High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari, call the records pertaining to the order, dated ...RESPONDENTS 11-06-2024, made in File No. F21454112023, passed by Respondent no.2, Special Tribunal, Nalgonda District by allowing Revision of the Respondent No. 7 herein and filed under Section g of Telangana Rights in Land and Patta(Jar Passbooks Acl, 1971 read with Rule 21 of the Rules framed there under, as the same is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and without considering the counter filed by the Writ Petitioner herein in :he Revision and also the material available on record in the said Revision in any manner, and therefore the impugned order is violative of principles of natura justice, without taking recourse of basic procedure contemplated in law for adjudication of civil disputes, apart from being violative of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of constitution of lndia and to quash the same and consequently dismiss the Revision of respondent no. 7 herein be aring Revision Case No. F217475121)17 on the file of Respondent No. 4 herein arc made over to Respondent No.2, Special rribunal, Nalgonda District and renumbered as File No. F2/454112023 or r:lse writ Petitioner will be put to great hardship and suffer irreparable loss. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s.rpport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend/stay of the .lperation of the impugned order dated 11-oe -2024 made in File No. F21454112o23 passed by the Respondent No.2, Special rribunal, Nalgonda District perrding disposal of the writ petition in the intrest of justice fA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: 'l . M. Keshava Reddy, S/o Late Ramachandra Reddv. aqed 6g vears. Occ Business, R/o Plot No.22B, Road No.78, phase-lll, Jubli6e Hills Hvderabaa. 2 M. Vijender.Rectdy, S/o Late Ramachandra Reddy, aged OO V6irs, OCc. Busines.s, Ri/o lvlereddy Vijender Reddy convention, neair Tacikamalla cross Koad, Miryalagucla Town and fVlandal. 3. M. Jayanth Reddy, S/o Late Ramachandra Reddy, aqed 63 vears. Occ. Eusrness, wo F,tot No.22g, Road No. 78, phase_lll, iubli5e Hilrs. Hvderabad. 4. M. Ramestr. {e,ody, S/o Late Ramachandra Reddy,-;;;d 6r';;;;;. t;;. Business, Rl/o prc,t No 2!8, Road No. 78, phase-il, j,loirde Hili, irriirilua;: 5. Mandadi @ Mgrepdy Vijitha Reddy, W/o Late nimar<riinrui H;ft;-bi" Kamacnandra Reddv. aged. 6{ .yga1s, occ. Househord, Rl/o prot Nol zz.a, Road No. 78. phase-ilt, L-ubitee Hilts, HyOeiJOaO. - AND ....VACATE STAy pETIT|ONERS/RESpONDENTS NO.gtol 3 'l . T. Maruthi Rao (died) LRs, S/o Venkat Rangaiah 2. T.. Girija Rani, Wo Late T. Maruthi.Rao, Aged 56 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No._19-924tLA, Nagarjun Nagar, tt/lryiriSuOj iil.;;d M;il;t; Nalgonda District, Telangana State. - gepartment, Secretariai, Hyberabad. -' lVlagistrate, Nalgonda Distric[. ...RESPONDENTSMIRIT PETITIONERS 1. The State of Telanqana,. Rgp . by its principal Secretary, Revenue z. T!" . special rribunar, Ndrgonda District, Rep. by coilector and District 3. The collector and District Magistrate, Member of special rribunal, Nalgonda. 4. The Joint Collector, NalqondiDistrict. Naloonda. 5. The Revenue Divisiona[Officer, trrliryalaguia, Nalqonda District. 6. The Tahsildar, Miryataguda Mandal, Natbond'a Diitrict 7. l..frJag.ar.ag_fqo, S/o A, Bhaskar RaoI aged 54 years, Occ. Service, F/o H.No..1.-1-7701N5, Ftat No. 102, Srinitayari, Stree[ ruo +, BesiJe N;;;;; Hospital, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad-5000{i0. 8. T..Sravan 5!mar, S/o Venkat- Rangaiah, aged 58 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o I No. 1B-iS79, Ashok Nagar, Miryataguda t6wn and frrti"'Oit, NtaIgoni, Oiri- 9. The Assistant Director, -survey arid Land Records, r.rargoida-bGtitt, Nalgonda. ...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 orders dated 20.02.2025 in writ petition No.26694 o,t 2024 and dismiss the writ petition with exemprary costs in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PASHAM RAVINDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to6,14: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDDy Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8to.l3: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS The Court made the following: ORDER I I J HON'BL,E SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26694 of 2o24 ORDER: This Writ Petition is fried under Article 226 of t]ne Constitution of India, seeking the following reliel "...to rssue Wit of Certiorai, call the records pertaininq to'.\te order, dated 1.06.2024 made in File No.F2/ 4541/ 2023 passed bq respondent llo.2, Special Tibunal, Nalqond.a Distict bu allow ttq Revtsion flled under Section 9 of Telanqana Riqhts in Land and Pattadar P'2..;sboofts Act, 1971 read uith Rule 21 of the Rules framed the.e under as the same is arbitraru, uniust, illeqal artd without cortsideinq the coutlter filed in the Reuision os u)etl (1s other matetictl auailable on record in aru1 manner, and therefore the rrnpuqnecl order is uiolatiue of the pinciples of natural iustice, Luithout tah:itlq recourse of the basic procedure contempLated ir:t laut for adjt.L<lication of civtl disputes qpqrt from being uiolatiue of Arttcles 14, 111 and 3O0-A of Cotlstitution of India and to quash the same onC. consequentla dismiss the Reuision of respondetLt No.7 herein Ltearinq Reuision Case No- F2/7475/2017 on the 17le of responde-nt No.4 herein and made ouer to respondeftt No..), Special Tibtuta[ Nalqond.a Distict and rerutmbered as File No.F2/ 4541 / 2O23 or else Wit Petitioner uill be put to gr()e.t hardship artci suffer ineparable loss...

2. Considerr:d the submissions of the learned counsel lcrr the respective partics; and perused the record.

3. It is stat,:<l that the petitioner No. 1 is the husbeurd of petitioner No.2 and the petitioner No.1 during his lifetirne has purchased the land admeasuring Ac.l.26 guntas in Sy.No.756 of Miryalaguda \/jllage and Mandai, under Sadabainam.r and thereafter, got yzrlidated the same under Section 5 (A) : I the Telangana Rights in Lands and pattadar passbooks Act, lg7l r I 2 (for short "the ROR Act, 197 l") and the Rules made thereunder. It is further stated that the respondent No.6 following due process of law, issued 13-B certificate in hle No.l/57 11994 regularising the said lands. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.7 herein has filed revision case under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 197 | questioning the regularization of sadabainama vide File No.I / 57 I 1994 . lt is further stated that pending adjudication of the said revision case, the ROR Act, 1971 was repealed and replaced with Telangana Rights in.Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act) 2O2O (for short "ROR Act, 2020") and exercising the powers under the ROR Act, 2020 vide G.O.Ms.No.4 Revenue (Assignment-l) Department dated l2.Ol.2O2I, the Special Tribunal was constituted and all pending cases arising out of ROR Act, 1971 were transferred to the Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal after going through the records vide impugned order dated O 1.06. 2024 in File No.F2l454l/2023 allowed the revision case by setting aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar and relegated the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Hence the Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents relying upon the counter affidavit has submitted that without issuing any notice a's required under law, the respondent No.6- Tahsildar validated the Sadabainama and seriously dispu.ted the entries made in faomr of the petitioner and genuinenest; of the Sadabainama/ordinary sale deed stating that the said sale deed is created to usurp the valuable property belonging 1.o the unofficial respcndents. It is further contended that before regularizing the Sadabainama in terms of Section 5(A) ,rt ROR Act, 1.97 I r/rv Rule 22 of ROR Rules, 1989, the respondent No.6 has not issuecl any notice and as such the procedure aclopted for regularizatjon is contrary to the ROR Act. It is submitted that there is no illegality or legal infirmities in the impugned order passed try the Special Tribunal and ultimately pral'ed for dismissal of the u,rit petition.

5. I t is the r:ase of the petitioners that petitioner No. t has purchased an ,3xtent of Ac.l-26 gts in Sy.No.756 of Miryalaguda Village under liadabainama and the same was validated by the respondent No.6 as per Section 5(A) of the ROR Act, 1971 and issued 138 certihcate in File No.l/57 11994 regularising the said land. It is a Is;o case of the petitioners that the revisional authority is not having any power to set aside the regularization proceedings issrred by the Tahsildar. Whereas, it is the case of the unofhcial respondents that no notice as required un,ler the 4 ROR Rules, was issued before regularizing the alleged ordinary sale deed and in the absence of issuing such notice which is mandatory under the provisions of the ROR Act, the alleged proceedings issued by the respondent No.6 without following the procedure has to be declared as null and void.

6. As per Section 5(A)(2) of ROR Act, 1971, the Mandai Revenue Officer (MRO) shal, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the office of the MRO an amount equal to the registratiop fees and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 as hxed by the registering officer on a reference made to him by the MRO on the basis of the value of the properry arrived at in such manner as may be prescribed. Thereafter, the MRO is conferred with power under Rule 22(ll for regularization in Form IX calling for applications from the persons whose names are recorded as occupiers in the pahanies or in the Record of Rights. After considering the objections, the MRO shall dispose of the application for regularizing the lands. The Rule further stated that the MRO after deposit of the amount by the alienee f tra,r'rsferee' through a challan in the Treasury, shall issue a 5 certificate in Form 13B as required under sub_section (4) of Section 5A of the ROR Act, declaring the alienation/ tra;.rsfer as valid from the date of issuance of the certif,rcate.

7. The exanrination of the records would reveal tl_rat the respondent N,c.6-Tahsildar has not followed the procedure prescribed unrlt:r the ROR Rules while validating the alleged Sadabainama relied upon by the petitioners. Further, in catena of judgments, the Hon,ble Apex Court and this Court has categorically he.ir1 that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or any revenue authorily, such parties has to rrgiLaLe their rights by filing appropnate suit for declaration. It is settled law that in a dispute over the tirle in respect of land cr property, when a part5r asserts his/her title relying on the enlries in the revenue records and when the same is seriously disptrted by the other party alleging that the same was entered beLsing on fraudulent records, such entries in revenue records does not create or extinguish title over the lands nor such e:r tries have presumptive value on the tile ol- the land. In the prerstrnt case, the controversy revolving the issue is with regard to vetl;dation of Sadabainam a/ordinary sale deerl in File No-r/s7 / 1994 The Special Tribunal after verification cf the records has cateSJc rica y observed that the said fire relied ,pon \ \ t 6 by the petitioner is not traceable to decide the validity or otherwiseofthesadabainama/ordinarysaledeedandits genuineness and the petitioner also not placed any document in support of his case that the Tahsildar has followed the procedure as required under Section 5(A) of ROR Act' r/w Ruie 22 of trle ROR Rules' In the absence of following the said procedure and non-availability of the records' the Speciai Tribunal has rightly relegated the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance' Therefore' this court does not find any illegality or legal inhrmitie! to interferewiththeimpugnedorderpassedbytheSpecial Tribunal For the aforesaid reasons' this Writ Petition is disposed of 8. relegating the petitioner No'2 to agitate her grievance before the Civil Court, in accordance with law' No-costs' As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed /TTRUE COPY// SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, T.S.'Hy.dergpg{'. Z. tfre Cotteitor and Didtrict Magistratb, Special Tribunal, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda District.

3. The"Collector and District Magistrate, Member of Special Tribunal' Nalgonda' 4. The Joint Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. 6. The Tahsildar, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District- 7. The Assistant Oirect-or, Survey and - Land Records, Nalgonda District, Nalqonda. I To, \ I I l I I Hyderabad [OlJ'I] B. On; CC to SFll PASHAM RAVTNDRA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to Gf, FOR REVENUE,High Courtforthe State of Telangana at 10.One CC to SRI T BALAMOHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] '11.One CC to SRl. THOOM SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 12.Two CD Copies BM GJP / IA HIGH COURT DATED:1110312025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.26694 of 2024 URGENT q, ,-r -) r) \. -; ,., v\E sTl\ i-€ \ o ?. I l{t\fl 2$25 Z C) .{i ,y --:--,-,-. ---;/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,// 4rl /44/.('