Writ Petition No. 19847 of 2022 · The High Court · 2025

Order

(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2 - District Collector, Mulugu District (erstwhile Warangal), as being violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 300-4 of the Constihrtion of India and contrary to the provisions ofthe Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar Passbooks Act,2020 (for short 'Act 2020'); and for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to issue pattadar passbook to him in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.4-ll guntas in Survey No.3299 and Acs.0-22 guntas in Survey No.3299ll situated at Ramachandrapur Village, Mulugu Mandal and District, pursuant to the Order No.F/541/2013 dated 30.05.2013 passed by respondent No.3 - Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu, and the order in Proceeding No.B/1082/018 dated 01.09.2018 passed by respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Mulugu District.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as under: (a) The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.4-33 guntas in Survey Nos.3299 and3299ll situated at 2 Ramachandrapur \/illage, Mulugu Mandal and District, havin1,1 inherited

the same ficm his father Mr. Laxmaiah. The petitioner LraLd been in possession and erjoy,rnent of the subject land since 1992 (b) That on,: Umer Khan was predecessor-intit le anrl pattadar of the subject land. While so, the then Tahsildar of Mulugu Mandal who was hand in ;glov,: with the third parties mutated the name c,f I'4r. Dodda Santhosh Kumar (who is impleaded as respondent No.5) in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.4-11 guntas in Survey Nc,.1299 and also the name of Mr. Madoori Thirupathi (who is impleaded as respon,lent No.6) in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.0-22 guntas in Survey No.3299l1 and they were issued pattadar pass books bas,,:d on the enjoyment L st p repared by the Mandal Inspector Mr. Polu Dasari Ramesh. On con.ring to know about illegal entries made in tlte revenue records and issuance of pattadar pass books in favour ol respondent Nos.5 and 6. the petitioner and his parents approached the ttren Tahsildar and made several representations. Pursuant thereto, respon,lent No.4 referred the matter to respondent No.3 who in hrm has taken up suo moto aptr,eal rrnder Section 5-B of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass B,roks Act, l97l (for short 'Act 1971') and issued proceedings l{o. Fi54 I /20 1 3 dated 30.05.20 I 3. 3 (c) It is stated that in the appeal, respondent No.3, having conducted detailed enquiry in the matter, based on .Field Enquiry Report, conducted by the then Tahsildar and based'on the statements of adjoining pattadars, recorded a finding that respondent Nos.5 and 6 got their names illegally entered in respect of the subject land, directed respondent No.4 to delete the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 from the revenue records and also to cancel the pattadar pass books issued in their favour in respect of the subject land. Further, a direction was giyen to respondent No.4 to issue pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioner who is in physical possession and enjoynent of the subject land. (d) It is stated that upon representations made by the petitioner to respondent No.4, field enquiry was got conducted through the Village Revenue Officer (VRO), Ramachandrapur, as to the actual possession of the petitioner. Accordingly, the VRO, Ramachandrapur, submitted the report dated 31.07.2018. Thereafter, respondent No.4 passed order dated 01.09-2018 in Proceedings No,B.l082/018 directing necessary corrections to be made in the revenue records/entries by issuing notice to all concerned. (e) It is stated that the petitioner had been pursuing the matter with respondent Nos.2 to 4 for correction of revenue records and issuance of 4 pattadar palis b()oks; however, for the reasons best known '.o them, no steps have been taken for rectifoing the names in l-he reve Lrue records and for issuinl; pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioner The petitior er u as compelled to f,rle W.P. No.24407 of 20 2 I seeking for a direction to the authorities to correct the entries in respect of the subject lanrl pursuant to the order dated 30.05.2013 in l:'roceedings No.F/541i2t113 passed by respondent No.3 ancl the c,rder dated

01.09.2018 in Proceedings No.B/l082/018 passed by resporrdent No.4. In the said r,vrit petition, this Court passed the ordcr datr:d 04.10.2021 directing respordent No.2 to consider the representation nrade by the petitioner x 03.08.2021 and pass necessary orders lhereon in accordance with law, preferably within a period of eLght u'eeks from the date of receipt olthe order (0 .,t is submitted that subsequent to the order passed in the aforesaid writ p,:tition, the petitioner made represeniation to respondent No.2, in DtLaran i Portal, requesting to consider his r:ase in tr:rms of the order dated 30.()5.2013 passed by respondent No.3 and ttre ,:rder dated

01.09.2018 passed by respondent No.4 for issuance of pattadar pass book in resfrect of the subject land. It is submitted that respondent No.2, instead of erercrsing power conferred on him under the Ar:t..1020 which 5 is enacted in the place of the Act 1971, called for reports from respondent Nos.3 and 4 who in turn submitted separate reports dated 22'11.2021 to respondent No.2. It is contended that in both the reports submitted by respondent Nos.3 and 4, possession of the petitioner was acknowledged and it was stated that the petitioner is cultivating the subject land. However, the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 was passed by respondent No.2 on the basis of the report of respondent Nos.3 and 4 dated 24.02.2022. 3 Respondent Nos.5 and 6 flrled the counter affidavit stating as under: (a) The petitioner is not the owner of the subject property as alleged in the writ affidavit. The petitioner, on one hand, says that the subject land was inherited by him {iom his father and, on the other, he purchased the same from one Umer Khan. Respondent No.4 conducted enquiry in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No.4l0 dated 12.05.1994 and issued pass books and title deeds in the month of January, 2010 in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and since then, they had been in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands. I t" 6 (b) It is state(l that originatly, one G'M' Umer Khan was pattadar of the land in Survey Nos.3299 and 329911 (new), corresponding to old Survey No 639,'l , admeasuring Acs'82-00 guntas 'tf land' Survey No.(i39/l was sub-divided into various survey numbers inctuding Survey Nos.3299 and 32ggll' Respondent lJos'5 and 6 purchased ttLe land to an extent of Acs'12-00 guntas srtuated at Ramachandrapur Village, Mutugu Mandal ani Distr ct' lrom Mr. G.M. Umer l(han, but the name of respondent No'6 alone was shown in possession column in the pahani for the year 2008-2009' Respondent No.6 sold an extent of Acs'4-20 guntas out of Acs [2-00 guntas, in Sun'ey No.639/l undet sada binama dated 10 07'2009 in favour of respontient No.5. Since then, respondent No 5 is in ;lossession and enjoyment ol the said land. Respondent No'4, based on enjolT nent list, issued pattarlar passbooks to the persons who are in occupation of the lands in Survey No.639/1 (old) and Survey Nos'3299 tnd 329911 (new) inclucing respondent Nos'5 and 6' The petitioner and his family members art: in tlossession and occupation o1 4s5'l!)-38 guntas of land in various srLb-divisions of Survey No.639/l situated at Rarna'::handrapur village. The petitioner and his family members are entitled only to an extent of Acs.8'29 guntas as per the enjoyment list prepared by the revenue off'icials under G.O.Ms.No.4l0 dated 12.05'1994' [n order to 7 grab the land of respondent Nos.5 and 6, the petitioner has filed the present wnt petition. (c) It is submitted that respondent No.4 has no authority to file appeal before respondent No.3 under Section 5-B of the Act 1971 against the orders relating to issuance ofpattadar pass books in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent No.3 does not have power to entertain appeal under Section 5-B ofthe Act 1971. The appeal under Section 5-B ofthe Act 1971 can be filed only against the orders passed under Section 5-A of the Act l97l and the order dated 30.05.2023 passed by respondent No.3 is unsustainable under law. (d) It is submitted that the petitioner made an application in Form No.lO under Rule 22 (2) of the Act 1971 to regularise the land allegedly purchased by him from respondent Nos.5 and 6 in terms of Section 5-A of the Act 1971. The pahani dated22.04.2013 issued by the Respondent No.4 discloses that respondent No.5 is in possession of the land admeasuring Acs.4-11 guntas ln Survey No.3299. Thus, respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner and advised the petitioner to approach the civil court for redressal of his claim. 8 (e) It ii; subrnitted that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject land. Respondent No.4 submitted a wlong report stating that the petitioner is in possession of the subject land' Responrlent No'2 conducted enquirv pursuant to the orders of this Court in W P No'24407 of 2021 and'.he c,rder dated 03.03.2022 was passed directirLg l.he parties to approach the oompetent civil court. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were issued pattadar prrss books based on their enjoyment and as per the list prepared by the revenue officials. Dharani Portal also disr]loqes that respondent lrlos.5 and 6 are in possession and enjol, nent ofthe subject Iand. The petitioner has not filed any material evidencing his cwnership and possession o'rer the subject land. The petitioner is rely'inr; upon the alleged agreomerrt dated 04.05.2011, to which respondent N'rrs.5 and 6 are not partie:s or subscribed their signatures. The sai'l document cannot form basis to claim ownership over the subject land. The p::titioner is trying to rel'7 up,l1 the statement of one Mrs. Kanakam Bharathamma, wife of Mr Laxmi Narsu. The said statement is concocted one. On enquiry rvith the said person, she has informed that she has not given statement to the effect that the land in Survey No.3299 admeasuring Acs.5-20 guntas belongs to Bolla Laxmaiah and the petitioner is in possession c,f th: said land. Hence, the writ petition is li:lble to be dismissed. 9

4. Heard Mr. S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, leamed Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4, and Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, and perused the material on record.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2, having recorded that the petitioner is in physical possession of the subject land as per the report dated 24.02.2022 of respondent No'4, however, by noting that names of some other persons are recorded as pattadars, passed the impugned order. It is submitted that the question of issuing pattadar pass books to respondent Nos.5 and 6 does not arise when they are admittedly not in possession of the subject land

5.2. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the earlier order dated 30.05.2013 passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by respondent No.4, and contrary to the order dated 04.10.2021 in W.P. No.24407 of 2021.

6. Mr. A. Prabhakar, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, submitted that there are serious disputed questions of title, as such, the parties may be relegated to the Civil Court. The claim of the petitioner is self-contradictory. On one hand, the petitioner is contending that the 10 subject lancls w,;r:e inherited from his father Mr. Laxmaiah, and on the other hand. it s, claimed that he has purchased the samo from the previous ovrner N4r. Umer Khan. The order ddtbd 30.05'201) passed by the responc ent No.3 in exercise of the appellate power under Section 5-B of the r\ct l!)71 is illegal and void. Respondent No.3 does not have any slto moto power to entertain any appeal under the provisions of the Act 1971. SurJrrisingly, respondent No.4 has refened the complaint to respondent No..i for correction of revenue records and thr:: same was treated as appeal by respondent No.3 under Section 5-B oithe Act 1971 which has p;ot n,r application whatsoever regarding nlutation 'rf record of rights. Section 5-B of the Act 1971 deals with appeal preferred challenging the order passed under Section 5-A-of the Act 1 9 7 I

7. 11 aplrears from the impugned order dated 0303.2022 of respondent No.ll that he has relied upon the report of respondent Nos.3 and 4 date,l 24.02.2022. It is pertinent to note here that date of the report of respc,ndent Nos.3 and 4 is noted as '24.02.2022' in the reference cr)lumn of the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 o1'respondent No.2, but the date of Exs.P-2 and P-3 individual reports filed by respondent Nos..l and 4 is '22.11.2021'. However, it is immaterial whether the' datt: of the report of respondent Nos.3 and 4 js''22.11.2021 or 24.02.2r)22" for the reason that in the impugnecl r.rrder dated

03.03.2022, respondent No.2 has categorically recorded that as per the report of the Tahsildar (respondent No.4), the petitioner is in physical possession ofthe subject land.

8. In paragraph No.l of Page No.2 of the impugned order, respondent No.2 recorded the following findings as per the report of respondent No.4: "Further, the Tahsildar reported that, at present Sri Bolla Yugender, S/o. Laxmaiah is physical possession over the subject lands but some of the extent was cultivating and some of the extent has been kept padava. Moreover, a dispute is pending among the applicant and Sri Dodda Santhosh Kumar, S/o. Shekaraiah & Sri Maduri Thirupathi, S/o. Venkataiah for ownership title and advised the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to settle his land issue. Due to above reason, the Tahsildar, Mulugu has recommended for rejection in Dharani portal for issue of ePPB in favour of applicant by name Bolla Yugender, S/o. Laxmaiah under Court cases Intimation category. In the reference 5m read above, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu after verifying the report together with its enclosures furnished by the Tahsildar, Mulugu and reported that, there is a land dispute among the applicant and others on the Sy.No.3 299 to an extent Ac.4.l1 gts and Sy.No.3299ll to an extent of Ac.0.22 t2 gts and also informed that as per the Hon'ble High Court olders respondent No.2 i.e. the District Collector, Mulugu consider the representation made by t.he pet:tioncr and issue orders in accordance rvith law prelerably within a period of eight weeks. Due to said mentioned reasons and as per the Tahsildar report, 1he issrLing of PPB under court case intimation category, the Grievan:r: application Nos.RC2100004226 and RC 2100004230 for Sy. No.3299 to an extent ofAc.4.l I gts and sy.l{o.3299l1 to an extent of Ac.0.22 gts of lands situated at Ramachandrapuram village of Mulugu Mandal recommended for rejection in Dharani Porta.l. In view of the above said reasons and a:; per the Tafsildar report it is observed that the petitioner is in physical possession of the said land and on verification of the revenue records the other names are recorded as patledar:;. As per the new ROR Act, the authority has no right to cancel the pattedar pass books/rectificati cn of name:s entered in records in favour of others at prerient. I{ence, the petitioner is advised to approach the coflrpetent court for redressal of his claim to lneet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the applications of the applicant:'s are hereby rejected."

9. Having categorically noted that as per the rel)ort of respondent No.4, the petitioner is in physical possession of the subject lanrl. rer';pondent No.2 held that the authoritl, does not have right to cancel pattadar passbook or recti8/ the names entr.:red in l3 favour of others. In the opinion of the Court, respondent No.2 being the head of the Revenue Administration of the District has dealt the matter in a casual manner. Approp'.iate steps that could hhve been taken by respondent No.2 was either to suo moto implead respondent Nos.5 and 6 or direct the petitioner to implead them. It was incumbent upon respondent No.2 to find out how names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were entered in the revenue records and how pattadar pass books and titre deeds were issued to them.

10. Respondent Nos.5 and 6, who were not parties before respondent No.2 were brought on record in this writ petition by the order dated 03.08.2022 in I.A. No.2 of 2022. ll. Mr. A. prabhakar Rao, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, submitted that pattadar pass books issued to respondent Nos.5 and 6 remained unchallenged and now due to passage of . time from the order of respondent No.2 dated 03.03.2022, it would be just and necessary to direct the parties to prove their title and possession over the subject land before the competent Civil Court. '1 14

12. Th,: case of respondent Nos.5 and 6 i:s that they have purchased Acs . L 2.00 of land from the pattadar Mr. Umer K han, but name of r,:spondent No.6 alone was shown in posst:ssion column in the pahali o'2009-10. Respondent No.6 sold an extent of Acs.4-20 gunlas out of Acs.12-00 in Survey No.639/i ulder the sada binoma rlated 10.07.2009 in favour of rcsponderrt No.5. That basing on the enjoyment list, respondent No.4 issu,:d pattadar pass bool( to the persons who are in possessiorL of the land in Survey l.los.(i.}1/9 (old), 3299 and 329911 (new) irrcluding responderLt N,rs.5 and 6. Further. the petitioner and hirr family members are rn possession and occupation of Acs.19-38 guntas of land as pt:r th; enjoy,rnent list prepared by the revenue officials in accordanc:e with G.O. Ms. No.410 dated 12.05.1994. IJo'vhere in the countr:r af--rdavit or during the submissions, it rvas stated by the learned ccunsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, as to how pattadar pass bool.:s rvt:re issued to respondent Nos.5 and (i. OrL a specific query by'this Court, whether there are mutation proceedings in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6, Iearned counsel expressed his ignorance. TtLus, it has to be assumed that respondent lrlos.5 and 6 have been issued pattadar pass books without an)' t0utation proceedings and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act .'/ ,,. l5

1971. Even according to respondent Nos.5 and 6, they have purchased the subject land under sada binama. Their counter affidavit is not clear as to whether respondeniNo.5 has purchased an extent of Acs.12-00 of land from Mr. Umer Khan under the registered document. It is stated that respondent No.6 has sold an extent of Acs.4-20 guntas out of Acs.l2-00 guntas in Survey No.639/1 under the sada binama dated 10.07.2009 to respondent No.5.

13. Under Rule 26(6) ofthe ROR Rules 1989, pattadar pass book shall be issued only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land.

14. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not properly advised by his counsel before the revenue forum. Instead of challenging the pattadar pdss books / mutation, as the case may be, issued in favour ofrespondent Nos.5 and 6, either before respondent No.3 by way of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act l97l or before the Joint Collector by way of revision under Section 9 of the Act 197l, they approached respondent No.4 for correction of revenue records and he referred the same to respondent No.3 who has suo moto 16 taken up the srrme as an appeal under Section 5-B of the A(.:t in File No.F/541i2011

15. It is no doubt true that Section 5-B of the Act l()71 was wrongly involed by respondent No.3. Not only ltecause he does not have suo nloto power, but also because appeal coulJ rrot have been ente'rtained on the complaint / representation made by respondent No 4. It needs no emphasis that the per:itioner ought to have approach,id proper forum by preferring appeal under Section 5(5) ofthe Act l97l as stated supra.

16. Fol the mistake committed by respondent },l,o.3 ln exercrsrng suo ,noto power under Section 5_B of the Act I grT l and apparently imp;'oper legal advice given to the petiticner, he cannot be made to suffer.

17. ,{s c:rrect advice was not given to the pr:titioner before the revenus fomm, it resulted in complicating ttre case of the petitioner. Hacl respondent Nos.5 and 6 not been parties to this writ petitio,, this Court would not have had any other alter.native except to remard the case granting liberty to tho petir:ioner to initiate appropnate proceedings; however, it may be noterl that 7 after the Act 2020 came into force, Act l97l stood repealed and the remedy ofappeal under Section 5(5) and revision under Section 9 of the Act l91l are no more available. Similar appeal and revision remedy are not available under the Act 2020 and the impugned order or any other passed by respondent No.2 or 3 and,4 would be amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. Respondent No.2 failed to consider and verifu as to how names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were entered as pattadars.and pattadar pass books were issued to them. pattadar pass Books / Title Deeds will be issued pursuant to mutation or succession proceedings, as the case may be. Respondent No.2 lost sight of the fact that there were no mutation proceedings produced or relied upon by respondent Nos.5 and 6, without which the pattadar pass books issued to them have to be treated as null and void. Surprisingly, respondent No.2 held in the impugned order that it does not have power to cancel pattadar pass books and direct rectification of names entered in the records. The cancellation of pattadar pass books / rectification of records would depend on the manner by which pass books are issued and entries in revenue r' .i t8 records ale nrade. The issuance of pattadar pass books is consequential 1o mutation proceedings, as stated above. Srt, when' mutation proceedings / entries in revenue records are not ba::ked by any valid procr:edings, the pattadar pass books and revenue entries have to be ignc,red as being void

19. In view of the same, though the pet.itioner has not challengect pattadar pass books issued to respondent Nos.li and 6, this Court has no hesitation to hold that such pattrrdar pas:; books are void as they are not preceded by any mutaticn pr'rcr.redings. The pattac.ar prrss books issued in favour of respondent Nos 5 and 6 in respect of tJre subject lands have to be treated as non eLt in the eye of law.

20. The'refore, the writ petition is allowed r;ettin61 aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2. As it is infomLed that the Govemment has enacted The Telangana Bhu Bharathi (Record of fughts in Land) Act 20?-5 (A,ct No.l of 2025) and the Rules made thereunder, the petitioner is rlirr:cted to submit aporopriate application before the authorities concetned for mutation of rr:venue records and to record him as patta,lar and possessor in lespect of the subject land admeasuring lr.cs.4-33 x guntas in Survey Nos.3299 and 329911situated at Ramachandrapur Village, Mulugu Mandal and District, and for issuance of pattadar pass book / title deed. On such application being filed, appropriate action shall be taken by respondent No.2 in accordance with law by issuing notice to the petitioner, respondent Nos.5 and 6 and other interested persons, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of such application without reference to the impugned proceedings and the earlier proceedings. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA PUTY REGISTRAR / SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRt JUSTICE B.V|JAYSEN REDDY (For His Lordships Kind perusal) t To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The District Collector, Mulugu District (Erstwhile Warangal) 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu tVlandal, Mulugu District (Erstwhile Warangal)

4. The Tahsildar, Mulugu Mandal, Mulugu District (Erstvvhile Warangal) 5. 11 LR Copies 6. The.Under S_ecLeJary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

7. The .. Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. B. One CC to SRI S.LAKSHM| KANTH, Advocate tOpUCl 9. One CC to SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate TOPUCI ffi -- 1O.Two CCs to GP_FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at E)t Hyderabad [OUT]

11.Two CD Copies BSR .-]h __--:'- CC TODAY HIGH GOURT DATED:2210412025 I l l ORDER WP.No.19847 of 2022 .14 ,7 1 i) HE STATe -) l) \r '/v ,) L i'it,Y 2$25 1 v o * l;1r141C\ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS f, \5 L