) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE l32ee'I v. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION NO: 182

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be please-d to direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to enter the name of the 5tl respondent in Dharani Portal by issr-ring the digital passbooks and title deeds p,:rtaining to the property of the Petilioners family in Sy.No.147lA admeasuring Ac.9.25 gts situated at Eklaspur Village, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, IA NO: 1 OF 2022: Between: Pochampalli Ra aiah, S/o.Late Gattaiah, Aged about 4"1 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.5-24, Bittupalli Village, Manthani tVlandal, Peddapalli District' Telangz na State ....pEr,oNER/Rr:spoNDENT No.s AND 2 1, Marwadi Jhawar Gopal, S/o.Late Hari Kishan, Aged about 43 years, Occ- Business, R/o.il.No.13-73, Nadiveedhi, Manthani Village tVrnthani Mandal, Peddapalli Districl ... R ES p o N t)ENT/pETITroN ER The State of Te arrgana, Rep- by its Principal Secretary, Reverue Department Secretariat Builrjings, Hyderabad. The Special Tribunal, Peddapalli District, Rep. by its Members. The Revenue Divrsional Officer, Manthani Division, Peddaoall District. The Tahsildar, fulanthani Mandal, Peddapalli ,,?].rl"Jrro*o.*t.s/RESpoNDENrs 3 4 Petition under S:ction 15'1 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed iri support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to vacate the interinr ordi:rs granted by this Court in lA.No. 1 of 12021 in WP.No. 18210 of 2021 , daled 1610812021 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. RAJENDER, COUNSEL FOR SRI P SHRAVAN KUMAR GOUD Counsel for Responrlent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI H. RAKESH KUMAR, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respnn,lent No. 5: SRI Y. HEMACHANDER The Court made the following: ORDER ,z THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.182.10 OF 2O2L ORDER: This Writ Petition is fi1c4 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief/s:- "... to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or DirecLion, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Orders passed by the 2"d respondent in Case No.Dl/1934/2019 in Tribunal Case No.LDM2000O 19690, dl.19.06.2O2l whereby refusing to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner for issuing the pattadar passbooks and title deeds pertaining to the land in Sy.No. 147/A admeasuring Ac.9.25 gts situated at Ek.laspur Viliage, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District as illegal, arbitrary arld contrary to ttre provisions of the ROR Act and consequently by setting aside the orders of tlle 2"d respondent, direct the Respondent No.2 to 4 to forthwith consider the grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds pertaining to the above mentioned laid by entering the details in the Dharani Portal, and pass such other relief or reliefs ..." 2 . Heard Mr. K. Rajender, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Shravan Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr.Y.Hemachalder, learned counsel for respondent No.5

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.s manipulated the revenue records and obtained fabricated pattadar passbooks, title deeds and got entered his name as .,' -;' I \ enjoyer in the srrbject property; that respondent No.rj also got mutated his name in the revenue records re trossessor column and lequested respondent No.3 to issue necessa-ry oattadar pass book and title deeds by enteriilg his, name in the Dharani l)ortal. As the sarne was refused, the case was referred to res,pondent No.2; that respondent No.5 approached the learned Sienior Civil Judge Court, Manthani (for short, "the trial Court") by filing O.S.No.12 of 2016 seeking relief of Declaration of Title and Permanent Injunction against the petitioner and his family members and filed I.A No.289 of 2O 16 seekint{ Temporary Injunction; that upon considering the entire documentary evidence, the trial court refused to grant Tempo rary Injunction in I.A.No.289 of 2019 vide Order dt.30.O8.2017: that respondent No.S herein also preferred C.M.A.No.8 of 2Ol7 on the lile of the learned VI Additional District Jud;3e, Godavarikhani which ended up in dismissal on 05.03.2112 1; that both the competent civil Courts categorica-lly found that respondent No.S failed to establish his lar{ul possession and prima facie title over the subject property an,l thereby recorded a finding that the petitioner's narne was e:rtered in the pattadar column; that th,: petitioner / -/ 3 has also lodged a complaint in F.l.R.No.66 of 2016 on

08.08.2016 before the Station House Oflicer, Manthani against respondent No.5 and the same was registered for the offences punishable undr:; Sections 420, 463, 468 and 471 I.P.C. for having produced the fabricated title deeds and passbooks; that after investigation the concerned Police filed the charge sheet in C.C.No.271 of 2Ol7 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani and that the case is kept pending; that admittedly respondent No.5 herein has manipulated and fabricated the revenue documents and got his name mutated in the possessor column thus, getting an undue benelit of 'Rythu Bandhu Scheme' even though his Injunction application rvas dismissed by the competent civil Court; that respondent No.5 is now approaching the authorities for survey arrd fixing the boundaries; that in view of pendency of the crimina-l case against respondent No.5 herein for having produced the fabricated documents, respondent No.2 ought to have considered the relief prayed for by the petitioner; that the order of respondent No.2 1S bereft of any valid reasons and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner hled the present Writ Petition. I \ 4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons assigned by respondent No.2 stating that the suit vide O.S.No.ll| of 2016 on the file cf the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthrni is pending and that the rnatttr has become subjudice. Th:refore, respondent No.2 dismissing the Case No.D1/1934/'.2019 is untenable and seeks to aliow the Writ Petition

5. Learned r:ounsel for respondent No.S b-v iiling counter affidavit contends that the petitioner has not srrbnritted any document:rry evidence to show that he is the title holder of the lald admeasuring Acs.9.25 gts in surv()y No.147/A situated at Eklaspur Village, Manthani Mandad, Peddapalli District. Hc' s,tates that the petitioner lailed to asse rt in what manner he l,as related to one Manvadi Seethran and that his father I{arikiran is related to one Marw'adi SeettLaram

6. He fur',her states that the father of respondent No.5 namely Gattaiah purchased the land admeasr-rrirg Acs.9.25 Gts in S1'.No. 147/A, situated at Eklaspur Village, Manthani Mandal, Ped Capalli District from Marwadi Seetharzrn for valid sale consideration; that after the death of onr. Grrttaiah, the name of resltondent No.5 wa-s recorded as enjoyer from 2001 ,/,,' 5 > tc 2015 and 2016. He contends that respondent No.S a-lso iiied Mee-seva application for regularization of Sada Binama dated 03.03.1.977 to the Tahsildar on 10.06.2016 and that the Tahsildar had issr-ed Pattadar Pass Books in favour of Jawar Chandulal, Jalr'ar Gopi and Marw'adi Jawar Gopal in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.2.16 gts, Acs.2.16 gts and Acs.4.32 gts. respectively. That upon conducting enquiry, the Tahsildar passed mutation orders on 10.10.20 19 by mutating the name of respondent No.s and issue new Pattedar Pass book on 17.1O.2O19 for the larld admeasuring Acs.9.25 gts. Therefore, he contends that the order passed by the R.D.O., directing the Tahsildar to cancel the mutation orders in favour of the petitioner and two (2) others is legal and seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. Leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contends that O.S.No.12 of 2016 on the Iile of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthani is pending consideration and hence, the matter has become subjudice. Therefore, respondent No.2 has rightly and appropriate passed the impugned order by dismissing the Case No.Dl/1934/2019. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition l I 6 \--

8. For better underslanC,ing the operative pc,rti,rn of the proceedings is;sued by respondent No.2/Appellat!- Allthority & Revenue Divisional Officer, at l,{anthani ,,,id,: Appeal No.A/92O l20 1(r clated 27.O7 .2019 is extrac[eC rs ]rcro,rnder: "Therelbr:, the Appeal petition taken on suo'motu is disrnissed and the mutation order passed by the Tahsitdar, Manthani in Proc.No.B/252/ i5, Dt:18.05.2015 are hereby set asicle. The Tahsilda-r, Manrhani is directed to take ibllow up actii>n ar:cordingiy under ROR Act and ROR Rul,:s".

9. The orcer dated 19.06.202 1 passed by resporrdent No.2 in Case No.D1/1934/2019 is extracted as hereur-Id(:r:- 'Pen-sec rhe records the lower ccurt orders and heard subinissions. It is revealed that, though thc appellarLt was recordec as pattedar, tJle Respondent No. I is rer;or<led as enjo-ver ft om 2OO4-OS onwards. As per repolt of the Responcent No.3, the Respondent No. 1 is in posses:;ion of the lzrn,l for last 4O years. Surce, the suit irr C.S.No. 12l2Oltt is pending before the Senior Civil .Judge, Marrthani. the matter has become subjudice. This r;pecial tribunal is of the view that the lou,er court orders need not to be inl erfered with. Hence dismissed".

10. Having; regard to the submissions ol zril I he learned counsel anc. on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by respondent No.2/Appellate Authority & Revenu,: Divisional Officer, :rt Manthani vide Appeal No.A/9il.O /'.2016 dated

27.O7.2O 19 is ambiguous in nature. On one har-rds he says that the -{pp,:al is dismissed ard on the other hztnd, he says ---- that the order passed by the Tahsildar is set aside. This shows that the matter is not being carefully examined by respondent No.2. A careful scrutiny of the order dated 1J 06.202l passed by respondent No.2 ir. Case No.Dl/ 1934l2ol9 shows. that merely because the matter is sub-judice, respondent No.2 has dismissed the case stating that the parties sha,ll work out their remedies before the civil Court. In view of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to set aside the proceedings dated 27.07.2019 issued by respondent No.2/Appellate Authority & Revenue Divisiona-l Officer, at Manthani vide Appeal No.A/920/2016 and the order dated 19.06.2021 passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.D 1 / t9s4 /2ot9 .

11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and remanded back to respondent No.2, for fresh consideration in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, by putting the effected parties on notice arld affording them an opportunity of hearing. Till passing of order by respondent No.2 status quo as on date shall be maintained by parties to this Writ Petition. No costs. 8 -' .t > Miscellar.eous petitions pending, if an_y, shzill stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute aq.above. Witness the HC)N'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUTVIAR SINGH, on this Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. //TRUE COPY// SD/.P.PC)NNA KRISHNA GISTRAR AS OFFICER To, 'l . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State o 2 3 4 5 6 7. l\/BG TKS Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The [\,4embers, Special Trrbunal, Peddapalli District. The Revenue t)ivisional Officer, Manthani Division, Peddapalli District. The Tahsildar, [,4anthani Mandal, Peddapalti District. One CC to Sri I Shravan Kumar Goud Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to G[) For Revenue , High Court for the State of Terangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies /.ol"t c( h (n V. 1F^A{V1r..DF!- Sluoro*e . ry)- I HIGI{ COURT' DATED 2410912025 :\--i... --\ .\. i< i- r.) ,4 /"\\ ,, j. 24 cm 20m t. () I i\('r \,ryrl r ORDER WP.No.18210 of 2021 ALLOWING THE W'RIT PETITION WITIHOUT COSTS W