The High Court · 2025

Smt. Zainabee, w/o. Late JVannan, Aged about g0 years, occ ; Househord, Rr/o. Hasanplly(v) Nizamsagar I\,4andar pre-sentry R/o.yerlareddy viilage i"o H,i'rno:rr, Kamareddy District. AND ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Assignment) Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Lower Tankbund, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Kamareddy District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Banswada, Kamareddy District. 4. The Tahsildar, Nizam Sagar lrrlandal, Kamareddy District. 5. The Assistant Director, S and LR, Kamareddy, kamareddy District. 6. Naziya Sultana, W/o. Mohd. Sharif Aged about tVlajor, Occ. Household, R/o 7. lmt Begari Rajavva, W/o. pochaiah, Aged about lrrlajor, Occ. Household, - R/o. Hasanplly Village, Nizamsagar Mandal., Kamareidy District. B. Smt.Gousiya Bee, Wo. \1.A. Aziz Aged about l\rlajor, Oic. Household, Rt/o. Hasanplly Village, Nizamsagar IVlandal, Kamareddy District. Hasanplly Village, Nizamsagar [Vlandal, Kamareddy District. ,....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 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 re-consider the case of the petitioner afresh based T:7 on the report submitted by the Tahsildar dt. 23.O7.2022 and 24.08.2022, pending disposal of the main writ appeal- Counsel for the Appellant : SRI AKKAM ESHWAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : SRI D.V.CHALAPATHI RAO, LEARNED GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 8 : M/s B.RACHANA REDDY The Court made the following JUDGMENT : - I I l THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.733 of 2025 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paut): Sri A. Eshwar, learned counsel for the appellalt and Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment, for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

3. With the consent, finally heard. Learned counsel for the appellant raised singular submission. By placing heavy reliance on the documents dated

24.08.2022 and 23.07.2022, it is submitted that name of the appellant's husband/ Sri Late Mannan, S/o. Ahmad, is indeed, mentioned in relation to Sy.No.70/5. These two cruciaj documents, on which the entire case of the appellant /writ petitioner was founded upon, has escaped notice by the learned Single Judge. No reasons, whatsoever, are assigned in the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 as to why the said two documents were not trustworthy. In paragraph No.7 of the impugned ordei, a bald finding is given that no documentar5r 2 evidence has been produced by the appellant, which runs contrary to the record. 4 Learned Government pleader for Assignment supported the impugned order and submits that paragraph No.7 of the impugned order deals with the contention of the appellalt 5 No other point 1S pressed by learned counsel for the parttes.

6. Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the impugned order, on vvhich learned counsel for the parties relied upon read thus: '16_ -A careful perusal of the impugned order . datecl 12 09.2022 vide No.Ell2TSSlZOZfpassJ Uy the respondent No.2 would reveal that 1., p,l."r..r.. of the orders dated 13.04.2022 passed Uy it.,is Cou.t in W.P.No. 19472 of 2022, tine iesponde"nt IVo i f,." e_xamined the representation dated 24 .12.2O2I of the petitioner by conducting an enquiry U."i.rg o.n the report of the respondent No.+_fahsildar and the explanations submitted by the individuals and also the records available in his office, rejected the request of the petitioner. The penultimaL para of the impugned order reads as foll,ows: ^.ra "On verification of the Revenue records, the following facts have been noticed: i. In the pahoni l9Z3_74, in Sy. No: 7Ol5, rhe sharas were written as padava, which is'clearlv showing that. since many years 1i.e., approximately (48) years) the subject land was not oulti'r,ated by the petitioner her familv rnembers. -& i i I I 3 ii. The Petitioner has not produced/submitted aly documentary evidence i.e. Assignment Patta Certificate, Old PPB etc. iii. The Asst. Director Survey & Land Records Kamareddy has informed that, the Sub- Division record and Supplementary Sethwar of the subject land has also not been issued' iv. The petitioner has not claimed the subject land previously for long time,' and suddenly in the year 2O2I sLre has preferred her claim over the subject land."

7. The petitioner herein has claimed that her late husband was assigned land admeasuring Ac' 1- OS gts in Sy.No.70/5 of Hasanpally Village, and that his name was reflected in the pahanies for the year 1983-84. However, she failed to produce any substantive documentary evidence such as assignment patta certihcate, D-form patta, or old Pattadar Passbook issued under the provisions of the then applicable Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. As per Section 4 of the said Act, any person who acquires rights over agricultural land -by inheritance, patta, partition, decree or otherwise, is bound to intimate such acquisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer within ninety days. It is evident from the record that neither the husband of the petitioner during his iifetime, nor the petitioner thereafter, had taken steps to apply for mutation under Section 4 of the ROR Act, 1971 for amendment of Record of Rights' There is no explanation offered for the inordinate delay of several decades in asserting the ciaim over the subject land. When the land in question has re mained uncultivated and shown as 'Padava' for nearly 48 years, and when no documents whatsoever were produced to establish the alleged assignment or possession, the petitioner cannot now, after such p.rolonged delay, claim rights over the property merely on oral assertions." So far, paragraph No'6 of the impugned order is I I I I I i I

7. concerned, it is only reproduction of the impugned order of the authority. The findings are given in paragraph No'7*# the 4 rmpugned order. A careful reading of paragraph No.7 of the impugned order shows that there is no reference to the aJoresaid documents dated 24.Og.2022 and 23.07.2022 on which appellant placed heal'r7 reriance. This is minimum wrren the case of the appellant is based on the aforesaid iwo documcnts ro discuss as to rvhether the said documents have any bearing on the clajm of the appellant. putting it differently, in our opinion, if the case of the appelant was totally based on the aforesaid tu,o documents, the said documents should have been examinecl ald a finding in specilic should have been recorded as to whether the said documents confer aly right in favour of the appellant or not. Th us, we find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that aforesaid two crucial documents have escaped notice of learned Single Judge in the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be axed. We do accordingly. B. The impugned order d.ated 12.02.2025 is set aside. W.P.No.39994 of 2022 is restored to its original number with the request to the learned Single Judge to rehear the parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 5

9. With aforesaid and without expressing aly opinion on merits of the case, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Interiocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S D/- A.V.S.PRASAD PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER rg nment) Secretariat' To

1. Th" Prin"ip al Secretary, DePartment of Revenue ( BRKR Bhavan, Lower Tankbu nd, State of Telanga na at Hyderabad The District Collector, Kamareddv District The Revenue Divisional Officer' Banswada, The Tahsildar' Nizam Sag ar Mandal, KamareddY District. The Assistant Director, S a nd LR, KamareddY, Ka mareddY District Two CCs to G P FOR REVE NUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvd erabad. [OUI One CC to SRI AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate I One CC to M/s B.RACHANA REDDY' Advoca te (OPUC) Two CD CoPies KamareddY District OPUC]

2. 3 4 r) 7 8 I SA TKS l , I I I i I I i ! I I J HIGH COURT DATED:1410712025 i- o ::\- { 31 JUt zffi * 9,-=s P',-a1-{EO (. (' ; JUDGMENT WA.No.733 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS. \>-