High Court · 2025

2. The District Collector, Nagarkurnool District. 3. The Agency Divisonal Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Achampet, 4. The Tahsildar, Achampet Mandal, Nagarkurnool Diskict. 5. Badavatha Laxmi, Wo. Lachya, Age. 45 years, 6. Badavath Balaji, S/o. Ramulu, Age. 30 years, 7. Kona Janya, Sio. Chenna, Age.46 years, 8. Korra Tulsya, S/o. Chenna, Age. 50 years, 9. Badavath Raju, S/o. Meetya, Age.33 years, '10. Korra Hathiram, S/o. Hanmanthu, Age. 56 years, '1 1. Smt. Janki, Wio. Lakshma, Age. 70 years, All Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Korrathanda, H/o. lnole Village, Achampet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari declaring the impugned order in Case no. E129612022' dated. 13.09.2024 on the file of the Respondent no. 3 as illegal, arbitrary, against in violation of principles of natural justice, fair play, and in violation of arlicle 14, 21' and 300-A of Constitution of lndia consequently calling for the records relating connecting with in Case no. E129612O22, dated. 13.09.2024 on the file of the Respondent no. 3 and quash the same. x. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15'l cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay operation of the impugned order including all further proceedings in Case no. E129612O22, dated. 13.09.2024 on the file of the Respondent no. 3 pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: Korrathanda, H/o. lnole Village, Achampeit Mandal, Nalarkurnool District.

1. 9adavatha Laxmi, W/o. Lachya, Age. 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fi/o. 2. Badavath Balaji, S/o Ramulu, Age. 30 years, Occ. Agr-iculture, Fi./o. Korrathanda, H/o. lnole Village, Achamlet Mandal, N-agarkurnool District. 3. 9adavath Raju, S/o. Meetya, Age. 33 years, Occ. Agric-ulture, Rt/o. . Korrathanda, H/o. lnole Village, Achampet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. 4. Smt Janki, W/o. Lakshma, Age. 70 years, Occ. Agricuiiure, R/o. Korrathinda, H/o. lnole Village, Achampet tr/andai, Nagarkurno6l District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 5,6,9 & 11 AND 1. K.orra Kasna., S/o. Redya, Age. 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Korrathanda, _ H/o. lnole Village, Achampet Mandal, Nagarkumool District. - 51 Vears, Occ. Aoricutture. Ryo. 2. Korra Santi, W/o. Late Harya, Aqe. Korrathanda, H/o. lnole Village, Achampet Maridal, Nparkurndol Districl. Buildings, Hyderabad. ...RESPdN DENTS/PETITIONERS 3. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat 4. The District Collector, Nagarkurnool District. 5. The Agency Divisonal Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Achampet, 6. The Tahsildar, Achampet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. l. f.9u1Janya., S/o. Chenna, Agg. a6 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Korrathanda, - H/o. lnole Village. Achampet 8. Korra Tulsya, S/o. Chenna, Age. 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. 9. Korra Hathiram, S/o. Hanmanthu, Age. 56 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Korrathanda, H/o. lnole Village, Achdmpet Mandail Nagarkurnool District Naga*umo-ol District Nagarkurnool District. -Mandai, Korrathanda, H/o. lnole Village, Achampet i\4andal, Naga"rkumool bistrict. ...RESPONDENTS/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 order dated 25-09-2024 passed in W.P. No. 2656312024 pending disposal of main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.RAMULU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5,6,9 & 11 : SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7,8 & 10: - The Court made the following: ORDER :r HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY I ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.26563 of 2o24 This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief "....to issue q Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorai declaring the impugned order in Case No.E/296/2O22 dqted 13.09.2024 on the file of tle respondent 1Vo.3 os illegat, arbitrary, ogainst in uioLatton of pit'tciples of natural justice fair plag and in uiolation of Articles 14, 21 and 3O0A of Constitutiotl of India consequenttA colling for tlp, records relating connecttng utth in Case No.E/ 296/ 2022 dqted 1l).09.2024 on tlrc file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same artd mag pass....'

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

3. It is stated that originally, Korra Amru, grandfather of petitioner No.1, was the pattadar of lands admeasuring Ac.9.04 gts in Sy.No.323 I A, Ac.4.2O gts in Sy.No .324, and Ac,7.0O gts in Sy.No.263 situated ar Inole Village, Achampet Mandal, and his name continued in the revenue records until 1979. After his demise, the name ol his son, Korra Redya, was recorded as pattadar and possessor. It is lurther stated that Korra Redya subsequently passed away on 25.03.200 1, ieaving behind two sons i.e, petitioner No.1 and Harya, husband of petitioner No.2. It is also stated that when the petitioners tried to mutate their names in the revenue 2 records, they d.iscovered that lands admeasunng Ac. 1.02 gts in sy'No.323lA/2 and Ac.0.30 gts in Sy.No.324/A2 was recorded in the name of petitioner No. 1, and the lands admeasuring Ac. 1.02 gts in Sy.No.323/A and Ac.0.3o grs in Sy.No.3 24lA was recorded in the name of the petitioner No.2 and the remaining extents of lands was mutated in the name of respondent Nos.5 to 1 1. It is further stated that the petitioners submitted an application to respondent No.4 seeking information regarding the basis for such mutation. The respondent No.4, vide Endorsement in Lr.No.C/ 1O/201g, informed that no relevant records were available in his office and hence, no details could be furnished. It is also stated that aggrreved by the mutation of names of respondent Nos.S to 1I in the revenue records, the petitioners preferred al appeal under Section 5(5) of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar passbooks Act, 197r on the file of respondent No.3 and the same was a owed vide order dated 17.OI.2023 passed in Case No.E/296/2022. ln compltirnce of the said order, the respondent No.4 deleted the names of respondent Nos.S to 11 and issued pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the respondent Nos.S to 11 filed an Interlocutory Application in the said case to set aside the ex parte order dated 17.O1.2023 and the respondent No.3 issued Form_ll notice dated 03 .O9 .2024 directing the petitioners to appear on 21.09.2024 at I 1:OO AM. However, before the said date of hearing 3 /. / i.e,21.09.2024, the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 in Case No.El296/2022 withdrawing the earlier order dated 17.O1.2023.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners -contended that respondent No.3, having issued Form-II notice dated 03.09.2024 fixing the hearing on 21.O9.2024, ought not have passed any order prior to that date. The impugned order dated 13.09.2024, which pre-dates the hearing, is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as it dcprived the petitioners of an opportunit5z to be heard.

5. A careful examination of the impugned order dated 13.09 .2024 passed in Case Nc:.tr / 296 I 2022 by tlle respondent No.3, would reveal that the respondent No.3 while observing that the petilioner Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex pctrte, withdrawn the earlier order No.E/29612022 dared 17.01.2023 and cancelled rhe pattadar passbooks issued in favour of petitioners herein in respect of subject lands. It is pertinent to note that the respondent No.3 having issued notice in Form-fi dated 03.09.2024 directing the petitioners to appear on 27.O9.2024 ar 1 1:OO AM, surprisingly, even before the said date of hearing, passed the impugned order dated

13.09.2024. Such an action on the part of respondent No.3 is clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were / 4 ::...- denied an opportunity of hearing before an adverse order was passed. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and is Iiable to be set aside.

6. This is the second instance, where this Court came across the negligent attitude on the part of the respondent No.3 in discharging quasi judicial functions. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to impose suitable costs on the respondent No.3.

7. In view of the above, this Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Case No.E/29612O22 by the respondent No.3-Agency Divisional Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Achampet, is hereby set aside. The respondent No.3-Smt.K.Madhavi, shall pay costs of Rs.50,00O/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) from her personal account to the Director, Sainik Welfare, Telangana/Armed Forces Flag Day Fund, Telangana (Account No.52188926279 , State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch, Hyderabad IFSC: SBIN0O2OO7OI, within a period of four (04) weeks from today and a copy of the Receipt shall be filed in the Registry. The respondent No.3 is directed to re-adjudicate the Case No.E 129612022 afresh by issuing notices to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.5 to 11 and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing and duly taking into consideration the objections, if any, pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period 5 of two (2) months from the date o[ receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, both the parties shall maintain status E)o obtaining as on date, in respect of subject lands, in all respects. As a sequel, Lhe miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SDLP.PADMANABHA REDDY EPUry REGISTRAR SECTTON OFFICER To '1 . The Principal Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat Build rngs, Hyderabad, State of 2 2 A q o 7 Telanoana. The D'istrict Collector, Naga rkurnool District. Tne Agency Divisonal Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Achampet, Naoarkurnool District. Thd Tahsildar, Achampet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District One CC to SRI P.RAMULU, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] i*o CC" to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI Two CD Copies B PSK. LS \Y HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 510412025 ORDER WP.No.26563 of 2024 I I t i I l t c J c o 1Y4 E STA )e 0 2 Ilt\Y 2U25 z o t DgSPATC t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS cr( 0 O-