1. Smt.Pannala Yadamma v. '1 . State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wiit of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in issuing the Endorsement No.B/1518/2020, dated o3loal2o2o by acting as a civil court, deciding the rights, title and possession of the parties in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.442 of Bhongir Town and Mandal, yadadri-Bhongir District (Erstwhile Nalgonda District) at the behest of the respondent No.5 and thereby removing the entries made in favour of the petitioner No.1 from the revenue records to an extent of Ac.2-30 guntas, being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles '14 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the said Endorsement and consequently direct the respondent No.4 to restore the entries in the revenue records/online in favour of the petitioner No. 1 to an extent of Ac.2-30 guntas in Sy.No.442lA4 of Bhongir Town and Mandal, yadadri-Bhongir District. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 direct the respondent No.4 to forthwith restore the entries in the revenue records/online in favour of the petitioner No.1 in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.2-30 guntas, situated in sy.No.442lA4 of Bhongir Town and Mancini, Yadadri-Bhongir District (Erstwhile Nalgonda District). lA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 1sl 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 Endorsement No.B/151812020, dated 03-08-2020 issued by the respondent No,4. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI pApAlAH PEDDAKULA Counsel for the Respondent No.i to 4: AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI R. K. GHITTA The Court made the following: ORDER r') ORDER: THE IION'BLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.16535 of2O2O This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: *...to issue a Wit or order or direction more particulorly one in tLLe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of tle Respondent No 4 in issuing the Endorsement No.B/ 1518/2020, dated 03/ 08/2O2O ba acting as a ciuil court deciding tLe ights title and possession of tle parties in respect of the land situated in Sg.No.442 of Bhongir Toun and Mandal Yadadri Bhongir Distict Ersttuhile Nalgonda Distict at th,e behest of the respondent No 5 and therebg remouing the enties made in fauour of the petitioner No.1 from the reuenue records to an ertent of Acs.2.30 gantos being illegal arbitrory and uiolatiue of Articles 14 and 3OOA of the Constitution of India apart from being uiolatiue of principles of naturol justice and set aside the soid Endorsement and consequentlg direct the respondent No.4 to restore the enties in the reuenue records/ online in fauour of tle petitioner No 1 to an extent of Acs.2.3O guntas in Sg.No.442/A4 of Bhongir Toun and Mandal Yadadi Bhongir Distict and pass..." 2 .) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Nos.2 and are the brothers and petitioner No.l is their mother. Originally, father of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 by name Sri Pratap Reddy acquired the land to an extent of Acs.2.3O guntg-s_-.in Sy.No.442/A4, situated at Bhongir Town and ( w\ i.lk:1,.1 \€rl \ ' ' \ \ Page 2 of8 - Maldal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. After the demise of Sri Pratap Reddy, the subject property was mutated in the name of petitioner No.1 as pattedar and she was also issued with patteda,r passbook and title deed uide No.T30050210998, Khata No.2272. When the matter stood, respondent No.5, who possess the land towards northern side of the subject property without having any right, illegally tried to interfere with the subject property. While the petitioners taking steps to challenge his action before the concerned Civil Court, surprisingly, the petitioners were served with an endorsement No.B/ 1518/2O2O, dated 03.08.2020 by respondent No.4. The averments of the impugned endorsement revea,ls that basing on an application, dated L6.O7.2O2O allegediy submitted by respondent No.S alleging that the petitioners are interfering with his property to an extent of Acs.7.10 guntas 1n Sy.No.442 and the VRO, Bhongir and Mandal Girdavar, Bhongir Mandat has submitted a report in July, 2O2O by conducting enquiry into the matter and that upon issuance of notices, dated L6.O7.2O2O, 25.07.2O2O and 3O.O7.2O2O has allegedly a Page 3 ofE conducted enquiry and recorded the statements of various third parties and also discussed about the petitioners family and divided the shares and thereby proceeded to decide the title arrd possession dispute and finally concluded that petitioner No.l is not having any land in the subject property.

3. As a matter of fact, there was no such enquiry conducted and no notice or aly other documents were issued and as such, the alleged report in the months of July, 2O2O is having no basis. Moreover, respondent No.4 has no authority or jurisdiction to act upon application submitted by .rry party muchless respondent No.S regarding the interference into a private property where the competent Civil Court is only having the jurisdiction, but respondent No.4 without having any jurisdiction has issued the endorsement, which raises a speculative litigation between the parties. The impugned endorsement does not refer to any date or mode of service of the alleged notices, which clearly shows the conduct of respondent No.4 who passed the impugrred endorsement in an illegal manner. Taking . , WTFilFEF! \'...-33$" '\&::,:r \ \ \ - advaltage of the same, respondent No.S continued in his illegal interference into the subject property and as such, petitioner No.1 filed a Suit O.S.No.150 of 2O2O on the hle of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir against respondent No.5 seeking for perpetual injunction restraining him from interfering into the subject property and also moved an application in I.A.No.337 of 2O2O in O.S.No.15O of 2O2O seeking ad-interim injunction and the trial Court by order, dated 25.O8.2O2O was pleased to grant ad-inteim in favour of petitioner No.1.

4. Though there is a prohibitory order restraining respondent No.5 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and creating nuisance at the property, taking advantage of the impugned endorsement dated 03.08.2O2O. On 16.O8.2O2O when petitioner approached Mee-Seva Centre to get pa1.ani copy in respect of subject property, noticed that the name of petitioner No.1 was removed by respondent No.4 from the revenue records/online in respect of subject property, who has no power to remove the same unilatera1ly. The acts of I 11 Page 5 ofE respondent No.4 issuing the impugned endorsement and removing the entries in the revenue records is nothing but illegal and arbitrarSr and that taking advaltage of the same, respondent No.S has been raising speculative litigation one after the other to grab the property of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition

5. Heard Sri P.Papaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri R.K.Chitta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri Rakesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that unless the impugned endorsement No.B/1518/2020, dated 03.O8.2O2O issued by respondent No.4 is suspended with a further direction to restore the entries in the revenue records in favour of petitioner No.l, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and would deprive the legitimate right in the petitioners property. Page 6 of8 7 . Learned counsel a-lso relied upon the judgrnent passed by the Honble Madras High Court in the matter of A,Najeebur Ro,hmo,n as, The District, Reoenue Officer in w.P. (MD) No.1485 of 2O75 and W.P. (MD) No.7 of 2015. The relevant portion reads as under: " 9. Wlen th-ere is o dispute regarding title, the reuenTte authoities can only relegote the parties to approach the ciuil court and cannot go into th.e title of the parties. ln this connection, it is uorthtuhiLe to refer to the following decisions:

9.1 In Chockkappan us. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2O0a(1) CTC 136, this Court has Lteld as follows:

5. Coming to the facts of the co-se, it is rtot in dispute that the petitioners are the co-owners of the land and tLrcy utere granted joint patta as earlg as on 16.O7.1984, the name of respondent no.3 u.tas included bg tle Zonal Tahsildar, Aruppukottai after a peiod of 11 years [.e., on 27.10.1995 afier deciding the title in fauour of respondent No.3 which ought to haue been agitated only in the Ciuil Court. Though tle Reuenue Officials are empou_tered to con-sider the prima facie consideration of the ight of the parties for the grant of patta, uthen the patta stands in the name of a particulor person, inclusion of others in the patta is impennissible, that too, on consideration of title by the Reuenue Offtcials. In all fairness, the Zonal Tahsildar, Aruppukottai ought to haue directed respondent No.3 to first establish her title before the Ciuil Court before ang inclusion is made in the patta, as il is not the case of fresh patta but inclusion of respondent No.3 in tle patta uthich already stand in the name of tlrc petitioners. In this contert, the impugned order connot be sustained as respondenl l[o.3t name has been tncluded only after the decision rend.ered bg --r 1 Page 7 ofE l ttrc Reuenue Officiats regarding the title of respondent No.3. Hence, the impugned order is set oside. Howeuer libertg is giuen to respondent No.3 to toork out h-er remedg in Ciuil Court as to her title ouer th,e land in question and in the euent, respondent No.3 has obtained a decree in her fauour she can make her application for inclusion of her name in tlrc patta. The wit petition is allowed uith the aboue obseruatiorrc."

8. l,earned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would submit that Civil proceedings are pending between the petitioners and respondent No.5 before Civil Court and interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

9. karned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that respondent No.4 caused the enquiry on the aspect of status of the land and issued endorsement No.B/ 1518/2020, dated 03.08.2020 and it cannot be treated I as judicial order. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said endorsement, they ought to have filed Appeal before the appropriate forum and in the absence of which, approaching this Court is pre-mature. Hence, seeks to dismiss the writ petition. t I , l Page E of 8 r,.

10. Having regarding to the submissions made by all the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that without issuing any notice to the petitioners, respondent No.4 issued endorsement No.B/ l5l8l2O2O, dated 03.08.2O20, which does not have aly value in the eyes of law and since the Civil proceedings are pending between the petitioners and respondent No.5, the parties are at Iiberty to agitate their grievance before the Civil Court. 1 1. With the above observations, this writ petition 1S disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stald closed. SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSI,.STANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// \/ , I SECTTON OFFTCER The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The District Collector, Yadadri-Bhongir District At Pagidipally, Bhongir. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir Division, Yadadri-Bhongir District. The Tahsildar, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. One CC to SRI PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI R. K. CHITTA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4 E 6 7 8 BSR GJP {d- HIGH COURT DATED: 1010912025 ORDER WP.No.16535 ot 2020 t,'ti SiArE .1i,$ 16 ,r,li .: 't * .-,,'* l'' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \-/ 6[to r