High Court · 2025

Smt. Rathnamma, aged 68 years, W/o. Late K. Anjaiah, Rl/o. Regode Village and lrilandal, I\,4edak District Gnan Chander, (Died as per LRs RR8 and 9), aged 50 years, S/o. Late K. Anjaiah, R/o. Regode Village and Mandal, Medak District Vajra Chander, aged 45 years, S/o. Late K. Anjaiah, R/o. Regode Village and Mandal, It/edak District. (Respondents 5 to 7 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Respondent No.4 as per Court Order dt 19-12-2012 in WPMP 39439112) Kammari Poorna Chander, S/o Gnan Chander Age 32 years, Occupation. Business. Madhuri, D/o. Gnan Chander, Age 35 years, Occ. House wife. (Respondents 8 and 9 are Legal Representatives of Respondent No. 6. Rl/o. Regode Village and Mandal, Medak District.) Respondent Nos. I and 9 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 6 as per C.O.dt. 27.12.2024 in lA No.1/2024. .,.RESPONDENTS l 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 order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Order No.F3/3378/2002- F3l24lRORl2O02 dated 18.4.2008 passed by the third respondent and in directing to delete the names of the petitioners from the Revenue Records and include the name of the fourth respondent and quash the same declaring its as bad and illegal. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(\^/PMP. NO: 12302 OF 2009) 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 staV of the order No.F3/337812OO2-F3124/ROR/2002 dated 18.4.2008 passed by the third respondent pending writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 7: SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY cosy,,AJ {ov -)r'. [rn-s,rrlJ.n\ No] I u-:1: t+s The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Illrit Petition No.9415 of 2OO9 ORDER: This writ petition has been fi1ed seeking the foliowing i prayer:- "1o issue an order or orders more particutarlg one in the nature of u.tit of Certiorai calling for the records relating to Order No.F3/3378/20O2-F3/24/ROR/2OO2 dated 18.O4.20O8 passed bg the third respondent respondents and in directing to delete the names of the petitioners from the Reuenue Records and include the name of the fourth respondent and quash the same declaing its as bad and illegol. "

2. Brief facts in this writ petition are that in the year 1952, one Sri.Kammari Thimmaiah purchased land admeasuring Ac.B.1i Gts, in Sy.No. 167, 168, 4O7, 408, 348 and 328, situated at Regode Village and Mandal, (hereinafter referred .as ,subject property') uide simple sale deed in favour of respondent No.4. At the time of purchase of subject property, Sri.Kammari Thimmaiah had five sons i.e., Kammari Shivaiah, Kammari Venkatesham, Kammari Lakshmaiah, Anjaiah and Kammari Ramulu and they all were living as joint farnily. Thereafter, in the year 1968, some disputes arose between the brothers and an oral partition was made and subsequently on 22.01.1968, the said oral partition was reduced into writing wherein ail the brothers were entitled equal shares and their names were also 2 entered into revenue records. Later, Kammari Shivaiah, Kammari Vetrkatesham, Kammari Lakshmaiah, diecl and their sons i.e., petitioner Nos.1 and 2 names'were also recot'ded in the revenue records

3. While things stood thus, Sri.Kammari Anjaiah i.e., respondent No.4 filed appeal before respondent No.2 seeking to delete the names of the petitioners from the revenue records in respect of the subject propert5r and incorporate his name. Respondent No.2 uide order No.E/ 10531 1997 dated 08.09.2000 ) allowed appeal directing the respondent No.1 to delete the names of the petitioners and incorporate the name of respondent No.4 in respect of the subject property. Challenging the order dated

08.09.2000, petitioners filed Revision under Section 9 of A.P Rights in Land and Pattedar Pas Book Act, l97l and respondent No.3 dismissed the same uide or-der No. F3/ 3378/ 2OO2- F3124 IROR/2OO2 dated 18.04.2008. Aggrieved by same, this writ petition is hled.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.S and 7 submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, the legal heirs of Sri.Kammari Lakshmaiah have filed suit for partition and separate possession i.e., OS.No.52 of 2020 and the same is pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Jr"rdicial First Class Magistrate, Andole at Jogipet and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Heard and perused the material avaiiable on record.

6. Upon perusal of the material, it is noticed that the the order No.F3 / 3378/ 2OO2- respondent No.3 in F3l24lRORl2OO2 dated 18.04.2008 had observed the following:- 'Heard the arguments and perused the records. The RDO Medak in her orders has obserued that the respondent herein was adopted by the daughter of the oiginal inamdar and tuas declared bg her as her heir and subsequently the name of the respondent herein utas incorporated in reuenue records and found in Khasra Pahani 1954-55, in the pahanies 1972 73, 1973-74 and other subsequent pahanies. The RDO also obserued that the names of the reuision petitioners herein were entered u-tithout ang basis for which the MRO Regode could not furnish ong reasons. Moreouer it is also obserued that the reuision petitioners herein (respondents before RDO Medak) euen after receiuing mang notices failed to represent their case and did not attend the Court. From the obseruations made by the RDO Medak it is euident that the name of the respondent herein was being continued from 1954-55 onu.nrds and that the reuision petitioners herein haue failed to represent their case euen after issuance mang notices. Keeping quite for more than (5O) uears the reuision petitioners notD seems to haue come uith a plea claiming share in the subject matter lands uLhich can not be accepted and not tenable in the ege of Lau. I, therefore not inclined to agree with the contention of the reuision petitioners herein and in the result the same is dismissed ond the orders of RDO Medok passed in file No: E/ 1O53/ 97, dt.8.9.2OOO are upheld." 4 7 . It is pertinent to note that legal heirs of Sri. Kammari Lakshmaiah have filed O.S.No.S2 of 2020, for partition and separate possession, wherein the petitioner Nos.2 ald 3 are defendant Nos.9 and 10 and the said suit is pending before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrzrte, Andole at Jogipet.

8. In view of the above and since the petitioners are pursuing the O.S.No.52 of 2O2O, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order No.F3/3378 I 2OO2- F3 I 24 I ROR/ 2OO2 dated 18.04.2OO8 passed by respondent No.3 and the writ petition being devoid of merits, fails and dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made in this order shall not have any bearing on the merits of the Civil Suit pending for adjudication before the concerned Court.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSIST!,NT REGISTRAR L CER One CC to SRI P.PRABHAKAR REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] TwoCCstoGPFORREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies \* To,

3. 4 BSR GJP HIGH COUR* DATED: 0410312025 I I ORDER WP.No.9415 of 2009 Y,( J o o \ {)^ P C at' 2 + APR 20'25 Or-- s parcH <:1.1 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

1.fa -Hr"