High Court · 2025

2. The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 3. Additional Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 4. The Special Tribunal, Nalgonda O/o District Collector, Nalgonda District. 5. The Tahsildar, Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda District 6. Sri Gundla Sripal Reddy, S/o.Ramul Reddy, aged 55 years, H.No.13-6- 439/1/A/98, Balaji Nagar, Gudimalkapur, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad - 500264.

7. Smt Gundla Vijaya, Wo. Ramul Reddy, aged 55 years, H.No.13-6- 439/1/A/98, Balaji Nagar, Gudimalkapur, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad - 500264.

8. Smt Garlapati Geetha, D/o.Late Madhusudhan, aged 62 years, Occ : Housewife, Plot No.41, Road No.4, Chandrapuri Colony, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad - 500074. 1in S to 8 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 27'2-2025 in l'A'No'2 ot2o211 ""'RESP.NDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the crrcumstances 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 of Mandamus, declaring the Order dated 28 01 2021 passed by the fourth respondent Special Tribunal in Old Case No F2l8992t2O15 (Old Revenue Court' "7 Additional Collector, Nalgonda) New Case No. F2lSpl.Trib una1tOO64l2OZ1 , as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violative of the Principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, .1g50. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of the petition, the High Cout may be pleased to suspend Order dated 2801 .2021 in Otd Case No.F2tB992l2O15 (Old ftevenue court: Addrtional collector, Nalgonda) New case No.F2lspl.Trib una11006412021, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER .;r-, THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BIIASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27O79 of 2O24 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following reiief: ". . .to issue an appropiate wit, order or direction more partianlarlg one in the nature of 'Writ of Certiorai': i) Declaring the order dated 28.01.2O21 passed bg the Special Tribunal-respondent No.4 in old. ca.se No.F2/8992/2015 (old Reuenue Court, Additional Collecta:, Nalgonda) Neu.t Caie No.F2/ SpI. Tibunal/ 0064/ 2021 os illegal, arbitrary and conlrqry to lau; and ii) Consequently, set aside the impugned order ond allout the reuision preferred bg the petitioner or pass appropriate ord-er..."

2. The case of the petitioner is that he has filed a revision under Section 9 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 197 I (since repealed) and rules made thereunder before the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, seeking cancellation of illegal mutations in respect of land admeasuring Acs.7.00 gts., in Sy.No.239, Ac.O.29 gts., in Sy.No.325 and Acs.3.OO gts., in Sy.No.329, situated at Uppalancha Village, Shaligouraram Mandal. Subsequently, after repelling of ROR Act, 197 | replacing with ROR Act, 2O2O, the said revision case has been transferred to the Special Tribunal, which has been constituted ./ I I 2 in terms of Section 16(1) of the ROR Act, 2O2O ,ride G.O. Ms. No.4 of the Revenue (Assignment-l) Depa:.-ment, dated

12.o1.202t.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Special Tribuna.l without issuing any notice, without affording al opportunity of hearing and even without assigning specific reas()ns, dismissed the said revision preferred by the petitioner.

4. Mr.M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the procedure aciopted by the Special Tribunal in passing the impugned ,rrder, without examining the record and witl-rout providing any opportunity of hearing, is not in consonalce with the procedure as contemplated under the Act and such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. A careful examination of the impugned crder passed by the- Special Tribunal dated 2g.O 1.2021 worLid reveal that without issuing notice to the petitioner and without assigning specific ..."o.r., it is simply stated that the subject issues are civil in nature since the revision petitioner has challenged the mutations rnade in favour of his mother. t t Y

6. It is settled law that before effecting mutation/ amendmcnt 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 Chlnna,m Pandurangam a. Mandal Reaenue Officer, Serilingampallg Mandal & othersl.

7. In the light of the same, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order dated

28.01.2021 is set aside and the matter is remarded back to the Special Tribunal for fresh disposal. Further, respondent No.4 is directeci to issue notice to the petitioner and all other affected/ contesting parties and pass a reasoned order, within three (3) months from the date of rcceipt of a copy of this order, after considering the objections and affording them an opportunity of personal hearing.

8. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 1 AtR 2008 AP 15 //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

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

2. The District Collector, Nalgonda District' Nalgonda. 3. The Additional Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda' 4. The Special Tribunal, Nalgonda o/o District Collector, Nalgonda District. 5. The Tahsildar, Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda District' 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] ,7. One CC to SRI M.V.DURGA PRASAD' Advocate IOPUCI L Two CD Copies SA BS w_-- r''>tr.r_-_.'. HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 ORDER WP.No.27079 of 2024 c- 1HE S14 CY 2 6 t{AB hffi ((. :i, ,) -) J 1 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \\