The High Court · 2025

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 writ of [\,4andamus declaring the order passed by the special Tribunal, Peddapalli, in Case No. D1l12g3/2O2O /Tribunal Case No. LDIM2000033923 dated 211061202i as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, against the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar passbook Acl.2o2o and also violatiorr of Articles 2'l and 300-A of the constituiion ol lndia, besides being violative ol principles of natural justice and consecluen|y set aside the same. |.A.NO:1 OF 2021 Petition Unrler 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 direct the unofficial respondents not to interfere in the peacerful possession of the petitioner lands br:aring Sy. No. 4BlC lo an extent of Ac. 0.39 guntas., 4BlD to an extent of Ac. 0.312 guntas and Sy.No. 50 to an extent of Ac. 3-15 1/2 guntas, situated at Kukkalagudur Village, Palakurthi [\rlandal of peddapally District, pending disposal of the main writ petition. |.A.NO:2 OF 2021 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the cir:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to suspend the order of the Special Tribunal, Peddapalli, in Car;e No. D11129312020 /Tribunal case Nc. 1.DIV2000033923 dated 2110612021, perrding rJisposal of the main writ petition. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Between '1 . 9ommagani Rajaiah Goud, S/o. Late Chinnaiah Goud, a,led 70 years, R/o. Kakkalaguduru Village, Peddapalli District, Telangana.

2. Bommagani Chandraiah Goud, S/o. Late Chinnaiah GouC, aged 65 years, Rl/o. Kakkalaguduru Village, Peddapalli District, Telangarra. - .....PETITIONERS/RESpONDENT Nos.7 & I AND 1 Velgatur [\ilandal, Peddapalli District, Telangana. Sanga Ramakka Wo Rajaia! ?S"O about 76 years, R/o. Muthunoor Viltage, .,... RES PON D E NTAA/RIT PETITIO N ER

2.The State of Telangana, rep. by its prrncipal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Peddapalli Distrrct, Teiangana State. 4. The Additional Collector (LB), Peddapalli District, Telangana State. 5. The Joint Collector, Peddapalli District, Telangana State. 6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, peddapalli District, Telangana State. 7. The Tahsildar, Palakurthi Mandal, peddapalli District, Telangana State. ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT Nos..t to 6 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 vacate the interim orders dated 31 .08.2021 in l.A.No.1 of 2021 in w.p.No.i92b2 of 2021 . Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt MADAS BHARATH CHANDRA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 6: SRI SANDEEP GOUD, AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel foi the Respondent Nos.7 & 8 : SRI Y.ASHOK RAJ The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITIoN No.19252 OF 2O2L ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 ol Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "... to issue an appropriate lvrit, order or direction more pa.ticula y one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order lassed by the Special T:ibunal, Peddapalli, in Case No.D1/ 1293l2O2O lTrlbunal Case No.LDM2000033923 dated 21-06-2021 as illegal, itrbitrary, contrary to law against the provisions of the Telangana llights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 2O2O and also violation of Articles 21 and 300-\ of the constitution oI India, besides being vi:lative of principles of naturaljustice and consequcntly set aside the same and pass such other order or orders ..." 2 Heard Mr Madas Bharat Chandra, learned ccunsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sandeep Goud, learned Assistall. Government Pleader for Revt:nue representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.I to 6.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the tather of the I petitioner namely Kaldula Lingaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring Ac.o.39 guntas in Sy.No.48lC, Ac.O.32 guntas in Sy.No.48/D, Acs.3.15% guntas in Sy.No.SO situated at Kukkalagudur Village, Palakurthi Mandal of Peddapally District along rvith other lalds; that aft:r the demise of petitioners' iather, the petitioner, being the sr>1e iegal heir succeeded the above said lalds. Accordingly, the pet.itioner's name was mu1-ated in the revenue records and l)attedar Pass . I t L,t,- 1\ 2 books was issued in her favour; that the Telangana Government has introduced Land Record updating project and issued new Pattedar Passbooks to lald holders. Accordingly, the petitioner herein was issued new pattedar passbook but the subject lands were deleted in the said new pattedar passbook; that on enquiry the petitioner came to know that the above subject lands were recorded in the new pattedar passbook of respondent Nos.7 and 8, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner which is against the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar and Pass Book Act, 2O2O; that under the Land Records Updating Programme, no change of passbook entries can be made a,d if any changes are to be made, recourse under section 5(5) or t has to be taken. t

4. It is further stated that respondent No.6, Before carrying out any amendment in record of rights is bound to issue notice in writing to all the persons whose nalnes are entered in the records of rights and no such notice was served on the petitioner; that on 24.O1.2O2O, the petitioner had made an application under the Right to Information Act seeking to know the reason for deretion of the above subject lands in the new pattedar pass book and the basis for issuance of pattadar passbooks to respondent Nos. I I I 7 J aled 2; that on dated 27.O1.2O2O the petitioner had also ntade another application to respondent No.6 seeking to r:ctif1, the said wrong entries and record the said subject lands in the passltook of the petitioner:; that on 12.O2.2O2O respondent No 6 had issued a memo stating that the application of the per.itioner dated

24.0L.2O2O does not disclose the file number and as sltch they are unable to give information for the same; that tlre respondent No. 6 without having any valid documents, withou- carrying out mutation proceedings and without conducting anv enquiry has deleted the name of the petitioner arrd recorded the names of respondent Nos.7 and 8 contrarSr to the provrsions of the Telangana Rights in Lartd and Pattadar Pass Boot<s Act, 2020. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal before respondent No 5 seeking to rectify the revenue records with respect to the afore cited lands situated at Kukkalalludur Village, Palakurthi Mandal of Peddapally District and 1o issue new pattedar passbooks to the petitioner by recordirrg the above mentioned lands and to cancel the pattedar pass bc oks issued in favour of respondent Nos.7 and 8. The appeal wz-s ailowecl on

21.O7.2O2O vide Appeal No.B2l 1047 l2O2O dated 21 .O7 .'2O2O on the hle the Appellate Authority & Revenue Divisional Officer, 4 \" ^l \i '...i '\j - Peddapalli/respondent No.S. Against which, respondent Nos.7 and 8 have preferred a Revision.

5. The Revision petition was transferred to the Special Tribunal as per Section 16 of the Telangala Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 2o2o. The Special rribunal passed the orders on 1O-O2-2O21. But relying on the order passed by this Court in WP (pIL) No.20 of 2O2I the matter was again taken up giving opportunity to both the sides; that respondent no. 6, has submitted the enquiry report to respondent No. 5, wherein the respondents themselves have stated that they have never cultivated the above mention rands and the entries in the pahani in possession column are paper entries; that the petitioner has leased the land to Ka,dula Ramaiah s/o.Agaiah for curtivation of lald from past 2O years; that the allegation of reslondent Nos.7 and 8 is that they have purchased the iand from the father of the petitioner; that when the petitioner had denied the title of respondent Nos.7 and 8 they filed the Suit for Declaration of ritle and recovery ofpossession vide O.S No.1103 of 19gg against the petitioner's father on the file of the learned District Munsiff, at Sultanabad which shows that the unofficiar respondent Nos.7 and 8 were never in possession of the said rand; that the special ) Tribunal had no power to execute a civil decree arld the revenue records maintained under ROR Act are not collclustve; that respondent Nos.7 and 8 are not in possession c,f the subject lalds and that no passbook can be issued as per IRuie 26. Further, the pr:titioner already had Patta to the s eid la.nd from long time. Without taking recourse to law and procedure AS contemplated no change can be aifected as such tte entries are non-est in law and are liable to be set-aside: tha t the District Special Tribunal without going into the issue of ex,:cution of the Court decree by the competent Court has in fact exceeded its jurisdiction and allowed the Revision Petition, 'therefore the petitioner sought to allow the Writ Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 2I .06.2021 in Case No.nt7\aOS l2O2O/ Tribunal Case No.LDIVI2000O33923 on the file ot the Special Tribunal under the Telangana Rights in Land and ?atte<lar pass Books Act, 2020, Peddapalli setting aside the order rassed by the Revenue Divisiona,l Officer, Peddapalli in File No.B2/ lO4T l2O2O, dated 21.O7.2020 is iliegal, arbitrary and violative oi principles of natural justice. Therefore, he seeks to allow the Writ Petitron. 6 7 ' Learned Assistant Government preader for Revenue submits that the civil proceedings are in favour of unofficial respondent Nos.7 and 8 and hence the impugned order is in accordalce with law. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Writ petition.

8. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court opines that the learned District Munsiff, at Sulta,abad vide judgment dated O2.O2.1989 in O.S No.11O3 of 198g decreed the Suit for Declaration of ownership and possession of the suit lands bearing Sy.No.4g admeasuring 2.22 gtntas as of dry land, Sy.No.SO admeasuring Ac.3.15 guntas of dry land and Sy.No.B2 admeasuring Ac.O.OB gts of dry land and Sy.No.g3 admeasuring 0.06 gts of dry land situated at siwar of Kukkalagudur Village basing on the admission made by the father of the petitioner herein in his written statement, which includes the afore cited subject lands. The same remained unchallenged and thus, became final. Relying on the said judgment passed in O.S.No.1103 of 198g, the learned Special Tribunal has passed the impugned order dated 21.06.202 I setting aside the order d,ated,2l.O7.2O2O in Appeal No.B2l tO47/2O2O on the file the Appellate Authority & Revenue Divisional Officer, 7 Peddapalli/respondent No.5. It is pertinent to note that as against the jurlgment passed by the civil Court tlre R.D.O. had erroneously passed his order, without their being any power/ authorily vested in him which is an irregularity. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to inter'ere with the impugned order artd the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed

9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is dismlssed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall r;tand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD,.P. PONNA KRISHNA ,ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \r

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to sRl tvADAS BHARATH CHANDRA, Advocirte {oPUCl 3. One CC to SRI Y.ASHOK RAJ, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies Secrroru oFFrcER rte of Telangana at t To SA GJP ! ) I - i'tr i r/r .jt. 1j siP zffi ;rJ.i' .l 'll .f itt-1 ._ .,11'! ,,:r' ll i_l /t 'i ./,, ... li j lt..ri':. i\.i \ i -' HIGH COURT DATE D:0 410912025 ORDER WP.No.19252 of 2021 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. v