1. D. Andalu v. 1. The State of Telangana

5. Sri. Golem Venu Gopal, S/o Late G- Laxmi Narsaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Police Service, R/o H.No. 22-1-85, Kalikabar, lnside Chaderghat, Hyderabad.

6. Sri. Golem Satish Kumar, S/o Late G. Laxmi Narsaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Private Service, Rl/o H.No. 22-1-85, Kalikabar, lnside Chaderghat, Hyderabad.

7. Sri. Golem Sai Kishore, S/o Late G. Laxmi Narsaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Police Service, Rl/o H.No. 22-1-85, Kalikabar, lnside Chaderghat, HYderabad ...RESP.NDENT' 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 grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of certiorari, declaring the orders daled 04-02-2021 in Special Tribunal Case No. F2i 64712021(Old case No. Dl164012018) as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded , in violation of the principles of natural justice, in violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 and 3004 of the constitution of lndia, violative of the relevant provisions of the Pattadar Passbook Act with a consequential prayer to set aside the orders dated 04-02-2021 in Special rribunal case No. F2t64lio21 (ord case No Dl164ol2o18) and direct the 2nd Respondent to conduct fr --sh enquiry into the above proceedings lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circ umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the orders dated 04-02-2021 passed by the Specia Tribunar case No. F2l 64712021 (Otd case No. D/1640/2018). Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V.MURALI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos..t TO 4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI N.ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI P.HARINATH GUpTA Counsel for the Respondent No.7: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI(AR REDDY UIRIT PETITION No.29Ol2 of 2o22 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: ". . .to issue on appropiote urit, order or direction more parTianlarlg one in the nature of 'Writ of Certiorori': i) Declaing the order doted 04.02.2021 passed bg the Special Tibunal-respondent No.2 in old case No'F2/647/2O21 (old case No.D/164O/2O18) as illegal, arbitrary ond contrary to laut; and ii) Consequentlg, set aside the impugned order and allou the reuision preferred by the petitioner or pass appropiate order"'"

2. The case of the petitioners is that they have filed a revision under Section 5(5) of the A'P'Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (since repealed) and rules made thereunder before respondent No.4 - Revenue Divisional Officer -cum- Joint Collector, Yadadri, seeking to issue fresh patta passbook in respect of land admeasuring Acs'6'30 gts', in Sy.Nos.8E, 9E, 11AA, 13AA3, 2AA3, 15AA3, 6E and 16E' situated at Rajapet Village and Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. Subsequently, after repealing of ROR Act, l97I replacii'g with ROR Act, 2O2O, the said revision case has been , 2 transferred to the Special Tribunal, which has bet n constituted in terms o[ Scction 16(1) of the ROR Act, 2O2O r.ide G.O. Ms. No.4 of the Rcvenue (Assignment-l) Depart:';nent, dated t2.o1.202t.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Special Tribunal wilhout issuing any notice, without affording opportunity of hearing and even without assig ning specific rcasons, dismissed the said revision prefered by the petitioners

4. Learnecl counsel for the petitioners vehemen r ly contended that the procedure adopted by the Special Tribun rl in passing the impugned order, without examining the record and without providing any opportunity of hearing, is not in con ;onance with the procedure AS contemplated under the Act a rd such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned co rnsel further submits that the said issues have been consicl:red by the Division Bench of this court in w.P (PIL).No.:O of 2021, whcrein, the Division Bench of this Court obse rvc d that while taking up the matters after transfer from the earl ier appellate authorities, if any orders are passed without issuin 3 any notice, they are Iiable to be set aside. t I 3

5. A careful examination of the impugned order passed by the Special Tribunal dated 04.02.202 I would reveal that without issuing notice to the petitioners and without assigning specihc reasons, it is simply stated that the subject issues are family disputes since the revision petitioners seeking issuance of fresh pattadar passbooks in their favour.

6. It is settled law that before effecting mutation/ amendment of the revenue records, a notice is required to be issued to all the interested persons over the subject property as held by this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam u. Mandal Reuenue Officer, Serilingannpallg Mandat &, others'. In the light of the same, this Court is of the opinion that 7 . ends of justice would be met if the impugned order dated

04.O2.2O21 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Special Tribunal for fresh disposal. Further, respondent No.2 is directed to issue notice to the petitioners and all other affected/ contesting parties and pass a reasoned order, within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after' considering the objections and affording them an opportunity of personal hearing. It is left open to the parties to raise all the grounds available in accordance with law' t lrn zooS ap t5 4

8. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs Miscellancous applications pending, if an-u.., shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYASREE bepurv REGtSTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Sec/etariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The District Collector, Specia[ Revenue Tribunal, Yadadrl Bhuvanagiri District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajpet, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri DistriCt, Telangana. The Tahsildar, Rajpet Village and Mandal,Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, Telangana One CC to SRI V.MURALI MANOHAR, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N.ANIL KUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRI P.HARINATH GUPTA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Statir of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I PSK, BM b HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 I ORDER WP.No.29012 of 2022 'B lHE S t4 k o '€ 1t JUI\J 2[5 { ) c t) o .,, (0( a .1, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I @ do\"/ \ --=r,qFF"- l"-----_----:--,I