The High Court · 2025

Judgment

7. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The District Collector, ltilahabubnagar District at lVlahabubnagar. The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District The Tahsildar, Krishna Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy Uttaradi Matt, Rep. by Sri Prahalada Chary, Baswannagudai, Bangalore. Sri. Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary, S/o. Late Sri Kista Chary, Kusumurthy village, Krishna Mandal Mahabubnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the order of the 3rd respondent in Revision Case No.D1lB7l2o15 dated 16-02-2019 as arbitrary, illegal and violation of rights of the petitioner under Article 300,4 of the Constitution of lndia and co nsequenfly set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition underr Section 151 CPC praying that in the circum stances stated in the affidavlt filed i1 support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order of the 3rd respondent in Revision case No.DirB7t2o1s daled 16-02-2019 pending disposal of the above writ petition before this Hon'ble court. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.SOMA SEKHARA NAIDU Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 5: AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: SRI A.VENKATESH, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. FOR SRI PRAMOD MALIGI WRIT PETITION NO:9093 oF 2019 Between:

1. Sri.Kuntu R/o. Kusum 42 yearc, Mr,rsli lMarilingappa, S/o.Hanmanthu Aqed about urthy Village, Krishna Mandal, Mahabubnagar Distrir t. 2. Sri. Kuhtumusli Sharanappa, S/o.. (Late) _Sabanna, Aged about 38 years, 3. Sri. Kuntumur;li Hanmanthu, S/o. (Late) Sabanna, Aqed ab,out 37 vears. Rl/o. Kusumurthy Village, Krishna Maridal, iMahabubnigai Distric,t. Fi/o. Kusumurthy Village, Krishna Mandat,'t\/ahabubnagai Oistrici

4. Sri- , Kuntumus i . . _ S/o (Late) Sabanna, Aged abo _rt 23 years, 5. Sri. Kuntumusl Prakash,. S/o. (Late) Sabanna, Aged about 21 years, ruo.Kusumurth! \./illage, Krishna Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Rl/o. Kusumurthy'i,/illage, Krishna Manddt, Mahabubhagir District. Deva, ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 4 5

7. I!9 S.t"19, of ferangana, Rep. by its prt. Secretary, Revenue Department, secretarrat, Hy'd e ra bad. The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar The Joint Collecbr, IVlahabubnagar. Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet, IVlahabubnagar District The Tahsildar, Krishna Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Sl^.Y^*:^^Ylg:r_-S_ryg3y Uttaradi Matt, Rep. by Sri prahatada Chary, Easwannagud€lt. sri. sri Doshi Ravindra chary, s/o. Late Sri Kista chary, Kusunrurthy village, Krishna Mandal, Mahabubnalar District. lJangalore. ':il: ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the order of the 3rd respondent in Revision Case No.D1l87l2015 dated 1610212019 as arbitrary, illegal and violation of rights of the petitioner under Article 3004 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 suspend the order of the 3rd respondent in Revision Case No. D118712015 dt. 1610212019 pending disposal of the above Writ petition before this Honorable Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SOMA SEKHARA NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.6 & 7: SRI A.VENKATESH, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI PRAMOD MALIGI The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 3 SK,J W.P.Nos.9064 and 909ai ol 2019 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION Nos.9O64 and 9O93 of 2OL9 COMMON ORDER: Since lr cth these writ pe titions are hled questioning the order passed by the respondent lJo.3- Joint Col1ec--or in Revision Case No.D 1/87,'205 dated 16.02 2lOi9, they are being disposed of by this common ord,3r-

2. Heard lea.rned counsel lor the petitioners in coth the writ pe:r tions, iearned Assistant Governr nent Pieader for Flevenue and learned Senior Counsel lol the respondent l,lo 6 and pemsed the material on recor<|.

3. Learnecl (lounsel for the petitioners submit,s that in W.P.No.9064 of 2019, the petitioner No. t has purchased t.L.r: land admeasuring to an extr:n I of Ac.7-IO gts i.r Sy.No.8/A and B/AA through registered saie degd' dor:'lment No.6B3/1997 dated 12.06.l)g7, 4 SK,J W.P.Nos.9O64 and 9093 of 2019 the petitioner No'2 has purchased the land ad.measuring to an extent of Ac'7-06 gts in Sy'No'126 sale deed document No 638/1995 through registered Sy.No.122 and Ac.2-O4 gts 1n dated 28.O3.L995, Ac. 1-30 gts in Sy'No 123 through registered sale deed document No.637/ 1995 dated 28'03' 1995 and the petitioner No.3 has purchased the larrd admeasuring to a total extent of Ac'15'26 gts in Sy'No'125 through registered sale deed' document No'639/ 1995 dated2S.O3.lgg5arrdthepetitionershavepurchased the properties from the respondent No'7 herein i'e' Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary, and the said lands are situated in Kusumurthy Viilage' Krishna Mandal' Mahabubnagar District and their names were mutated intherevenuerecordsandpattadarpassbookswere also issued. in their favour and since then' they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of those lands for /' more than 30 Years' 5 SK,J W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of .2019

4. Learned Cc>unsel for the petitioners submits thart in W.P.No.9093 (I 2019, the graldlather of the petitc.ner No. 1 and grel grandfather of the petitoner Nos.2 ro 5 i.e. late Sa1,1111rr. u,as the protected tenant of lilnd admeasuring rl arr extent of Ac.I2.26 gts in Sy.No. 142 situate d at I(u sumurthy Village and a certificate of ownership was issued by the c-ompetent authcrity under Section lB-E of Andhra pradesh (Telangana Ar.ea) Tenancy ald hgriculture Lards Act, 1950 vlde rile No.E/1513/75 Alter the death of said Sa1,arna, his sons had inherited the said property and thereafter the petitioners be,in g 1egal heirs have inherited the sa me and through Iarnill' arrangement, they have dir.ided the said land ancl obtained pattadar passbooks and t.rey have been in lzL."vful possession and enjoyment of tl,eir respective sharr:s of land. 6 SK..J W P.Nos.9O64 and 9093 of 2019

5. For the plrrpose of narrating the facts, W.P.No.9064 of 2OI9 is taken as a lead case.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per the revenue records, one Kista Chary and his sllccessors were the pattadars and owners of the suit schedule land ar-rd the same was purchased by the petitioners. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Narayanpet 1n respect of suit schedule properties and other lands initiated land reforms proceedings against the successors of said Kista Chary and held that the declarant holds the land admeasuring to an extent of 1.5386 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area on the notihed date in C.C.No. I4l2 of 1975 dated 09.06.I976. The respondent authorities have also granted pattas to some individua,ls in respect of said excesq land of the legal heirs of late Kista Chary, however, the possession remained with the legal heirs of late Kista Chary. He further submits that against the I I I 7 SK,J W.P,Nos.9064 and 90941 ol 2019 said proceedings dated 09.06.1976, the two r,r,'idov,,s of Iate Kista Chary hled Land Reforms Appeal No.14 of 1982 on t1're file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribl Lna1, Mahabubagar irnd the same was allowed on 02. 12.,983 holding that 1he appellants therein have to be treated as separate individuals and they were entitierI to separate holding each and the said Judgmer-rt has became linal [n view of the said Judgment, the perttas granted in lavcur of some individuals in respect ol the exccss land as per the proceedings dated 09.06.1976 were cancelled by the revenue authorities. 7 . Learned Counsel for the petitioners fur :her submrts tl'rert liri lloshi Ravindra Chary is thc ac1o1>ted son of two u,idows of Kista Chary and the legal hcirs of late Kista Chary u,ere in possession and enjoymer: t of the subject lar:r1s as pattadars and the petitioners have purchased thr: suit schedule land from Sri Doshi Ravindra Ch:uv on different dates. While it being so, I i ., 8 SK,J W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019 the respondent No.6-Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy Uttaradi Matt claiming to be a Charitable institution has filed a revision petition on 16.10.2015 before the respondent No.3 under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, l97l (for short 'ROR Act, 197 1') stating that the suit schedule lands are service inam lands which are inalienable and the Matt has been recorded as Inamdar and alleged that the said Kista Chary was a poojari of the said institution

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No.6 without there being aly right, title and interest has I-r1ed revision before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.6 without any material as Inamdar or owner or possessor of the lalds purchased by the petitioners at any point of time and never claimed any right for more than six and half decades. He further submits that the respondent No.3 without conducting any enquiry and without obtaining 9 I iK,J W.P.Nos.9O64 and 9093 ol 2 019 arly report fi,tm the respondent No.5 passed the impugned order-. which is illegal and arbitrary

9. Learnerl (lounsel for the petitioners furtl-rer submils afr er' filing this writ petition. under .he provisions of I?ight to Information Act, 2OOS r_he petitioners have, obtained a copy of order in Appeal Case No.F2l23 l2Ol1 dated OZ.l2.2Ol3 passed bv lhe Joint Collector'. Mahabubnagar, wherein it clea r1y discloses that tl.re issue involved in the said case was in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.213, 2L4, 2 t5, 215 lPaiki, 21.2 rrncl 292 of Kolpur Village of Maganoor Manda-I, rl,herc:ut the lands in the impugned order rrre in respect o1' Sy.Nos.l,B,722, 123, l2S, 126 and, 742 situated at Krlsu.mur-thy Village of Krishna Mandal and therefore, the rr:spondent No.3 has erroneously basing on the order ol the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in Appcal Case Nc.F2l23 l2Ol1 dated 07.t2.2ot3 passed t0 SK,J W.P.Nos-9O64 and 9093 of 2019 impugned orders which has no relevance or bearing on the subject lands.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that even as per the impugned order, said Uttaradi Matt was neither Inamdar nor possessor of the subject lands ald the respondent No.6 was never regislered as an occupant of the subject lands. Iic further submits that the documents produced by the petitioners clearly establish that the petitioners and their predecessors are having title and possession ovcr the subject lands and the respondent No.6 is neither having title nor possession over the subject lalds and no document is produced before the respondent No.3 or before this Court that the schedule land belongs to Endowment Institution as Inamdar and a_iso the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 have no application to the present case and 1n .) vlew qf the same, the impugned order passed by the l SK,J w.P.Nos.9O6.1 alid 9093 of 20I 9 respondent Nlc.3 is illega1 and arbitrary and requef;ted to a.11ow the ru'rt petition by setting aside the impug,ned 1 1. Learned rlounsel for the petitioners has relecl on the following J r-Ldgments : -

1. Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Elect.ion Commissioner. New Delhil 2, Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District vs. D Narsing Rao2.

3. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Darius Shaprrr Chenai3

4. Susheela Vs. A. Gopal Reddya

5. Lingamdinne Chandrasekhar Reddy vs. Joint Collectors ( r 978) r SCC 40s t lzor:y: scc co-s ' lzoosy u scc o:r o (20 l5) ,1 ALD 2,r8 '(2009) 4 ALT 5el t2 SK,J W.P.Nos-9064 and 9093 of 2019

12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue based on the counter submits that as per the revenue records, the subject lands were classihed as Khidmath Inam (Seva lnam) and Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy was recorded as lnamdar and Kista Chary as Poojari of the institution ar-rd the subject lands are held in the name of charitable institution and no one will get ownership rights over the subject 1a'r-rds except the institution.HesrrbmitsthatasperSection3(1)of Telangana Abolition of Inams Act' 1955' all the Inams were abolished and vest in the State w'e'f' 20'07'1955 and no occupant will get any right over the inam land unless re-grant is made under Section a(i) of the said Act and any sale trar-rsactions in respect of inam land with\qut grant of ORC are not valid and there is no right over the suit lands and Kista Chary being poojari has no alienable rights as the subject lands belonged to Charitable Indtitution of Uttaradi Mutt' I3 SK,J W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 o 20 19

13. Learnerl Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue furth,:r submits that as per Section 3(2)(b) of the Telanganrr Abolition of Inam Act, 1955, ai1 ri,,1hts, title and intelr:st vest in inamdar are vested absolrrtely in the State fi-r:e from a-11 encumbralces arid as per the revenue recorcls, the subject lands are in the nanie of the responde:t No.6 and as per Section 4(1) o1 the Inams Act, -he institution alone is er-rtitled for ownership riglLts over the subject Iands and latr: liista Chary VTIAS orLly a Poojari to perform pooja an<[ no ownership riglLts will accrue to him by virtue of :nere possession ovr,r the subject 1ands. He further sr-rb mits that after corLr;idering al1 the aspects, the respondent No.3 has set aside the ORC granted over the lrnds situated at l(o..pur Village as Uttaradi Matt is reliFious rnstitutiorr vide proceedings No.F2l23 l,.lOll dated 07.12.12013 and the Certilicate issued u:ider Section 3B-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangala l\rea) 14 SK,J W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019 Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950, is not valid arrd requested to dismiss the writ petition

14. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 based on the counter averments submits that the subject lands are Inam lands belonging to the charitable institution and the respondent No.6 has right over the same. He submits that said Kista Chary was Poojari perlorming his duties in the respondent No.6 institution ald he was cultivating the same for the purpose of maintaining the institution and he has no right over the subject lands and as such the deciaration alleged to have been hled before the Land Reforms Tribunal is nul1 and void. He further submits that the petitioners have not fi1ed any document to show that Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary is the adopted son of the widows of late Kista Chary. He further submits that the respondent No.6 has right, title and possession over the subject property and as such it has rightly preferred the I I Ilt I I f, : i I5 SK,J W.P.Nos.9O64 and 909 3 o'2019 revision and the respondent No.3 after examininll the lacts and apllreciating the documents has passe(i the impugned orrlt:r and there are no grounds to inte'rfere with the imprrgned order and requested to dismis,; the writ petition

15. Learne,l (lounsel for the respondents has relie d on the follou,in€1, Judgments:-

1. State of "A.P. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao6

2. Thota Kistaiah Vs. Nikode BheemeraT

3. N. Ramakrishna vs. Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceili.ngs, Visakhapatnam8

4. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Aafloat Textiles India Private Limitede

5. K.G.Krishna Murthy Vs. The Joint Collectorlo

16. After hr:ir:'ing both sides and perusal ol the re:ord, this Court is o:'the considered view that in both the writ u (zoos) o sccr r+,) 7 2002 s('c onl-ine ,\t :i.la) t 1006 S('('Onl.ifc ,\t 77 '' (2009) | sccr lj "12008) r ALD 836 t6 SK,J W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019 petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order of the respondent No.3 dated 16.02.2019 in ROR revision iiled under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1977. The petitioners herein have purchased the properties through the registered documents for different extents on different dates respectively in Sy.Nos.l,8,l22, 123,1,25 and 126 situated at Kusumurthy Village of Krishna Mandal, erstwhile Mahabubnagar District. After their purchase, the revenue authorities have mutated the names of the petitioners in respect of their purchased lands by issuing mutation proceedings on different dates. The petitioners in W.P.No.9093 of 2019 are legal heirs of the protected tenant for the lands situated in Sy.No.142 at Kusumurthy Village. While it being so, the respondent No.6 filed revision before the respondent No.3 under Section 9 of ROR Act, 197 I for cancfuation of mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioners for the suit schedule properties and stated --. . \ t7 SK,J w.P.Nos.906z1 and 909:l o 2019 that the 1an,l5 a1g classified as service inam lands and one Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy was recorded as Inarndar and Sri Kista Chary S/o.Raghavendra Chary stat( d to have perforrn ng as Poojari to the said institution and the suit schedule iands are meant for maintenan,)e of the said ir-rsti-,ution. During his life time, late liista Chary statecl t,l have cultivated the suit schedule l;.rnds and maintained the institution ald after his dcr-rise, one Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary S/o. Kista Chary has been brought on record as pattadar and possessor of the subject lands without any valid orders from the competent authority. The said Doshi Ravindra Chary rvithout anv pl\\rer sold away the suit schedule lanrls to the petitioners and stated that as per the Abolition of Inams Act, 1155, the transactions between the said Doshi Ravndr:L Chary arid the petitioners are nu11 and void and no eflt:ct would be given for such registration. ,l "/ \ I8 SK,J W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2Ol9

17. There is no dispute with regard to purchase of the suit schedule properties by the petitioners 1n W.P.No.9064 of 2Ol9 through registered documents and also the competent authority has mutated their names sand issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in different proceedings in the year, 1997. The petitioners in W.P.No.9093 of 2019 are 1ega1 heirs of Sri Sayanna in whose favour the Certificate under Section 38-tr of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 was issued lor the land situated in Sy.No.142 in proceedings No.tr/1513/I975.

18. The petitioners herein contended that the respondent No-6 was never recorded as owner of the property on beha-If of Uttaradi Matt and there is no record in respect of the existence of Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy during the year, 1954 or immediate preceding p"lo\q The impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 stating that late Kista Chary was only priest to l9 SK,J W.P.Nos.9O64 and 9O9al o1 2019 Uttaradi Mat.t and the institution only is entitled to be recorded as ar occupant against the subject iands and also the ORC granted in respect of the said lancls in favour ol Lat,: Kista Chary in File No.Al4O79 193 of Revenue Dir.isional Officer, Narayanpet has beer set aside in Irrirrn Appeal Case No.F2 I 23 I 20 1 1 ol the .loint ColLector, N4:rliabubnagar. But, the schedule property in Inam Appeal is in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.21'3,

211.215, 21- lPaik1 212 and 292 situated at Kc;lpur Village of Maganoor Mandal

19. The mairr contention of the respondent No 6 is that the scl-1,:dule lands are classified as 'Khldrnath Inam, Sri Veder Vyasa Swamy was recorded as Inarndar and Sri Kistzt Ohary as Poojari (priest) to the institution, but the respondent No.6 has not filed any docume.rrt to shou, that Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy was the Inamdir or Iate Kista C'L,arry AS Poojari of the respondent No.6 rnstrtution 20 SK,J W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019

20. The respondents in their counters in W.p.No.9093 of 2079 have not denied the Certificate of Ownership issued under Section 3B-E of Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 in favour of late Sayanna. The respondent No.3 without discussing the rights of the petitioners in W.P.No.9093 of 2019 in Sy.No. 142 passed impugned

21. The respondent No.3, without taking into account of the proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal and also the Certificate of Ownership under Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950, passed the impugned order. The respondent No.3 cannot nuilify the rights of the petitioners in W.P.No.9O93 of 2079 granted under Section 3g-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Aq'iculture Lands Act, 1950 and also rights of vendor of ---.--- 2t IiK,J W.P.Nos.9O64 and 9O93 of !'019 the petitioners in W.P.No.9O64 of 2079 were acquired through Land Reforms Proceedings in the ROR revision proceedings.

22. The Judements relied on by the learned Counsel lor the petitioners with regard to revisional pou ers under Section 9 of the ROR Act must be exercised within reasonatrle lime as held by the Honble Suprr,me Court in Joint Collector's case (supra 2) rrnd unreported Jurlgment of this Court in Susheela's case (supra 4) applv to the instant case. The relevant porlion of the Judgmenl in Joint Collector's case (supra 2 AS .'22. '|'he Hign Court rvas of the view that the entries in the Kl:asra Pahani for Lhe v(.ar 1954 55 reflected the names of the predcccssors in title of the \\:rjt-pctirit r ers although according to the Governmcnt the said entrics qere rnad: fraudulently by the then Patwari of the r"illage. The High Oour t lurt rr r held that since the entries showing orvnership and possessioD of thc .v -it-petitioners had continued unchallenged for neariy 40 l,ears be[ore the Covernment issued G.O.M.s 850 Rev. (Asn.lll) Dept. cated 21 9 1991 the (i( \'e Illment was not justihed in making anv allotrner rt in disregard of the sz rre. The High Court also took the view that thc prop,rsed correction ol the atl:gcd fraudulent entries nearly 50 years alter the en:ries 22 SK,J W.P.Nos.9O64 and, 9093 of 20t9 were first made was also tegally impermissible even when the revisional power being invoked to do so did rlot prescribe any period of lrmitation. The High Court recorded a finding that the predccessors in_title ol the writ- petrtioners had registered sale deeds in their favour and that the state Government or its officers had not denied that the writ_petitioners or their predecessors-in- title had remained in possession of the subject land. The High Court held that exercise of revisional powers, even where no penod o[ limitation is prescribed, must be within a reasonable period.

32. In the case at hand, while thc entry sought to be corrected is described as fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice impugned before thc High Court as to when was the alleged fraud discovered by the State. A speclfic statement in that regard was essential for it was a jurisdictional fact, which ought to be clearly asserted in the no[ice issued to the responder]ts. The attempt of the appclrant state to demonstrate that thc notice was rssucd wilhin a reasonable period of the discovery of the alleged fraucl is. therefore, futile. At any rate, when the Govelnmsnl allowed the land in question for housing sites to be givcn to Govcrnment emptoyees in the year 1991, it must be presumed to have known about thc record and the revenue entries concerning the parcel of land made in the ordinary course of official business. [n as much as, the notice was issucd as late as on 3l 12 2OO4, it was delayed by nearly 13 years. No explanation has been offered even for this delay assuming that the same ought to be counted only from the year 1991. Judged from any angle thc notice scekrng to reverse thc entries made half a century ago, was clearly beyond reasonable time arrd was rightly quashed. In the instant case also, the mutation has taken place in favour of the vendor of the petitioners in W.P.No.9064 of 2019 after disposal of appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in the year, 19g3 and \ \ SK,J W.P.Nos.9O64 aDd ooq I o 2019 the Certific:tl( issued under Section 38-E of Andhra Praclesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy arrd Agricu lture Lands Act. l!)50 in favour of late Sayanna, wl.o is ancestor of the petitioners in W.p.No.9093 of 2019 tn the vear, 19'2.r. In view of the same, the above linding is squarely apprl.r to the instant case.

23. Learne<l (lounsel for the petitioners has relte I on the Judgmcnts in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (sup-a 1) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,s case (supra li). u.herein the Hontrle Supreme Court eeld that whcn i1 statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be juclged by the rezrs ons so mentioned and cannot be supplemente,l lt,v fresh reasons in the shape of alfiCavit or othenvise arLd the counters hled by the respondcnts cannot be tal<r,n into account. .i.he JudgmentS reiiec. on by the iearne,i counsel for the petitioners are appl-rr to the instant cias,r as the impugned order passed by the )A SK,J W.P.Nos.9O64 and 9093 of 201g respondent No.3 is only basing on the orders in the Inam Appeal Case No.F/23/2011 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubagar, but in the counter they have taken other stald and the same cannot be taken into account.

24. The Judgments relied on by the iearned Senior Counsel for the unofficial respondents in State of A.p,s case (supra 6), Thotta Kistaiah's case (supra 7), N. Ramakrishna,s case (supra g), Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),s case (supra 9) arid Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy,s case (supra 1O) are not pertaining to the ROR Act, 1971 and the same are pertaining to Abolition of Inams Act. In the instalt case, the respondents have failed to file any document to show that the respondent No.6-Uttaradi Matt is Inamdar of the suit schedule property. The impugned order was passed only basing on Inam Appeat Case No.F2/23/2OIl on the file of the Joint Collector, l€re-_ f,-.___ -*- .-;rr+laxq-,:i.r.'- J 25 SK,J W.P.Nos.9O64 and 9093 of 20 19 Mahabubnerg;ar, u,hich does not belongs to the suit schedule propt:rties. In view of the same, the said Judgmer-rts r,:li:d on by the learned Senior Counser for the respot-rdent No.6 are not apply to the instant <:ase as the facts iu-e different from the instalt case ,rnd those Judgmcrr-s cannot be taken into account.

25. At the in.re of aclmission on 19.12.2019" .his Court calied fo: the records and the Revenue Divisicnal Olficer, Nar-alrzL:-rpet appeared before this Court : nd produced the records. After verifying the records, this Court feels that ,,the lands in survey numbers in Ijle No.A/4079 l9!t rloes not concerned with the lands in survey numlte.rs in the present issue arises and h,.:1d that the Joint (tollector has allowed the revision on the assumption that the earlier Occupancy Right CertificzLte granted bv the Ilevenue Divisional Officer was set asi,je by the Joint Collector in the above proceedin6;s. Therefore, pinto facie, the view taken by the Joi;et i I 26 SK,J W.P.Nos.9O64 and 9O93 of 2O 19 Collector appears to be not valid". Thereafter, the official respondents and the respondent No.6 have hled their counters but, they have failed to hle any documents along with their counters to show that the respondent No.6 was Inamdar of the suit schedule lands and said Kista Chary was poojari of the said institution.

26. The official respondents in their counter have not given any reply with regard to the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 09.06.1976 and Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahabubnagar dated 02.12.79a3. As per the Land Reforms Proceedings, the suit schedule properties are subject matters in C.C.No.1472/1975 on the file of Land Relorms Tribunal, Narayanpet, dated

09.06.7976 and also before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahabubnagar in L.R.A.No.14 of l9a2 dated 02.12.19a3. The competent authorities have taken the suit schedule land as ceiling surplus land \ 21 SK,J W.P.Nos.9064 and 9O93 r,f 2019 and condr-rlted enquiry under Land Rejorms Proceedings ilnd declared that the land belongs t,t the u,idows of 1a,r: Krista Chary i.e., Smt Venkamma and Laxmibai. In the Land Reforms Tribunal case the vendor of thr petitioners i.e., Doshi Ravindra (lhary S/o. Kista ()r.rary was shown as son of Laxmibai, now the responrl,:nts cannot deny the status of I)oshi Ravindra ()1rery, the respondent No.7 herein, S adopted son ()l'Iate Kista Chary

27. After <1isposa1 of appeal by the Land Relorms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No.14 of 7982, the relenue authorities have mutated the records in favour cf the vendor of thr: petitioners in W.P.No.9O64 ol 2Ol9 and thereafter, the petitioners in W.P.No.9064 of 20 19 have purchased ',lLr: suit schedule land through regislered documen ts a n d their narnes were also mt-ltated ir r the revenue records in the year, 1997 . The comp:tent authority hurs; lssued Certificate under Section 38-E of l- - r,r ru"" '- ..'..-.'.'.-."-* *iL -;i;:r.,rrr,&*:: ,.--rrll@=-:;-r- 28 SK,J W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 20 19 Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950, in favour of late Sayanna 1n proceedings No.E/ 1513/ 1975 for the land in Sy.No.I42 and mutated the records.

28. After mutation of records, after iapse of 18 years 1n respect of suit schedule lands in W.P.No.9064 of 2Ol9 and after lapse of 40 years 1n respect of suit schedule lands in W.P.No.9093 of 2019, the respondent No.6 Iiled ROR revision before the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order stating that the property is inam land and Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy was Inamdar and late Kista Chary as Poojari to the said Uttadadi matt without any record and a-lso relied on the orders in Inam Appeal Case No.F/23/2O1 1. But the subject propert5r in the said Inam Appeal is not pertaining to the suit schedule property and the same belongs to different village. In view of the same, the order passed by the respondent \ . 29 SK,J W.P.Nos.9O64 and 9093 of 2019 No.3 is liable :-o be set aside on the ground that lr'itrrout anv valicl r1o,:uments and without basing or-r the on rnere relevant pro reedings and only basing presumptions and assumptions passed the impurped order.

29. In vies' of the above hndings, the Writ Peti'ions are allorn ecl b1' setting the impugned order in Rev ision Case No.D Ilt'7 l2O5 dated 16.02.2019 passed b1' the responclcn'; No.3 and directed the respor'dent authorities 1.c restore the entries in the revenue re':ords as per mutatton in favour of the petitioners No order as to costs

30. Miscel.ianeous applications, if any penclirrg 1n these u,t-it pet tlons, shall stand closed. The Hon'ble SRI SUJoY PiUi il; A;tlng That Rule Nisi has made Absolute asabove witness; i;""t, First oay oi April, Two Thousand and Twenty Five' ''ustice on this Mondav' the ,/ 'hier l l //TRUE COPY// SD/-T.TtRUMALA DEVI EPUTY REGISTRAR SEC'flON OFFICER P '.lt I U One Fair Copv to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE K' SARATH (i6r His LordshiPs Kind Perusal) To,

1. The Prl Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad' State of Telangana.

2. The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar 3. The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. 7 \ \

4.TheRevenueDivisionalOfficer,Narayanpet,MahabubnagarDistrict 5. The Tahsildar, Krishna Mandal, Mahabubnagar District' 6. 'l 1 LRCoPies 7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

8. The Secretary;r' Telangana Advocates Association, Library' High Court Buildings, HYderabad. ./

9. One CC to SRI P.SOMA SEKHARA NAIDU, Advocate [OPUC] 10.One CC to SRI PRAMOD MALIGI, Advocate [OPUC] ll.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

12.Two CD CoPies BSR LS ,.i:r. HIGH COURT DATED: 2110412025 c II ,d I ( ,1, o }It rFo ( e >1 t$ *"$ +Hst, COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019 ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS ? rt