'1 . Namilikonda @ Thadem Anjali Devi v. State of Telangana

6. Namilikonda Srinivas, S/o. [Vuralidhar, Aged- 53 Years, Occ. Govt. Employee, Fl/o. H.No. 1O-1-3441A, Santhoshnagar/ Ramnagar Locality, Karimnagar Town and District.

7. NamilikondaLaxman, S/o. Muralidhar, Aged. 43 Years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o. L.l.G-'l 027, KPHB Colony, Kuatpally, Thirumalghiri, Hyderabad.

8. Namilikonda @ Sriram Arunasri, Dlo. NamilikondaJanardhan, Wo. SriramSudhakar, Aged. 47 Years, Occ. Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 7-2-873, Hindu Bhavan, Mankammathota, Karimnagar Town and District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cou( may be -=i-E_z:1 .d pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction rrore particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari, by calling for the records ,f appeal on the file of special rribunal Karimnagar District in case No. sr ftgal2oz1lDt6434l2o1g, declare the impugned order dated. o4lo2l2o21 passed in t re sard case as illegal, arbitrary, against to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly set aside the same by dismissing the appeal case filed by the respondent no.5 l-erein in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the, circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High c( urt may be pleased to direct the respondent no.Tnot to alienate the land admeasuring Ac. o0-32gts in sy.No. 138 of Khamanpur village, Kothapalli lrrlandal Erstwhile Karimnagar Mandal), Karrmnagar District pending disposal of the preSent writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUMMALLA BHASKER Rt:DDy Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGp fOn ngVeruUf Counsel for the Respondent No.5 & 7: SRI RAM MOHAN REDDY The Court made the foltowing: ORDER I4IIry HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASXAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13991of 2024 ORDER: This rvrit petition is Iiled questioning the order passed by the Special Tribunal, Karimnagar District, in Case No. ST/ 390 / 2 O2l I D I 6434 I 20 19, dated O4.O2 -202 1, allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.S herein seeking to grant mutation and rectification of the entries in records in respect of land to arl extent of Ac.1.O9 gts., in Sy'No. 138, situated at Kamanpur Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District, as illegal, arbitrary and prayed for appropriate reliefs'

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It is stated that petitioners' father has executed gift 3. deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.25 gts., each uide registered gift deeds bearing document Nos.2700 and 2701 of 2Ol7 and since then the petitioners are in possession of the said property and their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were also issued. It is further stated that respondent No.5 has executed a gift deed in favour of his son 2 CVI}R, J Wp 13991 2024 r.e., respondent No.7, in respect of part of th€ir [ar_rd prior to the execution of the gift deeds in their favour b-\. tl_reir father and questioning the same, the petitioners filed a suit uide O. S.No.9O of 2Ol9 on the file of the Junic r Civil Juclge, Karimnagar sceking injunction and cancellarrorr oI the gift deed executed by respondent No.S in favour ,rf his son and the said suit is pending. It is further stated rat respondent No.S has filed an appeal on the file of res rondent No.3_ Revenue Divisional Officer seeking mutation c I_ subject land and rectification of the entries. It is furthr.r stated that pending adiudication of the said appeal on the file of respondent No.3, the Telangana Rights in Lanc and pattaclar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short .the Act, I 9,:1.) has been repealed and replaced with the Telangana Rights in Lancl anci Pattadar passbooks Act, 2O2O (for short ,the A__r, 2O2O,) and in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2o2o, speciar rribunals were constituted in terms of Section 16 (1) of her Act, 2020 and the appeal pending on the file of respondent No.3 n.as transferred to respondent No.2_special ,l.ribunal respondent No.2, without providing an opportun tt1 of hearing to the petitioners and without issuing any notice , has allowed 3 CVBR, J Wp-13991 2024 the said appeal uide order dated 04.O2.2021 in Case No.ST/390/2O2t lD I 6434 l2Ol9, dated 04.O2.2O2t. Hence the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that whiie passing the impugned order dated 04.Ol.2O2l, respondent No.2 has neither issued any notice nor provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned counsel further contended that in fact, respondent No.2, except stating that respondent No.3 earlier heard the matter, nowhere stated that notice and an opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioners. Thus, the procedure adopted by respondent No.2 is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and on the said sole ground the writ petition is liable to be allou'ed.

5. Mr. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 7 has vehemently contended that while making amendments in the revenue records, the respondent authorities have not issued any notice to the respondents and the very procedure adopted by the authorities is contrary to Section 5(3) of the Act, 2o2O. It is also contended that the petittrncrs had already instituted a suit for perpetual 4 CVBI{, J \\'p I3991 2024 injunction and cancellation of the gift deecl executed by respondent No.S in favour of respondent No.i, :Lncl pending adjudication of the same, the present u,rit petit. on liled by the petitioners is not main tainable and prayed. fc r rlisrnissal of the same

6. Pima facie, it appears from the record that the procedure adopted by respondent No.2 is not rr consonance ivith the principles of natural justice and on tl e solt: grourrd that respondent No.2, u,ithout issuing a notic,, c,r provicling an opportunity of personal hearing to thc pr trtioners. has passed the impugned order dated 04.e2.2021 .

7. In vieu, of the above, the impugned order dated O4.O2.2O2I passed by respondent No.2 is set rsrde and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 wirh a direction to re-examine the appeal filed by respondent Nc..5. by issuing notice to the petitioners and as well as reslrondents and affording an opportunity of hearing to the pa rties, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same t() the parties, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order ) CVBR, J wp_t3991 20A

8. With the above observations, this Writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, I shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. N. RAJ GOPAL DEPUTY REGISTRAR To, 1 z J 4 5

7. o SEC 'hffrr,"=* Il:JH::31,€%??!17;r,?Tartment or Revenue, secretariat Buirding, Ilfi"iB:",., Revenue Tribunat, Karimnagar District, Rep , by the Disrrict I[:r,]fr""r" Divisionat Officer, Karimnagar Revenue Division, Karimnagar The Tahsildhar, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District One CC to SRt GUMMALLA BHASKER ndOOy, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRt RAM TMOHAN REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl Iy&:r?:J"t""r?lFoR REVENUE' High court ror the state or retansana at Two CD Copies BS GJ d HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 ,a'- - rj\' ' 10 sEP 21125 -v t '"srATt .{. s t ORDER WP.No.13991 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \\ t\ 2{