The High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Patitioner: Ms. TAKKURI CHANDHANA Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE C.V.BIIASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.lO276 of 2o25 ORDER: This Writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "..--to issue a Wit, order or ang other appropiate u.tit more partir:ttlarly uit of Certiorai quishing the' ;ile;d and arbitrary p.rocegd-iryq2 namely Collectors procebdings Iio.D1/ 5752/ 2022 dated O8/O1/2O2S and Tahsildars Letter "No.A/63i)ZOZ+ aot a 05/ 12/2024 and a Writ of Mandamus declaing the actions of respondent Nos.2 and 4 os illegal, arbitrary ani uiolatiue of thl Te.langana Rights in Land cini pattadar Fassbook Act, 2O2O tuhile directtng disciplinary action against the ering offcials respondent Nos.2 and 4 responsible for the i egal mutation and_ suppression of mateial facts including the MLndal Girdanaars Jmdrngs and further directing respond.ent Nos.2 and. 4 to restore the reuenue records in fauor of tie petitioners as per their patta Pcssbooks and titte record_s reflecting the outneiship of Jadau Bapu Rao f9r Sun,eg Nos.Z4g/A/1, 0.18 gantas, iSO/ I, O.Sg gintas and 75j/A//A, 1.30 guntas, niili nnai for Surueg yg.!?O12, 1.2O guntas and Jadau Seethiam for "Surueg 748/A/ 1, 0.33 guntas and 749/A/2, O.OZ guntasl...,, Nos

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties ald perused the record. .) It is stated that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.I.2O guntas ln Sy.No.75Ol2, Ac.0.33 guntas in Sy.No.748 lA/1, Ac.O.O7 guntas in Sy.No.Z49/A/2, Ac.0.39 guntas in Sy.No.75O/1, Ac.O.18 guntas in Sy.No.749/A/l and Ac.1.30 guntas in Sy.No.751lA/A situated at Kalwa Village, 2 ,i Dilawarpur Mandal, Nirmal District. It is furtler st ated that responder.t Nos.S and 6 instituted a suit in O'S'No'35 af 2O2O on the hle rtf tlxr Principal Junior Civil Judge, J'lirma I seeking declaration of title over the subject property and the sairl suit was decreed uiae c zied 2a.O7.2O23; and the petitl:oner No 1 has hled I.A.No.54 o1 2024 seeking to set aside the ex-parte jtLdgmcnt/ decree passed agarnst him and the same is pending for adjudication lt is further star ed t espondent No.5 submitted a repres'entation before the responr lent authorities with a request to implemen ' the said decree, anc despite receiving the same, when no ar:lion was taken by the rerpondent authorities, respondent Nos.5 and 6 fi1ed W.P.No.25i489 of 2024 before this Court and this ()ourt uide order dated 13, O ).2024 disposed of the same directing the petitioners thcrein to submit online application in appropriate rnodule of Dharani Pr,rtai Lrelore respondent No.2 requestin] to Celete the name of re rrpordent No.5 therein and implement the judllment and decree in LS.No.35 of 2O2O, dated 28.07.2023 passcd by the learned Pri rcip.ll Junior Civil Judge, at Nirmal, anl on li1ing such application respondent No.2 is directed to consider thr,: same by putting nor ice to the petitioners and respondent :"1o.5 l-herein on notice and pasr; appropriate orders within a period of ei5;ht weeks. In compliar ce vrith the said orders, the District Coll,:ctor has issued a notice vide No.D1l5752/2024 dated O8.O1.2C25, rvherein it 3 I reveals that respondent No.S has appeared and deposed that she purchased the subject property through registered sale deed bearing document Nos.894 and 895 of 2OO7, whereas petitioner No.1 has appeared and deposed that he purchased the subject property under sada bainama in the year 2013 and got mutated the same in the revenue records in the year 2OlZ and pattadar passbooks are also issued in his favour.

4. Except stating that he purchased under sada bainama, petitioner No.1 has not produced validation of the sada bainama under Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Books Act, l97l (for short the Act, l97l), whereas respondent. No.S is able to satisfy the respondent No.2 by producing the registered sale deeds and placed reliance on the judgment and decree in O.S.No.3S of 2O2O, dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Nirmal. It is settled law that when a competent civii Court declares the title and possession on a particular land, the said decree and judgment is binding on the revenue authorilies and they are not conferred with any power to take arry decision disputing the title of the applicants who obtained decree by the competent civil Court or give any credence to the entries made in the revenue records in favour of the defendants/judgment debtors. t I 4

5. Since it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners ' .al that petitior er lilo.1 has already filed I.A.No.54 of 2024 seeking to set aside :he e >.-parte judgment/ decree, he is at l berty to make appropriate app lication seeking correction of -th e cnlrrir)s in the revenue recorcls after disposal of the said I.A. As ir' is sr:ttled that tle ex-panlt' decree is also a valid decree for e lforceable, the petitioner N r. t has not made out any case and tlLe obl;ervations made are erlualy binding on petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as .-hey have joined with .he petitioner by filing common writ petition, and if they are aggrievcd rvith the orders of lhe ex parte decr:e, they are at liberty to fik zrn appropriate application before the tr;ccuting Court.

6. Wittr -he above observations this Writ Petitio n rs <.lismissed No order as to (t,)sts As a s equ:1, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closer I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD )EPUTY REGLsrll4q==..- SECTION OFFICER Ti' t

1. One CC to Ms TAKKURI CHANDHANA, Advocate [OP|JC] 2. Two CCs 1c GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the titate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OtJT]

3. Two CD Cc,pies BSR ry' 'u tr. ;-. -rn::t*rt*r'-*rr{* t i'_5' -_':.r, ', ..,,. ', { HIGH COURT DATED:04104t202i / a CC TODAY ) ORDER WP.No.1027'G of 2O2i iE-:,.1 r \- I .;t. :.r 1 ii 4irr 20?5 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WTHOUT COSTS '$', 4 u \o