The High Court · 2025

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 the Order of the 2nd respondent passed in Tribunal Case No. 158/202'1 daled 2010212021 by directing the Tahsildar, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District to take corrections in the revenue records and issue the fresh PPBs and TTDs in favour of the petitioner, pending disposal of the main writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between Etukuri Ranga Rao, S/o. Somaiah, Aged 48 years, Rl/o. Balapala Village, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District Presently Rr/o. H No. 11-11-4921, Journalist Colony, Vikalangula Colony, Khammam, Khammam (Urban) District. AND ...Petitioner/ Respondent No. 5

1. Etukuri Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Somaiah, Aged 50 years Occ. Agriculture, R/o- Balapala Village, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District. ......RespondenU Petitioner Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana , Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department 3. Special Tribunal and District Collector, Mahabubabad District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, Ir,lahabubabad Diskict. 5. The Tahsildar, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District. ...Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, for lhe reasons stated accompany counter affidavit, the Petitioner/ Respondent No. 5 pray that the High Court may be pleased to vacate the statusco order dated 07 -09-2021 in l.A.NO. 1 OF 2021 in WP.NO. 21112OF 2021 by dismissing the present writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI A. VENKATA SWAMY YADAV The Court made the following: ORDER / // / / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.211L2 of 2O2L ORDER: This Writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus: "Declaing the action of respondent,Mo.2 in dismissing the appeal in Tribunal Cose No.158/2O21 dated 2O-O2.2O21 filed bg the petitioner agoirst the illegal enties made bA respondent No.4 in fauor of respond.ent No.5 in connection with the petttioner's propertA to an extent of Ac2-13 gantas in Suruey No.526/A situated at Balopala Villoge, Kuroui Mandal, Mahabubabad Distict, bg dismissing the appeal bg respon-d.ent No.2 on the ground that the appellant rai.sed the objection afier 16 Aears, the appeal ts bared bg limitation, is highLg illegal" arbitrary and against the pinciptes of natural justice and ako uiolatiue of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 3OO-A of the Con-stitu"tion of Inlia bg setting aside the order of respondent No.2, d-ated 20.02.2021. A conseqtential prager is mode to direct respondent No.4 - Tahsildar not to make any entries in the reuenue enties tn connection u.tith the subject propertg". 2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the un-official respondent and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3. l,earned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2-16 guntas in Survey No.526/A and his u,"ife is the owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2- 13 guntas 1n Survey No.526/B situated at Balapala Village of Kuravi Mandal of Mahabubabad District. They purchased the said land, in \ \ total of Ac.4-28 guntas from one Porika Sarala through an unregistered sale deed on 20.04.7996 by paying Rs. 1,OO,OOO/- as advanced earnest money to their vendor @ Rs.41,OO0/- per acre. After receiving the tota-l consideration, the physical possession of the subject property was handed over to the petitioner and his wife by fixing boundary stones. Since the date of purchase, they were in peaceful possession and enjol,rnent of the said propert5r. It is further submitted that the State Government launched a program by n€une Bhuprakshalana. The petitioner and his wife applied for new pattadar passbooks to their respective lands purchased by them before respondent No.4. After enquiry, the respondent No.4 issued pattadar passbooks to petitioner's wife and the petitioner on 10.03.2020. After obtaining the new pattadar passbook, the petitioner obtained Form 18 (ROR) on 10.03.2020. On verification, it was found that the land of the petitioner rvas wrongly shown as Ac. 1-12 guntas instead of Ac.2-16 glrntas in Survev No.526/A. As such, the petitioner approached respondent No.4 - Tahsildar on many occasions requesting him to recti8/ the records. It is further submitted that the petitioner made an application to respondent No.4 on 08.06.2020 seeking to rectify the mistake occurred in the revenue records. But, till date, the respondent No.4 did not act upon to the application submitted by him. But to the utter shock of the petitioner t-l.at the Tahsildar without considering the application of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 deleted Ac. 1_ 13 I guntas of the land showing the name of the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner submitted another representation and filed an appeal before respondent No.3 uide Appeal No.E/79a/2O20 under Section 5(B) of Record of Rights Act. ThereaJter, the said case was transferred before respondent No.2 and the sarne was numbered as Tribunal No.l58 of 2021. The respondent No.2 without perusing any records and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner dismissed the appeal utde its order dated 2O.O2.2O21, on the ground that the petitioner raised the objection after 16 years and the same is barred by limitation. It is further submitted that as the petitioner purchased the property from his vendor through aIr un-registered sale deed on

20.04.1996 and obtained Form 1B on 10.03.2020 and upon coming to know immediately that wrong entries '"r,ere made, the question of delay in filing the appeal after 16 years does not arise ald the same is liable to be set aside and prayed to allow this Writ Petition

4. Learned counsel for the un-official respondent would submit that the petitioner and the un-official respondent are brothers and members of a joint family. Admittedly, being the elder brother of the family, the propert5r in question, which was purchased from one Porika Sarala, was brought in the name of the petitioner herein. Accordingly, since the petitioner had made the application, the revenue entries were made in his name without issuing any notice to the un-official cindent. The un-official respondent raised objections under Bhuprakshalana programme, and based on such objections, rectification was carried out by the revemre authorities. Hence, no perversit5r can be attributed to the official respondents. Out of the total land of Ac.2-16 guntas, an extent of Ac. 1-13 guntas has been recorded in the name of the petitioner and the remaining land in favor of the un-official respondent. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the un-oflicial respondent would submit that, as against the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner instituted Civil Suit No.9 of 2027 for partition, along with a prayer for injunction against the order of the Tribunal. An injunction was granted in his favor prior to filing of this writ petition. This material fact, however, was not brought to the notice of this Court.

6. Replying to the objections, learned counsel for the petitioner ! submits that the said suit pertains to a partition relating to other properties not covered by this writ petition. Therefore, it is independent in nature. In so far as the injunction proceedings are concerned, no relief has been sought regarding the present subject land. Since there is a threat to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.2-76 guntas, the injunction suit was Iiled and interim relief was granted. Thus, no perversit5r can be attributed to the petitioner. I J /,

7. Learned Assistant Government Pieader lor Revenue submits that the Tribunal has rightly passed the order after affording an opportunity to both sides. Since the dispute is essentially between the petitioner and the un-official respondent, it is for them to work out their remedies before the Civil Court.

8. This Court, having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Iearned counsel for the un-of{icial respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, is of the view that deletion of entries in the scheme of Bhuprakshalana was effected without issuance of notice to the petitioner. So far as the grant of entries in favor of the un-oflicia] respondent and issuance of pattadar passbook and Form- 1B certilicate ) ) is concerned, the Tribunal ought to have aflorded an opportunity to both parties to produce relevant documents. Simply dismissing the matter on the ground of delay of 16 years does not hold good,\ i particularly when the petitioner made an application on 08.06.2020, which was acted upon.

9. Whether the grant of pattas in favor of the un-official respondent is in accordance with law or not requires a thorough enquiry by the competent authority. Since the Dharani Portal has been replaced by the Bhu Bharathi Act, 2025, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the revisiona,l authority under Section 15(1) of the said Act. The revisiona-l authority shall examine the matter afresh by affording due opportunity to both parties and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably with a period of six (06) months from t the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/-S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER \ \, To, The Prl Secretary, Revenue Department Secretarily' Hyderabad State of Telangana ? 9.puqut Tribunal and District Collector, Mahabubabad District. 3 Th e Reven ue D i vis i o na r onicer, uirrabudaoi'J,"ilillu"ro.bad Districr. 4. The T-ahsitdar, Ku ravi trlandat, trliniOu-OJUaJdi;fi#" I 9nu QQ ro SRrAJAy KUVAB ryADas-Errv;d;;;e [opuc] 6 Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE, ntg-h CorJrt'f;1-hiSjate of Tetangana 7. One CC ro SRt VENKATASWAMY YADAV, Advocate [OpUCl 8. Two CD Copies t M I\,,! T/D L .H COURT DATED:0810912025 ORDER WP.No.21112 of 2021 o O ( t S TA 2 4 JrN 2026 t r/-O -J::. -, - DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITON WITHOUT COSTS o {- {