High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The State of Telangana. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Court of the Special Tribunal, Adilabad. Rep by its Collector and District [/agistrate, lVlember, Spl. Tribunal, Adilabad Addl. Collector (Revenue), Adilabad, Member, Spl. Tribunal, Adilabad.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer. Adilabad, Adilabad District. 4. The Tahsildar, Adilabad Urban, Adilabad District. 5. Smt.Bojja Lasum Bai, Wio. Late Bhojanna, Aged about 55 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. Shanthi Nagar, Adilabad Locality, Adilabad District.

6. Nirmala Bai, W/o. Keti Reddy Ganga Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o.Shanthi Nagar, Adilabad Locality, Adilabad District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiir praying that in the' circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may b'e pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the Special Tribunal/2nd respondent, in ST.No,/40/2021(Dl131000512020) dated 1610612021 in confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent daled 0411212019 in Proc.No.Cl3144l2012 and quash the same, holding its as illegal, arbitrary, u n-co nstitutiona l, violate of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and offend Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia, and contrary to the provisions of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 'l 51 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 order passed by the Special Tribunal/2nd respondent in ST.No./40/2021(D1131000512020) dated 1610612021 in confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent dated 0411212019 in Proc.No.Cl3144l2O12 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT R.MADHAVI LATHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Rlespondent No.5: SRI GAJANAND CHAKR,\VARTHY WRIT PETlTlOtl NO: 44576 OF 2022 Between: Boja Lasum Bai, W/o Late Bhojanna, Aged about 70 Years, Occ. Agriculturist, Rl/o Shantinagar, Adilabad Locality, Adilabad District. AND 1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 3 The District Collector, Adilabad District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District. ...PETITIONER

4. The Tahsildar, Adilabad Urban Mandal, Adilabad District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe 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 Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 to 4 in not issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds by mutating the name of petitioner in revenue records in respect of lands in Sy.No. 68135121111, Admeasuring Ac.7-12 gts, situated at Khanapur Shivar, Adilabad Urban Mandal, Adilabad District, inspite of written representation dated -10-11-2022, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutiona I and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to 4 herein to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioner by mutating her name in the revenue records in respect of the aforesaid lands. lA NO: 't OF 2022 Petition under Section '1 51 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 respondent No.2 to 4 herein forthwith consider written representation dated '10-1 1-2022 and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioner by mutating her name in the revenue records in respect of agriculture land in Sy.No. 68/35/21111, Admeasuring Ac. 7-12 gts, situated at Khanapur Shivar, Adilabad Urban Mandal, Adilabad District, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ,]]HE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VE,1{UGOPAL WRIT PETITION Nos.24O96 of 2O2l alrd, 44576 of 2022 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.24096 of 2O2l has been Iiled seeking to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one 1n the nature of Wit of Certiorart calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the learned Special Tribunal/respondent No.2, S.1'.No.40/2021 (D1/3/0005/2O2Ol, dated 16.06.2021 in confirming the orders passed by respondent No.3 dated 04.12.2019 in Proc.No.C13144 l2OI2 and quash the same.

2. W.P.No.44576 ot 2022 has been filed seeking to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particulariy one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not issuing pattadar passbooks ald title dr:eds by mutating the name of the pet.itioner in the revenue rr-'cords in respect ol land to arr extent of Acs.7.l2 guntas in Sy.No.68/3512/l/1, situated at Khanapur Shivar, Adilabad Urban Mandal, Adilabad District, in spite of written representation dated 70.11.2022, as being illega1, arbitrarv, Pagc 2 of9 unjust and unconstitutiona-l and consequently direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour for the petitioner by mutating her name in \ the revenue records.

3. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and I disposed of by way of this Common Order.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents arrd perused the record.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that originally Late Bojja Ashanna is the pattedar and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Acs. 10.33 guntas in Sy.No.68, situated at Khanapur Village, Adilabad District and the said property is an ancestral property. Bojja Ashanna is having 2 sons and 2 daughters namely Bojja Devanna, Bojja Pochanna, Bojja Gangamma and Bo.fia Rajamma. After the death of Bojja Ashanna, his children became the successors. Petitioner No.1 is the daughter of /, Page 3 of9 late Bojja Ashartna and petitioner Nos.2i to 6 in W.P.No.24O96 of 2021 are grandsons and grarddaughters of Late Bojja Ashanna and they are in joint possr:ssion of the subject property along with respondent No.S in W.P.No.24096 of 2O2l and the sole petitioner W.P.No.44576 of 2022, who is the wife of Bojja Devarna.

6. In the month of July, 2Ol9 the petitioners came to know that respondent No.5 filed an Appeal before respondent No.3 questioning the revenue entries made in favour of respondent No.6 in respect of agricultural land to ax extent of Acs.B.OO guntas out of Acs.lO.Ot) guntas in 51,.No.68 (old) corresponding Sy.No.68/35 (new). In the said appea-l, respondent No.6 alleged that she has purchased the land to an extent of Acs.9.28 guntas from Bojja Pochanna through registered sale deed bearing document No.P3/93, dated 19.01.199O and the sa-le deed was regplarized AS document No.124 198. In the said appeal, respondent No.5 contended that above said property is a joint farriily property and Bojja Pochanna alone is not having any absolute rights to execute zrnv document in favour of respondent No.6 and I Page 4 of9 the revenue authorities without issuing arry notice to respondent No.5 ard other legal heirs/ successors ol late Bo.fia Ashanna changed the revenue entries.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 without inlorming to the petitioners and without impleading the petitioners, she alone filed Appeal Case No.Cl3144/2012 before respondent No.3, with an intention to ciaim the entire property in her favour. Upon receipt of the said information, the petitioners herein filed I.A. in the year 2Ol9 in Case No.C/3laa/2012 on 27.O7.2019 through their counsel permitting them to implead S party respondents in the Appeal. B. On 31.07 .2O 19, respondent No.3 issued notice to the respective counsels of the parties including the counsel for the petitioners directing them to appear before respondent No.3 office on 17.OB.2O 19 with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioners have appeared through their counsel and submitted all relevant documents. Respondent No.3 without considering the contentions of the I'age 5 of 9 petitioners arrd without verifying the documents disposed of the Appeal No.C/31a4/2012 on 04.12.2OL9 directing respondent No.4/Tahsildar to rectify the original records arrd carry out the amendments in pahani in favour of respondent No.S in place of respondent No.6, even without disposing the implead petition filed by the petitioners.

9. Questioning the order dated 04.12.2019, the petitioners liled a Revision Petition No.D1/3/OOO5/2020 before thr' .loint Collector and the same was -ransferred to responderrt No.2 Tribunal arrd renumber,--d as Case No.ST.No.4O l2O2r (Dl l3/OOO5/2O2O). Respondent No.2- Tribunal without issuing any notice to the petitioners passed the order on 10 .O2.2O2I . As per the ,trders dated

18.03.202 1 passed in W.P.(PIL) No.2O/2021, the case was reopened and respondent No.2-Tribuna-l without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners in the revision petition and documentar5z evidence on record, has erroneously dismissed the sarne by its order dated

16.06.2021. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 16.06.2021, the petitioners preferred Page 6 of9 W.P.No.24096 of 2021. Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.24O96 of 2021 }:as hled W.P.No.44576 of 2022 to mutate her name in the revenue records, to that effect, she also filed a representation dated lO.Il.2022 to respondent Nos.2 to 4.

10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would submit that the husband of respondent No.5 is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Acs.7.12 guntas 1n Sy.No.68/35 l2l I I 1, situated at Khanapur Shivar, Adilabad Urban Manda,l, Adilabad District. Revenue authorities have also mutated the name of the husbald of respondent No.S in the revenue records. Respondent No.S and her husband are eking their livelihood by cultivating the subject property. After the demise of her husband, respondent No.5 approached the respondent-authorities to mutate her name in the revenue records. Respondent No.S also made a representation dated lO.l1-.2O22 to that effect Upon receipt of the said representation, the respondent- authorities have not acted upon it. Hence, respondent No.5 filed W.P.No.44576 of 2022 Page 7 ol 9 I 1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue on instructions would submit that as per the old revenue records for the year 1955-56 and 1957-58, tlre lald to an extent ol Acs.8.OO guntas in Sy.No.68/e5, situated at Khanapur Village Shivar of Adiiabad Urbal Mandal. Later on, Nirma-la Bai W/o. Gangareddy brought ,ln record S pattedar corresponding Sy.No.68/3512, to itn extent of Acs.8.OO guntas in the year 1994-95. At 1;resent Bojja Lasum Bai W/o. Bojja Devanna recorded pattedar in Sy.No.68/35 l2/l/1, to an extent of Acs.7.1280 guntas. The base Sy.No.68 is having arr extent of Acs.535.2C guntas is a patta land as per the oldest records. There are several sub- divisions rvere formed out of base Sy.No.68. 'lhe Sy.No.68 a;rd its sub-division subject land in Sy.No.68/35 /2ll/7 has shown in prohibited property list of Wakf lanrl in Dharani Portal.

12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that since the lald in Sy.No.68 ,s shown in prohibited list, property registration or issuance of pattedar passbook colrld not be taken up as such detailed report in Page 8 of9 this regard has already been submitted to the District Collector. The report submitted is in active perusal and action will be taken according to the provisons of the digital platform of Dharani.

13. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, W.P.No.24O96 of 2021 is disposed of, by setting aside the order passed by respondent No.3, dated 04.12.2019 in Appeal Case No.C/3144 l2Ol2, and remand the matter back to the revisional authority - respondent No.3 constituted under Section 15(1) of the Bhu Bharathi Act, 2025, who shall, in turn, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, unofficial respondents and all concerned parties as by procedure established by law and upon examination of the records pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, AS expeditiously AS possible, preferably within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequent to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24O96 of 2021, W.P.No.44576 of 2022 is liable to be i / Page 9 of9 dismissed and accordingly dismissed' There shali be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, \ To, shall stald closed. //TRUE COPY// -SD/-C. DEEPIKA TANT REGISTRAR \ l\ E TION OFFICER I Thg Princip^al Secretary, Revenue Department, \ Hyderabad, State of Telangana. cretariat Buildings,

2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Member, Spl. Tribunal, Adilabad Addl. Collector (Revenue), Adilabad, Member, Spl. Tribunal, Adilabad, Court of the Special Tribunal, Adilabad.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, Aditabad Distr ct. 4. The Tahsildar, Adilabad Urban, Adilabad District. 5. One CC to SRI R.MADHAVI LATHA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI, Advocate IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies BSR BS j I HIGH COURT DATED: 2510912025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.24096 ot 2021 and 44576 o12022 \i;\' ffi\ 2 5 0[T 2B2r a) .J i

9.. a. F,,+F '\, (' DISPOSING OF THE W.P.No.24096 of 2021 & DISMISSING THE W.P.No.44576 of 202i2, WITHOUT COSTS