The High Court · 2025

l5.Smt.Mandadi Pushpamma, Wo: Late Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy, Aged about 62 Years, Occ. House Hold,

16.Sri Mandadi Seshidhar Reddy' S/o: Late, Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy' Aged about 38 Years, Occ. Business,

17.Smt. Mandadi Saritha' D/o: Late Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy, Aged about 35 Years, Occ. House Wife, (RespondentNos.6tolTareresidentsofMarrigudaVillage,Nalgonda dr- jnaLi i na M u n icipal itv, Nalgonda District) RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleasedtoissueaWritparticularlyoneinthenatureofWritofCertioraritocallfor the records relating to the impugned order dated 27-06-2021 passed by the RespondentNo.3inoldCaseNo.B/3057/2014,NewCaseNo.F2lSpl.Tribunal 1log37t2o21is unconstitutional, unlawful, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of constitution of lndia and violation of principles of natural justiceandtosetaside/quashtheimpugnedorderdated2T-06-2021passedby theRespondentNo.3inoldCaseNo.8/3057/2014,NewCaseNo.F2lSpl.Tribunal 1l}g37 t2021 consequently to direct the Respondent No'3 to set aside the Proceedingsdated26-12-1998videNo.J/22390/lggswithAmendmentRegister for the year 2006-07 of Marriguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District' issued by the Respondent No.5. 1 PetitionunderSectionl5,lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to suspend the Proceedings 'dated 26-12-1998 vide No.J/22390/1998 with Amendment Register for the year 2006-07 of Marriguda Village,NalgondaMandalandDistrict,issuedbytheRespondentNo.Spending disposal of the'Writ Petition. lA 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 order steps by issuing summons to the Respondent Nos.13, 15 to 17 by substituted service i.e., by way of paper publication in any of newspaper circulating in the addresses of the Respondent Nos.13, 15 to 17 that is Marriguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and lvlunicipality, Nalgonda District in the above Writ Petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. APPAIAH SHARMA Gounset for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: SRI L. RAVBINDER' AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respohdent Nos.6 to 17:-- The Court made the following: ORDER a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELIIITGAITA AT IITDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VEIIUGK)PAT WRIT PETITION No.1 4761 of 20/24 DATE OF ORDER: tO.t2.ZOzS Vangari Vithal AND ...Petitioner The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 50OO29, and others ...Respondents This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: '...to rissue a Writ particulartg one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to tte impugned order dated 27-06-2021 passed. bg tfe Respondent No.3 in Old Case No.B/3052/2O14, Neu.t Ca.se No.F2/Sp1.Tibuna1/O937/2021 is un@nstitutional, unlawfut, unjust, arbitrary and uiolatiue Page? ofll of Articles 14, 27 and 3O0 A of Constittttion of India and ublation of pinciples of naturat justie and to set aside/Etash t?rc impugned order dated 27-06-2021 passed by the Respondent No.3 in Old Case No.B/3057/2O14, Case No.F2/ Spl.Tibunal/ 0937/2021 consequentlg to direct the Respondent.lVo.3 to set aside the Proceedings dated 26-12-1998 uide No.J/2239O/ 1998 utith Amendment Register for the Aear 2006-07 of Marriguda Viltage, Nalgonda Mandal and District, issued bg tlrc Respondent iVo.S and pass..." New

2. Heard Sri C.Appaiah Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenlte, for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and perused the record.

3. l,earned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's paternal grandfather Sri Vangara Gopaiah and one Sri Mandadi Buchaiatr, both have purchased the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.5.36 guntas in Sy.No s.29,30, 31 and 32, situated at Marriguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District from Sri Koppulu a Jagannadha Rao. The subject land was partitioned and each of them got to an extent of Acs.2.38 guntas. The eastern part of land was allotted to Sri M.Buchaiah and western part of land was allotted to Sri Vangari Gopaiah as per the s_l]Ivey -l Page3ofll and Khasra numbers wise Sri Vangari Gopaiah and Sri M.Buchaiah by respondent No.S during the year 19S4-5S.

4. The names of Sri Vangari Gopaiah and Sri M.Buchaiah were recorded in all the pahanies from 1958-59 to l9Z4_75 as pattedars and cultivators. But in the year 1975 the then Revenue Divisionat Officer (Land Reforms), Nalgonda had issued two 38-E Certificates uideFileNo.E/2al/1975, to an extent of Ac. 1.10 guntas in favour of (l) Smt. Kamalamma (2) Sri Buchaiah against the name of Sri V.Gopaiah and in favour of Sri Mandadi Somaiah against the name of Smt. Mandadi Buchaiah, but both the certificate holders under Section 38-E had not claimed physical possession as per 38-E certificate issued by the RDO (LR) and Sri Mandadi Buchaiah and his brother are continuously holding the land as per Rever\ue Pahanies. The then RDO (LR), Nalgonda for the reasons best known to him had brought into existence the impugned certificate issued under Section 3g_E, which has no legs to stand.

5. Smt. Kamalamma,s name was deleted from the pahani for the year 1979-80 from the pattadar column, to this effect ; ,I Page 4 of ll tlre Tahsildar, Nalgonda has informed to the petitioner uide Memo No.B/ 1802 L l2O 14, dated 27 -LO-2O 14. Subsequently, the name of Sri Mandadi Buchaiah was also deleted from the Pattadar column of pahani for the year L992-93 against the name of Sri Vangari Gopaiah in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1-10 Guntas (in Sy.No.29A, extent Ac.O-30 Guntas, in Sy.No.3OA, extent Ac.0-03 Guntas and in Sy.No.31, extent Ac.0-08 Guntas and in Sy.No.32A, extent Ac.0-09 Guntas) and Sri Mandadi Buchamma, who is no way concerned, was entered in the pahani for the year 1992-95 without mentioning reference of valid transferable registered Sale Deed or proceedings in favour of sri Mandadi Buchamma. Hence, entering the n€une of Buch€rmma is vitiated with irregularity and does not stand for the judicial scrutiny and it is false and fabricated document.

6. On 29-05-1986, the petitioner has executed an Agreement of sale in favour of sri Mandadi sathi Reddy (ancestor of Respondent Nos.15 to lrl as advised by his , paternal uncles and received Rs.42,0oo/- towards sare advance of his t /3..a share land allotted by his paternal Page 5 of ll grandfather Sri Vangara Gopaiah as per apportionment and the Civil Court decree urde O.S.No.805 of 1978, dated 29-01- 1979 on the file of the learned District Munsiff Court, Nalgonda. Thereafter the petitioner's Vendee Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy has filed affidavit dated 24-07-1987 before the RDO, Nalgonda for issuing information regarding the details of 38-E Certificate in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.29 to 32 of Marriguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District.

7. Taking undue advantage of 38-E Certificates issued in respect of the subject land in favour of ( 1) Kamalarnma (2) Buchaiah, the petitioner's agreement holder Mandadi Sathi Reddy, has created fake, fraudulent Sada Bainama dated 18-02-1984 as if the subject land is owned by Sri Mandadi Buchamma, who in-turn said to have sold the sarne to Sri. Mandadi Sathi Reddy. Basing on the said fabricated un-registered sale deed dated 18-02-1984, and influenced the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Nalgonda Mandal and succeeded to obtain 13-B Certificate on his name uide Proceedings No.J/22390/1998, dated 26-12-1998 i.e., after a lapse of 14 years of impugned fabricated and _ t' l.l Page 6 ofll \ ( fictitious sale deed dated 18-02-1984 from respondent No.S. The said action was without jurisdiction and it was an infringement of legal rights of petitioner.

8. Upon knowing about the impugned proceeding dated 26-12-1998 Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy also made attempts to trespass into the petitioner's grandfather patta land in part of Sy.Nos.29A, 30A, 31A and 32A, to an extent of Ac.l.O7 guntas. Immediately, the petitioner filed the statutory appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda seeking to set aside the 13-B proceedings dated 26-12-L998 issued by respondent No.5 in favour of Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy.

9. After knowing about the fraudulent Sada Sale dead dated 18-02-1984, the petitioner. got terminated the Agreement of Sale dated 29-05- 1986 by payrng Rs.17,OO,O0O/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) as per the i L2 Award passed in LAC.No.226/2OL9, dated 06-06-2019 by the Lok Adalath, Nalgonda and the said award became final. Therefore, there was no existing Agreement of Sale dated 29- 05-1986 pertaining to 1/3ra share that is Ac.O-34 Guntas in -t Page 7 of ll part of Sy.Nos.29A to 32A situated at Marriguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District.

10. Respondent No.4 has taken up the appeal on fiLe uide Appeal No.B/4057 12014 and issued notices intimating the date of hearing, but neither Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy nor Sri Mandadi Buchamma responded to the notices. While so, the Government of Telangana State issued G.O.Ms.No.4, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 72-Ot-2O21 by constituting the Special Tribunals in every District for disposal of all cases pending before the revenue authorities. Pursuant to the said orders, the appeal filed by the petitioner was referred to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 for the reasons best known, deleted the name of Sri Manda Sathi Reddy, from the appeal and issued notices to the unconcerned persons by clubbing tJle another appeal relating to t]le land of Sri Mandadi Mallamma and her sons who inherited the land owned by sri Mandadi Buchaiah. But the fact 'remains that the main person who created the fabricated, fictitious Sada Bainama dated 18-02-1984 and obtained 13-B uid.e Proceedings certificate _ _-__j._- Page E of 11 (' No.J 122390/1998' dated 26't2-lgg8 basing on the said fabricated documents and who is the main and necessary party for proper adjudication of the case was eliminated' though the notices were received by the other persons who are no way concerned to the subject property' 1 1. Respondent No'3 without adjudging the appeal preferred' by the petitioner in spite of the petitioner's plea that Late Sri Mandadi Sathi Reddy has not appeared before theSpecialTribunal'Nalgonda'indiscriminatelyhaspassed theordet"onttwpentsatoftherecordsauailableinttwfile the sttbject land' tran'sferred to Respondents in tle Aear 1975 i.e.,40Aearsago'hencethisappealisbarbgtimitationdueto time lapse' Hence this appeal is dismissed" vide order dated O8-OL-2O2L and subsequently Tribunal has also dismissedtheReviewudeitsord'erdatedo|-o2-2o2L s observing,,intlwresult,theReuietllPetitionisdismissedand fie earlier orders passed bg the Speciat Tribunal' Nalgonda in Case No.F2/ Spl'lYibunat/ Og37/ 2021" The said orders of the Tribunal have no legal bearing on the relevant "pp"1 :: No'B/ 3057/ 2o1o $ew Case p-"t \ Page 9 ofll tlre order of passed by this court in w.p.(pll) No.20/2021. In view of the said order the orders of the Tribunar dated og_ o1-2o2r and 2.-06-202r have no enforceab,ity and bearing as per the orders of this court. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

12. The pedtioner suffered with oFocal Patchy ground glass capacity in right lung parenchyma-coRADs-3, during the period of covid-lg therefore, he courd not file the writ petition within the prescribed time. Hence, seeks this Court to exempt under purview of Limitation Act. In this regard the Honble Apex court's in the matter of sakuru us. Tanajit held that "the prouision of timitation Act, 1g6s appta onrg to proceedings in ocourtso and. not to appeals or apptications before bodies other than courts such as Etasi_judiciar Tribunals or exec.utiue autltortties, notu.rithstanding the fact that such bodies or authortties maa be uested, wtth certain specified potuers conferred. on courts und..r the cod.e of ciuir or Ciminal Procedure". t I 'etR tg8s sc 1279 l I I i I I ,l j j i I i i ,l I I I Page l0 ofll (':

13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the petitioner without seeking the delay of condonation has filed the appeal before the RDO, which is perverse and the RDO rightly and appropriately has dismissed the case of the petitioner, where it is found to be barred by limitation. L4. In t]le light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the. material available on record it is noticed that the Special Tribunal neither issued notices to the petitioner nor has given any opportunity of hearing, which is perverse and against to the procedure contemplated under law. The respondent-authorities ought to have granted opportunity to the petitioner on the aspect of limitation. In the identicar circumstances, this court, in the matter of B..Thrilokend,ara Reddg us. stqte of rerangana qnd other'P, upon thorough examination of the facts before it, has rightry and appropriatery remitted the matter back to the Special Tribunal. t t 2 zozt lzlALD 642 (Ts) *

15. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 27.06.2O2L in proceedings in Old Case No.B/3O57 l2OL4, New Case No.F2/SPl.Tribunal/O937 l2O2L and the matter is remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer-resporident No.4 as per the provisions under Section 15(1) of the Telangana Bhu Bharathi Act,2025, who shall, in turn, alford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned parties as by procedure established by law and upon examination of the records, pass approPriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a coPy of this order'

16. With the above direction' this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneouspetitions,ifany,pendinginthiswrit tition shall stand sed. -clo SD'-B. REKHA RANI STANT REG]STRAR ,ITRUE COPY,, SECTION OFFICER To, Secretariat Buildings' sa 1 . rhe p ri n ci par ger,"!u 1,^,lj|""3:fiT.""1]s:T9 ?36bln"'"n'" 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration' Nampally Station Road' De p a rtme nt', Hyderabad. .I:ay""#x"i:Rsli%Tilt"Plfl $:y,i.3:l[:E'-rhesPeciarrribunar'

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District 5. The Tahsildar, Nalgonda Mandal, 6. One CC to Sri C. Appaiah Sharma, Advocate IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies \ TJ BS a , i I I HIGH COURT DATED i1011212025 \ I ORDER WP.No.14761 of 2024 I o() t * 'tHE S Te 2 t JAil 2026 ?) DISPOSING OF FTHE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I I a