0 lil ,J \\ I' No 7')tl ol-l(lla as claimants. hut. it is not knorvn as to why the namc .rl'Sl,ndicate Ilank is also mr:nti0ncd as claimant apart fiom the nanres o 'the pctitioncrs as claimants. I u(hcr. as pcr thc said cncumbrancc certif:cate. thc namcs of' cxccutants arc t\\'o i-c.. Mohammad Binsaleha and I arnmcd Ali Khan Mecr. whcrcas in thc salc dced bcaring document No. I ol' 1986, onlv the namc of'Mir Ilarnid Ali Khan is mcntioncd as thc cx()cutants. 'l here is no explanatiorr liortr thc pctitioncrs with regar.l t<t the above discrcpancics. xi) As discussed abovc. rhc pctitioncm herein _rrc claiming right over the subject propcrtv basing on rcgistered srrle dced bearing document No. I of' l9tt6 dated 02.01 . I 986. Section - 4 ol'thc I'elangana Rights in [-and and l)attadar Passburks Act. l97l (ROIt Act, I971) deals with 'acqr-risition of' rights to bc intimated, and it sa) i that any person acquiring h1 succcssion. survivorship. inhcrirance. partition. Govcmme nt patta. dccrcc ol' a court or othcrwise anl right as, owner, pattadar ol'a land and anv petson acquiring any right as occupant ofa land bl anv olhcr mcthod shall intimatc in writing iris acquisition of such right. to thc I'ahsildar within rhirty days liom rhe datc of such -l'hc Village Revcnuc OIficer on noting thc acquisition of acquisition. rights in his.iurisdiction shall inlimatc thc 'l'ahsildar uithin onc (l) day \.-.-. _J W P No 70il ol 20li as prescribed. 'l-he Tahsildar shall give or send a written acknowlcdgement of the receipt of such intimation to the pcrson making it. Section - 5 of the ROR Acl., l97l deals with ,amendment updating olrecord ofrights'and thc procedurc to do so. xii) Thus. in Scction - 4 of the ROR Act, 1971, the word used is "shal[". As on the date ofpurchase of the subject tands by the petitioners i.e..02.01.1986, RORAct, l97l was in force. Eventhen, thc petitioners herein did not take any steps either for recording the said transaction in revcnue records. failed to obtain mutation proceedings in their tavour and also pattadar passbooks and title deeds. xiii) ROR Act,2020 (Acr No.9 of 2020) came inro eff'ect fiom

29.10.2020. Section - 5 of the ROR Act, 2020 deals with ,registration and ellccting change in record of rights when right, over the land acquircd b1, rva_v ol sale, gift, mortgage or exchange,. As per the said provision, any person acquires land have to effect change in revcnue rccords in terms ol Section - 5 of the ROR Act- 2020. xiv) Though the petitioners herein are contending that they have purchased the sub.ject land under a registered sale deed bearing documcnt No. I of 1986, dated 02.01.1986, they have submitted onlinc applications bearing Nos.2300065372 and 2300089530. dared i i i l2 i1_-l \lr P No 7(52 ol1025

10.04.2023 and 29.05.2023. rcspectivelv i.e., after elapse ol rhirty seven (37) ycar;. l-here is no cxplanation, much less plarrsible explanation from the petitioncrs lor the said abnormal dclay in fiting the aforesaid online applications rvith f)istrict Collector seeking mutation of their names and issuancc of e-pattadar passbooks and title dr,eds. xv) '[he only explanation oftered by the petititncrs is that after purchase rrl the sub.icct propert\,. thcl u,ent Abroad i.c.. UA I l. 't'he said explanation is unsatislacton. xvi.r As discussed abovc. except fiting of cop., of the aloresaid registered sale deed bearing document No.I of 1986, lated 02.01 1986, that too h;rnd-writtcn and typcd cop). the petitioners t ave not filed any other document to shon that cither thcir vendor or thr:vtare thc owners and posscssors of the sub.jcct property. As stated above, there is abnormal dclay of 37 ycars on the part of thc petitioners in approaching the District Collecbr seekinq lnutation oltheir names it rcvenuc records and issuance of pattadar passbooks. The petitioners lailed to explain the said delay xvii) It is the specilic contcntion of thc responde,rts herein that the total extent of the land in Sun,e), No.2 I is Acs. 10.::0 guntas and in re\/enue records i.e., Khasra. Sessala and subsequent rc\ enue records, the I] KI- J \\r P No 70i-l oIlo2t same is mentioned as .patta!. Afler Ceiling Act came into fbrce, the said land was declarcd as 'ceiling surplus,. ls per Faisal pafii for the year 1984-85. it is mcntioned as .Shara'slating that Survey No.2l to an cxtent olAcs-10.20 guntas was relinquished under Cciling and as such, Bandobasth Kami w,as recommended and accepted by Nazim-e- Jamabandi in I'ahsildar, Zaheerabad in }-ile No.B/l773lg3. As per the Faisal Palti fbr thc year 1984-85, out of total extent of ceiting surplus land of Acs. 10.20 guntas. an exrenl of Acs.3.30 guntas was assigned in favour ol Mr- [-atecf and an extent of Acs.3.30 gunta^s was assigncd in favour ol Mr. Moulana and Lavunirzafa and balance extent of Acs.3.00 guntas $,as reccrrded as Khariz Khato. In Survey No.2 l/1, land admcasuring Acs.3.00 guntas of land was recorded as , Khariz_Khata,, the Nizam-e-Jontabandi. agreed to include the said land in Govcrnment land statemcnt No.2 as recommended by the Tahsildar. .fLqs. the subject land is Khori: Khata (Govemment land), and any transactions taken place in respect o['the sub.iect property is treated as null and void. xviii) There fore, in compliance with the order dated I6.0g.2023 in W.P. No.22104 of 2023, rcspondent No.2 has passed impugned or<Ier dated 22.01.2025. The said order is on consideration of the entire record. It is a reasoned order and well founded. There is no error in it. l4 KL,J U P No 7r)52 o12025 xix) [-earncd counsel lbr the potitioncrs plac.:d reliance on the principle laid down in Ande Gangaiahr. ln the sai<i case, the appellants therein sought to set up their clainrs based on an agre(rment and the said documenl was not filed befbre the Court at any stage. The r:espondents in the sai<l case set up their claim basing on the registcrcd sale deed. On consideration of the said lacts. thc I)ivision Ben:h held that the appellantr thcrcin could not in anr r.r a', disgorge thcir clilim in any manner. 'l'hus. considcring prima Jctt'ic title vcsting rvi.h the respondents thcrein, thc Division Bcnch hcld that absolutcll, ther: is no claim nor right much lcss enforceable in f-avour of the appellants so as to maintain any ofthe proceedings or assail the corrcctness ol'the r:laim as sought to be enforcr:able by the writ petitioncrs. 'fhus, the lact; of the said case are altogether differcnt to thc tacts ol- the present cas,r. Thcrefore, the principle laid down in the said judgmcnr is inappticahle to the case of the petitioners herein. xx) As discussed abovc, ar the cost of repetition, though the petitioners are claiming right over rhc subject propertv basing on the registered salc deed bearing documenr No.l ol 1986, tlated 02.01.19g6, they werc silent for about 37 years. they lailed to gct thcir names mutated in revenuc records and lhel, did not obtain passbooks and title dr.dr. 'l'hev have not l-rled anv docurnent includinlr the aforesaid l5 KI-.J W P No 7052 ol20l5 partttron agreemcnt and judgmcnt and dccree in partition suit otc. They havc not liled an1, document to shou, that they are in possession of the subjcct property'. l;vcn thcre is discrepanoy with rcgard to extent, survey number, partition suit numbcr erc. They have to establish/crystaltizc their right over the subjcct property and then, they have to approach the revenuc authorities. lnstcad ol doing so, they were silent for about 37 years. Even the photographs filed by the petitioners would reveal that it is open land.

6. CONCLUSION: i) As stated above. on considcration of the said aspects only, respondent No.2 has passed impugned order. There is no error in it. The petitioners falled to make out any ground to interfere with the impugned order. 'l'hus, this u,rit perition is dcvoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissetl ii) Thc present rvrit pctition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of thc casc. there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequcl therel-o. miscellaneous pctitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.BHAVANI SWAMY SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Sangareddy District 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Zaheerabad pivision, Sangareddy District 4. The Tahsildar. Nvalkal Arlandal- Sanoarectdv District

5. One CC to SRl. NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana \ [ouT]

7. Two CD {}opies o GJP I HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 I I I ORDER WP.No.7O52 of 2025 t" ir|J i:.:: \.- 1 ,, 1- v r-;ii E$; I sE? ?[25 I ,*-, T) C ,:,'' DISMISSING OF WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v( I .