The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 of 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 order passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, Wanaparthy in file No. B/16712O' 0, dated 26-3-2010 granting ORC in favour of the Respondents, confirmed by the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar by order dated 30-6-2012 in Case No. F2l1 512010, pending disposal of the Revision. lA NO: 2 oF 2t)18 Petition under Section 151 of 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 the Petitioner to c:omply with the interim order passed on 21.9.2012 in C.R.P.No. 458012012, which was further extended from time to time and extended until further orders on 17.6.2013, C.R.P.M.P.No.2216 of 2012 in C.R.P.No.4580 of 2012. l.A. NO: 1 OF i1013(CRPMP. NO: 2216 OF 2013) Petition under Section 148 R/w 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders granted initially on 2110912012 in the CRP.No.4580 of 2012 until further orders. Gounsel forthe Petitioners :VIJAY B PAROPAKARI Counset for tha Respondents: SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI The Court madie the following: ORDER h ' li' *i :, * i v 3 _tt * THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJA,NA CryIL PETITION No. oF 20L2 ORDER: The present Civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.06.2012 in Case No.F2/ IS|2OIO on the file of learned Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar (for short, the appellate authorit5rJ. By the impugned ordbr, the appellate authority, confirmed the order dared 26.W.;OLO in File No.B/ L6T /2OtO passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy (for short, the primary authorityJ -

2. The facts of the case are that the husband of petitioner No.l is the pattadar and possessor of the schedule property ,,] . i.e., land situated in Survey No.956 to the extent of Ac. 2-33 guntas, within the limits of Mettupally village, Wanaparthy -' I Mandal. After 'demise of husband of petitioner No.l, she, being successor of her husband, hled application dated

29.O4.2OO9 before the then Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Wanaparthy, for mutation, of her name in revenue records in respect of the schedule propert5r. Pending the same, petitioner No,1 sold the schedule property to one P.Nagaraj by executing ,: I z sKs,J C.R.P.No.458O of 2Ol2 a registered GPA-Cum-Sale deed bearing document No.4198 of 2008 dated 04.06.2008, in order to meet her personal finaecial needs. tt is stated that since the Mandal Revenue Offi<:er and Revenue Division Officer have not taken any steps in respect of the application filed by petitioner No- 1 on 29.Ct4.2OO9, petitioner, along with P.Nagaraj, filed a suit uide O.S. No.l of 20O8 before the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Wanaparthy, seeking declaration of entries in the narrre of husband of petitioner No.l and substitution of peti.:ioner No.1 name and P.Nagaraj in respect of the schedule prol)erty. Pending the suit, P.Nagaraj, sold the schedule propertl' to father of petitioner No.2. While things stood thus, the primary authority issued Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORr3) in favour of respondent Nos.1 and, 2 uide ord,er dated

26.03.2010 in File No.B/ L67l2OLA, over the schedule pro1rcrty. Assailing the same, petitioner No- 1 approached the app,:llate authority by initiating proceedings in Case No.Ir2/ LSI2O10 and the appellate authority dismissed the same on 3O.O6.2OL2 by conhrming the order of primary autirority dated 26.03.2010. Hence, the present revision peti:ion. \ \ n 3 sKs,J C.R.P.ltIo.45 80 of 20 12 3: Heard Sri Meherchand Nori, lehrned counsel for the revision petitioners as , welL, .as Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available 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 propert5r, the primary authority has erroneously granted ORC to respondent Nos.l and 2 without issuing any notices to the petitioners. He further su,bmitted that the schedule property l is patta land, not inam land and therefore, the question of issuance of ORC doe,,s ,n9.t arise. In support'of the above submissions, .the learned counsel filed Photostat copies of .:, sethwar, khasra pahar.r,i,.lo{:,ft y ar 1954-55 and pahanies for the year Ig74-75; tr981-82, lg}g-gi}, lgg2-g3, Lgg4- 95,1998-99, ,2OO7-08" 2008-09 and Old Record of Rights ,,:,,, r' (ROR) and pra54ed the Court,to,allow the revision petition by setting aside the impug4qd ord.ers of the primary authority and appellate authority

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the,primary authority has rightly 'l ') ' iJ ,) i: l: t: l I r t I 4 sKs,J C.R.P.Irto.45 80 of 2OL2 \ grarlted ORC to respondent Nos.l and 2 as they are the owrrers and possessors of the schedule property, which is innirm land. He further submitted that since petitioner No.1 has sold the schedule property to one P.Nagaraj, who in turn solc. the same to father of petitioner No.2,'she has no locus stand.ito file the: appeal. He also submitted that the petitioner filecl suit uid.e ct.s. No.01 of 2009 only to grab the schedule prolterty and the same was dismissed for default on

03.09.2009. In support of his submissions, he filed certified cop:es of Faisal Patti for the year 1964-65, Pahanies for the year' 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1973-74 and Photostat copy of Lr.Ito.A3/4215160 dated 11.11.1960 of RDO, Gadwal and pralrsd the Court to dismiss the revision petition.

6. In view of the rival submissions made b'y both the learned cottnsel, this Court has perused the material evidence available 6n pssord. It is apparent that the nalne of husband of petitioner No.1 is shown as makthedar in the pahanies for the year Lg64-65 and 1965-66. It is noteworthy that on O2.12.2OO}, Form-II notice was issued by the primary authority, to thc parties in respect of the schedule property. Pertinently, as per Section 3 of the Act, atl rights, title and inte::est in the inamdar shall be vested in the state from l I i. \ \ , ,i"r,r i ]1,.f?-1]: : ,..;ji].:. =- 5 sKs,J C.R.p.tto.458O of 2Ot2 20.O7.f gSS unless re-grant is made and as such, the reckoned date for determination of oRC is 01.11.1973. The appellate authority, having observed that the ancestors of respondent Nos.1 and 2 were in possession of the schedule property as on 01.11.L973 basing on.the entries in the Pahani for the year r9z3-74, granted the oRC to respondent Nos.1 and 2, apparently, ignoring the other entries that were relied on by 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 the Pahanies for the year lg64-6s. At this juncture, it is to be noted that same person cannot be Makthedar and lnamdar. Thus, all the documents relied by both the parties needs to be verified thoroughry. Further, in Khasra Pahani for the year 19s4-5s, the Khasra land is shown as patta land, however, when that the rand converted into Inam land is not verified by the concerned authorit5r. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the appellate authority ought to have verilied the relevant records including Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 and also subsequent relevant records to come to the conclusion that whether schedule property is a patta land or inam land. Therefore, in order to meet ends of justice, without going into \ \ 6 sKs,J C.R.P.No.45aO of 2Ol2 n the merits of the case, this court is inclined to remand the matter to the appellate authority for deciding the lis in the matler afresh b1'calling the relevant records' Accordingly, the civil Revision Petition is disposed of

7. and the matter is remanded to the appellate authorigr for deciding the m;ttter afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. clos:d. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand SD/. SRI NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To ADK/GRP

1. The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar 2. One CC lo SRI MEHERCHAND NORI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC lo SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies 'i :

1. i I 1t I I I I ! I \ HIGH CO,URT DATED:2:,910812025 tE{l .q I,q ;.R ? 2 JAI zoz[ o * \"' .* ORDER c RP.No.4l580 of 2012 DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUTCOSTS a