1. Smt. Chittimalla Lingamma v. The State of Telangna

3. The Tahsildar, Anumula Mandal, at Anumula 4. Smt. Chitimalla Sujatha, Wo. Late Sankariah, Age Major, Occ. House Wife, R/o.Venkatapuram, (V), Anumula (lvl), Nalgonda District.

5. Smt. Chitimalla Maramma, Wo. Late Sankariah, Age. Major, Occ. House Wife, Rl/o.Venkatapuram, (V), Anumula (M), Nalgonda District. .RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue an order, direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI call for the records pertaining the impugned orders vide No. F2lSpl. Tribunallo522l2021 dt.12-7 -2021 on the file of the Special tribunal Nalgonda headed by the 2nd respondent, without applying the mind, or provide sufficient opportunity as abuse of process of law, hits the principle of natural justice Audi Altrum Partum and liable to SET-A-SIDE /quash by declaring as arbitrary, illegal, ano pass such other order or orders may I )em fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the , ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Co r t may be pteased to suspend the inrpugned orders vide No. F2l Spl. Trilr nall OSZZIZO2| dl 12-l -2021 on the File of the Special tribunal Nalgonda readed by the 2nd respcndent pending disposal of the writ and pass such othrr order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case perJing disposal of the above wril petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: 1 Smt. Cnil,ma' a Sujatha, W/o. Late Sankariah, Age 3I years, Occ. House Chitrmalla Maramma, W/o. Late Sankariah, Age 0 years, Occ. House Wife 2 Smt. Wife, Both are R/o.Ven kata puram, (V), Anumula (M), Nalgor-c r District ..PETITIONERS AND 1 3 2 Smt Chittimalla Lingamma, W/o. Late Ramachandria I Age. 12 years, Occ. House Wrfe R/c.Venkatapu ram, (V), Anumula (M), Na g rnda District. Nadenla Nagamma, W.o Sri Chandraiah, age 34 yrs )cc. Agriculture, RJo. lbrahi"npatnam (V). Anumula 1tr,,l), Nalgonda District. Smt Nimr-nanago.tr Parvathamma, Wo Sri Shankz r Age 33 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R/ o. l\.4utyalammagudem(V), Kanagal Marc:1, Nalgondj District. The State of Rep by its Principal Secretary (levenue Department) Secretariat, at Hyderabad. 5. The Drstrict Collector -cum- Member, Spl.Tribuna Nalgonda District at -felangna, 4 Nalgonda

6. The Tahsildar, Anumula Mandal, at Anumula Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th€ ;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Ccr.t may be pleased to ...RESPONDENTS vacate the status quo orders granted in l.A.No. 1 of 2021 in W.P.No. 19070 of 2021 dt. 24-8-2021, in the interest of justice. Gounsel for the Petitioners: SRI G.L.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI H.RAKESH KUMAR, AGP, REP FOR GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRI S.PRASAD BABU The Court made the following: ORDER n I ! I I I I i l i i j I THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE E.V. VENU: OPAL WRIT PETITION No. l9A7O OF 2O2 ORDER: This Writ Petitior-r is filcd under Articl.' 226 of the Constitution ol' lr-rdra, seeking the following relie;. ''... to lssuc irn order, directiou particularly onc_. in tlr, r-,atnre of WRII' OF CII.IRTIORARI call for the records pcr: ining thc rrnpugrrerl orrier-s vicle No_F2/SPl. 't'ribunal/OS.2 ), 2O2l dt. 12-7 -2O21 o11 t h(. hle of the Special tribunal Nalgo .r ia l-readed by thc 2,,,r resporrclenl. $,lthoLlt;rl)plvrng the mirirl )r provide sufficient opportLlnity as abuse of process of lar hits the principlc of r.rrrtural .justicc 'Audi Altrllm partLlm' ar I liable to SET-A-SIDE/quash by declaring as arbitrzry, l cgal. and pass suclt othcr order or orders._."

2. Hearcl Mr. G. [-. Nar-sitnha Rao, Iearned c( r nsel for the petitioners, M r.II. Rakesh Kumar, learnc r Assistant Gor.ernmcnt Plearler represelltiltg learnecl Government Pleader lbr Revenuc appearing for r-espondent i,J )s.l to 3 and Mr.S.Prasad Bal;u, learned counsel for unofficir I respondent Nos.4 ald 5.

3. The bric,f facts of the case are that petition( r No.1 u,ife of Sri Ramachirndraiah; that they were blessed I ith two sons and two daughtr:rs cluring their wedlock; that p: ,itioner Nos.2 and 3 are their daughters; that during his ile time, Sri Ramachandraiai-r, purchased lands at Venkat..l uram Village and Marupal<a Village. He died during the yea,. of 201 1; that 2 his two sons had also expired; that the first son died issueless and his 2.d son Sri Shankaraiah died on 24-O8-2O18 lear.ing behind his u'ife.

4. It is stated that Sri Ramachandraiah r,r,as the owner of lands admeasuring Acs.5-22 guntas in survey No.26 situatecl at Ambatipalii (V), Anumula (M); that after his demise, the said lands $,ere mutated in the name of petitioner No. 1 and their second son Sri Shankaraiah; that Sri Shankaraiah also died and so they were mutated in the name of petitioner No.I ald to that effcct pattedar pass book was also issued in her favour in the year 20 I 9; that petitioner Nol had executed gift deeds vide document bearing Nos.4745 of 2Ol9 dated 19-07- 2Ol9 and 4744 of 2019, dated l9-O7-2O19 in favour of 2u,r and 3.d petitioners in respect of the subject lands and got executed tr-pattedar pass books in their favour; that the unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 preferred an Appeal before the RDO Miryalguda vide OId Case No.D/244O12020 (Old Revenue Court, RDO, Miryalguda), New Case No.F2/Spl Tribunal/0522/2021 dated 12.O7.2O2I, after a lapse of limitation period, without filing any application for condonation of delay and without issuing causing notice to i I ,i I I t I I I :*7 I I I ! ! I I I I I I I I I I i ! the petitioner-s seeking to cancel the mutatiort rf E_pattedar Pass books issr-red to the petitioners, r,l hich r.. Ls ultimately disrnissed on Nil.02.2O2l. l'he operative porti() r of the said Appeal is extr-acted as undel : "lrr r ir:r.r, of thc lacts mcrrtloncd abor.e thc p1;t:a1 is disposed rvith zr direction to the rcspondents to pproach the appropriirte Civil Court in thc mattcr under ,,.. .e ltjr-rdu Succession Act, 1956" as amended by the ,,r.r Hrr.rdu Succession (Ameltdment Act), 2O0S,,,claiming shr r:s in the abovc propertl,. Tl-rc appellants are also aclvisc I to seek remcdies for (heir gricvances before the said Cir i1 _ r,"rrt ht I ier,.. of thc facts mentioned above tlle ppr:a1 is herebl. <lisnrisserl trnd botl-r the parties arc r c visc,l to agitate fL'r thcir r ights bcfort: thc said Court,,. Against u,hich, unofficial rcspondent Nos.4 ancl i filecl Revie,,v Petition before respondent No.2; that resp r ndent No.2, without issuing any notice to petitioners. car) )elled the E- Pattedar Pass books on 12.07.2O2 1 whrch u,(r e allottecl in favour of petirioner Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner j contend that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the s I iccessors of Sri Ramachanrlraiah as Class-l legal heir.-. as per the Succession Act. Br-rt without collsidering tlt : same, the impugned order dated 12.07.2O2I is passecl : y, respondent No.2, rvithout issuing any notice to the petitior ers, which is abuse of process of lau,. Aggrieved thereby, t.l .e petitioners Jilea tne present Writ petition. 4

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed Review Petition before respondent No.2 and that \\'ithout causing notices upon the petitioners, respondcnt No.2 had passed the impugned order, which is abuse of process of 1aw. Therefore, he seeks to allorv the Writ Petition

6. Opposing the samc, learned counsel for r-rnofficial respondent Nos.4 ard 5 contend that notice was served upon the petitioners and on hearing both parties, respondent No.2 had rightly passed the impugned order. Therefore, he states that indulgence of this Court is not warranted and seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition 7 . Learned Assistant Government Pleader concedes to the said submissions

8. A pemsal of the impugned order dated 12.07.2021 reflects that notices n ere issued to both the parties to attend before the Special Tribuna-I, with all documentar5r evidence by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties on O2.O7.2O21 and O5.07.2021. Finally the case was heard on

05.07 .2021 . But neither respondent Nos.l to 3, nor their =,.;i@r )./ ,/. ( I I I i :' i i{ 5 representatives had attended for hearing on 0:07.202 I nor adcluced their u'ritten arguments. Therefore, r:c; rondent No.12 had passed tlrc impr-rgned order on 12.O7 .2021 .

9. Having regard to the submissions of a I the learned counsel and upon perusal of tl-re material availi l,lc on record, this Court is of the opinion that respondent ) o.2 ought to have afforded one more fair ar-rd linal oppor.r Llnir\, to the pelitioners t() put forth lheir contentions. Hel t e. relying on the decision passed bt' the Hor-r,ble Suprt.r re Court in M/s.Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Limited and arL, rther Vs. The State Of Uttar Fradesh and anotherr, r.vherein i - is held that no one can be inflicted rvith an adverse order, ,.itl-rout bcing afforded a mirrimum opportunity of hearir 1, and pnor intin'ration of such a move, this Court is of th: opinion that the impugned proceedings are passed withor l taking into consideration, the principles ol naturai justic: Ht-,nce, this Court deems it fit and proper to set aside the pr r ceedings vide Nerv Case No.F2lSp1. Tribunai/0522 /2O21 dat: 1 I ,2.O7 .2021 passed bv respondent No.2 j Aifto\LINI 201cl sa 1770 , I 6 i i0. Accordingry, rhis writ petition is alowed and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2, for passing appropriate orders, as per the provisions of the Telangar-ra Bhu Bharati (Record oi Rights in Land) Act, 2024, as expeditiously as possible, preferabl,y q,ithin a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, by affording an opportunity ol hearing to the petitioners. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ I To, //TRUE COPY// Sd M.OSMAN ALI BA TANT REGI ION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary (Revenue Department ) Seipre State of Telangna riat, at Hyderabad,

2. The District Collector -cum- Member, Spl.Tribunal Nalgonda. Nalgonda District at

3. The Tahsildar, Anumula Mandal, at Anumula 4. One CC to SRI G.L.NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI S PRASAD BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies BSR PMK w HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 t ( ORDER WP.No.19070 of 2021 4;' :.. :\ 05 t , t,tri \:l /' -. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS , oQ\"' ' a \ Yo, 6\ut- I i. i i l t