Tribunal relied upon the judgments of Division Bench of this Court in M.B.Ratnam v. RDO reported in

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 4: RAKESH KUMAR, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 to 7: SRI P. VENKATESHWER RAO The Court made the following: ORDER ,/// THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.18116 of 2O2L ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue any 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, Nalgonda District bearing Old Case No.B/896/2O17 (Old Revenue Court Revenue Divisional Oflicer, Devarkonda)/ New Case No. F2/Spl.Tribund/Oa64/2O2i) and consequently set aside the order dated 25.06.2021 by allowing the appeal Irl favour of the Petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is possessor and cultivating the land to an extent of Ac.O7.OO guntas in Survey No.257 situated at Gadia Gowararm Village, Chinthapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District (subject land for brevity). He would further submit that the petitioner has inherited the property through succession and the land in question was allotted to the II \ \ l I f 2 \ petitioner's grandfather by name Mr. Vujjini Venkata Ramaiah and the said land has been allotted on the part of exchange by the then Nizam Government where the land pertaining to petitioner's grandfather to an extent of Ac. 15.O0 in the sajd village has been acquired and since then possession of the subject land has been granted in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner. According to revenue records, Ac.7.OO guntas has been allotted to the petitioner's grandfather and the revenue record would clearly demonstrate that the said land has been recorded as Mauza. Accordingly, the petitioner is in possession ald cultivating the said property. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has made an application dated 04.O5.2012 for rectification of entries from Lavoni Patta to Patta Land before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 in turn addressed a letter dated

24.O7.2012 to District Collector. In reply District Collector addressed a letter dated O5.lO.2Ol2, to respondent No.3 to enquire into the matter and to submit detailed report along 'a with necessaqz records. Respondent No.3 addressed a t ( / ) letter dated 07.02.2014 to District Collector briefing the facts but tiil now no action was initiated. Respondent No.4 once again addressed a letter dated 20 .1O.2017 to respondent No.3 to look into the matter. Accordingly, respondent No.3 addressed a letter vide No.B/19312014, dated 28.10 .2017 to the District Coliector, Nalgonda wherein it has been recorded that the land was given to the petitioner's ancestors on excharge basis and since then, it has been recorded as Government land and the pattadar is facing trouble in making transaction and hence, Tahsildar, Chintapally Marrda-l has forwarded letter No.B / 1612 / 2Ol7 to Revenue Divisional Officer, Devarkonda Division, wherein it is stated that Tahsildar has conducted fieid enquiry with Village Revenue Ofhcer, Gadia Gowrararn on i0.10.2017 and found that the petitioner is cultivating the Survey No.257 to arr extent of Acs.7.OO guntas and so he is possession of the land.

3. The Government of Telangana Revemre (Assignment - I) Departm"H ""L ;,..-;' 4 has constituted the Special Tribunal in every district consisting of District Collector and Additional Collector (Revenue) as members for disposal of all cases pending before Revenue authorities and the petitioner's case is transferred from respondent No.3 to the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda and the Special Tribunal vide new case No.F2lSpl.Tribunal/0464 l2O2l, dismissed the case on O4.O2.2O21. The learned Tribunal while dismissing the said case has observed that "as verified from the records available in this file the assignees got their certiflcates in the year 2005, vide Certificate No.B/4880/2004 dated

29.O9.2OO5 and B/4880/2004 dated 11.08.2005 and they have also been updated in the revenue records and have also been given new E-Pattadar Pass books. Since, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P(PIL).No20 of 2021 has passed orders with a direction to all Special Tribunals in the State to pass fresh orders after granting reasonable opportunity to the parties whenever a request for personal hearing is received from the parties, aggrieved by the order dated O4.02.2O2L, the petitioner tra.f,fif"a review petition t- C -' 5 and same was taken on file and was dismissed on

25.06.202I. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the review petition was dismissed without serving aly notice upon the petitioner and without giving opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal relied upon the judgments of Division Bench of this Court in M.B.Ratnam Vs. RDO reported in 2OO3 (1) ALD 826 and 2OO3 (1) ALT 688 stating that settled rights cannot be unsettled by a Revenue Court after a period of (28) years. It is also observed by the Tribunal that the request of the Review petitioner is for rectification of wrong entries from the year 1985 onwards but the Record of Rights was prepared in the year 1993-94 read with rules in the year 1989 of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, i971('the Act, 797 1' for brevity) and that, if any person aggrieved with the wrong entries he ought to file an objection under Rule 15 within one year from the date of publication and the petitioner failed to avail the said remedy provided under Section 3(iii) of the Act, 1971- \ \ 6 I

4. Having gone by record, as per the order dated O4.O2.2O21, passed by the Special Tribunal, the petitioner has got assignment certificate in the year 2OO5 vide Certilrcate No.B/4880/2004 dated 29.O9.2OO5 and B I 4880 l2OO4 dated I I .08.2005 which would demonstrate that the petitioner's name has been recorded in the revenue records and E-Pattatdar passbook has been granted to the petitioner. In the subsequent order passed by the Special Tribuna-l, the learned Tribunal ought not to have stated that the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy as contemplated under Section 3 (iii) of the Act, 197 1 which is contrar5r to its own order. l,earned Tribunal has passed perverse order without any application of mind and prayed to allow this writ petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for unofficial respondents would submit that petitioners and unofficial respondents are related to each other and originally the subject land has been allotted by Nizam in exchange and basing on the partition made between the successors, the I - 7 unofficial respondents a-re been recorded as successors of the subject land and accordingly, they have been issued Lavoni Patta. There is no perversity in the order arrd hence, would submit that petitioners after long lapse of time will not withhold any right for claiming succession as the petitioner's grandfather has already partitioned the property and based on the said partition the unofficial respondents have granted property and only to neck out the unofficial respondents, the petitioner is claiming the subject property through other means which does not hold any foundation. In so far as service of notice is concerned, notice has been served upon learned counsel for the petitioner as well as every necessary opportunity was given by the Special Tribunal and there is no perversity in the order and accordingly, would seek to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on the other hand would submit that learned Tribunal has rightly observed that petitioner has not availed the \ \ *- r, ;-. B \ opportunity of remedy AS provided under law within stipulated time and seeking rectification after a period of 28 years is perverse and the same is barred by limitation and seek to dismiss the writ petition. 7 . Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for unofficial respondents and upon perusal of the record it reveals ttrat the learned Special Tribunal in its order dated 04.02.2O21 vide new case F2lSpl.TribunallO46al2O2 1 and Old case No.B/896/2017 had observed as follows "As verilied from the records available in this file the assignees got their certificates in the year 2005, vide Certificate No.B/4880/2O04 dated

29.O9.2OO5 and 8/4880 l2OO4 dated 11.08.2005 and they have also been updated in revenue record and have also been given new Eppbs." In the subsequent order of the Special Tribunal, W.P.(PIL).No.20 of 2O2l is referred wherein the Division Bench of this Court had directed all the Special Tribunals in the State to pass fresh orders after I o granting the reasonable opportunitSr to the parties whenever a request for personal hearing is received from the parties. On the aspect of availing remedy provided under Section (iii) of the Act, I97 L the Special Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the earlier order and came to a different conclusion and passed perverse order and the same does not deserve arly consideration and accordingly the order passed by the learned Special Tribunal stands set aside and in so far as claim of the petitioner is concerned, in both orders learned Special Tribunal has not gone into the aspect that whether land in possession is falls within Mouza, in exchange of land which has been acquired by the Nizam Government.

8. It is under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the Special Tribunal and remand the matter to Revisional Authority as proviso 1 5( 1) of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Acl, 2025, who inturn sha1l examine the said aspect based on record, granting opportunity to all the I I 10 \ parties and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with 1aw. 9 . With the above directions, this writ petition disposed of. It is open for the petitioners and unofficial respondents to claim their right 1n respect of subject property at the time of hearing before Revisional Authority as proviso 15(1) of Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025. In so far as possession in respect of subject property, Status-Quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by atl the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. A . JAYASREE REGISTRAR Z //TRUE COPY' ECTION OFFICER \ To, Nalgonda District ecretariat Building, State of Telangana. Hyderabad.

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, S 2. The District Collector.Special Revenue Tribunal, Na 3. The Revenue Divisionai Officer, Devarkonda Reven 4 The T^ahsildhar, Chinthapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5. One CC to SRI NARESH REDDY CHINN-oLLA. Advocate toPIIcI 6 Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE tTG) .High Col.ti"iin"-Siri"-Jtetangana 7. One CC to SRt p. VENKATESHWER RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies MI\,IT (6 BS lgonda District. ue Division, Devarkonda, louTl HIGH COURT DATED:0810912025 7 { i1E S o ,c) ,-9 i t9. .,\,' .'* s 5 tl't ?u i! * ORDER WP.No.18116 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITON WITHOUT COSTS topo'o t" *, 30\,\Z t