The High Court · 2025

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 grant an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of tVlandamus to declare the action of the respondents 2 & 3 not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 05/08/2017 &2111112021 fot enquiry & action of creation of fake false, bogus, fabricated, forged and counterfeit proceedings No.ROR/ZB-Ill25t20O4 Daled 2O11212004 of respondent No.4 office in issued pitta certificate against the petitioner land pertaining to land in sy.No.2290/1 & 22g\l2 of Nizamabad District not considering the representation the action of the respondent No.2 & 3 as illegal arbitrary void abinitio and violative of Articles 14 and 3004 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to conduct enquiry on the representation dated 05/08/2017 & 2111112021 of the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the t;i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court n I y be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to conduct to conduct enquir\ ln the representation dated 05/08/2017 and 2111112021 ot the petitioner pendin(r lisposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAJESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER -) THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PEIITION No.21L3l OF 2o22 ORDER This Writ Petition is hied under Article 226 of ttre Constitution of India, seeking the fotlowing relief: '.....to grant an appropriate writ order or direction more pa.rtlcularly orre itr the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respoudent Nos.2 and 3 not cousidering the representation of the petitioner dated O5.O8.2O17 and 2L.11.2O21 for enquiry and action of creatloa of fake false, bogus, fabricated, forged and counterfeit proccedings No.ROR/ ZB-III25 / 2OO4 dated 2O.12.2OO4 of reapondent No.4 oflice in issued patta certlflcate against the petitioner laud pertaining to land in Sy.No.229Ol I aro.d 229012; of Nizamabad District rrot considerlng the representation tbe action of the respondeut Nos.2 and 3 as illegal arbitrary void and violatlve of Articles 14 and 3OO-A of the constifution of Iudla and conscqueatly direct the respondents to cou.duct enquiry otl repreaentation deted O5.Oa.2O17 alod 21.LL.2O21 of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father purchased land measuring Ac.2.33 guntas 1n Sy.Nos.229O/ 1 and 2290 /2, Nizamabad, through Document bearing No.513292 and his narne was recorded in the Pattadar Column of the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-1955 and continued in the revenue records up to the year 2007-2008. Later, Sy.Nos.229O/I and 2Z9Ol2 were bhanged as 2870 arrd 287 I in the name of petitioner's near 2 relatives in place of the name of petitioner's l:r her basing on a created forged document and fake proc.No.NZB_ IIL/25 l2OO4 dated 20.12.2OO4 and using fake signatures of onc G.Hanumanth Reddy who worked as Mledal Revenue Officer at Nizamabad. It is stated by the : etitioner that representations were made to respondent No.3 seeking cancellation of patta certihcate Nos. 114: 55, 1 14556, 114557, and 114558. In the meantime, the ria,1 Court in I.A. No.477 of 2010 in O.S.No. 126 of 2Ol() lirected both parties to maintain slafus quo without carryir r 1 agricultural activates or undertaking any construction i f permanent structures in the suit schedule property unt I disposal of the suit. Instead of taking action to cancel th< se impugned patta certificatcs, respondent No.4 remained e:-prtrte in the suit and did not take any action to cancel tlt: pattas and issued patta passbooks, even after knowing the pending litigation. Hence, the present writ petition is :iled to direct the respondents to conduct enqulry on the r€l ,resentations dated O5.O8.2017 and 2t.Ll.2O2l submjr:ed by the petitioner before the respondent No.3. @ "/ l

3. Heard Sri G.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing lor respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Perused the material available on record +. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstlg submitted that based upon the documents purportedly issued by the respondent No.4 in case No.RORINZB-LL/25/2004 dated 2O.12.2OO4, the names of the unofhcial respondents i.e., one Smt. Sarojini, Sri Katike Pedda Govindu, Sri Katike Venkoji, are incorporated in records pertaining to the land in question without issuing any notice and v,,ithout following due procedure as contemplated under law. He secondly submitted that he was astonished to know that the said proceedings have been issued by one Mr.G.Hanumanth Rao, Mandal Revenue Oflicer at Nizamabad. He thirdlg submitted that as per the reply given to his RTI Application, Mr.G.Hanumanth Rao, who worked as Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizmabad, from 19.03.2002 to

72.O1.2OO5, has not issued the alleged proceedings. He fourthlg submitted that the Tahsildar, Nizamabad (South), I in reply to the Letter No.AS/ 13979/2OI7 daL,:

124.O4.2018 stated that no proceedings have been grantetl in respect of the land pertaining to the petitioner herei r He ftJThlg submitted that the petitioner made represen [ation before the District Coliector on 05.08.2017 and,2 I 1.201 1. He sirthlg submitted that till date no repiy has I een given to the said representation. He seuer:thlg submL. ted that the trial Court in i.A.No.477 of 2O1O in O.S.No. 126 of 2O1O directed both the parties to maintain statu:: carrying agricultural activitie s or unde r quo without taking arry construction of permalent structures in the i property until the disposal of the main str uit schedule t. He lastlg submitted thaL pendente lite, the MRO has ssued patta passbook Nos. 114555, 114556, 114557 and 114558 and prayed the Court to direct respondent No.3 to :onsider the representertion made by the petitioner.

5. The learned Assistant Government pleade I for revenue submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration before the learned trial Court in O.S.No. 126 t f 2OlO. In view of the pending civil proceedings in O.lj No.126 of w I I ) 2010, the respondent No.2 is bound under Section 8 of the ROR Act, 1977, to consider the issue appropriately. The petitioner has an elfective alternate remedy and full opportunit5r to seek necessar5r reliefs by way of hling appropriate applications before the trial Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the parties, it appears that the representation made by the petitioner has not been addressed by respondent No.2. It is noteworthy that both the petitioner and. the unofficial respondents have filed counter suits in O.S. No. 126 of 2OlO and O.S. No. i42 1 of 20 10. In view of the stated circumstances and since the considerable time period of the said representation was elapsed, without making any observation on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to h1e a detailed representation along with all relevant documents, including the status of the civil suits, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representaliglr, respondent No.2 1S 6 directed to consider and dispose of ,. le salne as expeditiously a.s possible.

7. With the above direction, this presenl. \\ rit petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaleous Petitions, pending if any, sha_ll stand clo sed. SD,. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To,

2. J. 4. 5. Ct.

7. (, d The Principal Secretary, (Revenue), The state of Teler-< ana, Secretarirat' at Hvderabad. The District Collector, at Nizamabad District. The Revenue Divisional officer, at Nizamabad District The Thasildar Nizamabad Mlandal, Nizamabad Dist One CC to SRI G. RAJESHWAR RAO, Advocate [OP[J ]l iwo CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the S1: te of Telangana' louTl Two CD Copies BN TKS I t HIGH COURT DATED:2210912025 ORDER WP.No.21131 o12022 ( o (J :i\ \ : S i,i;6 21 t[N ?t?[ * / ..:,oqtC\..y' :::==:=" DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Tl*