1. Parvathi 8apu v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction' more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 4th respondent in deteting the names of the petitioners from revenue records to the extent of Ac 0- 0975 guntas each in Sy.no.421l3l1 ard Sy.no.42113 situated at Sabbepally Revenue Village, Hazipur Mandal, Mancherial Distrcit, without issuing any notice and without following the procedwe contemdated under the Law' as being illegal, arbitrary, un.iust and unconstitutional by setting aside the Proceedings in Memo and consequential order No.Bl244ln2O dated 2910712020 and proceeding No.Bt117t2O13 dated 1611112013 and consequently direct the respondent no.4 to of the petitioners as pattadars of th: above said land re-incorporate the names under their Possession' r.A.NO :1 oF 2021 petrtion under section 151 cpc praying that in the circur stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may t : pleased to pass interim orders directing the respondent no 4 to not to issue pe( adar passbook in favour of third parties in respect of petitioners lands S t'no'4211311 and Sy.no.421l3 to the extent of Ac'0-0975 guntas each' situ:ri :d at Sabbepally Revenue Village, Hazipur Mandal' Mancherial District' pendrr g disposal of the main writ Petition' t.A NO: 10F 2025 Between: Secretariat, Hyderabad'

1. The state of rerangana. rep. by its principar secretary, Re /enue Department r.--^L^.i-r , ffi'ffiil'i c6rr""to'. Mancherial District' Mancherial' 3. The Revenue Divisionat tli'"!tltvr'n"i'"rral Plslliq' ;. iil i;;;il;;, Hazipur Mandar' Mancherial District' Man: rerial' " "PETITIONE:l IS/RESPONDENTS ANO ,1 . Parvathi Bapu, S/o, Pochaiah, Aged 70 .years, 'srtt"p"rrvlitazipur Mandal' Mancherial District' 2 Parvathi Bapu, S/o "t#;'it' ' illt?prr-rv, ilatip" Mandal' Mancherial District' o.r ; Agriculture, Rl/o. os"l iq v*tt' o: : ; Agriculture' FI/o .....RESPONEII :NTS/PETITIONERS petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the cirr umstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt O7 04 2O21 in WP No 8451 oI 2 )21 and dismiss the writ Petition, Gounsel for the Petitioners : SRI N'VENKATAIAH Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following OROER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.8451 OF 2O2L ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in deleting the names of the petitioners lrom the revenue records, to the extent of Ac.O.O975 guntas each in Sy. No. 42ll3l1 and Sy. No.42ll3, situated at Sabbepally Revenue Village, Hazipur Mandal, Mancherial District, without issuing any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under law, AS illega-t, arbitrary, and unconstitutional; and consequently, to set aside the proceedings in Memo and consequential Order No. B1244l2O2O, dated 29.O7.2O2O, and Proceeding No. BlLtT l2013, dated 16.1 1.2013; and further direct the 4th respondent to re-incorporate the narnes of the petitioners as pattadars of the above-mentioned land under tJreir possession.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that: i) the father of the petitioners and his brother, i.e., Late Parvathi Pochaiah S/o Chandraiah and Parvathi Bhumaiah S/o Chandraiah, were the absolute joint owners and 2 possessors of agricultural land to an e>l guntas in Sy. No. 421, situated at Sal ent of Ac.6.O33A bepally Revenue Village, Hazipur Mandal, Mancherial Distri :t. SubsequentlY, the said property was partitioned betweert them during the year 2OOO-2OOL.In the said partition, the 1 ,etitioners' father, Parvathi Pochaiah, was allotted land to arL extent of Ac.4.OO guntas in Sy. No. 42 1, while Parvathi Bhurr Laiah was allotted land to an extent of Ac.2.33% guntas in Sy. No. 421/1. ii) During his lifetime, the petitioners .ather alienated a portion of the land to various individuals t rrough registered convey€rnce deeds. He passed away in the I ear 2OOT,leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirr; and land to an extent of Ac.O.195O guntas 1n Sy. Nr,. 421/3, which continued to be reflected in the revenue r:cords as per the ROR 1-B until 2017. iii) Based on an application made by : re petitioners, the 4rt, respondent issued Pro :eedings No. RoR/6A/Sabbepalli/265 I 2O17, dated 12., 2.2017, mutating their names as successors to the extetrt o'Ac.0.O975 guntas 3 each. Accordingly, the petitioners have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. The 4th respondent also issued new pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners on 25.04.2018 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.0975 guntas each, with a new sub-division number Sy. No.421 /3/2, and their names were duly reflected in the revenue records.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, while the matter stood thus, the petitioners came to know that their land, which continued to be in their name as on the date of the order passed by the 4*' respondent vide Proceedings No. 8/24412O2O, dated 2g.OT.2O2O. had been deleted from the revenue records. The deletion was made on the ground that one Parvathi Bhumaiah S/o chandraiah had sold Ac.1.OO guntas of land in Sy. No.42t/3, situated at Sabbepally Village, in flavour of one Gaddam Mondaiah, through a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 3273/2002, and consequently, the name of Gaddam Mondaiah came to be reflected in the revenrle records. He 4 submits that, without issuing any notice 1c the petitioners, the name of one Pampad Satyanarayana vas ordered to be entered in the revenue records 1n resl ect of the land belonging to the petitioners. Such action ir; in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as he rights of the petitioners were unilaterally and arbitraril ' removed by the official respondents. Hence, he seeks the I ndulgence of thrs Hon'ble Court to set aside the impugned pr', rceedings.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assj : tant Government Pleader, representing the learned Goverll rrent Pleader for Revenue, upon instructions, submitte'r t that the 4th respondent passed the impugned ordc' based on the Circular issued by the Chief Commi ;sioner of Land Administration vide Lr. No. ROR/ 128199, rlated 14.10.1999. In the said circular, it has been clea'ly clarified that correction of clerical errors can be made , tt any time if the Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, r the Recording Authority genuinely believes that clerical erors were made in the Pahani. He submits that, upon vcr. ification, the 4th .,a i 5 respondent found that the names of the petitioners were erroneously entered in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.0.0975 guntas each, instead of the name of one Gaddam Mondaiah, who had purchased Ac.1.OO of land in Sy. No. 421/3,- situated at Sabbepally Village, from Parvathi Bhumaiah. Accordingly, the 4th respondent ordered the deletion of the petitioners' names.

5. He further submits that, based on the above-mentioned CCLA Circular and upon verification of the registered sale deed executed by Parvathi Bhumaiah, the names of the petitioners were deleted and the name of Pampad Sa$ranarayana was ordered to be incorporated in the revenue records. He contends that, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the 4th respondent, their remedy lies in approaching the competent civil court, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and perused the material on record placed before this Court, CA 6 particularly the Circular issued by the C( LA' Hyderabad' vide Lr. No. ROR/ 128/gg, dated 14'10'19119' A perusal of the impugned proceedings of the 4th res:cndent vide No' Bl244l2O2O, dated 29.O7.2O2O, and No' Bt Ll7l2ol3' dated 16.01.2O13, reveals that no notice was issued to the petitioners prior to passing the impup;r red proceedings deleting their names from the revenue recl rds in respect of land to the extent of Ac.0'0975 guntas eac'l L in Sy' No' 42 1' Sabbepally Village, Hazipur Mandal' Such o nission amounts to a violation of the principles of natural jus; ice Furthermore, the said proceedings \\1 re passed solely 7 on the basis of an application made b1' rne Mr' Pampad Satyanarayana. There is no mention ir the imPugned proceedings No. B/244/2O2O, dated 2c)')7'2O2O, of any notice being issued to the petitioners or o any opportunity being afforded to them to be heard' Tht 4th respondent pa.ssed the impugned proceedings relr i rg only on the representation submitted by said Pamprl 1 Satyanarayana andontheCircularissuedbytheCCLA'{yderabad'dated 7

14.10.1999, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

8. In view of the above discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 4tt, respondent to act upon the representation made by the petitioners dated 27.O8.2O2O. Further, liberty 1S granted to the petitioners to hle a fresh representation, in case the earlier representation dated

27.O8.2O2O is not available with the 4th respondent. Upon receipt of such representation, the 4th respondent is directed to issue notices to the petitioners and all concerned parties, conduct an enquiry strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under law, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously AS possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order.

9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. There shatl be no order as to costs. Sd/.A.SREENIVASA REDD TANTREGIS AS //TRUE COPY// To CTION OFFICER , State of Telangana

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department at Hyderabad.

2. Thebistrict Collector, Mancherial District, Mancherial 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial District, Mancherial. 4. The Tahsildar, Hazipur Mandal, Mancherial District. 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

6. Ohe CC to SRI N.VENKATAIAH, Advocate [OPUCI 7. Two CD Copies I t !' .,! i \ 1E S,'A \, C.() +\ 0 ,lAl 2[2u tlri( , r?u 7-a .?.' ,/ t HIGH COURT DATED:0110912025 ORDER WP.No.8451 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. N b \r