The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 1 "3i""illEiBL?,Hlsf,??l,6"ii;;B,.,fr31:lf i",iJsl}_3ffi iimarjyothi '08"'ffi ln3;fl i",,?A,U}zl,sfl ;i8ifl,I8i*,ll""il8i}_t88fr ,1T",jy"thi 21.K.Lalitha, D/o Late Bhadraiah, aged r, r/o Plot Colony., Chinna Thokatta, Aoie,ip; ly, Amarjyothi 1.1 "3"',#itfllg?n.38,il9ifl :X;:e,i,,#ffi i,..?f$Iffi ?,f * 3#;,33Jii (*? ?::Li,,i",%f,?-'r'rffi:' r/o prot No 2BlA, Kothapa,i (v) Amarjyothi

petitiorr under Articre 226 0t the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, particurarry orie in the nature writ of certiorari ca,ing for the records pertaining to orders of respondent No.2 dt.24106t2021 in ST. No. 87120 21 lD 1 I 1 08 t2O 1 g and quash the same. 1 Petition Under section ',51 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fi ed in support of the petition. the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of orders of respondent no.2 special tribunal dt.24t\6t2121 in ST.No.87t2O21lD1t1OBl2O19, pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : M/s DUWURIV.PADMAJA ( Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 6 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 9 : SRI DAMODAR MUNDRA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.10 to 23 : - The Court made the fotlowing ORDER ' r'_\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELAI{GAT{A AT HYDERABD THE HON'BLE SRI B. VI'AYSEN REDDY 'USTICE WRIT PETITION No.2495O of 2021 DATED: 31.12.2025 Between M, Vidl/avathi and others The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Reven Je Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad ORDEBi ...PETITIONER!; AND ...RESPONDEI{TS The order of the respondent No.2 - The Special Tribunal, Mechal-Malkajgiri District. dated 24.06.2O2L in proceedlngs ST.No.8Z2021/DUL08l2ot9 is questioned in this Writ of Certior€ri, as being arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction.

2. The facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition are as; under: (a) The respondent Nos.7 to 9 filed mutation application befon: the respondent No.6 - Tahsildar, Medchat Mandal, seeking incorporation of their names in ROR register in respect of the ./ *\ n 2 agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.15.02 guntas in. sy.Nos.Eoztt and364 of Pudur village, Medchal Mandal, Medchat-Malkajigiri District. The respondent Nos.7 to 9 claimed to be absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.3.29 guntas in sy.No.363/1 and the tand admeasuring Ac.11.13 guntas in sy.No.364, Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, (hereinafter referred to as 'subject land'). one Thokala Ramaiah was the protected tenant of the subject land; he sotd the same to the husband of the respondent No.7, B.P. Narsing Rao herein, who was in possession of the subject lands and after his death, the respondent Nos.7 to 9 are in possession of the subject lands. when the writ petitioners, one T.L. Bhadraiah i.e. father of respondent Nos.12 to 14 herein and T.L. Pentaiah tried to interfere with their possession, the respondents No.7 to 9 filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in os.No.59g of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated L6.Lo.zoL2 holding them as absolute owners and possessor,ls of the subject land. As such, they applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records. (b) By opposing the application of the respondents No.7 to 9, the petitioners filed counter stating that the respondent No.6 - Tahsildar does not have jurisdiction to entertain the mutation .r" /t\ \ 3 :,' application as per the provisions of section 3 of the A.P. Rights in land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, LITL). As per the said provision, the MRO has no jurisdiction to rectify or i correct the entries existing for more than one year and the names of ther petitioners and their predecessor-in-title, having been reflectr:d in the revenue records, for the past more than 40 years. The petitionels filed an application in IA.No.2979 of 2OL4 to set aside l:he ex parte decree passed in OS.No.598 of 2010 and also IA.No.2978l20t4 for condoning the delay in filing the application to set as;ide ex pafte decree. The said applications were pending consideration at the time of filing the counter in the mutation application and the applications were allowed subsequently, as such, there is no decree as on the date of passing the order , ' dated OL.O7.2OL7 by the respondent No.6 against the petitioners. (c) Subsequently, the respondent Nos.7 to t had withdrawn the :;uit. Therefore, there is no decree in their favour. The rerspondent Nos.7 to 9 do not have title to the subject land and neithe:r the respondent Nos.7 to 9 nor B.P. Narsing Rao or Thokala Ramaiah were in possession of the subject lands. The revenue recorct clearly establishes the possession of the petitioners over the land in Sy.Nos.363lL and 364. The petitioner No.1 purchased the land admeasuring Ac.O.27 guntas in Sy.No.363/1 and Ac.3.13 guntas in Sy.No.364 from one Smt. Y. Shamantha under registered \- ,,\ 4 sale deed bearing Document No.229Ol1994 and the petitioner No;Z I i-1". .. purchased the Iand admeasuring Ac.3.02 guntas in Sy.lUo.gO3lf and Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.36312fromone Lakkireddy Raji Reddy under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.7654l1991; In addition to the said lands, the petitioner No.2 has been in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.8.00 guntas in Sy.No.364 since for the last 25 years. There is a panchanama to the effect that the takki Reddy Raji Reddy was in possession of the subject lands. No steps have been taken to take the possession of:the property from Lakki Reddy Raji Reddy till today. The petitioners constructed a Guest house in the subject lands and also leased out the subject lands to Godrej Seed Company for research & development. The petitioners atso dug bore wells in the subject property and obtained the electricity connection. In addition, the petitioners also constructed a temporary shed in the subject property. (d) The petitioners submitted that the Office of the respondent No.6 issued a memo stating that the subject lands are not covered under PTs. The alleged vendor of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 i.e. Thokala Ramaiah filed the suit in OS.No.13 of Lg84 before the District Munsif, Medchal, against Lakki Reddy Raji Reddy for perpetual injunction and sought for temporary injunction. The said injunction petition was dismissed on contest holding that Thokala Ramaiah was not in possession of the subject lands. Later, Thokala / 5 Ramaiah filed appeal in CMA.No.1 of 1985 on the file of District Judge, Ranga Reddy District challenging dismissal of injunction application. The CMA was also dismissed holding that Thokala Ramaiah was not in possession. Thus, when the competent civil Court held that the vendor of the respondent Nos.7 to-9 was not in possesision of the subject lands, the question of the revenue authorities holding that the respondent Nos.7 to 9 and their vendor Thokala Ramaiah have been in possession of the subject property does r ot arise. (e) It is submitted that while the mutation application in File No.B/:121U2013 was pending, the respondent Nos.7 to t herein filed ernother application in File No.B/13712O17 seeking the same relief. The petitioriers filed counter in the said application and also filed an interlocutory application to decide the maintainability of the 5ulss,quent application and requested respondent No.2 to reject the subse,quent application. The respondent No.6 did not pass any order in the interim application. However, in the order passed in File No.8/1211/2013 it was stated that the application fi]ed by the petitioners for rejection of the application in File No.B/137/2o17 was allowed and the said proceedings were closed. The respondent No.6 n collusion wlth the respondent Nos.7 to 9 passed the orders and the same is evident from the fact that in the order passed in file No.B/121112013, it was stated that the proceedings in Fite ./-" o 6 No.Blt37l2OL7 was closed whereas the record speaks contrary to the said orders and the case in File No.B/t37l2OL7 was called on

22.07.2OL7 and again the said case was posted to 05.08.2017. (0 It is stated that there was no hearing on 01.07.2OL7 in the office of the respondent No.6 as there was a Hartitha Haram programme on the same day. It appears that orders were passed on 01.07.2OL7, when there was no sitting and it appears that the orders were passed backdated or after OL.O7.2OL7 by putting the date as Ot.O7.2Ot7. The collusion is further evident that from the fact that the respondent No.6 sent the order copy on L7.O7.20L7, when the order was, allegedly, passed on OL.O7.2OL7. The copy sent by the respondent No.6 is only a Xerox copy of the order without original signature and stamp. Xerox copy of the order was received by the counsel for the petitioners before triat court on 2L.O7.2OL7 and immediately, the petitioner No.2 herein applied for the certified copy, which was issued by the respondent No.6 on

27.O7.20t7. Thus, the facts clearly shows that the respondent No.6 in coltusircn with respondent Nos.7 to 9 passed the order dated OL.O7.2OL7 in File No.B/121 Lt2Ot3. (g) The petitioners file an appeal in File No.A2/L2LS( 2OL7 before the respondent No.5 and the appeal was dismissed by order dated O7.OL.2OL9. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a revision in No.DU108/2OL9 before respondent No.4 for setting aside the t 7 , , orders passed by the respondent Nos.5 and 6. As per G'O'Ms'No'4 *evenrre (Assignment-I) Department dated L2.O1.2O21 pursuant, respondent No.2-tribunal, without hearing and without notice to writ pr:titioners, passed orders on 01.02.202L in sT.No.87l2o2tl DLlLOB|2019. The petitioners filed WP.No.9352 of 2O2L challenging the said order. Subsequently, a generat notice was issued by the resporrdent No.z stating that whoever wants to argue the matter can approach the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a memo requesting the respondent No.2 to permit them to argue the m,atter. The matter was argued and the impugned order dated

24.06,2O2L was Passed. 3(a). The respondents No.7 to 9 filed a counter contending that they erre ownens of the subject lands; Thokala Ramaiah was issued ownership ceftificate under section 38E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, (for short 'Act, 1950') in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6'25 guntas in sy.No.363 and Ac.20.09 guntas in sy.No.364 vide Proceedings No.B327CRE75 dated 10.06.1975; the ownership certificate under Sectign 38E of the Act, 1950 in favour of Thokala Ramaiah, was arlso challenged by the vendor of the petitioners, Lakkareddi Raj Reddy, vide case No.B419668175, which was dismissed by the Joint Collector by order dated 20.11.L979 and the same was . q<rn ./ E confirmed by this Court in CRP.No.1028 of 1981 by order dated ': ff!

01.09.1982. 3(b). It is stated that later, Thokala Ramaiah sold the subject land 1i under registered sale deed in favour of B.P. Narsing Rao vide Document No.586011983 dated 09.08.1983 and delivered vacant possession. After the death of B.P. Narsing Rao, succession was granted in the name of his wife and sons as legal heirs and their names were mutated in the revenue records. The land was also bifurcated and divided among the legal heirs as per Proceedings in File No.B/L1LL|}OL3 dated OL.O7.2OL7 and since then the legal heirs,of B.P. Narsing Rao are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by dividing the said land in their respective names and patta passbook was issued. 3(c). It is stated that the decree in OS.No.598 of 2010 is no way concerned with the subject matter of the dispute. The suit was withdrawn by the respondent No.7 to 9 as.cause of action did not survive. The allegation that petitioner No.1 purchased part of the subject land under registered sale deed bearing Document No.2290/1994 and that the petitioner No.2 purchased part of the subject land under registered sale deed bearing Document No.76541L991 is false. The execution of registered gift deed by Lakkireddi Raj Reddy vide Document No.8407/1990 in favour of his t 9 daughter Smt. Y. Shamantha, witl not convey any title to her. Thus, the sale deed, allegedly, executed in favour of tile petitioner No.1 i:; not valid and will not confer any title. 3(d). The petitioners are claiming the property from Lakkireddi Raj Re$ly, who himself does not have title and possession in view of Section 38E Certificate issued in favour of the vendor of the respondents, Thokala Ramaiah. The sate deeds and gift deeds have been executed only after issuance of 38E Certificate, which is confirmed up to High court. It is equally false to say that the petiticner No.2, who is in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.8.Cr0 guntas in Sy.No.364 since last 25 yeans. The suit in OS.Ncr.855 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner No.2 in the Court of the X:L Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for declaration that he is the owner of Ac.8.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.364 on the basis of adverse possession. The suit was clismissed on contest by iudgment dated 2L.07.2OL5. [t was held that the petitioners are not in possession of the land. In facQ the suit was filed by the petitioners against the respondents No.12 to 14 and late T.L. Bhadraiah. The respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and they have also sold an extent of Ac.12.22 guntas out of the said land under three separ€te registered sale deeds as under: \ 10 ,".-\ Document No. Date Favouring

11.10.2018 Vivala Cartoons h/t.Ltd.

11.10.2018 L36621L8

11.10.2018 Winfab Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Nandkishore tadda and others

4. It is stated that the aforesaid purchasers also got their name mutated as per the proceedings vlde No.B/ L23glL8, B/L47O118 and Bllz4LlLB and they.were issued Patta Passbooks. The possession of entire land in Sy.Nos.363 and 364 was already taken by Thokala Ramaiah under the cover of Panchanama dated 03.11.1982 in pursuance of the orders of Tahsildar in case No.A5lLO554lL98A, which is also mentioned in the order of Tahsildar in File No.B/121112OL3 dated Ot:O7.2017. The respondents purchased Ac.15.02 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.363 and 364. The respondents are not concerned with the constructions made in the said land and they are only concerned with only Ac.15.02 guntas of land. The land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas is outside of the boundary of Ac.15.02 guntas. The construction of Guest House and land leased to Godrej Seed Company is not within the boundary of the land claimed by the respondents No.7 to 9. The petitioners are interfering with the possession of the respondents No.7 to 9 in the guise of status quo order passed by this Court in AS.No.670 of

2015. However, a complaint was lodged by the vendee of the respondents before the Stdtiqg House Officer, Medcha! Police .'/" / .:rli:,":!ftj!:!:i:+':-4irri!!:."ii-'r"jil ::':'' Station and during investigation, it was found that the petitioners areinpossessionofAc.l.20guntasoflandandrestoftttelandisin possess;ion of the respondents No'7 to 9'

5.l4r.VedulaVenkataramana,leamedseniorcounselappearing forSnrt.P.V'Padmaja,leanedcounselforthepetitioners, submi!:edthattheimpugnedproceedingsdated24.06.202lare without jurisdiction and liable to be set asidet The revenue authoritiescannotdecidetitle.Mutationisnotdeclarationoftitle. TheA'ct,tgTlandtheAct'lg50aredifferentenactments' The respondent No.6 - Tahsildar, does not have any jurisdiction underSection4oftheAct,LgTt'Thereisnodeclarationor declaratorydecreesoastoexercisejurisdictionunderSectionS(1) oftheAct,lgTl.TheorderspassedbytherespondentsNo'2'4and 6sufterfrominfirmityasbettertitlecannot;bedecidedbythe revenueauthorities.ThereisnojurisdictionforrespondentNo.6to deletethenameoftheonepersonandenterthenameofanother personintherevenuerecords.UnderSection3oftheAct,lgTl, theTahsitdarcannotreviewhisownorderanddecision/entries.The impugned proceedings have been passed on the basis of non- exist.:ntdocuments.TheTahsildarhasnostatutorypowertopass orderdated01.07.2017asheld.inPara.9-,ofthejudgmentofthe -// /1 i I : i' i i i t2 Supreme Court in JAGITIITTAR SAIN BHAGAT v. DIRECTO& HEALTH SERVTCE+ HARYAilA1.

6. Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the respondents No.7 to 9, submitted that the vendor of the petitioners, having lost legal battle, executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner No.2 and gift deed in the name of the petitioner No.1. The petitioners No.1 and 2 do not have title to the subject land as title documents are false and frivolous. The suit in O.S.No.855 of 2006 filed for declaration and injunction by the Lakkireddy Raji Reddy was dismissed by judgment dated 2L.O7.2OL5. The petitioners preferred an appeal in A.S.N o.670 of 2015, which was atso dismissed by judgment dated t3.O6.2O22, during pendency of this writ petition. Section 38E certificate of Thokala Ramaiah has been confirmed in CRP.No.1028 of 1981 by order dated 01.09.1982. Thus, the revenue authorities are bound to implement the orders in CRP.No.1028 of 1981 and judgment in A.S.No.67O of 2015 arising out of O.S.No.855 of 2O06.

7. The respondent No.2 passed impugned order dated

24.06.2021 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners, which is as under: "Having perused the material papers available on record, it is observed that the issued before this authority is, \*r \s' '(zot:) ro scc 136 ! : +s.!dr,I$i6t iltsti.. +a4:+i!ir+'i{.1!:r,i.+.f, +ir.r+:r+iir*i: !i:1 i ' f i i }: - whether the purchased made by the applicanurespondent is from valid title holder or not. t3 ....-..^.;i..j:-ir1:J. +:::.:i+i\*til:ii5.iri.!::1i?.:ir'r;q!:(i::i#;i.+#iii*tr#:r:qi+/ij'r,ir{1!.';iitrri+i:1Elr'it't'; ::' fhe Revision Petitioners' claiming the subject land through one Lakkireddy Raji Reddy (who is claiming the rights through original pattedar) and the respondents are claiming from Thokala Ramaiah, who was granted ownership certificate u/s.38-E of Tenancy Act. The vendor of the revision petitioner preferred cRP No.1028 of 1981 befOre the Hon'ble High Court against the orders of 38E issued in favour of the Respondents Thokala Ramaiah and the same was dismissed vide order dt:01-o9-1982. The Tahsildar, Medchal passed orders obliging the orders of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petitlon Nos.3B313 tz}tl and t453412O17' The claim of the vendor of the petitioner i$elf is apprehensive, the petitioner cannot get valid title until unless their vendor gets better title. on the other hand, the purchase of the respondents holds good as they purchased from the 38-E holder, which is still zubsisting, ln view of the above, this Tribunal is not inclined to accept the claim' of the Revision petitions and acicordingly, the petition is dismissed. However aggrieved parties are at Iiberty to approach the competent court for redressal of their grievance." g. A perusal of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 07.01.2019 and the order dated 01.07.2017 passed by thr: Tahsildar, show that the flow of title to the subject land was discu:;sed and it was observed that Thokala Ramaiah, who was issuerl 38E certificate dated 10.06.1975 sold the land to B.P. Narsing Rao under registered sale deed bearing Document No.5tt60/1983 dated 09.08.1983. After death of B.P. Narsing Rao, i :...]:, l4 the land devolved on the respondents No.7 to 9 as legal heirs- successors. Section 38E ceftificate was confirmed by the Joint Collector by proceedings dated 2O.LL.L979 and thereafter, in CRP.No.1028 of 1981 dated 01.09.1982i It was further observed that the petitioners herein are claiming rights through Lakkireddy Raji Reddy, who was unsuccessful before the Joint Collector in File No.B419668175 and CRP.No.1028 of 1981 before this Court. Thus, it was held that the entries made in the narne of the petitioners are not valid and they were ordered to be deleted.

9. The contention of Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that the revenue authorities do not have jurisdiction to delete the narnes, cannot be appreciated in the light of the orders passed in CRP.No.1028 of 1981. The mutation application was filed by the respondents No.7 to I seeking implementation of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act, 1950 and decree of declaration of title and perpetual injunction passed in O.S.No.598 of 2010 dated 16.10.2012. The respondent No.6 issued mutation proceedings dated 01.07.2017 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2OL7 in WP.No.14534 of 2OL7 and also order dated 25.LL.2OL5 in WP.No.38313 of 2015. As discussed above, the ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act, 1950, attained finality by order dated 01.09.1992 passed in CRP.No.1028 of 1981. Thus, in terms of Section 4 of the Act, 1971 .: \ \ 15 {l (AcquisitionofRightsthroughsuccession'patta'decreeofCourtqr otherwise etc.) it is well within the jurisdiction of the iahsildar to issue nrutation proceedings in favour of the respondents No'7 to 9' In due course of time, the suit in O'S'No'855 of 2006' filed by the petitiorrer No.2 (husband of petitioner No'1) for declaration of title andprrssessionoftheplaintiffbasedonadversepossessionwas dismissed on 2L'rj7'2OL5' The judgment in BHAGAT's ca-se (1 supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners (para 9) regarding lack of jurisdiction is on a differr:ntfactualsituation.Thejudgmentrelatestojurisdictionof 'AGMITTAR SAIN theConsumerForumundertheprovisionsoftheConsumer Prote,:tion Act, 1986 and has no bearing on the facts of this case; l0.Therevenueauthoritiesreboundtoimplementtheorders ofthecivilCourtandthecompetentauthoritiescoveredbyspecial statute like the Tenancy Act. The petitioners are claiming title throrrghLakkireddyRajiReddy,whounsuccessfullycontested3SE ceftificatefromtheoriginalauthoritytotherevisioninCRP.No.lo2S oflgSl.Thepredecessot.-in-titleofthepetitionershaslostthe \ litigation.Thus,thepetitionerscannotclaimabettertitlethantheir pre<lecessor.in-title.Thepetitionersdonothaveanylocusstandito challengethesaidpnoceedings.TheTahsildar,]ointCollectorand this court are the original, appellate and revisional authorities unclertheAct,lg50andSection3SEcertificatehasbeenconfirmed , I t I t6 r-\ and attained finality. Thus, there was no option, whatsoever, for the revenue authorities (respondents No.2, 4 and 6) but to implement the same. The orders passed by the revenue authorities are in conformity and in implementation of the orderc passed by the competent authority in pursuance of section 38E certificate. There are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ie miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// . SECTION OFFICER

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State'of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. O-ne CC to Mls DUWURI V PADMAJA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI DAMODAR MUNDRA, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies To SA BS i I I I I *\ 1 HE s 16 r{ Ri\ 2026 * o t * HIGH C:OURT DATED =3111212025 o WP.No.24950 of 2021 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT, COSTS. ,P