Pathula Padmamma v. The State of Telangana

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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of ltrlandamus, declaring the order dated 2110612021 ln case. No. D1t82t2021 in file No.B/ROR/8945/201S of the 2nd respondent in contrary to their earlier order dated 3t2t2021 in confirming the Tahsildhar /Respodent.No.4 action in deleting the petitioner name from the E- Portal, E- Pass Book record without notice, without procedure, in contrary to the Telangana Rights in Land and Patta Pass Book Act, 2O2O as illegal arbitrary, against the principals of natural justice. Consequently to suspend the operation of order dated 21t0612021 in case.No.D1l82l2o21 in file No. B/ROR/8945/2019 of the 2nd respondent in contrary to their earlier order dated 3l2l2Ct21 in confirming the Tahsildhar /Respodent.No.4 action in, deleting the petitioner name from the E- Portal record without notice, without procedure. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 suspend the operation of order dated 2110612021 in case. No .D118212021 in tile No. B/ROR/89 4512019 of the 2nd respondent in contrary t,r their earlier order dded 31212021 in confirming the Tahsildhar /Respodent.No.4 action in deleting the petitioner name from the E- Portal record without notice, without procedure. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KADIYAM PARMESHWAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 7: SRI B.BHAGATH SAIN Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI VENKATESHWARLU.G The Court made the following: ORDER ? ORDER: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18192 OF 2O2I This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: '...to issue dn approPiate urit, order or direction more partianlarlg ote in the nature of tfe Wft of Mandomuq declaring the order dated 21-0G 2021 in case. No. D1/82/2021 in file. No.B/ ROR/ 8945/ 2019 of the 2"'1 respondent in contrary to their earlier order dated 3-2 2021 in confirmtng the Tahsildhqr/ Respodnnet.No.4 action in deleting the petitioner nqme Jrom the D Portal, E-Pcss Eook record without notrce, uithout procedure, in contrary to the Tetangana Rights tn Land and Patta Po'ss Book Act, 2020 as itlegal, arbitrary, against the principals of natural justice and consequentlg to suspend the operation of order dated 21 06-2021 case.No.Dl / 82/ 2021 in file in No. B/ROR/8945/2019 of tlLe 2"d respondent in contrary to their eqrLier order dated 3-2-2021 in confirming the Tqlsildhar/ Respodnnet.No.4 action in deleting the petitioner ncme from the E Portal record without notice, without procedure, pass such other order or orders, .," It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner and

2. possessor of lands admeasuring Ac.5- 14 gts in Sy.No.B3, Ac.5-24 gts in Sy.No.8alA/1, Ac.1-03 gts in Sy.No.153, Ac.1-13 gts in Sy.No.154/A, Ac.O-31 gts in Sy.No.294l2, total admeasuring Ac. 14.05 gts situated at Kothapally Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahboobnagar District, having succeeded the same from her husband Late P. Ram Reddy. It is further case of the petitioner that her name was mutated in the revenue records vide Proceedings No.Bl120612008 dated 19.11.2008. While-so, it is stated that the respondent No.4 in collusion with respondent Nos.S to 8 deleted the name of the petitioner from the reventte records in respect of lands 2 admeasuring Ac.2-2O gLs in Sy.No.S3 and Ac.2_O0 gts in S1'.No.84/A7 1, total admeasuring Ac.4_2O gts and wrongly incorporated the names of respondent Nos.S to g in the revenue records. It is furrher stated that questioning the illcgal entries made by the respondent No.4, the petitione r f ed revison vide File No.B/ROR/89 45 /2019 under Section S(5) of Telangana Righrs in Land and Pattadar passbooks Act, lg7l (for short,,ROR Act, 1971,,) and in view of the repeal of ROR Act, lgZI and enactment of Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar passbooks Act, 2O2O (for short "ROR Act,,2O2O',) and in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.4 Revenue (Assignment-l) Department cl,ated, 12.O1.2021, th<: revrsion case was transferred to the lile of respondent No.2_Special Tribunal and renumbered as Case No.Dllg2/2O21. It is furthLer stated that the respondent No.2 vide order dated O3.O2.2O21 clismissed the said rcvision case directing the petitioner to approach the Civii Court for redressal. It is also stated that in pursuance o1. the orders dated 18.O3.2O2). passed by this Court in Wp (ptl-) No.2Ol2O21, the petitioner has filed a petition on the file of responitent No.2 seeking to reopen the case No.Dl l82l2O2l and, the same u,as allowed and the matter u,as taken up for fresh hearing. It is Iurther stated that the respondent No.2 without verifiiing the records, again dismissed the Case No.DIl82l2O2i (in File No.B/ROR/894t;l2otg) vide order dated 21.06.202 1. Hence the writ petition. w 3

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject property having succeeded the same from her husband but the respondent Nos.S to 8 in collusion with revenue officials got mutated their names in the revenue records. tt is submitted that the revision filed by the petitioner was erroneously diSmissed by the respondent No.2 vide impugned order and ultimately prayed to set aside by allowing the writ petition as prayed for.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has submitted that Sri P. Ram Reddy (husband of thc petitioner) during his lifetime has sold the lands in Sy.Nos.S3 and 84 situated at Kothapally Village, Nawabpet Mandai, Mahabubnagar District, to the respondent Nos.S to 8 under sadabainama and since the date of purchase, they are in possession of the same. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.S to 8 got validated sadabainama vide proceedings Nos.ROR/B/264 I 2OOS and ROR/B/268 I 2OO5 dated

17.06.2006 issued by the respondent No.4 and they were also issued pattadar passbooks in their favour. It is contended that suppressing the above facts, the petitioner obtained Pouthi Izafa/ succession and got mutated her name in the revenue records and when the same was brought to the notice of the respondent No.4, the respondent No.4 deleted the name of the petitioner from the revenue records in 4 respect of lands admeasuring Ac.2-2O gts in Sy.No.g3 and Ac.2_OO gts in Sy.No.,34l Al 1, total admeasuring Ac.4-2O g-_s, and incorporated thc names of responclcnt Nos.S to 8 in the revenur: records. It is submitted th art thc appeal filed by the petil irrne:r was rightly dismissecl b1, the rcsp.ndent No.2 vide order dzLted 03.02.2021 in Case No.D1 182 l2O2t (Fite No.B/ROR/8g4Sl20 t9) direcring rhe petitioner [o approach the Civil Court for redrr:s;sal. It is further submitted th at e*cn though the petitioner filed review petition and got reopened thc case for hearing the matter afresjr, rhc respondent No.2 right]l' disrnissed the said Case No.D1/8:,,t,2021 vide order dalcd 21.06.')02 1 . tr is submitted that thcre is no illegality or legal infrrmities in thc impugned order dated 21.06.2O12 1 passed by the respondent No.2 and ulLimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. As sccn fro;l rhe material placed on recor(l, pirna facie this Court is o1'thc oprnion that thc re spond ent-author-i tjes have followed the procedurc as contemplated under ROR Act arrrl the Rules made thereunder. 11 is secn from the record that the respondent No.5 to g got validatr:cl the sadabainama vide proceedings Nos. ROR/B/264 l'2OO5 and ROR/Bl268l2OO5 dated t'2.06.2006 issued by the respondent No.4 and consequently, got mtrtated their names in the revenr,rc records. Challenging the same, thre petitioner liled revision case on thc file of respondent No.2 anrl the same was 5 dismissed holding that the matter is purely civil in nature and relegated the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of her grievance. It is pertinent to state that the issues with regard to the genuineness of the sadabainamas and the consequential mutation of entries in the revenue records are iequired to be decided after adducing elaborate evidence in a properly constituted civil suit. Therefore, this Court does not hnd any illegality or legal infirmities in the impugned orders passed by the respondent No-2 warranting .,interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with 1aw, if she is so advised. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// sD/-N. SRily'ARl ASSISTANT RETRAR SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . One CC to SRI KADIYAM PARMESHWAR, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRI VENKATESHWARLU.G., Advocate [OPUC] 2 J 4 5 BSR GJP One CC to SRI B.BHAGATH SAIN, Advocate [OPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, Hi$h Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies $ HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 ORDER ,.;: I 1'' ,r,\ ti.;. :'. . ..,\ ,i';t WP.No.18192 ot 2021 u 2 2 APB 2025 I ,..', i-- ._..,1.^ _ -. *____,.,, ,. i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @@?i') 9r- ^ lAc-lL{