K. Jagan Reddy v. District

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ;n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue lnterim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order dt 24-9.2016 in No.D/l483/2015 on the file of the third respondent, pending disposal of W.P. No. of 2017. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.'l to 4: ASST. GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 9: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.5971 OF 2O17 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel lor the petitioner, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and perused the material available on record

2. In spite of granting several adjournments on 11.06.2025,

09.O7.2025, 06.O8.2O25 and O2.O9.2025, the unofficial respondents did not choose to hle counter denying the averments made by the writ petitioner. In view of the same, on

02.O9.2025, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed the Registry to post this matter under the caption "For Orders" on 24.05.2025. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the unofficia-l respondents.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner hled the present Writ Petition seeking to deciare the order dated 24.O9.2016 in proceedings uide No.D/ 1483 12015 2 issued by respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary, and consequcntly to set aside the same.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of lald admeasuring Ac.1.06 guntas in Sy No. 544, situated at Venkatapur Village, Nirmal Mandal and District. While it being so, the respondent Nos.5 to t have filed a petition dated 05.O4.2015 before the respondent No.4 for rectihcation of entries in revenue records in respect of the petitioner's land. The petitioner fiied explanation to the said petition, which was not entertained by the respondent No.4 as the mutation of the above land was granted long back i.e., during the year 1977. However, the respondent No.4 uide memc) dated 02.11.2015, requested respondent Nos.S to 9 to prefer an appea,l before respondent No.3. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 entertained the appeal preferred by respondent Nos.S to 9 and passed the impugned order dated

24.09.2016 in proceedings No.D/1483 l2ol5 by setting aside the succession granted ln respect of subject land and remanded [r_ I 3 the matter to respondent No.4 to enquire into the matter and {rnalize the case as per merits.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner's grandfather, Sri K.Muthaiah and Sri Linga Reddy (father of respondent Nos. 5 to 9) were brothers. They have partitioned all the lands inherited by them, pursuant to u,hich the then Tahsildar, Nirmal Mandal, ordered mutation and granted patta of the lands which fell to the share of the petitioner's grandfather, and Form No.7 - Extract of Mutation Register dated 25.02.1977 shows that the then Tahsildar duly enquired into the matter and granted succession of the land bearing Sy.No.544 admeasuring Ac. 1.06 guntas of Venkatapur Village in favour of petitioner's adoptive father, Sri Narsa Reddy. Thereafter, the said lands were mutated in favour of the petitioner during the year 1980 as shown in Form No.7 Extract of Mutation Register - dated 09.05.1980. Ever since, the petitioner's name is continued in the revenue records ald he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. 4 \ 'E'!-.,' .. -

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner made an application to the respondent No.3 for conversion of subject property and after obtaining report frorn the respondc-nt No.4, the respondent No.3 has granted permission on 11.06.2012 uide proceedings No.B/2659 l2ol2 for conversion of the subject land for non agricuitural purpose, surbject to complying with the terms and conditions as per Section 5 ol Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Conversion for Non Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2006"\, by collecting the requisite amount and thereafter, the above land ceased to be an agricultural land since the same has already been converted into non agricultura-1 purpose. As such, the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands arld Pattedar Passbooks Act, 197 I (hereinafter referred to as "the ROR Act, 1971) itself does not apply to non agricultural lands Though a detailed counter as well as written arguments were submitted before the respondent No.3 by raising objections with regard to jurisdiction and also limitation, besides the power of qaid authority to entertain the appeal in respect of a non- agricultural land, the respondent No.3 simply stated that the 5 petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence in support of sanction of mutation, that the ancestors of appellants and the respondent in the appeal had ancestral property and the name of ancestor ol unofficia-l respondents was deleted from the records during the year 1974-75, without any basis, and has set aside the succession granted in favour of the lather of the petitioner as well as the petitioner and remanded the case to respondent No.4 for further enquiry.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the mutation was effected in respect of the above land in the name of father of the petitioner in the year 1977 and thereafter in the name of the petitioner in the year 1980, while the appeal has been filed in the year 20 15 under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, 1971, without there being a,n application seeking tor condonation of delay by explaining the day to day delay and as such, the appeal is not maintainable. In any event, the mutation effected 40 years back calnot be corrected by revenue authorities and the same has to be done only by a competent €i+ii Court. Also, the father of respondent Nos.5 to 9 was alive 6 \ till the year, 1996 but he did not chose to make any objection for mutation ol lar-rd in question in the name of father ol the petitioner and thereafter in the name of the petitioner, since he was aware of the lact that in the partition, the subject property had fallen to the share of petitioner's grandfather and that it is only after his death, since the petitioner got the land converted into non agricultural use, the unofficiai respondents frled the appeal to harass thc petitioner and make iilegal gains under the threat of litigation and requested to allow the writ petition.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that alter verilying the records, the official respondents passed impugned orders directing the concerned authorit5r to conduct enquiry as the conversion proceedings were not properly issued by the Competent Authority at the time of mutation of the records in the name of the father ol the petitioner as well as the petitioner. In view of the same, there are no merits in the Writ Petition arld requested to dismiss the sarne on devoid of merits. -- 7

9. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner hled the present Writ Petition questioning the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent No.3 uide proceedings No.D/ l4B3 /2015 dated 24.O9.2016 for conducting enquiry into the matter by setting aside the succession granted in lavour of father of the petitioner in the year, 1977 and in lavour of the petitioner in the year, 1980 basing on the appeal hied by the unofficiai respondents 1n the year, 2015 under Section 5(5) oithe ROR Act, 1971.

10. It is the case of the petitioner that the unoflicial respondents, without mentioning any reasons and after a iapse of more than 35 years, fiied the appeal before the Appeliate Authority for mutation of the revenue records which are in favour of the petitioner and the same was allowed by setting aside the succession granted on the suit schedule proper$ in favour of the petitioner and remanded the matter to the respondent No.4-Tahsildar lor conducting enquiry. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has hled .-- \@5 8 counter in the said appeal and has also submitted the conversl0n proceedings of the suit schedule property from agricultural to non-agricultural land granted by respondent No.3 uide proceedings No.Bl2659/2012 dated ll.06.2O12

11. Once the land was converted from agricultura,l to non- agricultural. the question of entertaining the appeal by the respondent No.3 does not arise under the ROR Act, 197 I, as the same is applicable only to agricultural land. ln the instant case, the suit schedule property was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural land before entertaining the appeal filed by the unofficial respondents. In view ol the same, the order passed by the respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside. t2. While adrnitting the matter, this Court granted interim order dated 27.O2.2O17 gralting stay on all further proceedings in pursuance to the order dated 24.09.2016 in No.D/ 1a83/2015 on the file of the respondent No.3. In spite of lapse of more thar-r eight (08) years. both the official and unofficia-l respondents did not choose to frle a counter or a vacate petition denying the averments made by the petitioner in - 9 the Writ Afhdavit. I[ the unofficial respondents have any rights over the suit schedule property, they can approach a competent Civil Court for ascertaining their rights in the suit schedule property. The respondent No.3, without having any jurisdiction under the ROR Act, 197 1, for non-agricultura,l land, passed the present impugned order dated 24.O9.2016.

13. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order uide proceedings No.Dl 1483/2015 dated 24.O9.2016 passed by respondent No.3. However, there shal1 be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand closed. \ To, SD/- T, SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Secretariat, HYderabad

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, at 2 ih; Di;ir'"t C6ff""ior, Nirmal District at Nirmal (erstwhile Adilabad District) 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, 4. The Tahsildar, Nirmal lt/landal and District, S. One Ciio SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY, Advocate LOPUC] - . 6. iil CCs to GP FoR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana' 7. Two CD Copies BN GJP W HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ORDER WP.No.5971 ol20'17 I THE S T4 R o ( o O t I I B Jlil 2026 v 7 P.\TC ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *