High Court · 2025

The Executive Officer,, Sri Ramachandra Gopala Krishna Matt, Adilabad, District Adilabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under A(icle 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order, or orders, direction or directions, or issue a writ, more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to proceedings issued by the Respondent no.2 vide D1lg2l2o17 dated. 't 1-10-2019 and set aside the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article .14, 21 and 31-A,300-4 of the constitution of lndia and as well as the mandatory provision of A.P. Rights in Land and pattedar pass Book Act 1971 . and consequently direct the respondent no.2 and 3 to rectify the errors in revenue records and record that the legal heirs of Gunnubai and safla Narsimlu i.e. Petitioner herein is the owner of following lands i.e. (a) sy-No.37g to the extent of 1 acre 29 guntas. (b) Sy.No.379 to the extent of 1 acre 33 guntas. (c) Sy.No.38O to the extent of 1 acre 36 guntas. (d) sy.No.3g5 to the extent of 3.1 guntas. (e) Sy.No.384 to the extent of i acre 02 guntas, the entire rands are situated in revenue village, Adilabad Mandal (Urban) District Adilabad. lA NO: 1 OF 202s .Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the writ petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents herein that not to assign/rease or not to make any constructions on the folowing rand i.e. (a)Sy.No.37B to the extent of 1 acre 29 guntas. (b)sy.No.379 to the extent of 1 acre 33 guntas. (c) sy.No.380 to the extent of 1 acre 36 guntas. (d)Sy.No 385 to the extent of 31 guntas. (e)Sy.No.3B4 to the extent of 1 acre 02 guntas, the enttre lands are situated in revenue village, Adilabad Mandar (Urban), District {dirabad, pending disposar of main writ petition, in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the petitioner :SRl. S CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent NO.1 TO 3 : Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent NO. 4 : Gp FOR ENDOWMENT Counsel for the Respondent NO.5 : SRl.CH. SATISH KUMAR.S.C The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY wRIT PETITION No.13567 of 2o25 ORDER: This Writ PeLition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief: "...to pass an order, or orders, direction or directions, or issue a urit, more particutarlg in the nature oJ Wit of Certiorart, cctlling for th.e records relating to proceedtngs issued bg the Respondent no.2 uide D1/ 92/2017 dated: 11 10 2019 and set aside the same bg declaing it as illegat' arbitrary, uiolatiue of ArTicle 14, 21 & 31-A, 3OO A of the Constitution of lndia and- as uelt o.s the mandatory prouision oJ A.P. Rights in Land and P\ttedar Pass Book Act 1971; ond consequentlA direct the respondent no.2 & 3 to rectiJg the errors in reuenue records qnd record that the legal heirs of Gunnuban ond So,tla Narsimlu i.e Petitioner herein is the ouner of fottouing lqnds t.e, a) Sg.No.378 to the extent of 1 acre 29 guntas, b)Sg.No-379 to the ertent of 1 acre 33 guntas, c) Sg.No.38O to tlle extent of 1 acre 36 guntas, d) Sg.No.385 to the ertent of 31 guntcc, e) Sg.No. 384 to the ertent of 1 acre 02 Wnta' the entire lands are situated in reuenue utllage, Adilabad Mandal Arban) Dtstict AdiLabad...."

2. lt is stated that the petitioner's father Late Sri Gangaram was the Pattadar of lands admeasuring Ac.l.29 gts in Sy.Nos.378, Ac.1.33 gts in Sy.No.379, and, Ac. 1.36 gts.in Sy.No.38O situated at Revenue Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. It is also stated that the petitioner's grandmother-Gunnu Bai was pattadar of lands admeasuring Ac.\.O2 gts in Sy.No.384 and Ac.0.31 gts in Sy.No.385. It is further stated that after the demise of said Gunnu Bai, the petitioner's father i.e, Sri Gangaram, inherited her lands and after the death of said Gangaram, the petitioner inherited the subject lands. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 193O, .*l*ta &"" 2 her paternal grandfather constructed "Sri Ramachandra Gopalakrishna Matt,,, in Adilabail Town and the lands surrounding the said Matt including the subject lands were acquired and developed by her forefathers but the respondents without following due process of law, classified the subject lands as Government (sarkari) lands. It is further case of the petitioner thett when the respondent No.5 made efforts to encroach the land admeasuring Ac. 1-02 gts in Sy.No.3g4 of Adilabad Revenue Vrllage, she filed L.G.O.P. No.2 of 200 I on the file of Special Tribunal constituted under the provisions of n.p. Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, seeking eviction of the respondent No.5 from the sard rand and the same was dismissed on O7. 10.2004. It is stated that challenging the same, the petitioner filed appeal vide L.G.A. No.16 of 2005 on the file of Special Court and the same was also dismissed on 27.06.2006. It is further stated that the petitioner. sr.rbmitted a representation dated 18-05.2015 to the District collector, Ad abad, seeking correction of entries in the revenue records, and the same was treated as a revision under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Books Act,797l and the respondent No.2_ Joint Collector directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), who in turn vide letter d,ated 27.06.2025 directecl the responclent No.3_ Tahsildar to enquire into the matter. It is the case of the petitioner that when her Revision petition dated 1g.05.2015 was not disposed of by the respondent No.2, she filed W.P. No.39684 of 2016 on the file ol this Court and this Court vide order dated 23. ll.2016 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent No.2-Joint Collector to decide the revision petition within eight weeks. The g.i".rr.r"" of the petitioner is that even though she has documentary evidence in support of her claim, the respondent No.2 dismissed the revision petition vide Proceedings No.Dl/92/2017 dated

11.10.2019 by merely relying on Tahsildar's report and concluded the subject lands are Government lands. Hence the writ petition.

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

4. A perusal of impugned Proceedings No.Dll92/2O17 dated

11.10.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 would show that the revision petition filed by the petitioner seeking correction of entries in respect of lands adme asuring Ac.l.29 gts in Sy.No.378, Ac. 1.33 gts in Sy.No.379, Ac.1.36 gts in Sy.No.380, Ac.0.31 gts in Sy.No.385, and Ac. 1.02 gts in Sy.No.384 situated at Revenue Village and Mandal, Adilabad, was rejected by relying on the report of the Tahsildar dated 29.Oa.2O78. The Tahsildar, in his report, observed that in the revenue records such as Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 and pahanies for the years 1986-87, 1995-96, 2008-09, and 2077-18, the above survey numbers are recorded as 4 Govemment lands or Poramboke (PP) lands. It was also reported that certain portions of the lands fall within Tau,si Abadi/Abadi lands and that the petitioner was not in possession of the subject lands since 1954-55. Based on the above observations, and taking into account the orders passed in LGOP No.2 of 2O01 and LGA No. 16 of 2005, the respondent No.2 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. It is the ipecific case of the petitioner that her paternal grandfather had established "Sri Ramachandra Gopalakrishna Matt" in Adilabad town in the year 1930 and the lands surrounding the said Matt, including the subject lands, were acquired and cultivated by her family. However, the official respondents, without issuing any notice or following due process of law, have recorded the subject lands as Government lands in the revenue records. In the impugned proceedings, the respondent No.2 relied upon the Tahsildar's report and recorded a find it-tg that the petitioner was never in possession of the subject lands. It is pertinent to state that the petitioner has approached the authorities for correction of revenue entries after a long lapse of several decades. There is serious dispute with regard to title, succession, possession, and classification of land, which requires detailed examination basing on oral and documentary evidence. Such disputed questions of fact and title cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. , / 5 Therefore, this Court is of thc view that the petitioner has an efficacious and appropriate remcdy by way of instituting a civil suit before the competent civil Court [or adjudication of her rights'

5. ln Mohan Pandeg vs. Ilsha Rani Rajgariar the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "6: xxxx..... It ha-s repeatedlg been h.eld bV this Court as also bg uaious Htgh Courts ttrot a regular sutl is the qppropnate remedg for settLement of disputes relating to propeng rights betueen priuate persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shoJl nol be ouailable excepl where uiolation of some statutory dutg on the part of a stututory authoitg ts alteged. And in such a cose, the Court will tssue appropriate direction to the autlloritg concerned- I"f the real grieuance of the respondeftt is against the initi"atiot of ciminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must auail of the remedg under the general law including the Cimindl Procedure Code' The Hioh Court cannot aLlo w the constitulio ttal iunsdictton to be used for decidinq for which remedies , under the qeneraL La ut, civil or criminqL d.isputes, are auatlable It is not intended to replace the ordinaru remedies bu taqu of a suit or aDD Iication quailable to o litiqant iurisdiction 1S soecial and extraordi naru and should not be exercised casudllu or liohttu. " (emphasis suPPlied) The

6. ln Dwarka Prorsad Agaru.tal es. B-D. Agarwal2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "The High Court while exercistng a pouer of ludictal reuiew is concemed u.tith illegatttg, irrationaltty ond procedural impropietg of an order passed bg tLe Stqte or a statutory authoritg. Remedg under Article 226of the Constitution oJ India ca nnot be inuoked for resolution of a prtuate laut dispute as contra distinguished Jrom a dispute tnuolving publtc lau character. 1l is also weLl settled that a wit remedy is not auailable for resolution of a properTg or a title dispute." ( '(1992) 4 scc 6l '(2003) 6 scc 230 6 \ -

7. It is well settled law rhat this Court is not having jurisdiction to delve into the disputes and come to a conclusion with regard to right, title and possession o[ the parties in tht: absence oI determining the validity or otherwise of their entrtlcment being decided at the first instance.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not ir.rclined to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution r>f India, for granting relief as sought by the petitioner and the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and the samc is liable to be clismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Writ 'Petition is dismissed. However, it is lelt open to the petitioner to approach competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. In the r:vent of such suit being filed, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit without being influenced by observations made by this Court in this r.r,rit petition. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, it any, shall stand closed' No order as to costs' //TRUE COPY// sD/- L. vrJAyA LAxMr SfTANT REGISTRAR 4S .J SECTION OFFICER To,

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

2. The Joint Collector, Adilabad, District Adilabad. 3. The Tahsildar, Adilabad Mandal (Urban),, District Adilabad. 4- The Commissioner, Endowment Department,, State of Telangana, Near Ramkot, Hyderabad.

5. The Executive Officer,, Sri Ramachandra Gopala Krishna lr4att, Adilabad, District Adilabad.

6. One CC to SRI S CHANDRASEKHAR Advocate IOPUC] :1,- ',) v

7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Tetangana.

8. Two CCs to The GP ENDOWMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT] \

9. One CC to SRI.CH SATISH KUMAR,S.C [OPUC] 'l 0. Two CD Copies o. DD GJ f HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ORDER WP.No.13567 of 2025 t I .rt:--- , ro" t t iL sj4 lr iJ 2I tlJ8 ztE j' i.: \:,, \r.\, <:'. - '/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I