The High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary for Revenue Secretariat, Hyderabad The Joint Collector - ll, Rangareddy district at Lakdi-ka-pool Hyderabad The Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal at Shankarpally Rangareddy district Smt.Sarojini Deshmukh, Wo: Late Yeshwant Rao Kishan Rao, Deshmukh aged about 69 years, Occ: Housewife Rl/o H.No.23-6-1012/1, Shah Ali Banda Hyderabad

5. Uday Deshmukh, S/o: Late Yeshwant Rao Kishan Rao Deshmukh, R/o H.No.23-6-1012/1, Shah Ali Eanda Hyderabad 6. Gunda Chandrappa died per LRs Resdts.12 to 14, - 7. Narsingh S/o. Late Kalyan Singh, Occ: Agriculture, R/o No.14-10-141211414, Jali Hanuman Dhoolpet, Hyderabad

8. K.Narayana, S/o. Bhumaiah, aged about 84 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Shankarpally village Shankarpally Mandal, R.R district

9. Yemsani Prakash Gupta, S/o: Late Pandu Rangam, aged about 59 years, Occ: Agriculture

10. Smt.G.Mallamma died per LRs Resdts. '12to14, - 'I '1. Smt.G.Parwathamma, Wo: Late G.Chandrappa, aged about 75 years, Occ: Household, R/o Shankarpally village, Near Vegetable market Shankarpally Mandal, R.R district

12. Sml.G.Jaya Sri, D/o: Late G.Chandrappa, aoed about 47 years, Occ: Household Rt/o Shankarpatty villide, Ndar Veoetableharket Shankarpally Mandal, R.R district

13. G.Vilay Kunrar, S/o: Late G.Chandrappa, aged about 43 years, Occ: Business R/o Shankarpally village, Near Vegeiable market Shanka'rpally Mandal, R.R district

14.O.Uma Kanth, S/o: Late G.Chandrappa, aged about 42 years, Occ: Business Rl/rc Shankarpally village, Near Vegetable market Shankirpally Mandal, R. R district Respondents 7 lo I are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue rtrrit, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned order passed by the learned Joint Collector ll, RR district in case no.D1/5951/2008 dt_12.12.2O14 is arbitrary and illegal and without jurisdiction l.A. NO: 2 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 6592 OF 201 q\ 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 passed by the learned Joint Collector ll, RR District in Case No. D11595112008 dt.12-12-2o14, pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY KUMAR HEROOR Counsel for the Rr:spondent Nos.'l to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5: M/S RAJ KUMAR RUDRA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.11 to 14: SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER Counsel forthe Proposed Respondents: SRI P. SHASIDHER REDDY WRIT PETITION N t):24536 OF 2015 Between: 1 2 SMT. G. Mallamma, (died per LRs P2 to P5) lmt G Parwathamma, W/o: late G. Chandrappa, aged about 75 years, " Vegetable M:arket, Occ: Houserhold, R/o Shankarpally village, N6ar Shankarpally Mandal, R.R. District. Sml. G. Jaya Sri, D/o. late G' Chandrappa' aged about.4T.years 6".: in,,i"ibro. R/o Shankarpally village, Near vegetable Market' ShJnkarpally l\.4andal, R.R. Dislrict G. Viiav Kumar, Sio. late G. Chandrappa, aged about^.42. years' 5"., g,;din"ii Rlo shankarpally village, Near.Vegetable Market Shankarpally Mandal, R.R. District. G. Uma Kanth, S/o: late G Chandrappa' aged about 42 years' Occ: Busrness HlJdn?^i[ii,itiv ;iriigi, Nl"rr. vesetaote [4arket, shankarpallv Mandal' R R District. ,.,PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 o

The State of Telangana, rept. by its Principal Secretary' Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad' The Joint Collector-ll, R R District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad' The Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal, at Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District' Smt. Sarojini Deshmukh, W/o: late Yeshwant Rao Kishan Rao Deshmukh' aged about 69 years, Occ: Housewife Fyo H No 23-6-1012 1' Shah Ali Banda' Hyderabad. Uday Deshmukh, S/o; tate Yeshwant Rao Kishan Rao Deshmukh' aged about 43 years, R/o H.No.23-6-'l012 1, Shah Ali Banda' Hyderabad Narsingh, S/o: late Kalyan Singh, aged about 84 years' Occ: Agricullure R/o No. 14-1 0-1 41 2 I 1 41 4, Jali Hanuman, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad' K. Narayana, S/o: Bhumaiah, aged about 63 years' Occ: Agdculture' R/o Shankarpally village and Mandal' R R District' Yemsani Prakash Gupta, S/o: late Pandu Rangam' aged about 59 years' Occ: Agriculture, R/o Shankarpally village and Mandal' R R District' smt. Gunda Saralamma, died per LR Gunda Chandrasekhar S/o: late G' Eshwarappa, aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Shankarpally' Ranga Reddy District i, i,Tl.Xi;1.,J)y,l:,::1".^,',1:1,:lT:,:"?:.L1,1,,11il'X:'"i:li$ ;,t,i;:;:l"Ji,):' :ff':'; , \ ;::::F:,:*l;"*,,",.l"lTli';1.: "":, ol2 eed ,bout 67 Years, Occ' i. ttv,le, abrd - 500 006 ph. Ae.ed aboul 55 Years iioolpit, uYacrabad - soo 3i'**. rn, ::.: ;*3:,.3i X/: li$""i3:r;i5{^*;?l:;.fii'}?lill-'i '.l$}alili'iJ'i ly l,:.1""1*::'li;txl:,x',"1,?8":[fl:.Yg;.:i:JilH-^:1g];]]ila'l r- **i**,.lt Xl"".1ll%.?lti.t 31f.,?i".).T:l-,-'J::t"::ii",1',.",::;T""'1il'33:' ,:,:j.**riy{.:,1:1xTH"''l'-}1*3l:J:TJili::B$;}f "1;::s'1u-litilu*"' ,llr s-, A*rradha salil11lii,:"Lp:i,$*"#'i;xr;H.'$s;,1";"1':'.:;;"'""-"il"d 3#' iil'Y'Years' Hvdcrabad - 50C 006 ,J, ii;i"ffj::.i:lY("."ru::3,,':gl.t"'J"',iftili['ff-'"':81;'li1J'1?#liJ%??':; rQr smt Prabha Bai Y/:, *jT ,';:si.: -B/i 'o llo,r"ehoid. R/o H No la-IU i,1l Snrl. Usha Rani w/ o tate DeePaK singh agrd about 32 Years, Occ: Household' R/o' H No ln-ro-rat21wta 's aali Hanuman' Lo*er I Rohit Sinsh s/ o Late Deepak Sing l4- t0- l4 L2l 14 i4' "j,".1i.'i,i'-'f,lL-hf"i',;::"i#""3n.,i'.""i Dhoolpet Hr Years, Occ: Studenl ( Hyderabad - 50o 006' h, aged aboul 15 r Dhoolpet, Ranr / Minor), R/o lt'No rePresented bY his dcrabad - 500 006 l, t guardian, S --1' t ! t I i i I I t I 1 l 1 I t:f ; it; ...respondents (RR 10 TO 20 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 10t08t22 in l.A" ,l l22l Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of writ of lVandamus declaring the impugned orders passed by Respondent No.2 in Case No. D115951/2008 d1.12.12.2014 as arbitrary, iltegat, without jurisdiction and perverse and set aside the same l.A. NO: 1 OF 201li(WPMP. NO: 31 858 0F 2015) 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 impugned orders passed by Respondent No.2 in Case No. D115951l2OO8 dt. 12.12.2O14, pending disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 1 OF 2018 BETWEEN:

1. Smt. Sarojini Deshmukh, W/o. late Yeshwant Rao Kishan Rao Deshmukh, aged about 69 years, Occ: Housewife R/o H.No.23-6-1012.'l , Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad.

2. Uday Deshrnukh, S/o: late Yeshwant Rao Kishan Rao Deshmukh, aged about 43 years, R/r: H.No.23-6-1012.1, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad. ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 AND Occ: Household, Rl/o _Shankarpally village, Near Shankarpally lt4andal, R.R. District.

1. SN,IT. G. Mallamma, (died per LRs P2 to P5) 2. Smt. G Parwathamma, W/o: .late G_ Chandrappa, aged aboul 75 years, - Vegetable M'arket, 3. Smt. p; Jay1a Sri,_ D/o:_ late G. Chandrappa, aged about 47 years, Occ: Household, R/o Shankarpally villagi;, Nea-r Vegetable tril'arket, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R. District.

4. G. Vijay Kumar, S/o. late G. Chandrappa, aoed about 42 vears. Occ: Busines.s R/o Shankarpally village, Near Vegetabie Market, ShankdrpJl( Mandal, R.R. District.

5. G. Uma Kanth, S/o: late G. Chandrappa, aged aboul 42 years, Occ: Business R:/o Shankarpally village, Near Vegetabte Market, Shanliarpaliy t\,4andal, R.R. District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

6. The State of Telangana, rept. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

7. The Joint Collector-ll, R.R. District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 8. The Tahsildar, Shankarpally lvlandal, at Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District. 9. Narsingh, S/o: late Kalyan Singh, aged about 84 years, Occ: Agriculture Ryo No.14-10-141211414, Jali Hanuman, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. '10. K. Narayana, S/o: Bhumaiah, aged about 63 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Shankarpally village and liilandal, R.R. Diskict. 11- Yemsani Prakash Gupta, S/o: late Pandu Rangam, aged about 59 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Shankarpally village and Mandal, R.R. District.

12. Smt. Gunda Saralamma, died per LR Gunda Chandrasekhar S/o: late G. Eshwarappa, aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District. lq Srnt. Rani Bai W/o Lare Arjun Singh & D/o Late Narsing Singh, Aged about 67 years, Occ: 11 Household, R,i o H. No. l4 - I 0-528. Mohan Dass Mutr, I-ower Dhoolpet, Hyderabad - 5O0 OO6 [$,,, Smt. Choti Bai W/o Lare Krshorilal Singh & D/o Ldte Narsing Singh, Aged abour 55 years, /' Occ: Household. R/o. H.No. l4- lO-8 t 7. Jummerat Bazar, I_ower Dhoohet, Hyderabad _ 5OO t \ ot2 [@ Smt. Shoba Bar W/o Lare Shcrrkar Singh &, D/o. lateNarsing Singh, Aged about 55 years, '-.2 Occi Household, R/o. H.No. l3-1 464, Dilawar Gunj, Mdngalghat, Hydirabad - 5OO 006 ffl Smt. cayatri Devi W/o Vishnu Singh & D/o Late Narsing Singh, Aged abriut 52 years, Occ: 'P Household, R/o. H.No. l4-9-58O, Chudi Bazar, Begum Bazar, gyderatiad - 5OO O12 [-fl smr Geeta Bai w/o Ashok Singh & D/o Late Narsing Singhi Aged about 52 ybars, Occ: / Household, R/o. H.No. l4- I O-34 to 39, Jinsi Chowraha, Lower Dhoolpet; HyaeraUad -SCiOOOO [ $ Smt. Saru Bai W/o T. Shankar Singh & D/o Late Narsing singh, Aged about 46 years, Occ: ': Household, R/o. H.No. 14-10-1474, Jinsi Chowaha, Iawer Dhoolpel Hydelabad jOOOO6 ^/^{q -S--a w N Anuradha Bai W/o Mahesh Singh & D/o Late Narsing Singh, Agbd aboul 46 years, Occ: I Household, R/o. H.No. l4-10-5OO/8, Mohandas Mutt, Lower Dhooipeq Hyderabad - SOO 006 Smu Rekha Bai W/o Kailash Singh & D/o Late Narsing Singh, Aged about 45 years, Occ Household, R/o. H.No. l3-1-972, Bada Bangal Bhatak, l.ower Dhoolpet, Hyderabad - 50O 006 Smt. Prabha Bai W/o Rajan Singh & D/o Late Nzusing Singh, Aged abouf 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 14,10-528, Jaali Hanuman Mohandal Mutt, Loye.I: Dhoolpet, '.,, ,.,. )ft15^r. Usha Rani W/o l-ate Deepak Singh, aged abour 32 years, Occ: Househbld, R/o. H.No. - l4-la-1412 / 14 t4, Jaali Hanu man, Lower Dhoolp€t, Hyderabad - 5OO 006 Rohit Singh S/o Late Deepak Singh, aged about 15 yeqrs, Occ: Student (Minor), R/o. H.No. 14-10-14121 141.4, Jaali Hanuman, Inwer Dhoolpet, ftyderatiad - SOO O06, repre.senied by his B ,RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 6 TO 9 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 vacate the interim order dated 6.8.2015 passed in WP No. 2453612015 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5: M/S KEERTHI KlRAl,l KOTA Counsel forthe Proposed Respondents: SRI P. SHASIDHER REDDY The Court made tne following: COMMON ORDER J SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2Ol5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION Nos.495l and,24536 of 2015 COMMON ORDER: As both these writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2-Joint Collector-Il, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.D115951 l2OO8 dated 12.12.2074, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel lor the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue and learned counsel for the unofllcial respondents.

3. For the purpose of narrating the facts, W.P.No.24536 of 2015 is taken as a lead case.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions submits that originally Sri Gopal Rao Deshmtlkh was the Inamdar of lands L ,/ I l \ 4 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 ol20l5 bearing Sy.Nos.330 admeasuring Ac.6-09 gts, Sy.No.335 admeasuring Ac.17.26 gts, Sy.No.338 admeasuring Ac.3-OO gts, Sy.No.339 admeasuring Ac.6- 03 Bts, Sy.No.34O admeasuring Ac.2-15 gts and Sy.No.369 admeasuring Ac.0.33 gts situated at Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the said lands are Inam Dasthagardan lands.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the paternal grandfather of petitioner, by name Gunda Veeranna, was in possession and enjoyment of the said lands as protected tenant during his lifetime and after his demise, his two sons namely Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda Eshwarappa have succeeded the said lands and the Inams Tribunal has granted Occupancy Rights Certificates in their favour in the year 7975-76 and their narnes were entered in the SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015 revenue records as pattadars of the above said lands as per their sha,res since 1978 onwards. He submits that in the said Certificates, the iand to an extent of Ac.6-09 1n Sy.No.330 situated at Singapur Village, Shankarpaliy Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was not incorporated either by mistake or by inadvertence, however mutation in respect of said lands was eflected in favour of Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda Eshwarappa along with the other lands in the year 1978-79. After demise of Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda Eshwarappa, the petitioners in two writ petitions have succeeded the tenancy rights over the said lands and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject lands.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners lurther submits that during the course of time, the land to an extent of Ac.2-O2 gts lll Sy.No.330 was sold to the 6 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015 thirci parties tlrrough registered sale deeds, converted the said land irrto residential plots and also constructed residential houses. While it being so, after a period of 30 years, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed revision petition in the year, 2008, for correction of entries in the pahanies frcm the year 1978-79 onwards regarding the land to an extent of Ac.6-09 gts in Sy.No.330 of Singapur Villag,e, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He furLher submits that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have no right or title over the subject lands. The respondent No.12 allowed the said revision directing the respondent No.3 to conduct lresh enquiry and pass appropriate or<lers as per provisions of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 197 1 (for short the ROR Act, 197 I). Learned counsel lurther submits that the impugned order itself is illegai on the ground that the revision was filed after a lapse of more I 1 7 SK,J W.P.Nos.495t and 24536 ot 2O\5 than 30 years without any condone delay petition and it is barred by limitation.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 without filing appeal under the ROR Act, l97L have directly flled revision petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 197 1 and the respondent No.2-Joint Collector hes entertained the revision petition and passed impugned order and the sarne is not maintainable ' The respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order without jurisdiction and ought not to have remanded the matter to the respondent No.3 for fresh enquiry and requested to allow the writ petitions.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of relied upon the following their pontentions, has t Judgments; 8 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 ol 2O L5

1. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District vs. D. Narsing Raot

2. Ram Kali Devi (Smt) Vs. Manager, punjab National Bank, Shamshabad2

3. Ragho Singh vs. Mohan Singh3

4. Kosaraju Balaji vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad4 ' 5. Niadu Sambasiva Rao vs. The Joint Collector, Krishnas

6. P. Anjaneyulu Gupta vs. Mohd. Abdul Basith I Khan6

7. Pratap Jungle Resorts Private Limited, Hyderabad rep. by its Diiector Sri D. prathap (20 r5) 3 SCC 695 ( r99j) 9 SCC 5s8 rzoolsscczrz iot5 sbc onlinc ttv,l (,0.1 Unreported Judgmerit ofrhis Coun in W.P.No.2692 of 2009-l\ IAN Lr/APi 17452022 " 2014 (3) Ar-T r40 (s.rr ) I 9 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2Ol5 Chander Reddy vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy DistrictT

8. Vanga Narsa Reddy vs. Joint Collector, Adilabad8

9. P. Ghousia Begum vs. Basireddy Rukminammae

9. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 LN both the writ petitions, based on the counter averments, submits that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 being wife and son of late Yashwanth Rao Deshmuk have succeeded the larld to an extent of Ac.6-09 gts in Sy.No.330 situated at Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District along with several other lalds from their ancestors. $e submits that initially the Land Reforms Tribuna-l has declared the husband of respondent No.4 as surplus lald holders to an extent of

2.08 1 staldard holdings and aggrieved by the same, 2008(,r) ALT 79.1 (S.8.) ' u or:101 el t o 1s.n.1 o zo r 8 1s.1 .,rr.r 1,18 (D.8.) a l0 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015 her husband frled appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in File No.LRA Nos.24 189 and the same was dismissed on 23.08-1993. Aggrieved by the sarne, the irusbtrnd of respondent No.4 and others have preferred revision in C.R.P.Nos.4017, 4018 and 4Ol9 of 7993 and the rsame w-ere a-llowed on 27.12.1995 by setting aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal with a direction to mal<e a fresh enquiry in accordance with law after giving sufhcient opportunity to both parties. He fi-rrther submits that though the lands bearing Sy.Nos.335, 338, 339, 340 and 369 admeasuring total Ac.29-36 gts situated at Singapur Village are Inam lands ald Occuparcy Rights Cerlificates were granted favour of Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda arappa, at no point of time, the iand admeasuring a.n extent of l\c.6-09 gts in Sy.No.33O was part and cel of the ORtl proceedings granted in favour of said \ a.ngrappa ano Eshwarappa and without there being I E. *- --{ SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015 any order from the competent authority with regard to Sy.No.330, the authorities without verifiring the same have removed the name of the.original pattadar Gopal Rao Deshmukh and inserted :the names of Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda Eswarappa in the pahanies for the year 1978-79 along with other survey numbers.

10. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and.5 further submits that in fact, Gunda Chandrappa and Gunda Eshwarappa have played fraud upon the authorities and got mutated their names in the revenrle records without knowledge of the original pattadar and the said illegal entries have required to be rectified at any point of time and there a-re no proceedings of ORC in their favour with respect to the land in Sy.No.33O. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 also filed a petition under Rule115 of ROR Act for rectification of entries and \ subsequently filed revision petition and there is no time I2 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 20 1S limit for filing Revision petition under section 9 of RoR Act, 197 7 ancl the question of hling delay petition does not arise. He lurther submits that without availing the appeal the parties carl file Revision petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 as per settled law.

11. Learned rlounsel for the respondent Nos.4 a:rd 5 further submits that the respondent No.2 after hearing both the parties has rightly passed the impugned order remanding the matter to the Tahsildar for. reconsideration by conducting fresh enquiry after giving opportunit5r to both parties. He further submits that the respondent No.,4 and 5 are in physical possession of the land in Sy.No.330 and neither Gunda.Chandrappa and Gunda Eshwarappa nor after death of them the writ petitioners are in possession of the said iand ancl requested to dismiss the writ petitions. / , &: e t3 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2Ol5

12. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 has relied on the following Judgments;

1. Kasu Rayapa Reddy vs. State of A.P.lo 2. M. Ramulamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy Districtll.

13. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel. for both the sides and perusal of the recoqd, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners a.re challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2-Joint Collector in directing the respondent No.3-Tahsildar to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders as per the provisions of ROR Act, 197 1 pertatning to the land admeasuring Ac.6.09 gts in Sy.No.330 situated at Singapur Viilage, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ro 2o2l scc ont-ine AP I902 ' :0 i9 sCC online l-s i,155. re;.ds l4 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 ald 24536 of 2Ol5 contention of the petitioners is that one (]opal Rao Deshmukh was the inamdar bearing Sy.Nos'330, 335, 338' 339' 34o dmeasuring Ac.6-09 gts, Ac't7 '26 gts, , Ac.6.O3 gts, Ac.2.15 gts and Ac'0'33 gts sitrrated at Singapur Village, Shankarpally Reddy District. The ancestor of the eiy Gunda Veeranna was in possession t of the said lands as protected tenant time and after his demise, his two sons Chandrappa and Gunda BshrvaraPPa has granted e said iands and the Inams Tribunal pancy Rights Certificates in their ar 1975-76 and their narnes were venue records as pattadars of the as per their respective shares since / I I! I ,r I -A I5 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 arrd 24536 of 2015

15. At the time of issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate, the suit schedule land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.09 guntas 1n Sv.No.330 was not incorporated in the said certihcate. However, mutation in respect of the said land in the Revenue Records was effected in favour of Gunda Chandrappa arld Gunda Eswarappa along with other lands in the year 1978-79. Thereafter, the petitioners in both the writ petitions have succeeded the said properly with their respective shares as per the Revenue Records.

16. While it being so, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed revision petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act, l97 l before the respondent No.2 for correction of entries in the pahanies from the year 1978-79 onwards regarding the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.09 gts in Sy.No.33O on the ground that the said land was not inam land and it is patta larrd for which neither \ \ r6 SK,J W.P.Nos.495i and 24536 of 2O15 Occupalcy Rights Certificate was granted nor an-y proceedings have been issued as contemplated under Section 4 of ROR Act, I97l and due to fraud, the narnes of the family members of the petitioners rvere incorporated ald the sarne has to be rectified at any point of time.

17. The main contention of the rvrit petitioners herein is that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed revision petition before the respondent No.2 after a lapse of 30 years without filing any condone delay petition and some part of the said property was a,lso sold to the third parties and the nature of the land was converted from agriculture to non-agriculture, the' question of filing revision petition under the ROR Act, I9T I does not arise. Further contended that the respondent Nos.4 and 5, without avaiiing the appeal provision and also without filing any condone delay petition, have \/u/ t1 SK,J W.P,Nos.495l arld 24536 of 2015 approached the respondent No.2-Joint Collector by filing revision petition under Sectidn 9 of the ROR Act and the sarne cannot be taken into account.

18. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joint Collector,s case (1 supra). The facts in the said case are with regard to. suo moto revision powers of the.'revisional authorities. The facts of the instant case are diflErent from the facts of the said case. In the instant case, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed revision petition and contended that taking advantage of the other survey numbers of the same village in ORC proceedings, the ancestors of the petitioners have played fraud and obtained pattas for suit schedule land in Sy.No.33O along with other surve\ numbers and the void orders can be questioned SK.J W.P.Nos.495l and 24536 of 20 l5 at ary stage. In view of the same, the said Judgment is not apply to the instant case.

19. Learne<l counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kali Devi's case (2 supra), Ragho Singh,s case (3 supra), and Kosaraju Balaji,s case (4 supra) and a.lso the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Niadu Sambasiva f,Lao,s case (5 supra) with regard to filing of delay petition and the delay aspect. In fact, for filing a revision petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971, there is no time limit. Once there is no limitation for liling a revision petition, the question ol filing of condone delay petition does not arise. In view the same, the said Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not apply to the facts of the instant case. J l9 SK,J W.P.Nos.495l and 24536 of 2OLs

20. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the other Judgments of this Court in P. Anjaneyulu Gupta's CASC (6 supra), Pratap Jungle Resorts Private Limited's case (7 supra) and Vanga Narsa Reddy's case (8 supra) and submits that the respondent No.2 has no power and jurisdiction under the ROR Act to entertain Revision Petition without availing the appeal provision by the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

21. In fact, subseqrrent to the above Judgments, this Court has considerably held in Ramaswamy Satyagoud vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad 12 at para No.12 as lollor,r,s: "12. On the issue of preferring revision rvithout availing remedy of appeal the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not come to the aid of petitioner. In Bhupathi Varalamma while dealing with the porver of revision, learned single Judge of this Court has not ruled, as sought to be contended that revision is not maintainable s.hen remedy of \ '' Un-rqroned Judgment ofthis Court in w.P.No.l2748 0f 20 t9 dared 2 I .08.20 te. 20 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 ot 20 i5 appeal is avzrilable. trarned single Judge held that ordinarily if remedy of app,ral is available, revision should not be entertained. However, learned single Judge held that in exceptional situations Ehere the authority which passed the order patently lacked jurisdiction to pass order and to prevent abuse of power exercised by such an authority and miscarriage of justice being caused to the aggrievcd Partv. revision can be entertained. Kola SatF Rao was also decrdecl by learned single Judge who decided Bhupathi Varalemma. ln the said case, revisional authority satistied that it was not feasit,le or practicable to the aggdeved party to file zrn appeal or thal the subordinate authority has passed an order, which is ex facie contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act or in viol,rtion of the principles of natural justice, it czrn exercise its revisional jurisdiction to step in and correct such procedural illegality or impropriety. karned single further observed that 'lf the facts of the case justiry, an aggrieved party can be allowed to bypass the appellate remedy and seck intervention of the revisional authority." Sa.id view of the learm:d single .Iudge is followed by another learned single Judge in T. Santosh Kumar. L)ecision in Yelangani Papaiah is also on similar Iines. On a plain reading of provision in Section 9 and rrs considered bv this Court in several decisions, merely because a person has not ar,ailed remedy of appeal, it cannot be said that revision is not rnaintainable. In view ol the above Judgment, without availing the remedy ol appeal, the parties can invoke to file: the Revision Petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act and recently, a'rrothor learned Single Judge of this Court a-lso taken same view in W.P.No.24046 ol 2OO4 dated 28.03.2Oi'4. in view of the same, the responclent No.2 has rightllr entertained the revision petition filed \ - .--; 2l SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015 by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 under Section 9 of the ROR Act. 1971.

22. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the other Judgment of this Court in P. Ghousia Begum's case (9 supra), wherein it was held that the title dispute has to be decided by the competent Civil Court. in the instant case, the revisional authority has not decided the title dispute ald the matter was remanded back to the respondent No.3 for conducting enquiry by giving opportunity to both sides as there is no record avaiiable for ROR proceedings. In view of the same, the said Judgment is also not apply to the facts of the instant case.

23. On the other hand, the contention of the leamed Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 ald 5 is that the ancestors of the petitioners have piayed fraud on the au(horities and got mutation their narnes in the I 22 SK'.I W.P.Nos.4951 atd 24536 of 2Ol5 revenue records Pithout the knowledge of the origina-l pattadars and the sajd il1ega1 entries have to be rectified at arry point ol time and there are no ORC proceedings in favour of an<:estors of the petitioners wlth respect to the suit schedule property. Their further contention is that the authoritics, without verifying the records, have removed the nzme of the original pattadar Sri Gopal Rao Deshmukh ald inserted the nalnes of the ancestors of tht: petitioners in the pahanies along rnith the other sullev numbers and the orders of mutation have not commr-rnicated to the original pattadar- In view of the same, th e aspect of delay does not arise . It is settled law tha. once there is no communication,, the date of knowledge has to be taken into account for the iimitation.

24. The othel contention made by the Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 is that once the 23 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015 fraud was established, it can be questioned at aly point ol time as the petitioners have obtained pattas by playing fraud.

25. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 has relied on the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Kasu Rayapa Reddy's case (10 supra), wherein at para No.42 held as under; "ln view of these principles referred in the above judgments, normally, the writ courts would not interfere \\'ith the administrative order, unless the procedure followed by quasi- judicial authorities or administrative authorities lack jurisdiction and decision is pewerse. But, in the present case, the fourth respondent/Tahsildar did not follow the mandatory procedure, as discussed above and thereby, the second respondent/Joint Collector interfered. But, the defect or wrong done cannot be remedied by allowing the revision, directing to delete the names of this petrtioner, since the principle of natural justice was not complied by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar. If, a notice in Form- VIll is published, there may be several claims or objections against mutation of the name of this petitioner. On account of failure to comply *.ith the mandatory procedure by the fourth respondent/ Tahsildar, setting aside the same by the second respondent on the ground of non-compliance of procedure may result in future litigation. Therefore, in such case, the second respondent ought to have set-aside the order and remanded the matter to the fourth respondent directing to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. Instead of doing so, the second respondent allowed the revision, setting-aside the order passed by the fourth respondent and allirmed by the third respondent. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the second respondent to issue a direction to delete the name of this petitioner while mutating the names of rival claimants is again contrary to the procedure, since Form-VIII notice was not published as mandated under Rule 19(1) of the Rules to avoid aIIy further complications, the second respondent ought to have remanded the matter with a -+ SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2O15 direction to follow the Rules by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar. Thus, the second respondent/Joint Collector comnitted an error and in such case. this Court can interfere with such order with a view to put arl end to litigation for mutation of names of the petitioner and rival claimants and other interested persons" In the instant case also, while mutating the records with regard to ttLe subject properties, without following due procedure, the authorities have mutated the names of ancestors of the petitioners aiong with the other survey numbers. In view of the same, the respondent No.2 has directed the respondent No.3 to conduct fresh enquiry by giving cpportunity to all the parties arrd the aforesaid JuLdgment squa-rely apply to the facts of the present case

26. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 has relied on the other Judgment of this Court in M Ramulamma's case (11 supra), wherein this Court held at para Nos.62, 63. 64 and 65 as under: "62. It is not the case of respondent nos.3 to 6 that any notice was given to the petitioners at tlle time when the order H/2O61 1976 dt.19.02.1982 was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, -- _ 25 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015 Hyderabad (East) Division granting Occupancy Rights to Thota Balal<rishna Reddy. It is also not their case that the said order rvas served on the petitioners.

63. Therefore, the limitation for challeriging the said order would commence only from the date of knowledge of the order and not from the date oI lhe said order.

64. In Bipromasz Bipron Trading Sa v. Bharat Electronjslltd.6 the Supreme Court declared that an ofhcial order takes effect only when it is served on the person affected.

65. In State of W.B. v. R.K.B.K. Ltd.7 the Court declared that unless an adverse order is communicated, it does not come into effect {2012) 6 SCC 384 MSR,J ::19:: crp-3848,2018 and the person affected cannot be blamed for not preferring appeal within the specified time when it is not communicated to him. It held: "35. ... ... ... the words used in Para 10 are "date ofthe order". In the scheme of the Control Order, the order comes into effect from the date of receipt by the agent'or the dealer. Once that becomes the decision, the commencement of limitation of 3O days for the purpose of Para 10 would be th€ date when the order is effective. The High Court in Rani Sati Kerosene Supply Co. has opined that if the order of cancellation is not served on the affected person and the appeal period expires, there is the possibiliq' that the adverse order would become unassailable. The reasoning is totally fallacious. An appeal can only be preferred lr,hen the order is effective. The ineffective order, that is to say, uncommunicated order cannot be challenged, Therefore, the reasorring given by the Court in earlier judgment is erroneous and hence, the reliance thereupon by the impugned order is fau1g,. There has to be a purposive construction of the words "from the date of order". To place a construction that the date of an order u,ould mean passing of the order, though not made effective would lcad to an absurditl. The aforesaid Judgment squarely apply to the instant case as the mutation proceedings were not \ / 26 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015 communicateC to the pattadar of the land and limitation starts from the date of knowledge.

27. The Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Brundaban Sharmal3, it rvas held at para Nos. 16 ald 1tt as under: " 16. It is, tirerefore, settled lau,. that when the revisional por,r,er was conferre<l to effectuate a purpose, it is to be exercised in a reasonable nrarner which inheres the concept of its exercise within a reasonable time. Absence of limitation is an assurance to exercise the Dower with caution or circumspection to effectuate the purpose of the Act, or to prevent miscarriage of justice or violation of the provisions of the Act or misuse or abuse of the power by the lower authorities or fraud or suppression- Length of time depends on the factual scenario in a given case. Takc a case that patta was obtained fraudulently in collusion with the oflicers and it comes to the notice of the authorities aJter a tong lapse of time. Does it lie in the mouth of the party to the fraud to plead Iimitation to get away with the order? Does lapse of time a]l excuse to refrain from exercising the revisional power to unravel fraud and to set it right? The ansrvers would be no.

18. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue exer-cised the power under Section 388 atter an unreasonable lapse of time, though from the-date of the grant of patta by the 'I ahsildar is of 27 years. It is tme that from the date of tlre alleged grant of patta 27 yeArs did pass. But its authenticitv and correctnt:ss was shrouded with suspicious features. T.hL records of the Tahsildar were destroyed. Who is to get the benelit? Who was responsible for it? The reasons are not far to seek. Thev are self-eviderrt. So rve hold that the exercise of revisional powei under Section 38B by the Board of Revenue was legal and valid and it brooked no delay, after it had come to the Board,s knowledge. That apart as held by the Board of Revenue, the order pessed by th,- T.1l" ,0". witlout confirmation by the Board is ndnest. A nonest order is a void order and it confers no title and \ I995 supp (l) scc 249 I 'i 27 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015 its validity can be questioned or invalidity be set up in any proceeding or at any stage. The hndings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Judgment in aforesaid paragraphs squarely apply to the instant case as it is admitted fact that as on this date, no Occupancy Right Certilicate is granted with regard to suit schedule propertlr in favour of the petitioners and without following any procedure &S" contemplated under ROR Act, 1,97.1 , the respondent authorities have mutated the names of the ancestors of the petitioners as it amounts to fraud. The respondent No.2 has rightly remanded the matter to the respondent No.3 to conduct fresh enquiry with regard to ascertaining the rights of the parties as per ROR Act, T97I. 28 SK,J W.P.Nos.495l and 24536 of 2015

28. In Snrt Munganda Venkataratnam vs. Joirit Collector, Illest Godavari District, Elurula, this Court held at para No.15 as under: "Si;rce in pa.r-a 25 of K. Rattamma v. c. Kotaiai 1975(2) An.WR 122, it is held that B.S.Os are onlv executiye instructions for the guidance of the revenue officials and nothing more, Prima facie BSO 15(180 relied on by the petitioners does not conler arly right on them to cling on to the assignments made because it is well known that fraud vitiates evervthing. Recentl_v the Apex Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. T.SuryacharLdra Rao, after discussing the entire case law on the subjer-t ol frarrd, held that no order obtained by fraud can be sustained. It is alr;o well known that in case of fraud the period of limitation uould commence from the date of discovery of fraud. Therefore, merely because a person could successfully shield the fraud played by him in' obtaining assignment of Government land for several years, he cannot be heard to say that in view of the lapse of time the assignment in his favour cannot be cancelled. When pouer is vested in an authority to do en act, and if that authority exercises that po\a'er erroneously due to thc fraud played on it. that authority tras the implied power to undo its earlier act. performed by it as a result of the fraud played on it. First respondent without correctly appreciating the law arld facts seens to have erroneously set aside the order cancelling the assignments but since that part of the order of frrst respondent, setting aside cancellation of assignments, became final, I drt not wish to interfere q,Lth that part of the order of the first respondent". In the instarLt case, the writ petitioners have accepted that there is no Occupancl Rights Certificate over the subjTt property and relied on the mutation of the \ records in the year, 1978. Once, the fraud played by the ancestral of the petitioners and mutated the records !y '' zooolzl alr ++ 1s.rr.1 )9 SK,J w.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2Ol5 deleting the name of original pattadar and inserting the narne of the ancestors of the petitioners in the pahanies lor the year 1978-79 along with other survey numbers, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 being the strccessors of the original pattadar have agitated in their appeal before the Land Reforms Tribunal and a-1so before this Court with regard to suit schedule property aiong with other properties. This Court allowed C.R.P.Nos.4Ol7, 4Ol8 and 40 19 of 1993 and remanded the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal for conducting fresh enquiry in accordance with law after giving sufhcient opportunity to both parties. In view of the same, the above Judgment squarely apply to the instant case and the respondent No.2 has rightly directed the respondent No.3 to conduct fresh enquiry.

29. T{re contention of the petitioners is that after mutatio). of the records, some portion of the land was i0 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24S36 of 2O l5 sold to the lhird pa_rties and thereafter, the nature of the land u.as converted from agriculture to non_ agriculture. In view of the same, the proceedings under ROR Act cannot be continued.

30. The respondent No.2, in the impugned order, has only recordecl the contentions of both the parties with regard to thr: nature of the land and remanded the matter to the respondent No.3-Tahsildar for conducting fresh enquiry. Only after conducting fresh enquiry by the Tahsildar concerned, th'e nature of the land and the rights of the pa-rties have to be decided. Merely basing on the entries in the records, the writ petitioners cannot take advantage and state that the settled things cannot be unsettled. The entries in the revenue records do not create any title or confer right on the persons whose narnes were entered in the revenue records, / 3l SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 2015

31. The competent authority has to conduct proper enquiry as to whether the nature of land comes agriculture or non-agriculture and also comes under ROR Act or not. Without conducting any proceedings and merely basing on the entries in the revenue records, any party cannot get title over the property'

32. The writ petitioners have failed to produce any . document with regard to the mutation ol the names of their ancestors by following the procedure as contemplated under ROR Act, 1971. Therefore, the matter has to be enquired into by the competent authority and the respondent No.2 has rightly remanded the matter to the respondent No'3 for conducting fresh enquiry by giving opportunity to both sides and there is no irregularity committed by the respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order'-..' / / I I 1 32 SK,J W.P.Nos.4951 and 24536 of 20 l5 Hence, there are no merits in ttre writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

33. In vieu, of the above fi"ndings, both the Writ Petitions ate dismissed as devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs.

34. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending these ',vrit petitions, shall stand closed. SD/.P. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE (For His Lordship,s Kind perusal) CTION OFFICER K. SARATH To, 3 ry, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company

1. 11 L.R. Copies 2. The Under Slecreta Affairs, New Delhi The Secretarv. Telanoana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings,Hydi:rabad " One CC to Sri Two CCs to G Hyderabad IOUT1 Sri K. Ravi Mahender, Advocate loPUCl CC to CC to Sri P Shasidher Redd y, Advoca te [OPUC C C to lvl/s Raj Kumar Rudra Advocate[OPUC] C C to Sri Keerthi Kiran, Ad catelOPUC I VO CD Copres Kumar Heroor, Advocate loPUCl Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at

6. One 7. One 8. One 9. One 10. Two Vijay P for 4 5 TJ BS HIGH COUFIT DATED:1 01Ct112025 Sir\tt Q /q I,J (. (... 0 4 i'ii\fr 2[r5 j J * C55plrc (-o COMMON ORDER WRIT PETITION NO:4951 and 24536 OF 2015 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS