The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the,:rder passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, wanaparthy in File No. B/2037/2cr08, dated 1.2.2010 (date wrongly mentioned in the impugned order dated 26.03.2010) granting oRC in favour of the respondents, confirmed by the Joint collector, Mahaboobnagr in File No. F214012010, dated 30.06.2012 pending disposal of ther Revision IANO:1OF2 rl18 Petition under order 1 rule 10 cpc r/w. section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstarrces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may bt: pleased to permit the petitioner to impread c.l. of potice, wanaparthy c:ircle and district as 5th respondent in the above Revision i.e., C.R.P. No.623s/2012. lA NO: 2 OF 20 18 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 c.l. of Police, wanaparthy circle to give police protection to comply with the order passed in C.R,P.No.6239t2012, dated 24.4.201 3, which was extended until further orders by order dated 7 .6.2013. lA NO:'l oF 2022 Petition under order 1 rule 10 r/w. 1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the petitioner as Petitioner No. 2 in the above C.R.P No. 6239 of 2012 as well as in all l.As. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. MEHERCHAND NORI, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER F F r F n THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA REVISION PETITION o. 6239 0F 2012 ORDER: The present civil Revision petition is firecr by the pet;.tioner against the order dated 30.06.2012 in case No.F2/40 l2olo on the file of learned .Ioint collector, Mahaboobnagar (for short, 'the appellate authority,). By the impugned order, the appellate authority, confirmed the order datr:d 26.03-2010 in File No.B/2032/2oo} passed by the learned Revenue Divisional officer, wanaparthy (for short, the primary authority).

2. The facts of the case are that the husband of petitioner No.I is the pattadar and possessor of the schedule property i.e-, land situated in survey No.957 to the extent of Ac. 4-lZ gunr-as, within the limits of Mettupally village, wanaparthy i.i'i Mandal. After demise of husband of petitioner No. l, she, being successor of her husband, filed application dated

29.o4.2oo9 before the then Mandal Revenue officer (MRo), wanaparthy, for mutation of her name in revenue records in respr:ct of the schedule property. penciing the same, petitioner No.11 sold the schedule property to one p.Nagaraj by executing , a registered GPA-cum sale deed bearing document No.419g ,/ / I ;r: ) sKs,J C.R.P.No.6239 ot2OL2 of 2OO8 dated 04.06.2A08, in order to meet her personal financial needs. It is stated that since the Mandal Revenue Officer and Revenue Division Oflicer have not taken any steps in respect of the application filed by petitioner No.l on 29.o4.2OO9, petitioner, along with P.Nagaraj, Iiled a suit uide o.s. No.l of 2o08 before the learned Senior civil Judge court, wanaparthy, seeking declaration of entries in the name of husband of petitioner No.l and substitution of petitioner No.1 name and P.Nagaraj in respect of the schedule propert5r. Pending the suit, P.Nagaraj, sold the schedule propertJr to father of petitioner No.2. While things stood thus, the primary authority issued occupancy Rights certificate (oRC) in favour of respondent Nos.l and 2 uide order dated 26.O3.2OLO in File No.B/203712OO8, over the schedule propert5r. Assailing the same, petitioner No' 1 approached the appellate authority by initiating proceedings in case No.F2/40 I2OLO and the appellate authority dismissed the same .on 3O.O6.2OL2 by confirming the order of primary authority dated 26.O3.2OLO. Hence, the present revision petition. Heard sri Meherchand Nori, learned counsel for the 3. revision petitioners as well as Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, ('^, J sKs,J C.R.P.No.6239 of 2Ol2 learned counsel for the respondents. perused the material avzdiable on record

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that though the name of husband of petitioner No.l was reflecting in revenue records in respect of the schedule property, the primary authority has erroneously granted oRC to respondent Nos.1 and 2 without issuing any notices to the petitioners. He further submitted that the schedule property is p,2112 land, not inam land and therefore, the question of issuance of oRC does not arise- In support of the above submissions, the leai'ned counsel filed photostat copies of Sethwar, Khasra Pahani for the year lgsa-S5 and pahanies for the year r974-TS, tg}r-8.2, 19g9-9o, Lgg2-g3, Lgg4-gs, 199t3-99, 2oo7-o8,2oo8-09 and old Record of Righrs (RoR) and prayed the court to allow the revision petition by setting asid,: the impugned orders of the primary authority and appe:llate authority.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the primary authority has rightly granr:ed oRC to respondent Nos:l and 2 as they are the owners and possessors of the schedule propert5r, which is ./ ",., ,l !' : ., ! I I i i i ,1 l! l I I I ! i t I t I I I I g I I I I I I I i r II i ! i i 4 sKs'J C.R.P.No.6239 of 2OL2 rJ a inam land. He further submitted that since petitioner No' 1 has sold the schedule property to one P'Nagaraj' who in turn sold the same to father of petitioner No.2, she has no locus stand"ito file the appeal. He also submitted that the petitioner frled suit uide o.s. No.O1 of 2oo9 only.to grab the schedule property and the same was dismissed for default on o3.09.2OO9. In support of his submissions, he filed certified copies of Faisal Patti for the year 1964-65, Pahanies for the year1964-65,1965-66and1973-T4andPhotostatcopyof Lr.No.A3/4215160 dated 11'11'1960 of RDO' Gadwal and prayed the Court to dismiss the revision petition'

6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel, this Court has perused the material evidence available on record. It is apparent that the name of husband of petitioner No.1 is shown as Makthedar in the Pahanies for theyear|964-65and,|965-66.ttisnoteworthythaton o2.l2.2oog, Form-tl notice was issued by the primary authority, to the parties in respect of the schedule property' Pertinently, as per Section 3 of the Act, all rights' title and interest in the Inamdar shall be vested in the state from 20.07.1955 unless re-grant is made and as such' the reckoned date for determination of oRC is 01.11-1973. The I .: I t 5 sKs,J C.R.P.IYo.6239 of 2Ot2 apl)ellate authority, having observed that the ancestors of respondent Nos.1 and 2 were in possession of the sched.ule property as on 01.11 .Lgz3 based on the entries in the pahani for the year r9T3-74, granted the oRC to respondent Nos.1 ancl 2, apparently, ignoring the other entries that were relied on 5y the petitioners. There are entries in pahanies in which sri N.Srinivasa chary i.e, the husband of petitioner No.l shown as pattadar and his name is also shown as Makthedar in tlre Pahanies for the year 1964-6s. At this juncture, it is to be noted that same person ca'not be Makthedar and Inarndar. Thus, all the documents relied by both the parties neecls to be verified thoroughly. Further, in Khasra pahani for the year 1954-5s, the Khasra land is shown as patta land, how,lvsp, rvhen that the land converted into Inam land is not verified by the concerned authority. Hence, this court is of the <:onsidered opinion that the appellate authorig ought to have verified the relevant records including Khasra pahani for the rrear 1954-55 and also subsequent relevant records to to the conclusion that whether schedule property is a com€ Patta land or inam land. Therefore, in order to meet ends of justic,e, without going into the merits of the case, this court is inclined to remand the matter to the appellate authority for Ii il: I \ { EI i :. 6 sKS,J C.R.P.No-6239 ot2OI2 cr'- deciding the lis in the matter afresh by calling the relevant records T.Accordingly,theCivilRevisionPetitionisdisposedof and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority for deciding the matter afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. closed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand SD/- A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy 3. One CC to Mr. MEHERCHAND NORI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Mr. RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI, Advocate TOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies RC/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 29/0812025 \ \ ORDER CRP.No.6239 ot 2012 1H oo 0 g t[B 2[26 ) / * ?A' Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Disposed * ,,K