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 an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in ihe nature of writ of mand"mu. declaring the Order dated 30/03/2019 in Case No.DS]2J47l2O17 passed by 2nd respondLnt as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law ,nO_,iotutir"tof piinciples of natural .iustice and the provisions of the.repealed ioR Act, 1971:and nrtictes 14, 19,2i and 300A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently sei aside the same, in the interest of justice' I I I I r. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 Order dated 30.03.2019 in Case No.D5123471201 7 passed by 2nd respondent in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Between: N.Ramalakshman Rao, S/o. late N.Venkata Narasimha Rao, aged 54 years, private engineer, Fl/o. H.No.2-157, Plot No.6B, East, Saihomes, Gurramguda village, Saroornagar mandal, Ranga Reddy district ...PETITIONER/Rs 1 . State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar district 4. The Tahsildar, Talakondapally mandal, Ranga Reddy district 5. Katikela lsthari, S/o. K.Chennaiah, 1'1 Aged 66 years, agriculture, Rt/o. Veliala village, Talakondapally mandal, Ranga Reddy district

6. N.Srikrishna Priya, D/o. Subbaraju, Aged 29 years, R/o. 8-505, Aspire Apartments, Opp G.Pulla Reddy Sweets, Near Durgam Cheruvu, Madhapura, Hyderabad, rep. by her GPA holder Nadimpalli Subbaraju, S/o. N.Ramakrishnam Raju, aged 51 years r/o. 8-505, Aspire Apartments, Opp. G.Pulla Reddy Sweets, Near Durgam Cheruvu, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081 . ...RESPONDE NT/PETITIONER 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 made in l.A. No. 1 of 2023 in W.P. No. 26334 o'f 2023 daled 22-09-2023. Counsel for the Petifioner: SRI M. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S and 6:--- The Court made the following: ORDER '1 I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASK]\R REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26334 of 2023 ORDER: This writ petition is frled seeking to declare the order dated 30.03.2019 in Case No.DS 12347/2017 passed by respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and to consequently set aside the same.

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.4.O3 guntas in Survey No.636/62-AA1 situated at Veljal Village, Talakondapally Mandal, Ra:rga Reddy District. It is stated that after due enquiry, ORC has been issued in favour of the petitioner, vide proceedings No.O.R/B/2aO6/2017 dated 18.12.2017 and pattadar pass books and pahanies have also been issued in his favour in respect of the said land. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.5, without challenging the said ORC proceedings dated 18.12.2017 and without making the petitioner as party, filed revision under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, l97l (for short "the ROR Act of l97l"l on the file of respondent No.2 seeking correction of revenue entries in 1 2 CVBR, J WP.No.26334 of2023 respect of the subject land and fraudulently obtained the impugned order dated 30.03.2019 whereby the revision has been allowed and the Tahsildar, Talakondapally Mandal, has been directed to mutate the name of respondent No.5 herein in the revenue records in respect of the subject land.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that in fact, the petitioner's vendors arrd their predecessors-in-interest were issued pattadar pass books and ritle deeds and subsequently the property was a-lso mutated in the name of the petitioner and consequential entries were also made in the revenue records and therefore he is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings initiated by respondent No.5; furthermore, as per Section 5(3) of the Act, a notice is required to be issued to the interested persons by virtue of amendment of revenue entries and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds; but despite the same, respondent No.2 has straight away allowed the revision filed by respondent No.S, without following the due procedure and as such the impugned order is liable to br: set aside. 3 CVB& J WP.No.26334 of 2023 4, On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.S, by relying on the counter affidavit liled by respondent No.S, contends that neither the petitioner nor his vendors were never in possession of the subject land as on the date of vesting i.e, 01.11.1923 and as such there is no question of issuing ORC much lcss the alleged mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioner; upon verification of the recor:ds, as there is no such proceedings emanated from the records, respondent No.2 has rightly a_llowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.5.

5. Be that as it may, it is held by a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh in the case of Chinnam Pandurangam (supra) that changing/altering/deleting the entries in the record of rights, before a duty is cast upon the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose narnes are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment. However, in the instant case, a reading of the impugned order would reveal that the petitioner was not even made as a party to the revision much less any notice was issued to him, which is not in consonance with the law laid 4 CVB& J WP.No-26334 of 2023 down in the case of Chlnno,m Pandurangann (supra) and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. In vieu' of the above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the right and entitlement of the parties, deems it appropriate ro dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2019 passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.D5/2347/2017. The matter is remanded to the Special Tribunal i.e, respondent No.2 herein, who in turn shall consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with the law laid by the Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Chlnnom Pandurangam (supra) and the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Lald and Pattadar Pass Books Act,2O2O and the Rules made thereunder, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that the petitioner and respondent No.5 a-re at libertv to make appropriate applications seeking to implead a-ll necessarJr and proper parties to the litigation, for effective disposal of the revision.

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. I \ I 5 CVBR, J WP.No.26334 of 2023 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. SREE RAMA MURTHY EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, TJ BS

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

2. The Joint Cottector, Rahga Reddy District, Hyderabad 3. The Revenue Divisional bfficer, Mahaboobnagar, [t/ahaboobnagar district 4. The Tahsildar, Talakondapally mandal, Ranga Reddy district 5. One CC to Sri M. Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies b HIGH COURT DATED:1010312025 ORDER WP.No.2633,* of 2023 STAr € 1c '( ) C) U lEAPN M t o -. -r,.iCS t c).\ I I I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS g c4' 69 ,$