High Court · 2025

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 respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned Order dt.22-1-2021 in Case No. STiDI/601/2021 (Bl2g55t2}1g1 1 12021), rejecting the claim of the petitioners for correction of records pertaining to the land bearing Sy.Nos. 61, 63, 64, 75 and 414 admeasuring ac. 25.18 gts., situated at Manmarri village, Shahbad Mandal, R.R.District, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unilateral and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same, by directing 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits by holding an enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 1A NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Order dt. 22-1-2021 in Case No. ST/D1/601/2021 (8t2555120191112021) passed by the 2nd respondent herein, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 grant leave to file the sworn affidavit in the above Writ Petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD GULAM HYDER Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: SMT S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.8 to 20: SRI KESHAV HULSURKAR The Court made the following: ORDER -.-..-- t- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SARATH WRIT PETTTTON No.13 7Lg of 2O2L ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respond.ent No.2 in issuing the impugned order dated 22.01 .2021 in case No.ST/D 1/60 I12021 (B l2955l2}lgll l2o2l) rejecting the claim of the petitioners for correction of records pertaining to the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac:25.18 gts in Sy.Nos.6l, 63 , 64 , 7 5 and 4 L4 situated at Manmarri Village, Shahbad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard as illegal and arbitrarl, and to direct the respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal on merits by holding an enquiry and affording reasonable oppor:tunitS' of beir-rg heard to the petitioners.

2. Hearcl Mr. Mohd. Gulam Hyder, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government for Pleader for Revenue for the respondent I- 2 SK, J W.P.No.l371B ol2O2l Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Keshav Hulsurkar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.8 to 20.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolute owners of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.18 gts in Sy.Nos.61, 63, 64, 75 and 414 situated at Manmarri Village, Shahbad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having succeeded the same from their father namely Mohd. Ali, who was the pattadar of the said lands and his narne was reflected in the revenue records till his death on 25.12.1968. Thereaftel', one Sikander Ali and others have got mutated their names in the revenr-re records in the year, L97O. Thereafter, on the representation filed by the petitioners, the respondent No.5 has conducted enquiry and issued proceedings ROR No.354/89 dated

18.09.199I for correction of the revenue records and granted Fouthi lzafa in favour of the petitioners. As the said proceedings were not implemented, the petitioners have filed another petition, but the respondent No.5 has 3 SK, J W I).No. 13718 of 2O2l rejected the said petition vide Proceedings No.B/4029197 dated 11.12.1997. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioners have filed appeal before the respondent No.4 and the same was dismissed by order dated

01.05.20 14. Challenging the order dated O 1 .05.2014, the petitioners have preferred revision before the respondent No.3 under Section 9 of the ROR Act, l97l and the same was allowed in Case No.DS/ 3348 /2006 dated

11.12.2006 by setting aside the order of thc respondent No.4 directing the respondent No.5 to pass orders afresh by giving notice to all the parties. 4 Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the unofficial respondents claiming to be legal heirs ol'one Sikandar Ali and Mohd. Omer have filed W.P.No.4614 of 2OO7 and the same was disposed of on 14.O9.2O18 directing the parties to procluce relevant evidence before the respondent No.5 and thereafter, the petitioners have filed a petition before the respondent No.S for correction of revenue records and to enter the 4 SK, J W.P.No.l37l8 of 2O2l narnes of the petitioners as successors of late Mohd. Ali by granting Fouthi lzafa and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in view of order in w.P.No.4614 of 2oo7 dated 14.O9.2O18. As per G.O.Ms.No.4 Revenue Department dated 12.oL.2021, the special rribunal was constituted and the said petition fited by the petitioners was transmitted to the respondent No.2-Special rribunal to conduct enquiry. Learned counsel further submits that the Special Tribunal without conducting enquiry and without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioners has dismissed the petition by the impugned order, which is illegal and arbitrary and requested to set aside the same. 5 Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the Special Tribunal after considering the entire material on record has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners for correction of records and there is no need to interfere with the 5 SK, J W.P.No.l3718 of 2O2t impugned order by this court and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Leierned counsel for the unoflicial respondents based on the counter submits that the petitioners are not residents of Manmarri Village, shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distr-ict. The father of petitioners namely Mohd. Ali and his brothers were the owners of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.18 gts in Sy.Nos.61, 63, 64, 75 and 414 situated at Manmarri village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the name of the father of petitioners was recorded in the revenue records as he was eldest among his brothers and they sold their entire land to various persons including the fathers of the respondent Nos.9 to 20 and the husband of the respondent No.B during their tife time. The fathers of the respondent Nos.9 to 20 and the husband of the respondent No.B have purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1 2. 18 gts in Sy. Nos.6 1 , 63, 64 and T s through registered sale deed document No. r7s / lgzo and the said III 6 SK, J W.P.No. 13718 of 2O2l transaction was mutated in revenue records in the year 1976 vide File No.D I I r9o9 /To and since then the respondents are in possession of the said land by cultivating the sarne without any interruption.

7. Learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents further submits that as per the order of this court in W.P.No.46L4 of 2OO7 dated 14.O9.2O 18, the respondent No.S issued notice to all parties on 11.12.2019 by fixing the date of hearing on 28.12.2019 and the petitioners' counsel has argued the matter and the respondents herein have filed counter, documents and also written arguments before the respondent No.5 on 15.O2.2O2O and later the matter was transferred to the Special Tribunal. He further submits that as the matter was already argued before the respondent No.5, the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal has passed the order after considering the material available on record and there is no need to interfere with by this Court and the writ petition is filed with false and baseless allegations to {' -t 7 SK, J W.P.No.137l8 ol2O2l drag on the matter and there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 8 After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered vieu, that in the instant case, there is a chequered history with regard to the suit schedule property. The petitioners and the unofficial rt:spondents have contested the matter before the responclent authorities with regard to the entries in the revenuc records and mutation of the revenue records since long time and f,inally, this court has passed orders in w.P.No.46 14 of 2oo7 dated 14.o9.2018 directing both the parties to appear before the Mandal Revenue officer/Tahsildar, shabad and produce evidence in support of their claim and the Mandal Revenue officer/Tahsildar, Shabad shall consider the sarne and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. [n view of the sarn<:., the petitioners have filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Shabad Mandai, who in turn has issued notice to the petitioners as well as the respondents vide B SK, J W.P.No.l37l8 of 2021 Notice No.B/295512OL9 dated 1 1.12.20L9. pending consideration, the said petition was transmitted to the respondent No.2-special rribunal in view of the RoR Act

2020. The Special Tribunal, after transmission of the case, without issuing notice to the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents and only mentioning as basing on the record has disposed of the petition filed by the petitioners in Case No. ST/ DL l601 12021 dated 22.O L .2021 by upholding the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella in File No.C/ 57 13 / lg97 dated O 1.05.2004.

9. The main contention of the petitioners herein is that in the earlier round of litigation, after hearing both sides, this Court has specially directed the Tahsildar concerned/Mandal Revenue Officer, Shabad, to hear the parties personally and obtain the documents of the parties on either side and shall maintain transparency while dealing with the matter and also provide parties the required documents as per procedure if applied. In spite i, 9 SK, J W.P.No.13718 of 2O2l of the said direction, the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioners and without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners and also the documents filed by them, has passed the order impugned. whereas the contention of the unofficial respondents is that they have filed counter and the counsel for the petitioners has argued before the respondent No.S and the unofficial respondents have filed written arguments before the respondent No.5 and thereafter, the respondent No.2- Special rribunal after considering the same has passed the impugned order.

10. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal, there is no consideration with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioners and also the submissions mad.e by the unofficial respondents. Merely recording the direction of this court in w.P.No.46 t4 of 2oor dated L4.og.2otg and also the order passed by the Revenue Divisional officer 10 SK, J W.P.No. i3718 of 2O2l Chevella in File No.C/571311997 dated 01.05.2004, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order. In view of the sarne, the impugned order is liable to be set aside respondent No.S-Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Shabad has to hear both the parties and consider the material on record as per the direction of this court in w.P.No.4614 0f 2007 dated 14.o9.2018 and pass a reasoned order. [n view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is 1 1. disposed of by setting aside the order in Case No. ST/ DI I 60l I 2021 dated 22.01 .2021 on the file of the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District and the matter is reman,Ced back to the Tahsildar, fresh consideration by giving opportunity to the Shabad Mandal, for . petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents including personal hearing and pass appropriate orders as per law within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ord.er in compliance of the orders passed by this 11 SK, J W.P.No.137l8 of 2O2l I t court in w'.P.No.4614 0f 2007 dated 14.o9.2018. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. Miscetlaneous petitions, i[ any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' of Telangana. SD/ . PONNA KRISHNA ANT REGISTRAR \,1 SECTTON OFFICER Hyderabad, State

2. The Memh-rers District collector and Addl- collector (Revenue)' Special Tribunal, Ranga ReddY District'

3. The Joint Collector.l, R.R.District At Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 4. The Revenue Divisional officer, chevella Division, R.R'District' 5. The tvlandal Revenue Officer, Shabad Mandal' R'R'District' 6. The Tahsilclar, Shabad Nlandal, R'R' District' T.oneCCtoSRlMoHDGULAMHYDER,Advocate[oPUC] B.oneCCtoSRIKESHAVHULSURKAR'Advocate[oPUC] g. Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

10.Two CD CoPies r=w HIGH COURT DATED: 1711112025 ORDER WP.No.13718 of 2021 ( o3 r He s r,q, 16: u ?7ilol,& E * * a:-D ";r,ATcH DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ril.,f \oS