The High Court · 2025

M/s. Narne Estates Private Limited, rep. By its Director Sri Gokul Name S/o' Coi. netO. Ranga Rao Narne, aged about 75 years Office at'1 ScGunrock Enclave, Karkana, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 appropriate writ order or direction more particularly writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to order No.F21577512O16, dt.30-04-2019 passed by the respondent No.2 and Order in Case No.Dl3714l2O1e, Ut.tS-OS-j016 passed by the respondent No,.3 in setting aside mutation proceedings of the petitioner bearing No.B/500/2013, d1.22-O5-2013 by the respondent No.4 and quash the same holding the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents No.4 to implement the mutation proceedings No.B/500/2013, d1.22-O5-2O13 by issuing pattedar passbook and title deeds infavour of the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition undr:r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrst.ances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court m?y be pleased to suspend the order fl-t.F21577512O16, dt.30-04-2019 passed by the respondent No.2 and Order irr Case No.D/371412013, dt.19-05-2016 p,assed by the respondent No.3 in setting aside mutation proceedings of the pelitioner bearing No.B/500/2013, dt22-05-2013 by the respondent No.4 pendinq <:isposal of writ petition. Counsel forthe Petitioner:SRl. K JAGADISHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Re,spondents 1 to 4 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Re,spondent 5 : SRl. G. SINDHU, SENIOR COUNSEL The Court made the fnllowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PEf,ITION NO.14369 OF 2019 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1. to 4 and the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally the husband of the petitioner namely Sri.Lingala Lingam was the owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.7-03 guntas i.e., Ac.1-04 % in Sy.No.375, Ac.1-05 in Sy.No.376, Ac.O-25 in Sy.No.395, Ac.l-17 % in Sy.No.397, Ac.O-02 Y+ in Sy.No.399, Ac.1-10 in Sy.No.401, Ac.1-07 3A in Sy.No.4O2 and Ac.O-O8 in Sy.No.4O3, situated at Kondamadugu Vitlage of Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District (hereinafter referred to 'subject property'). The husband of the petitioner died on 25-09-1995 and after his death petitioner made application and requested respondent No.4 to mutate her name in the revenue, 2 recol'ds and after following due procedure, respondent No.4 uiae proceeding bearing No.B/5007'2)13 dated

22.05.2'013, mutated petitioner's name irt tl..e revenue records rrnd thereafter, pattedar pass bock ald title deed w'elt: issued in favour of the petitione r and the petitioner- \,vas ln peaceful possession of the subject property

3. Learrred counsel for the petitioner rv :ru 1cl further submit t:lat respondent No.5 througli re5;is:ered sale deed trearing document No.76O6 of 'g)g dated 06.10.19!)7. is claiming to have purchased tlre subject propert\i rom GPA holder of the husbard of the petition,:r i.e., Sri.N.Ranga Rao and cha.leeging the proceeding bearing No.B/50O/2013 dated 22.O5.2OI3, respondeni- No.5 preferred appeal berrring Case No.D/3i'1t l2Ol3 and the respondent No.3 z,lrJe order dated 19.()5.2016 had allowed the appeal Ly setting aside the proceeding bearing No.B/5OO/20.r 3, dated 22.O5.2O1it issued by Thasildar, Bibinagar and conseqr.l3t-r1.1y cancelled the pattedar pass Book, Title i 3 Deed and entries in revenue records pertaining to the subject land and further advised the parties to approach competent Civil court for tedressal of their 1SSl-le.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was unaware of the GPA bearing document No.148/BKIV 11992 dated 29'12'1992, registered by her husband, in favour of Sri.N'Ranga Rao and only on receipt of grounds of appeal, petitioner carne to know about the registered GPA dated 29.l2.lgg2. The petitioner's husband died on 25.Og.1995 and Sri.N.Ranga Rao has executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No.5 on O6'10'1997 and the said action is against the Section 2Ol of Law of - Contracts, which states that 'an agency is terminated on the death of either Principal or his agent'' Thus, the petitioner had filed revision in case No'F2/5775 12016 and the respondent No.2 uide order dated 3O'O4'2O19, stated that the revisional authority is not competent to 4 decide the title and dismissed the revi.sioir petition Aggriel,erl by the sarne, this writ petition is; jlk:d

5. Le:arned counsel for the petitioner fu.rth:r submits that the zrction of the respondent No.3 ir:L setting aside the F)ro,reeding bearing No.B/500/:2r)13, dated 22.O5.2'Ol3 in appeal No.D/3T14/2O13 and the action of resp:r'rrlent No.2 in dismissing the rerrisi<,n petition bearing l{o.F2 15775/2016 is illegal, zubi:rary and contrar.y t,t Section 20\ of Law of Contracts . Therefore, learned ccunsei for the petitioner requested to allow the I writ petition by setting aside the order clatei 19.0S.2016 passed in appeal No.D/37V/2013 and orler dated 3O.O4.20 I revision petition bearing No.F2l 5i7? 5 /2ot6.

6. Leitrred Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 subrrits that the respondent No.5 had purchased the subj66f property from Sri.N.Ralga Iilao uide registerc:d document bearing No.76O6 of .9,?g dated 06.10.199i' and the petitioner by suppressing the sale 5 of subject property by her husband got mutated her name in the revenue records and challenging the sarne, respondent No. 5 frled appeal bearing .No.D/ 37 1 4 I 20 13 and the respondent No.3 ulde order dated 19.05.2016, has rightly set aside the mutation proceeding bearing No.B/500/2013, dated 22.O5.2OI3 and revisiona-l authority rightly dismissed the Revision liled by the petitioner and there are no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned orders and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

7. After hearing both sides and on pemsing the entire materia-l on record, it is evident that the petitioner 1S questioning the orders passed by the respondent No.2 in ROR Revision No.F2/5775/2016, dated 30.O4.2019. The said revision was dismissed mainly o.n the ground that in view of complexity of the matter, ttre revisional authority is not competent the to decide the title. The said revision was hled being aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent No.3 6 in File Nc,.D/371412O13, dated 19.05.2015 in respect of the su bject property.

8. The :ontention of the petitioneris tha, zrfter death of her hr-rsband the unofhcial respondenr. l'rlo.5 have purchasecl the suit schedule property frorrL the G.p.A holder cf ihe husband of the petitioner. r\lter death of husband rf the petitioner, the G.P.A executed by her husbard ,vas seized to be inoperative. The hrsband of the pe titroner died on 25.09.1995, "wh< reas the responclert No.5 purchased the subject prolierty from the G.P..A holder of the husband of th,: petitioner throtrgtr :-r:gistered sale deed dated O6.l}.ig,)7 and in view of 1he same the said sa,le deed is voicl. Without taking irrto account of the same, the :e,.;pondent- authori ti<:r; have cancelled mutation grante d in favour of the petitioner.

9. On the other hand, the contentior,of the respondent No.5 is that the respondenl_ No.3/The Revenur: Divisional Officer while dealin5l u,ith the 7 appeal in Case No.Dl37Ia/2013, called for the record and a-fter veriffing the record given a finding that the Tahsildar/respondent No.4 without following the procedure as contemplated under ROR Act, l97l and without issuing any notice to the affected parties granted mutation in favour of petitioner and in view of the same, the respondent No.3 cancelled mutation granted in favour of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 has rightly dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner directing the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of title.

10. The respondent No.3 while disposing of the appeal under ROR Act, stated that the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, without following the procedure granted mutation proceedings ln favour of the petitioner and set aside the mutation proceedings issued by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.2, being revisiona-l authorit5r, without taking into account of the hnding given by the respondent No.3, merely basing on the pleadings of both sides, dismissed the 8 rev1sl0n -stating that in view of the compk:xr ty of the matter thr: parties have to approach the cornpetent Civil Courl-. In the revision proceedings, tl'r,: r-evisional authoritl'has to verifr whether the mutatiorL E,ranted in favour of the petitioner is va,lid or not arrd also the validity o: the orders passed by the respondent No.3, but the revisional authority, without ve ritying the records. rnerely basing on the averments c,f b,rth sides, disrniss,:c the revision. Once the appellate authority felt that the preliminar5r authority has not followed procedurr: as contemplated under ROR Act,, it is a ht case to re rnald the matter to the preliminary authority for corLduLcting de nouo enquiry by giving rpportunity to the a"lr'r:ted parties.

11. In vk:w of the above hnding, the wril petition is dispose<1 c,f by setting aside the orders passr:d by the respondent No.3 in case No..D/37 14 12013 dated

19.05.2t1 1t1 and the order passed by the re spondent No.4 in case No.F2l577512016 dated 30.0,1.i,)019 and matter remanded back re spondent 9 No.4/Tahsildar, for conducting d.e nouo enquiry for mutating the Revenue records under ROR Act by issuing notices to all the a-ffected parties and a_fter giving a fair opportunigr of hearing t6 aI the parties, respondent No.4 sha_ll pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordalce with law. Till the conclusion of ROR proceedings, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo existing as on this date.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. ro, //TRUE coPYtl SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REglsrRAR (, sEcflov+FFtcER Department of Revenue, secretariat, state of reransana ' Il3":r?T3lary' 2. The Joint Collector, yadadri Bhuvanangiri District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, yadadri bhongir Distrist. 4. The Tahsildar, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5. One CCto SRt. K JAGADTSHWAR REDDYAdvocate [OpUC] 6. One CC to Smt. G. SINDHU, SENTOR COUNSEL tOpUCl 7 ' Two ccs to Gp FoR REVENUE (TG) ,High court for the State of rerangana. 8. Two CD Copies TJ LS i I HIGH COURT I DATED:30 104,t2025 ORDER WP.No.14369 of 2019 1 y{E S'rP ::\ r6 k 3 21 t4il' 2u5 \ +' z o l t I c-liPAr I ' 'tt' DISOPOSING OF WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS tblY/an