The High Court · 2025

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 the direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari to the respondents to produce before the court the records and quash order dated O3n2O21 made in old case No. F21272812020, New case No. F2lSpl. Tribunal/O291/2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 Special Tribunal, Nalgonda wrongly observing that wrongly observing that the Respondent No. 6 herein is entitled to share from the lands held by her husband late Nerella Kashaiah and that entire lands were transferred on our names which is irregular as per the law and earlier orders passed by the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda in old case No. F21272812020, New case No. F2lSpl. Tribunal/O291/2021 dated 03-07-2021 is up held and therefore the impugned order as violation of principles of natural justice without taking recourse of basic procedure contemplated in law for adjudication of civil disputes apart from being violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia by issuing direction or order the respondents to produce before the court the record and quash or any appropriate oider, writ or direction in this circumstances of the case and allow the revision filed by the petitioners herein in old case No. F21272812020, New case No. F2lSpl. Tribunall}291l2021 daled 0310712021 on the file of the Respondent No. 2 or else the petitioners will be put to great hardship and suffer irreparable loss and injury. n :l 21 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 impugned order in old case No. F21272812020, New case No. F2lSpl. Tribuna11029112021 dated 03t0712021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 Special Tribunal, Nalgonda District, pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G.VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: SRI H.RAKESH KUMAR, AGp FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI NIMMA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRt P.MALLESH Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI RAMAKRISHNA FOR SRI AMBEDKAR REVENUE DUNNA The Court made the following: ORDER n THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.28244 of 2O2L ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari directing the respondents to produce the records and to quash the order dated O3.O7.2O2L made in old case No.F2 / 27 28 / 2O2O , New case No. F2 / Spl.Tribun al/ O29 L / 2O2l passed by the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal, Nalgonda wrongly observing that the respondent No.6 herein is entitled to share in the lands held by her husband late Nerella Kashaiah and that entire lands were transferred on their n€unes which is irregular as per law and earlier orders passed by the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda in old case No.F2/2728/2O2O, New case No.F2l Spl.TribunallO2gL 12A21 da.ted 03.O7 .2O21 is upheld and therefore the impugned order as violation of principles of natural justice without taking recourse of basic procedure contemplated in law for adjudication of civil disputes apart from being violation of Articles 14, 21, 3O0-A of constitution of India by issuing direction or order to the respondehts to produce before the court the record and quash or any appropriate order, writ or direction in this circumstances of the case and allow the revision filed by ! 2 the petitioners herein in old case No.F2/272812O2O, New case No.F2lSpl.Tribunal/O29 1/2021 dated 03.07.2O21 on the file of the respondent No.2.

2. Heard Sri G.Venkat Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Mr.Ramakrishna, learned counsel representing Ambedkar Dunna, learned counsel for the respondent No.8. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.6 and 7. Perused the materials available on record.

3. Appearing online learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein have filed review petition in old case No.F2l2728l2O2O, New case No.F2lSpl.Tribunal/ O29L/2O2I passed by the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal, Nalgonda vide order dated 3.7.2021 the szune was dismissed by the respondent No.2 upholding the earlier order passed by the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda in case No.Bl3a37 /2017 (F2lSpecial Tribunal/ 1045 I 2O2 ll dated 1.2.2027.

4. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners being unsuccessful before the Court of the special tribunal filed Appeal ,, Case No.55B6 /2019 before the Revenue Divisional Officer at Nalgonda and also filed this writ petition stating that orders of the 2"d respondent as well as Revenue Divisional Officer- respondent No.4 are perverse and not in accordance with law and as against the settled position of law. The deletion of name of the petitioners herein basing on the orders passed by the special tribunal upholding the ord.ers passed by the earlier special tribunal which were further upheld by the RDO at Nalgonda directing to incorporate the narne of the unofficial respondent No.6 is erroneous.

5. Learned counsel would submit mainly that case of the unofficial respondent No.6 oughr not have been considered by respondent No.4, as he does not h.,0" any right to partition the properties between the petitioners and unofficial respondent. He further submits that the lands which were mutated in the n€rmes of petitioners are in their continuous possession. As per the provisions of 8(2) of Rights in land and pattadar passbooks Act L971, if any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may '- approach a civil Court for redressal of the grieva.nce and institute a suit against €rny person denying his title to such right for _ -_ _1 4 declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Without getting into that alternate remedy, the unofficial respondent No.6 has filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have examined these aspects. But without examining the said aspects conceded to the submissions made by the said respondent, which is illegal, perverse in upholding the order of special tribunal. He would also submit that in the absence of the unofficial respondent before the tribunal, the Tribunal ought not have granted the proceedings. Hence, he would seek to allow the petition.

6. Mr.Ramakrishna, learned'cofnsel representing on behalf of unofficial respondent would submit that no perversity can be attributed to the proceedings of the Tribunal. He would submit that, as a matter of fact, it is evident from the order passed by the Tribunal that the unofficial respondent did not appear before the said Tribunal. This clearly demonstrates that the unofficial respondent had no role or influence in the proceedings, and therefore, the order cannot be said to have been passed under the influence of the unofficial respondent. He would submit that the petitioners are also having a remedy under the provisions of ) /tr / --:v section 8(2) of the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 5 I I L97 L, which says that if any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter vI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. Therefore, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the RDo, they c€rn as well approach the competent civii Court and approaching this Hon'ble Court is not appropriate.

7. Learned Assistant...Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner shall be directed to approach appropriate civil .Court to avail remedies under the provisions of civil law.

8. However, without going into the observations, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioners to approach the civil court for redressal of the grievance under the appropriate provisions of law. By granting such liberty, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. !III- Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 6 SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I G //TRUE COPY// of Telangana. SECTION OFFICER . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State . The Court of Special Tribunal, Nalgonda (constituted under G.O.Ms No. 4, Reve:n.ue, As-signment-1, Department daled 12-01 -2021) . The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. . The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgbnda, Nalgonda District. . The Tahsildar, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda District. . One CC to SRI G.VENKATA NARAYANA, Advocate IOPUC] . Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at . One CC to SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA, Advocate [OPUC] . One CC to SRI P.MALLESH, Advocate TOPUCI 0.One CC to SRI NIMMA NARAYANA, Advocate[OPUC] 1.Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] ' To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8I 1 1 PSK. GJP HIGH COURT DATED: 1 0 10912025 5 TAT E (\ )'C 'it ORDER WP.No.28244 ot 2021 o o 'li.r, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \)