The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particurarry one rn the nature of a writ of mandamus decraring the impugned orders passed by the Tahsirdar, cherial Mandal, 3rd respondent herein dared 10r10r20'r 8 bearing fire number Bl100212011 as nurr and void, violation of the principres of naturaljustice and also in violation of Articre 300-4 of the constitution of rndia and consequenfly set aside the same in the interest of justice. ;;rqt@z ..,Y ;. / |.A.NO:1 OF 2021 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 grant interim suspension of the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar, Cherial Mandal, 3rd respondent herein dated 1011012018 bearing file number P.l100212018 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.7-26 guntas in survey number, 6651P,2 (r\c. 1.36.5 gts), 665/E/2 (Ac. l.36.5 gts), 665/B/1 (Ac.1.36.5 gts) and 665/E/'1 (.Ac ,1 36.5 gts), situated at Cherial village, Cherial IVIandal Siddipet District. perrding disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petrtioner : SRI ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI H.RAKESH KUMAR, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI V.PRABHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following ORDER ) ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.35919 OF 2O2l This Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar, Cherial Mandal/3.a respondent in file No.B/1002/2018, dated i O. 10.2018 as null and void and in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Article 3O0-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, to sct aside the sarne.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Covernment Pleader representing learned Government Pleader lor Revenue.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 1.36 guntas 1n Sy.No.665/B/2, Ac. 1.36 guntas 1n Sy.No.665/E/2, Ac.1.36 guntas 1n Sy.No.665/B/1, and Ac.1.36 guntas 1n Sy.No.665/tr/ 1, totaling Ac.7 .26 guntas, situated at Cherial Viilage, Cheria,l Mandal, Siddipet District (hereinafter referred to as 'the Page 2 of8 \ subject property'). The said lands were acquired under two registered sa.e deeds bearing Document Nos. I Ol7 12016 dated 01.O3.2016, and 106ll2016 dated 03.03.2016, respectively, from one Mohammed Yousuf (respondent No.4). The petitione;- also obtained mutation proceedings from the office of the 3'd respondent/Tahsildar, Cherial, vide proceedings 1\o. 23/139 l2Ol7 dated 04.O4.2017 and was issued a pattadar passbook bearing Patta No.4484. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession arLd enjoymer-rt of the subject propel'ty.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, while the matter stood thus, respondents 4 and 5, despite having sold the subject property, filed a suit in O.S. No. 33 of 2018 on tl-re file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, seeking a decree for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, they also filed LA. No. 86 of 20 18 seeking ar order to restrain the petitioner an,1 his father from interfering with the subject propertv. Thr: said application was dismissed by the trial Court on I | .O7 .201.8, observing that respondents 4 and 5 were not in lrossession of the property. After failing in LA. \ I Page 3 of8 No. 86 of 2OlB, respondent No. 4 submitted an application to the 3rd respondent on 22.09.2018, requesting that his name be entered in the possession column of the Pahanies

5. Based on the said application by respondent No. 4, the 3d respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, directed the Revenue Inspector (Girdavar) to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. Pursuant to the said directions, the Girdavar submitted a report dated O 1 . 1 0.2O 18 stating that respondents 4 and 5 were in possession of the subject property. Based on this report, the 3'a respondent directed the Girdavar to enter the names of respondents 4 and 5 in the Pahanies.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondents 4 and 5 have also filed a suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2O16 before the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, seeking cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner. He submits that, although the petitioner is the registered owner of the subject property and holds Patta No. \ I 4484 rn his name, the 3'd respondent, in violation of Section \ \- 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks b 'r'''.'-l Pagc 4 olE Act, 7971 (fol short, 'ROR Act'), did not issue any notice to the petitioner before entering the names of respondents 4 and 5 in the I)ahanies. He contends that the action of the 3'a responden t in issuing the impugned proceedings is illegal, arbitrary, ani liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, whiie reiterating the averments rr ade in the counter affidavit, submits that although the subject property was ostensibly sold to the petitioner, thc transaction was not intended to be a genuine sale. Instead, the sale deeds were executed merely S collaterai secrrity for a loar-t transaction. He contends that the property rvas not actually transferred to the petitioner by way of sale . L.r support of this claim, it is submitted that the petitioner's f ather, T. Shankaraiah, is stated to have executed an ,tgreement acknowledging that upon receipt of the entire loae amount paid to respondent Nos.4 and 5, the registered sa e deeds executed in favour of the petitioner would be can,:elled, and the property would be reconveyed to respondent N,:s. 4 and 5. \\ \ Page 5 of8

8. He vehemently argues that the petitioner's claim does not stand legal scrutiny. He further submits that the petitioner's name was erroneously entered in the revenue records, and upon submission of an .application by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the 3.4 respondent rightly directed the inciusion of their names in the relevant Patranies. It is also submitted that several civil suits are pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 before the trial Court. In view of the same, learned counsel contends that interference by this Hon'bie Court at this stage 1S unwarranted and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenr-re, upon instructions, submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the entry of the names of the unofficial respondents (respondent Nos. 4 and 5) in the revenlle records by the 3.d respondent. However, he submits that no perversity can be attributed to the action of the 3rd respondent. He further submits that, since the dispute between the parties is already the subject matter of a civil suit instituted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and is pending Page 6 of8 before the cc,mpetent civil Court, the writ petition is not maintainable ar-rd accordingly prays for its dismissal.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assis;tant Government Pleader for Revenue, and learned couns;el for unofficial respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the cor sidered opinion that the 3'(1 respondent has erroneously entered the names of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the revenue records without issuing any trotice to the petitioner, r.r,h.o was holding rights over the subject property as on 10.1O.2018, the date on which the impugned proceedings vide F ile No. B / lOO2 l 2OlB were issued by the

3.d respondent. Such action is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the ROR lr.ct. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings of the 3.d res;pondent in file No.B I lOO2 I 2O1B , dated

10.10.2018 a:-e liabie to be, and are hereby, set aside. 1 1. Since b,rth parties are presently asserting their rights before the crompetent civil Court, this Court deems it appropriate trt direct the official respondents to instruct the Pagc 7 of8 parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on today, until the civil Court adjudicates the dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5. t2. With the above direction, this Writ petition is disposed of. There shail be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending, shall stand dismissed. \ //TRUE COPY// SD/-K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR I \ ,- SECTION OFFICER To SA BS

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

2. The District Collector, Siddipet District, Siddipet. 3. The Tahsildar, Cherial lvlandal, Siddipet District. 4. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. ohe cc to SRI ASHoK REDDY KANATHALA, Advocate [oPUC] 6. One CC to SRI V.PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies M- {rt!: -\ 19SEPffi 6(' > 7_ C) ;o J (ii HIGH COURT DATED:11109)12025 ORDER WP.No.3591ll of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. I 1DI 1a