The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filerJ in support of the petitionl the High court may be pleased pleased to receive the documents filed with this Inlerlocutory npprication as additional documents in the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the petitioners: SRI K RAM REDDY Gounsel for the Respondents No 1 To 5: AGp FoR REVENUE counsel for the Respondents No 6 & 7: sRt ALLADI RAVINDER The Court made the following: ORDER , t ^- .. -.- .r.:i:.il ,,\ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL I ORDER: This r'r'rit petition is fired seeking the forowing relief: .....to issu?. n? ,.ppropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularlg one ir, certioiari b cau for r,r. ,.)^!!3 lature of writ of the imtrtugned orders ;;'';;:.*;ff,;? ;E{;;;trrr;{ _^. case wo.touioooi,:iuiini", rribunat 18.06.2021 of the z.* respond::, ,;l-p;o".edings Ref No.B2./ 2 t 86/ 20t r, iaed rc.oi-.ioil"i ,n. nu, resportdent, d.eckye th.e sct t ( ) t a t n o n _ a p p t.i c ct t i o r t ;i ;, {i,f ,!!.u Eti,,t ::;:ri":; and unilatelt.l nllnnui 1rrfh., contrary b ilrc orders passect bg this ltonotuibte Court i" fi.;.";;-orn, o1 20.20, dated 14.05.202O on the "o,nu."uij.", ona c()tlsequerily set aside lhe sarne ...,, 2' I-Ieard Sri K-Rarn Recrcty, rearned counsel for trre petitioners a,d learned Assistant Gorrernment pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.l to 5. I

3. Learned counser for t^e petitione.rs r,vourd submit that that ttre petitioners are owners ancr possessors of land to an extent of Ac'o'23 yz guntas each in sy.No.24g o,f Medipalry village (herein after referred as .,subject, land,,) by succession' Respondent No-5 by colluding with respondent Nos'6 and 7, have entered their names in the revenue recorcis for an extent of Ac.1.28 guntas. Respondent No.4 entertained the report sr-rbmitted by respondent No.5 ancl t \ \ \ i' 2 EVV,J W.p.No. 1,5424 of 202i, issued notices on 2r.o2.2org and 20.o2.2olg to the petitioners. on 23.o2.2or9, a detailed repry has been submitted by the petitioners. Respondent No.4 without appreciating the explanation submitted by the petitioners, , issued pnoceedings uid.e Ref. No. B 2 / 2 rg6 r 20 rr , dated 18.02-2020 observing that the existing entries in revenue records sh,all stand cancelled. The Tahsildar, Ramagundam Mandal is directed to take necessary action accordingly to incorporal-e changes in Revenue Records. chailenging the said proceedings of respondent No.4, petitioners fired a revision Jretition before respo.dent No.3 on ro.o3.2o2o. During pendency of the revision, the petitioner filed a writ petition vide w.p.No.6797 of 2o2o before this court. while disposing of the said writ petition on r4.os.'2o2o, it is observed as follows: 6 "As a revision petition has alreacl-v llee'filecl bt:lbre the l"t resJrondent Ll-v the petitioners, ihe 1., responclent considc' the revision petitio. and pass appropriatc orclers "tr"tt thereon in accordance with law, ,o,ithin a peri<l<l of twelve weeks of lifting of lockdown, by taking into consideration the !.,y u.: rleclared by this Couri a,d al-so r.".pi"g aii "i"* iir" jurisclicti,n issue. pe'ding disposar of the ie'Ision petition by tlre 1*t responclent, the impugnecl orcler dated lg.O2.2O2O passed ll-v the 2",1 respondent shall stand sustrrenrJecl,,.

4. As such as per the order of this court the proceedings dated rB.o2.2o2o passed by respondent No.4 shalr stand I .4 / -^ 3 w. p. No. 15424 .r'r'olil suspended" After constituting Special Tribunals, the revision fired by the petitioners transferred to respondent No'2 Tribunal' Respondent No.2 passed the impugned proceedings in Case No. D I / 86g / 2O2O Tribunal Case No. LDM20O00OB264, dated lO.O2.2O2 I as under: perused the records and heard submissions. As per llXr,t;?.t,1:,::i:: lr ;lI .J"ii"o.nts, it i" "r...ry reveared rhe entire ,Ji"j",: i;lT..H!;;e arso "ii.",iiT,i,n.i. r",a. tr #,T ;I: I * :ll :ltl*u ffi ,ffji",:, l.:?:xfi::fi ; Hence revision petition is dism.issed with an advice to approach the competent Cotrrt for arljuclication. Accordingly the case is <li :.T.fi ;;t"**n:,;il'"iH'fi :0";f o.;:,:A:-,Ti:: Aggrieved by the said proceecrings, the present writ petition is filed and seeks to arow this writ petitionl 5' opposing the same, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that respondent No.4 has conducted enquiry after cluly issuing .roti"L., and afforded them sufficient opportunity of hearing and passed oi'ders for the rectification of entries in revenue records as proposed by responcient No.5. t \ ,&: w 4 EVV,J W.P.No. 1.5424 of 2O2L

6. It is Iurther submitted that the Special 'lribunal, Peddapalli ,rbserved that as per the E.C furnished by the respondents, it is clearly revealed that the revision petitioners,/ writ petitioners herein have also arlienated their land, the entire land is converted into non- agriculturai purpose as admitted by the parties. As per the report of respondent No.5 complete extent in Sy.No.249 is Ac.8.22 guntas is covered under house sites and has acquired non-agricultr-rral charactcr and the Tribunal is not competent to go into merits oi the case and dismissed the rei,ision petition. Hence, he seeks to dismiss this writ petition.

7. Learrr.ed counsel for the unofficial respondents submitteci that petitioner No.I filed a suit for injunction , vide O.S.l'1o.47 of 20 12 and also filed an application vide I.A. No. i I t of 2012 seeking ad interim injunction before the Junior Civil Judge at Godavarikani. 'lhe said application \{ras dismissed by the saicl iortrt. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 has already sold their lan<l in Sy.No.249 /B to various perso,.rs I ./.' /,1, t I \ ./" 5 w.p.No. 1s424.,iii;i 8 It is further submitted that the total land in Sy.No.249 situated at Narasapalli village, Medipally admeasuring Ac.g.2 4 gutnas is owned by Earla Gattaih. He partitioned the Iand to his three sons by names Bakkaiah, Mallaiah and Ramaiah, equally Ac.2.35 guntas. Respondent Nos.6 and T a.9 the sons of Ramaiah and they are owners of the said land by way of succession. Therefore, there ts no impunity in the proceedings issued by respondent No.4 and seeks to dismiss this writ petition. 9' Having heard rearned counser for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue and on careful perusal of material before this court, it is borne out from the record that the respondent tfo.+ has conducted gnqurry after issuing notices and affording sufficient opportunity of hearing, passed the order dated 19'o2'2o2o for rectification of entries in ,h. revenue records. It is also manifest from the record that the subject property is also sord by the petitioner and the property has arso been converted into non-agricultural plots. The property in sy.No.249 admesuring Ac.g.22 &3 \ t \ \ 6 .\, Ew,J '.. W.P.No. L5424 of zOZt d guntas is covered under house sites and has acquired non-agricu'ltural character and that petitioner No' 1 filed a suit for injunction before the competent civil Court uide O.S.No.47 of 2Ol2' Therefore' in the above facts and circumstances of the case' this Court d'oes not see any iltegality or irregularity in the impugned orders and the petitioners do not deserve any positive relief' It is needless to mention that since a suit has already been initiatedbeforethecompetentcivilCourt'thepetitioners canworl.:outtheirremed.iesthereitself. 10. With the above observations' this vvrit petition is d.ismisse:d.. There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications' if any' pending' shall also stand c1osed. \ SD/.S. UfAIUTARJUNA RAO SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( ,\l I \ SECTION OFFICER a I

1. One CC to SRI K RAM REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. one CC to SRt ALLADT RAVTNDER Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies fu- D.N BS To I HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 . ORDER WP.No.15424 of 2021 /;; o lHE S 14 e 1'. 26 mu 65 r)rsp,4TC.fr€O * 't ($ > L, ( DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS / u\