High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stdted in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in treating the representation dated 25-8-2015 Of the non-official respondents as an appeal and passing the order dated 12- 3-2016 in file No.G/6024t2015 by going into serious questions of title as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and. contrary to the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and rules made there under and consetluently set aside the order dated 12-3-2016 in file \ _-- Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4,5,7 TO 10: SRI D.KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI K.V. BHANU PRASAD W.P.NO: 33558 OF 2022 Between: Danikula Vengal Rao, years, Occ. Business, District. S/o. Vengaiah Chowdary @ Vengaiah, Aged about 46 R/o. H.No. 13-282 3, lB Area, Mancherial, Mancherial AND ...PETITIONER

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad. District.

2. The District Collector, Mancherial, Mancherial Distiict. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial Revenue Division, Mancherial 4. The Tahsildar, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District. 5. The Sub-Registrar, Mancherial, Mancherial District. 6. The Naspur Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Naspur, Mancherial 7. Jadi Rajamallu, S/o Rajam, aged 60 years, Occ. Singareni Employee, Rl/o 8. Jadi Srinivas, S/o Cooli, Aged 50 years, Occ. Singareni Employee, R/o Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District. District. Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District.

9. Jadi Bheemaiah, S/o Bala Pocham, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Cooli, Rl/o Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District.

10. Jadi Durgaiah, S/o Bala Pocham, Aged about 66 years, Occ. Cooli, R/o Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District. 'l 1.Jadi Shankaraiah, S/o Rajam, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Singareni Employee, R/o Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District.

12.Jadi Laxmi, Wo Bhoomaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District.

13.Jadi Bapu, S/o Jadi Pocham, Aged 50 years, Occ. Cooli, Rl/o Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District.

14. Siripuram Ramanna, S/o ftajalingu, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Agriculture, FUo Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District. '15. Siripuram Dharmaiah, S/o Rajalingu, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District. Petition under Article 226 ol 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 more particularly one in the nature of writ ...RESPONDENTS of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in changing the patta in the revenue records from the namg of the petitioner to the name ojjle respondent No. 5, 14 and 15 and thereafter in the name of the respondentKo 14 in respect of the petitioner land in Sy.No. 4212 (old) Sy.No.a2l2Gl{4212G15,42l2Gl6 (New) admeasuring Ac. 4-00 gts situated at Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District, consequently converting the petitioner land into non- agriculture purpose by issuing NALA order daled 011412022 in favour of respondent No14 vide proceedings No.2200353558 of the respondent No.4, despite order dated 2110412016 in l.A.No. 1 of 2016 (W.P.M.P.No. 16894 of 2016) in W.P.No. 13514 of 2016 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to law apart from violation of principles of natural justice besides vilolation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set a side the revenue entries of the respondents No. 5, 14 and 15 and NALA order dated 011412022 vide proceedings No.2200353558 of the respondent No.4 in respect of the. petitioner land in Sy.No. 4212 (old) Sy.No.42l2cl4, 4212G15, 42l2cl6 (New) total admeasuring Ac. 4-00 gts situated at Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 revenue entries in respect of the respondents No. 5, '14 and 15 and NALA order dated 011412022 vide proceedings No.2200353558 of the respondent No.4 in respect of the petitioner land in Sy.No. 4212 (old) Sy.No.42l2cl4, 4212G15, 42l2cl6 (New)total admeasuring Ac. 4-00 gts situated at Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District, pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between: u, _., -

1. Siripuram Ramanna, S/o Raialinqu, Aqed about 584ears, Occ. Aqriculture. 2. Sgiprlrqm Dharmaiah, S/o R'alatiigu, Aged abouf5S yeari, Occ. Agriculturist, ( Both R/o Seetharampalli Vill-agelNas[ur Mandal, Mancheriat Dist-rict.) ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT No.14 & 15 AND 1. M-r. Danikula Vengal Rao, S/o. Vengaiah Chowdary @ Vengaiah, Aged about 19 years, _Occ.-Business, R/o. -H.No. 13-28A2]ta Area, Mincherial, Mancherial District. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER District. Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Ihe State of T_elangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue 3. The District Collector, Mancherial, Mancherial District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial Revenue Division, Mancherial 5. The Tahsildar, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District. 6. The Sub-Registrar, Mancherial, Mancherial District. 7. The Naspur Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Naspur, Mancherial 8. Jadi Rajamallu, S/o Rajam, aged 60 years, Occ. Singareni Employee, R:/o 9. Jadi Srinivas, S/o Cooli, Aged 50 years, Occ. Sinqareni Emplovee. Rl/o Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mand'al, Mancherial Diskict. District. Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mbndal, Mancheri-al Dishict.

10.Jadi Bheemaiah S/o Bala Pocham, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Cooli, R:/o Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandil, Mancherialbistribt. 1 1 . Jadi Durgaiah, S/o Bala Pocham, Aged about 66 years, Occ. Cooli, Rt/o Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Man-dal, Mancherial Diitrict.

12.Jadi Shankaraiah, S/o Ralam, Aqed about 55 vears. Occ Sinoareni 13.Jadi Laxmi, Wo Bhoomaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ri/o Employee, R7o Seetharampalli Vlllage, Naspui Mandal, Mancf,erial Diskict. Seetharampalli Village, Naspur-Mandal, Manlherial Districl

14.Jadi Bapu, S/o J-adi ioglqm, Aged 50 years, Occ. Cooli, R/o Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial Di5trict. .RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 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 direction granted in Hon'ble Court in l.A. No.1l2O22 in W.p.No. 335 58 t2022, dt. 25 t 08 t 2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.l TO 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI N.PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MPCL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 TO 15: - The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I I I l THE HON'BLE SRI TIUSTICE C.V.BHASI{AR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.13S L4 of2016 & 33558 of2022 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is similar, they were heard togethei- and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No. 13514 of 2016 is filed seeking to declare the action of the Revenue Diyisional Officer, Mancherial in treating the representation dated 25.08.2015 of the unoffrcial respondents as an appeal and passing the order dated 12.03.2016 in File NO.Gl6O24l2015 by going into serious questions of title as illegal and arbitrarSr and to set aside the

3. W.P.No.33558 of 2022 is filed seeking to declare the action of the Tahsildar, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District, in changing the patta in the revenue records from the name of the petitioner to the names of respondent Nos.S, 14 and 15 herein and thereafter in the name of respondent No.l4 in respect of the petitioner's land in Survey No.42/2 (old) Survey No.a2/2G/4, 42/2G/5, 42/2c16 (New) admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas situated at Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District, and consequently converting the petitioner's land into non- agriculture purpose by issuing NALA order dated 01.O4.2022 in 2 favour of respondent No.14 vide proceedings No.22OO353558 of respondent No.4, despite orden, dated 2I.04.2016 in IA.No.1 of 2016 (WPMP.No.16894 of 2OL6l in W.p.No.3t5t4 of 2Ot6 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction ard to consequently set aside thc same. '!

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.3355a of 2022. 5. The petitioner claims to be the absohrte owner and possessor of land in Survey No.42/2 admeasuring Ac.4.0O guntas situated at Seetharampalli Viliage, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District, having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing Document No.4208/2010 dated L2.O7 .2OlO . It is stated that the name of the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books ald title deeds have also been issued in his favour. It is lurther stated that when respondent Nos.7 to 13 interfered with his peaceful possession over the s[bject land, he was constrained to file a suit vide O.S.No. 191 of 2072 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Mancherial, seeking perpetual injunction, which was decreed vide judgment dated O9.03.2O1S, against which the unofficia_l respondents fiIed an appeal vide A.S.No.46 of 2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mancheria_l ald the sarne was all,owed vide judgment and decree }-+ \ j 5 dated 05.10.2010. It is further,stated that on a-representation dated 25.08.2015 being submitted' by the unofflcial respondents, the Revenue Eivisional Officer, Mancherial Division, treating the same . as suo mofit appeal, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed ex parte order dated 12.03.2016 in File No.Gl6024l2015 allowing the appeal and cancelling the ROR proceedings issued in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 13514 of 2016 and this Court, vide order dated 2L.O4.2O16 in W.P.M.P.No. 16894 of 2016, granted interim suspension of the order dated 12.03.2016.

6. It is further stated that despite the said interim order of suspension passed by this . Court, till the year 2O2O the respondent authorities have not updated the revenue records in respect of the subject land of the petitioner in Dharani portal ard instead, in October, 2O2&, .ttrcy uploaded the names of respondent Nos.S, 14 and 15 in respect of the subject land of the petitioner by deleting his name and consequently, the Tahsildar, Naspur Mandal, issued NALA order dated O1.O4.2O22 in favour of respondent No.15 vtde proceedings No.220O353558. Hence, the petitioner hled W'P.No.3355a of 2022.

7. karned counsel for the-petitioner vehemently contended that even though the RevenUe Divisional Offrcer, Mancherial lr_a/- / 4 Division, is not conferred v/ittl the power to entertain any representation as suo motu appeal for deciding t}e /rb among the parties with regard to title, he passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2016 thereby deciding .the title, without issuing any notice and without affording ariopportunity of hearing, which is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel further contended that even though the said orderr dated 12.03.2016 has been suspended by this Court in W.p.No.13514 of 2016, the Tahsildar issued NALA order dated 01.04.2022 in favour of respondent No. 14 and takirrg advantage of the consequential revenue entries, respondent No,14 is trying to create third party rights over the subject land of the petitioner and if such illegal entries are continued in the name.of respondent No.14 and if any third party rights are created over the subject land, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and as such the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the unofficia.l respondents vehemently corttends that the respondent authorities have taken into consideration the fact that the unofficial respondents are in possession of the subject land, which is the pre-requisite for mutation of entries in the revenue records, and rightly passed the.impugned orders and as such they do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5

9. Considered the submissions of the 1eamed eounsel for the respective parties and perused. the record., 10. It is well settled that therRevenue Divisional Offrcer is not empowered to suo motu entertajn appeal and cancel the . pattadar pass books and title deeds, as held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Thota Narsinga Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and othersl. However, in the instant case, even though there are seqous disputes among the parties with regard to title, possessiorl and consequential mutation of entries in the revenue records in respect of the subject land, which are required to be decided by a competent Civil Court in a comprehensive civil suit based on evidence, the Revenue Divisional Officer suo motu errrcrtairred the appeal and passed the impugned order dated l2.OJ.2Ol6 thereby deciding the title, cancelling the ROR proceedings issued by the Tahsildar and directing the Tahsildar to malte corrections in the entries in respect of the subject land, which is ex focie illegal and as such the impugned order dated 12A3.2016 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, in File No.G/6O24|2OLS is liable to be aside.

11. So far as the impugned NALA order d,ated O1.O4.2O22 is concerned, it is evident that even though this Court granted tzoozlry ero soo t I ( ( \ .\ \ \ 6 interim suspension of the order clated 12.03.2O16 passed by the . Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial in File No.G/6 O24 /2015, in W.P.M.P No.16894 of 2OL6 in W.p.No. 13514 of 2016, the Tahsildar, Naspur l\.{andal, has passed the said order and as such it deserves to be set aside.. 12. Resultantly, the writ petitions are disposed of, by setting aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2016 passed by the Revenue Divis:onai Offrcer., Mancherial in No.c/6O2a/2015NALA as well z.s the order d,ated, O1.O4.2O22 passed by the Tahsildar, Naspur Mandal, vide proceedings File No.220O353558. It is needless ro observe that if the parties are having any grievance with regard to title in respect of the subject lald, thcy are at Iiberty tc approach the competent Civil Conrt seeking appropriate reliei in accordance with law. Pending misceilaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. 'lhere shall bc no t,rJ -.: :s to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL ANT REGISTRAR A ECTION OFFICER State of Telanoana.

1. The Principal Secretary, (Revenue Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad, 2. The Revenue bivisional, Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 3. The Tahsildar Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District. 4. One CC to SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI N.PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MpCt- tbpUCl 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of T-elangana, at 7. Ohe CC to SRI K.V.BHANU PRASAD, Advocate [OPUCI 8. One CC to SRI D.KIRAN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] To PSK. BS s HIGH COURT DATED:1 210212025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.13514 ol 2016 & 33558 OF 2022 -,i--- t,rti S l',1 \.t.s (L)t' \ t\ o Z rJ ;';,i ilil t ',i) t ,! Qsj rr.: ' "' -.-' S=:-:::--l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 6q'a W