The High Court · 2025

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 suspend the operation of impugned order dated 24.O1 .2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18192 ol 2)21,whith confirms the order daled.2110612021 ln case No D118212021 in file No B/ROR/8945/2019 of the 2nd respondent, confirming the Tahsildhar /Respondent No.4 action in deleting the petitioner name from the E-Portal and records without notice, without procedure. Counsel for Appellant : Ms. K.MANASA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM, GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 7 : SRI B.BHAGATH SAIN Counsel for Respondent No.8 : SRI G.VENKATESHWARLU The Court made the following JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.531 of 2025 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul) Ms. K. Manasa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.l to 4; Sri B. Bhagath Sain, iearned counsel for respondent Nos.S to 7 and Sri G. Venkateshvarlu, leaned counsel for respondent No.B. 2 a Heard on admission This intra-court appeal takes exception to the order dated,24.Ol.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18792 of 2O2l . 4 . Criticizing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant's narne was deleted from the revenue records without putting her to notice. Thus, principles of natural justice were grossly violated. In that event, despite availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition can be entertained. It is submitted that the civil suit, although is a ; rrrt! 2 remedy, nothing prevents this Court to entertain this writ petition when principles of natural justice were violated.

6. The other side supported the impugned order Learned Single Judge has given the follor.ving findings in the impugned order:- "4. Per conlra, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has srtbmitted that Sri P. Ram Reddy (husband of the petitioner) during his lifetime has sold the lands in Sy.Nos.83 and 84 situated at Kothapally Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, to the respondent Nos.S to 8 under sadabainama and sincc the date of purchase, they are in possession of the same. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.5 to 8 got validated sadabainama vide proceedings Nos. ROR/ B/ 2 64 I 2ltOS and ROR/ B/ 268 / 2005 dated 17.06.2006 issued by the respondent No.4 and they were also issued pattadar passbooks in their favour. It is contended that suppressing the above facts, the petitioner obtained Pouthi Izafa/ succession and got mutated her name in the revenue records and when the same was b:ought to the no[ice of the respondent No.4, tJre respondent No.4 deleted the name of the petitioner from the revenue records in 4 respect of lands admeasuring Ac.2-2O gts in Sy.No.83 ar.d Ac.2 0O gts in Sy.No.84lA/ 1, total admeasuring Ac.4-2O gts and incorporated the names of respondcnt Nos.S to 8 in thc revenue records. [t is submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 03.O2.2O21 in Case No.Dl/a2/2021 (File No.B/RoR/894s/2019l, directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal. It is; lurther submitted that even though the petitioner fi1ed review petition and got reopened the case for hearing the matter afresh, the respondent No.2 rightly dismissed the said Case No.D1/82/2021 vide order dated 21.O6.2O2t. It is 3 submitted that there is no illegality or legal infrrmities in the impugned order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. As seen from the material piaced on record, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the respondent-authorities have followed the procedure as contemplated under ROR Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is seen from the record that the respondent No.5 to 8 got validated the sadabainama vide proceedings Nos. RORIB/264/2OOS and ROR|Bl26812005 dated 17.06.2006 issued by the respondent No.4 and consequently, got mutated their names in the revenue records. Challenging the same, the petitioner iiled revision case on the file of respondent No.2 and the same was dismissed holding that the matter is purely civil in nature and relegated the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of her grievance. It is pertinent to state that the issues with regard to the genuineness of the sadabainamas and the consequential mutation of entries in the revenue records are required to be decided after adducing elaborate evidence in a properly constituted civil surt. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegatity or'legal inhrmities in the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of th-e Constitution of India. This Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law, if she is so advised." 7 . The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is based on the judgments of Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. I 4 Indian Oil Corporation Limited and othersl, Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai2 and Chinnam Panduangam S/o. Late Maniah v. The Mandal Revenue Officers

8. This is trite tha1. despite availability of alternative remedy, interference can b,l made if principles of natural justice are violated, the vires of a prrovision is called in question or order is passed by an incompetent authority etc. However, the judgment of l[hirlpool Corporation (supra) rvas revisited by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. pandey and Another+ wherein it wzrs opined as under: " 17. ...But normallg, the High Court should not entertain uit petitions unless it is shoun that there is something more in 1 case, something going to the root of the juisdiction of the officer, something uthich ttrould shou that it tuould be a case of palpoble injustice to the u.'nt petitioner to force him to adopt ttt-e remedies prouided ,\y the statute. ..." 9 Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to shbw that if the appellant is relegated to avail the alternative remedy, it will \ palpable injustice to her. The impugned order is not ' 1zooa1 z scc roz ' 1rsss1 s scc r t zooz loyalr ro+ 1zoos1 a scc 264 o 5 alleged to have been passed by an incompetent authority. Thus, \ /e are not inclined to entertain this petition.

10. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the matter involves question of facts ald the same carr be gone into in a better way by Civil Court. Since a plausible view is taken, we are not inclined to disturb the impugned order. The writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed \ To //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYASREE EPUT}' REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for t State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI KOTHA fUANASA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI B.BHAGATH SAIN, Advocate (OPUC) 4. One CC to SRI G.VENKATESHWARLU, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies SA GJ ). I -.-]l lHE S (\t o * 2 4 JUL ?025 Cr :f HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 JUDGMENT WA.No.531 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS. ?{ : - -,_:1 r--:..-.,--_ -.