High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, IeP. b,Y its Principal Secretary' ' z in5bii'ir-i,ii corr""ior. (arimnagar District at Karimnaoa r' 3. The Revenue Divisional i5i#;ii';i;;'gii Di'ition'karimnasar Di i. tii" iihtiroli, cnigurumimidi Mandal' Karimnagar District' 5. Sri Venuqopalaswamv t;;'pl; ffi;tt'i uilta"ge',. Chigurumamidi " Xlri*Ii'dXibiii,iii, n6p' 'o-v li! rxecutive Authoritv/officer" Revenue strict Mandal,' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of l\ilandamus declaring the proceedings No'D/9256/2014' dated 27'6 201 I passed by the 3rd respondent in respect of land in Sv 'No'895 to an extent of Ac 0 25gts' Sy.No.896 to an extent of Ac 0'33ats' Sy'No 906 to an extent of Ac 0'35gts' lgts and Sy No'1432 to an extent of Ac 0'37gts Sy.No.1031 to an extent of ac '1 totar admeasuring Ac 4.21gts situated at rndurthy viilage, chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District as the same is illegal' arbitrary and contrary to the provisions or rn" or r.,rngana Rights in Land and Pattadadar Pass Books Act' 1971 and reported Judgment of Ratnamma Vs Revenue Divisional Officer' Dharmavaram and two others and vioration of the principles of naturar justice and consequently set-aside the same "1 ! i1 lA NO:1 OF 20" I ' Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in the circums;tances stated in the affidavit file J in support of the petition, the High court ma,y' be preased to suspend the irnlrugned proceedings No.D/9256i2014, dated 27.62018 passed by the 3rd respond :nt, ltending disposal of the above writ petition counsel for the Petitioner: sRI. KAMBALAPALLT SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: Gp FOR REVEi\UE Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI J.R. MANOHAR RAO, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICEK.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.12403 of2019 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner' learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos' 1 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing for the respondent No.5 and perused the record'

2. The'petitioner contended that he is the absolute owner arrd possessor of land in Sy'No'895 admeasuring toanextentofAc.0.25gts,inSy'No'3g6admeasuringto an extent of Ac.O.33 gts, in Sy'No'9O6 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.O.35 gts, in Sy'No'1031 admeasuring to arr extent of Ac.1.1 1 gts and in Sy'No' t432 adrneasuring to an extent of Ac.O.37 gts, total admeasuring Ac'4'21 gts situated at Indurthy Viilage, Chigurumamidi Mandal' Karimnagar District. After death of his father' the name of the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue record uide proceedings No, D / 9 7 7 I 2OOg, dated 08' 08' 2 009 and 2 issuerl Patr,a No. 1979 and pass Book No.443674 as per Rights.n l.and and pattadar pass Books Act, 1.97 1. 3. I'L e petitioner further contended r.hat the responcent No.S/Temple has hled air appeal under Section 5-Ei/5(5) of Rights in Land pattadar pass Book Act, 797 t , before the respondent No.3,/Revenue Divisional Officer for the suit schedule property, without issuing en.r' notice to the petitioner and the same has been disposed of by the respondent No.3 direcl.ing both the parties 1.o approach Endowment Tribuna-l irL spite of rvln.1 :l:tat the notices were not served to the petitione -. The said action of the responclent No.3 is iliegal, a:'bitrary and contraqr to law and requested to allow the u.r-it petition by setting aside thc- in,rpugned proceedir gs N o.D / 9256 / 20 14, d,ated, 2Z .06.2O I g.

4. Lezuned Assistant Government pleader lbr Iievenue and lealned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.5 stating tlrat basing on the record, the resl.rondent No.3/Revtnut: Divisional Officer on 22.06.2(\tg in l -\ l l 3 proceedings No.D I 9256 I 2OA not passed alY adverse even if no notice was orders against the Petitioner, issued. to him. The respondent No'3 not cancelled entries in the revenue record, further directed to approach Endowment Tribunal' In view of the sarne' no interference need.ed by this Court in the instalt writ petition.

5. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is the pattad'ar and title holder of the subject ProPerty, which is succeeded bY virtue of succession. After death of the father of the petitioner' his name has been mutated in the revenue tecord uide proceedings No.D1977 l2OO9, dated 08'08'2009 and assigned Patta No. 1979 and Pass Book No'443674 by the respondent No'4 as per Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, lg7t, thus, the petitioner is in possession of the suit scheduled' property and cultivating the same without any interruptlon' While it j I 4 being SO, the respondent No.S/Temple has filed an appeal fol' suit scheduled property under Section 5-8/5(5 of Rights in Larrd pattadar pass Book Act, 1971, before the respondent No.3/Revenr-re f)ivisional Officervith out lssutng any notice to the cr>ntesting party.

6. Therezr_fter, the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisionz-l rlrfficer disposed of the said appeal urith a finding t tar. suit schedule properties were recr.,rded as temple lands; in the Register of Endowment, per.tains to the respcndent No.S/Temple situated at Indurthi Village of Chigu-urr.amidi Mandal, therefore, the Endowment Tribunal is c:ompetent to dispose the case and further advised th,: contesting parties to approa<:h the Endowment l'ribunal to get appropriate relief.

7. In tlLe findings of the impugned orclers, it clearly mentionec that the respondent No.4/Tahsildar f.illed to serye the rotices on the unofficia_l respondents/ petitioner he,rein. The respondent No.3/Revenue a\r _ 5 Divisional Ofhcer has given a hnding that the suit survey numbers were recorded as the temple lands in the Register of Endowment and the contesting parties were directed to approach the Endowrnent Tribunal. It clearly shows that without issuing notice to the petitioner, the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Oflicer passed the impugned orders dated 27.06.2018 and the same is tiable to be set aside. In view of the above circumstances, the Writ 8. Petition is a-llowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings No.D I 9256 I 2Ol4 , dated 27 .06.2018 issued by the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer' However, there shall be no orders as to costs. g. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition sh a-11 also stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been Y'StHJXS''lBX'ib='1t='Et'iEJ made absolute as above USTICE ALOK ARADHE, FRIDAY,THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE sD/-v. ASSISTANT REGI HA SECTION OFFICER d //TRUE COPY// To, 1 t J 4 5 6 ! I. 7 8. .*-.3*Jt '.rdFl.rM ,r-.-4,t 1-:"&.r-- HIGH COURT DATED:14t0212025 a J i 2e u*ri 2n5 $( ORDER WP.No.12403 of 2019 -i T) * i0 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \r