High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari declaring the orders of the special rribunal, Janagaon, Janagaon District passed in case No.E3/699/2024, dated 1oto4l2o2s in Revision No.B2l146ol2o17 received by the petitioner on o2tost2ozs, as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the statutory provisions of relangana Rights in pattadar passbooks Act and the Rules made thereunder and also contrary to the judgment and decree passed in o.s.No-7 of 1970 on the file of the Honourable District Judge, warangal District, apart from violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and set aside the said orders of the special rribunal daled 1ot041202s (received on o2losl2o25) and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents not to interfere with the rights. possession of the petitioner over the land in Survey No. 92lAl1lA, admeasuring Ac.3.01 guntas. sy.No.'r43lA. admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas, sy.No.147lA admeasuring Ac.'r0.01 guntas. sy.No.163/4 admeasuring 4c.12.23 guntas and Sy.No.33g/A/1 admeasuring Ac.1.1g guntas, total admeasuring Ac-29.24 guntas situated at yeilama Viilage, Janagaon Revenue Mandal, warangar District (presenfly Janagaon District) and an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas in 92lA was given in favour of Sri Bakka Rama Swamy by the petitioner and therefore, the total extent of the land is Ac.32.24 guntas situated at yellamra Village, Janagaon Mandar and District, by restoring the petitioners name the revenue records in respect of the above said survey numbers and also to issue the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. !A NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1s1 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 respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in survey No. 92lA/1/A, admeasuring Ac.3.01 guntas. sy.No.143/A. admeasuring Ac.2.2o guntas, sy.No.147lA admeasuring Ac.1o.o1 guntas, sy.No.163/4 admeasuring Ac'12.23 guntas and Sy.No.33g/A/1 admeasuring Ac.1.1g guntas, totar admeasuring Ac.29.24 guntas situated at yeflama viflage, Janagaon Revenue Mandal, warangar District (presentry Janagaon District) and an extent of Ac.3.o0 guntas in 92/A was given in favour'of Sri Bakka Rama Swamy by the petitioner' and therefore, the total extent of the land is Ac.32.24 guntas situated at Yellama Village.JanagaonRevenueMandal,JanagaonDistrict'bysuspendingtheorders of the Special Tribunal passed in, dated 1OtO4t2O25 received on 0210512025' pending disposal of the writ petition. N OF PetitionunderSectionlslcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the main prayer as: This Hon'ble High Court may bepleasedtoissueawrit,orderoradirection,moreparticularlyoneinthenature of writ of certiorari, declaring the orders of the Special Tribunal Janagaon' JanagaonDistrictpassedinCaseNo.E3/699/2024,dated10.04.2025inRevision No.B2l1460/20lTreceivedbythepetitioneron02.05.2025,asbeingillegal' arbitrary.unreasonable,violativeofPrinciplesofNaturalJusticeandcontraryto thestatutoryprovisionsofTelanganaRightsinPattadarPassbooksActandthe Rules made thereunder and also contrary to the judgment and decree passed in o.s.No.7 of 1970 on the file of the Hon'ble District Judge, warangal District, apart fromviolativeofArticles14,2land300-AoftheConstitutionoflndiaandset aside the said orders of the Special Tribunal dated 10.04.2025 (received on 02.05.2025)andissueaconsequentialdirectiondirectingtherespondentsnotto interferewiththerights,possessionofthepetitioneroverthelandinSurveyNo' g2tAt1lA,admeasuringAc.3.o1guntas,Sy.No.143/A;admeasuringAc,2.2o guntas, Sy.No.147lA admeasuring Ac'10'01 guntas' Sy'No'163/4 admeasuring Ac.12.23guntasandSy.No.339/A/ladmeasuringAc'l'19guntas'total admeasuring Ac.29.24 guntas situated at Yellama Village' Janagaon Revenue Mandal, Warangal District (presently Janagaon District), situated at Yellamla village. Janagaon Mandal and District, by restoring the petitioner's name the revenue records in respect of the above said survey numbers and also to issue the pattadar passbooks and title deeds and pass such further order or other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper, in w.P.No. 15023 of order or orders. I I I i 40F

1. Birru Siddamulu, S/o. Yadagiri, 2. Manegalla Ramulu, S/o. Narsaiah, . 3. Manegalla Rajamma, Wo. Ramulu, 4. Chinthala Chandraiah, S/o. Kondaiah, 5. Janagama Somi Reddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, (Petitioners Nos.1tos are residents of Yellamla Village, Janagaon Mandal and District) ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS No.7to1 2 AND

1. Smt. Nellutla Sakkubai, Wo. Late Sri Prakash Rao, Age.71 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Yellamla Village, Jangaon Mandal and District. ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Special Tribunal, Janagaon District, Represented by the District Collector, Janagaon.

4. The District Collector, Janagaon. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Janagaon Division, Jangaon District. 6. The Tahsildar, Janagaon Mandal and District. 7. The Revenue lnspector, Janagaon Mandal and District. 8. Chinthala Anjamma, W/o. Venkateramulu, Resident of Yellamla Village, Janagaon Mandaland District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed jn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 14.05.2025 in W.P.No.15023 of 2025, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.GIRIDHAR RAO, ST.COUNSEL rep., Ms.A.B.LALITHA GAYATHRI Counsel for the Respondents No.1tos: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counset for the Respondents No:6to12: SRI D.PRAKASH REDDY' Senior Counsel, rep., SRI NARENDER JELLI The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL ORDER: The petitioner challenges the orders dated 1o.o4.2025 passed by the Special rribunal, Janagaon District in case No. E3l6gg/2o24 (Revision No.82/1460/2orr), received on 02.os-2o2s, as illegar, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice, and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Rights in pattadar Passbooks Act, lg7l. the Rules framed thereunder, and the judgment and decree in o.S. No. T of lg7o on the file of the Hon,ble District Judge, warangal. The impugned orders also infringe Articres L4, 2L, and 3OO-A of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Sri A.Giridhar Rao, learned senior counser representing Ms.A.B.Lalitha Gayathri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government pleader appearing for respondent Nos.l to 5 and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri Narender Jelli, appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 12. perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural rand measuring Ac.32.24 guntas situated at yellama village, Janagaon Mandal, obtained under the Iinal decree in I.A. No.213 of 79TT in 2 o.s.No.7 of rgzo on the file of the learned District Judge, warangar. The said decree was passed pursuant to a family partition, conlrrming the pre-existing coparcenary rights of the family members and requisite stamp duty was duly paid. The property was properry demarcated during finar decree proceedings and alr members have since been in continuous possession and enjoyment. In the revenue records, the names of family elders were recorded, representing the joint family. The petitioner's possession is lawful and deemed possession of all coparceners and the law of rimitation does not appry to recognition of such ancestral rights. The petitioner,s application for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbook was alowed by the Tahsildar, Janagaon, vide proceedings No.A/c/ Lgr /2ooZ dated o9.L2.2olo, granting patta No.7g9, passbook No.A001s91 over an extent of Ac.29.24 guntas. subsequentry, Ac.3.o0 guntas was conveyed to sri Bakka Rama swamy's children through a registered document. rn 2o13, the private respondents liled a belated appear before the RDo, after 748 days of delay, cha[enging the Tahsildar,s order. Despite being time-barred, the appeal was entertained and allowed on r9-o4-2o17. The petitioner had already obtained an injunction in o.s. No.138 of 2o16, which was confirmed in appeal and revision up to the Hon'ble High court. The RDo ignored the subsisting injunction and erroneously set aside the Tahsildar,s order. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 9 of the RoR Act, which was alrowed by --..-. -:----. ,l 3 the Joint Collector on 13.O4.2O18. Despite non-implementation, the petitioner secured directions in W.P. No.2408 of 2019, and later in Contempt Case No.54l of 2019, leading to restoration of her name in the records on 1O.O7.2019. The respondents' writ petitions and writ appeal were all dismissed, maintaining status quo in favour of the petitioner. Upon remand by this Court in W.P. Nos. 8831 & 20391 of 2olg, the Special Tribunal reconsidered the matter but illegally dismissed the revision, directing the petitioner to approach a civil Court and erroneously holding that her claim and decree were barred by limitation and that .stamp duty was unpaid. The f,rndings of the Special Tribunal are perverse, baseless and contrary to record. The decree merely recognized pre-existing rights and hence, limitation and Section 4 of the Act are inapplicable. The Tribunal's reliance on stray pahani entries over a final decree of a civil Court is impermissible. Revenue authorities are bound by judicial decrees and cannot reinterpret them. The petitioner remains in-lawful possession of the land. The impugned order, however, has emboldened the private respondents to attempt dispossession, with the active support of the Tahsildar which resulted in imminent urgency seeking indulgence of this Court by way of this writ petition. The petitioner has no other efficacious remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. 4 (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, lawful owner and possessor of ancestral land recognized under a hnal civil court decree in o.S. No.7 of Lgro, has been illegally deprived of her rights by the impugned order of the special Tribunal da'ted Lo.o4.2o2s. The Tribunal, acting beyond its jurisdiction, wrongly held her claim as time-barred, ignored the binding civil court decree and relied on stray revenue entries favoring private respondents who have no valid title. 4' The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents contend that the petitioner's application betbre the Tahsildar was barred by limitation under Section 4 of the Telangana Rights in pattadar Passbooks Act, tgz L, as it was made decades after the alleged partition decree in o.s. No.7 of Lgzo. The decree was never implemented through proper execution proceedings and hence no valid mutation or title could arise therefrom. The pattadar passbook issued in 2OLO was therefore erroneous and without jurisdiction. These respondents' names have been continuously recorded in the revenue records and they are in actual possession of the land, thereby enjoying prescriptive and possessorJr rights. They claim that the Tahsildar,s mutation order was obtained without notice to them and was rightly set aside by the appellate and tribunal authorities. Hence, they submit that the special rribunal's order is legal, reasoned and justified and thql the petitioner, if craiming ownership, must approach the & 0 competent civil court for declaration of title rather than invoking writ jurisdiction.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the peiitioner's claim is misconceived. The old civil decree does not automatically confer title or mutation without proper implementation, registration and stamp duty. The Tahsildar's 2OLO mutation was irregular and passed without notice to affected parties. The RDO and Special Tribunal rightly found the claim time-barred and unsupported by continuous possession or valid documents. Revenue authorities are not bound by private civil decrees unless duly acted upon. The impugned order is reasoned, lawful and not open to interference under Article 226.

6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the controversy in the present case revolves around the validity, effect and implementation of a civil court decree, the mutation of revenue records and the actual possession of the subject land. These issues are highly disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence relating to title, boundaries, possession, and execution of the partition decree in O.S. No.Z of t9TO. It is a well-settled principle that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is primarily intended to correct jurisdictional or procedural errors in administrative r t l I i or quasi-judicial orders and not to adjudicate disputed property rights or complicated factual controversies. Questions relating to ownership, possession and implementation of a civil decree fall squarely within the domain of the civil court, where evidence can be recorded and properly appreciated. In the present case, as the civil suit concerning the same subject property is arready pending and as the petitioner has an adequate and efficacious remedy before the competent civil Court, this Court finds no reason to invoke its writ jurisdiction to examine the disputed questions raised. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the matter cannot be effectively adjudicated in writ proceedings. The petitioner is therefore at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent civil court, which shall decide the same uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned or present orders. 7 ' with above directions, the present writ petition is disposed Miscellarieous applications, if any of. No order as to the costs. shall stand closed. SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII I HIGH COURT u ATED i1511012025 is Ti-tE s I.q o/r C, 65 rec ?W .i ,'\' .ii 4' 'i .-:i" () * ORDER WP.No.15023 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Ia 1