V. Ravi Kumar Reddy, S/o v. Gopal Reddy, Aged

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, by calling for the records of appeal on the file of Special Tribunal Wanaparthy District in Case No. DiSpl/Tribinal/Peddamandadi/ Case No. 248 of 2024, declare the impugned order dated. 02.11.2024 passed in the said case as illegal, arbitrary, against to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and consequently i I I : i i l : I i l,, set aside the same by dismissing the appeal case filed by the petitioner herein in the interest of justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 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 suspend the orders passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No. D/Spl/Tribinal/Peddamandadi/ Case No. 248 of 2024 pending disposal of the present writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KORE VISHWANATH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : -- The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13837 of 2o25 ORDER It is stated that the mother of the petitioner, by name Smt.Vitta Kistamma, was the pattadar and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.16.05 guntas in Sy.No.43 of Chinnamandadi Village, Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District and after the death of his mother, the petitioner got the land to an extent of Acs.3.24 guntas in Sy.No.43/Aa in a family partition and his name was mulated in the revenue records and he was also issued pattadar passbook and title deed bearing No.754766 uide patta No. 1584 under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks AcL, 1971 (for short "the ROR Act, 1971"1 and the Rules made thereunder. It is further stated that the said property was also mortgaged to the State Bank of India, Wanaparthy Branch and a mortgage deed bearing document No.8945 of 2OO7 was executed. It is further stated that the petitioner has been in possession of the subject property for the last more than two decades and the respondent authorities, without issuing any notice, have amended the reizenue records and incorporated the name of respondent Nos.S and 6 herein. Aggrieved by the same, the \ ^.\. ;l 2 CVBR, J Wp 13837 _2025 petitioner filed an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the ROR Act, 1971 and pending adjudication of the said case, the ROR Act, 1971 was repealed and repiaced by the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,2O2O (for Shorl "the Act 9 of 2O2O") and all the pending cases have been transferred to the Special Tribunal constituted under Section 16 of the Act 9 of

2020. Thereafter, respondent No.2-Special Tribunal has taken up the case as per the provisions of the Act 9 of 2O2O and assigned Case No.245/2021 (Old File No.D/52O/2016l. It is further stated that, without taking into consideration of issuance of pattadar pass book or partition among the co sharers and successors of the original pattadar, rcspondent No.2 had dismissed the appeal uide order, dated 24.06.2021. Therefore, the petitioner hled W.P.No.21874 of 2O2 1 before this Court. This Court, by an order, dated 16.12.2023, whtle allowing thc said writ petition, sct aside the ordcr, dated

24.06.2021 passed by respondent No.2 and rcmanded the matter to respondent No.2 for disposal of the appeal by giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order, dal.ed 02.1)'.2024. Hence, I his r,r rit petition. i I I 3 CVBR, J \Np 13831 2025

2. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofhcial respondents is dispensed with.

3. This Court has carefully examined the order impugned in this writ petition. It is stated that the Tahsildar in Lr.No.B/ 369/ 2024, dated O3.O4.2024, has submitted a report stating that, as per ROR/ 1-B the total extent of Sy.No.43 is Acs.16.11 guntas and one Vitta Kistamma was the pattadar of the said 1and. The L.Rs of the Protected Tenants got 38-E Certihcate for the said iand as per R'D.O. (LR), Gadwal, File No.A3l227 /75, dated 13.09.1975 and jointly sold an extent of Acs.5.2O guntas to one Edgi Ananthaiah, Edgi Shankaraiah, trdgi Buchann a uide regrstered documenL No.29411981, dated

27.O1.19aL and the same was implemented in New R.O.R. i'e., 1989-90 and the remaining extent of land admeasuring Acs.10.31 guntas was recorded in the name of the legal representatives of Vitte Kistamma i.e., Acs.3.24 guntas (Vitte I I 4 CVBR, J Wp 13837_2025 a Gopal Reddy) ; Acs.3.24 guntas (Vitte yella Redd],) and Ac.3.23 guntas (Vitte Dharma Reddy) as the 3g_tr holders have not hled application for mutation of their names in the ROR. It is also stated in the impugned order that the legal representatives of the Protected Tenants have sold out the land to an extent of Acs.13.25 guntas out of Acs. 16.05 guntas, leaving balance Acs.2.2O guntas, which belongs to G.Kistaiah Gor-rd, who is 3g_ tr holder and accordingly, the said land is mutatecl in favour of the purchasers duly deleting the extents recordecl in the name of Vitta Gopal Reddy, Vitte yedlla Reddy and Vitte Dharma Reddy to the extents of Acs.3.24, 3.24 and 3.23 guntas respectively. Thus, they have kept balance of Ac.O.02 guntas only to each share. Hence, the claim of the petitioner, lr,ho is the legal representative of yella Reddy, to an extent of Acs.3.24 gunras is lound to be not genuine.

4. It is seen from the impugned order that Section 3g_E certificates have been issued in the year 79T5, in respect of the subject land to an extent of Acs.16.O5 guntas. Therefore, if the petitioner or the successors-in-interest of the original pattadar have any claim/right over the said lands disputing granting ownership certihcate under the provisions of Tenancy Act, 1950 \I ; i I I I I t I I I I t I r I i r & I I I t I i i I I , ' J .*re+.ryr .<a 5 CVBR, J Wp_13837 2025 or disposal of the property by the successors-in-interest of the original tenants in favour of third parties or validity of the said sale transactions, they could contest the matter by hling an appeal before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. Therefore, this Writ Petition filed is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. It is needless to state that rn the event of initiating any proceedings by the petitioner over the subject property either before the statutory authority or before the competent civil court, the observations made in this order will not have any bearing in deciding the inter se disputes. There sha1l be no order as to costs.

6. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. /TTRUE COPY// SD/.N.RAJ GOPAL EPUTY REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER To

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for t State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI KORE VISHWANATH, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies SA/BSK M/ , i 1HE S ).^1,. s o - (.. a:, Lt) 2 7 JUN 2U5 '\\',1,!n" , '''ir-" -\=.:= - _-" /;, ,.i HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ORDER WP.No.13837 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. b 1 ll1 6 \3