SRI v. vs RAMANA

Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Directron more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [Vandamus declare the action of the Respondent No. proceedings in File No.B123912014-2 dated.04/03/014 whereby name of respondent no.5 herein was mutated without notice to petitioner as contemplated by the provisions of ROR Act and considering the petitioners representation dt.2911112021 seek rectrfication of Revenue Records for restoring the name of petitio deleted illegally, in respect of Iand bearing Sy.No.952 to an extent Ac.O-21 guntas and Ac.O-02 guntas, situated at Shankarapatn [t/andal, Karimnagar District, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative Articles.14, 21 ol the Constitution of lndia and also the Provisions Telangana ROR Act, 2020 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ( ir3umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the,.High Co rrt may be pleased to suspend the rmpugned proceedings in File No.B/23912(t I t.-2 dated.O4lO3l2Oj 4 passed by the Respondent No.2 in respect of lands b€,itr ng Sy.No.952 to an extent of Ac.O-21 guntas and Ac.O-02 guntas, situak) J at Shankarapatnam li/andal, Karimnagar District Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. V. RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: SRI HINGOLEKAFI IIAKESH, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5&6:-- AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER - --'! THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.1678L of 2022 ORDER: The present writ petition is hied by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus dcclaring the proceedings of the respondent No.2 in File No.Bl239 12014-2, dated 04.O3.2014 whereby the name of thc respondent No.5 herein was mutated without notice to the petitioner as contemplaled b-v the provisions of ROR Act and not considering the petitioner's representation dated 29.11.2021 seeking rectification of revenue records for restoring the name of the petitioner deleted illegally, in respect of land bearing Sy.No.952 to an extent of Ac.O-21 Gts., and Ac.O-O2 Gts., si[uated at Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of Telangana ROR Act, 2020

2. Heard Mrs.Sowmya, learned counsel representing Sri W Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hingolekar Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Government Plcader for Rcvcnue. Despite receipt of notice none appcared for the respondent Nos.5 and 6. -\ Y! ..1

3. The petitioner is the absolute owne' and possessor of ancestral agricultural iands in various sl.tIa'ey numbers in Shankarpatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District. by virtue of a compromise d,:cree in O.S.No.52 of 1987 passed b. the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Passbooks and ROR r:r tries were issued accordingly in 1995. However, some survey numbcls \\rere omitted from the updated pattadar passbook, despite the r: itioner's repeated applications and representations for correction ar,1 issuance of a new passbook. The lands in Sy.Nos.827, 87 l, 877 /8, tl(t'2lBlB, 899, 952, gtolA, t47 lB, 14/8, ts8l3l8, t3812/A, 1si, 1i; ),,',t, 14518, and 91 are in lawful possession and ownership of the petiti ,rrer, as per the said decree, and are succeeded by the petitioner and hl:r' son following the demise of her husband. Although the petition. r was issued new passbooks, certain lands were deletcd u.ithout j r r s1 il-icatron, allegedly due to actions by the MRO and VRO of Shankarl;ir nam Mandal. The petitioner f,rled a representation belore the learned ,- C LA in 2O 19, which was forwarded to the concerned MRO vide leLLer in ROR/ 151/2O19, dated O1.08.2t)19, but no action has been taken. FrLrther, local revenue ofhcers refused to acknowledge hcr applications z nd evidence. The unofhciai respondents have no leqal title over th,t l;aid lands. As per Rwle 22(2) and 22(4) of the ROR Rules, 1989 and (l ().Ms.No.772 dated

24.O6.2)DA, the MRO is dut1.-bound to conduct i6:al enquiry before mutation, whic:h was not done in the petitioner's c i:;c. Instead, names i I)agc -1 of 5 of the unofficial responclcnts \tre re fraudulently incorporated based on false reports. Sevcral lands have been itlegally recorded in the names of third parties withoul any valid titlc or sale, as stated below: (a) From the land of the petitioner situated in Sy.No.827 admeasuring Ac.5-27 gts., one Muppidi Prabhakar Reddy sold an extent of Ac.4-O4 Gts., to one Marakoinda Narasiah without the knowledge of the petitioncr u,ith the help of fabricated documents and the purchaser obtained ROR passbook and benehts under Rythu Bandu Scheme. (b) With rcgard to anothcr land of the petitioner and her husband situated in Sv.No.873/ la & 9lO I A, admeasuring Ac'l-24 Gts., and Ac. 1 09 (its. , names of unre lated Gajula Mallaiah, Nelaveni Sanjeev, R. Rajamouli u'ere illcgally entered. (c) Pertaining to land of the petitioner situated in Sy No'952 admeasuring Ac.2.19 Gts., [he pctitioner sold Ac.O-10 Gts., to one Hussain but in thc same survcy number the names of one Erravelli Rajaiah for an extent of Ac.O.20 Gts., and Peddi Suresh for an extent of Ac.O-02 Gts., 'a,ere illegally recorded. (d) Pertaining to land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac'2- 15 Gts., situated in Sy.No.892 ancl Ac O-1O Gts., in Sy.No.877 the name of one Muppidi Shravani Rcddy u'as shown as the owner of the said lands' rr! Pa*se { of 5 Despite numerous representations and visit s. Respondent No.2 has not acted, leaving the petitioner vvith no opti(. but to seek relief from this court to protect her lawful rights anc [rrevent irreparable ioss. 1 . Per contra, the learned Assistant ! ic r,'ernment Pieader submits that 1-he present writ petition is misconcr ir cd, as respondent No.2 is not t he appropriate authority Lo consr irrr the petitioner's representations. He submits that the petitioner (,.i[iht to have filed a revision applic:ation before the 3"t respondent cl'rrl cnging the orders passed by Respondent No.2. In the absence of suc t a revision, further consideration by respondent No.2 does not arise. Sltr ing thus, he prays that appropriate orders be passed.

5. Hzrving heard learned counsel lor the pr:t tioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader and upon perusal of the material on record, this Cclurt, without making any observatio'- s on the merits and demerits of the case, is of the opinion that the rc: pondent authorities ought to have given an opportunity to the petiticlr€r to hle necessary application belore the revisional au[hority. Accor: irrgly, the petitioner is at libert_v t.o fi1e an appropriate applicaLion r--elore the revisional authorily and upon fiiing of such reprcscntell(,n, the revisional authority/ respondent No.3 shal1 examine the sirrr:re purcly on the merits and pass appropriate orders strictly adheri r,3 to the procedure l"- l'agc 5 ol 5 contemplated Lrnder law and by affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

6. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shal1 stand closed. P PONNA KRISHN T REGIST A //TRUE COPY// E ION OFFTCER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad.

2. The Tahsildar, Shankarpatnam [\ilandal, Karimnagar District. 3- The Revenue Divisional Officer, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. 4. The District Collector, Karimnagar District. 5. One CC to SRI V. V. RAIVANA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at 7. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] Bm GJP HIGH COURT DATE D:1 810812025 ORDER WP.No.16781 of 2022 _4. /, -" /, -.' i; 13I,.l '', J)- ''r,. "7 1$6 ...., .-..',, ,./ .,., DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS LDt{