Vanga Sarojini v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for recording pertaining to the proceedings No. E3/Spl. Tribunal 1547 12021, (Old File No 4/6909/2013 ) dated 03.07.2021 of the 2nd respondent in rejecting rectification of extent and issuing E Pattadar Pass book in favour of the petitioner the land an extent of Ac. 3.00 in Sy No. 1475 situated at Madikonda Village, KazipetMandal, Hanamakonda District is illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of natural justice contrary to the provisions of Telangana State Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act '1971 (Act 9 of 2020 ) and as well as the violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of lndia set aside the same consequenfly direct ihe 2ndrespondent to rectify an extent of land an extent of Ac. 2.10 gunlas to Ac. 3.00 and issue E Pattadar Pass Book in the name of the petitioner for the abc ve said land lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrr:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court ma5 be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to rectify an extent of land from Ac. 2.10 guntas to Ac. 3.00in Sy No. '1475 situated at lVladikonda Village, KazipeflVtandal, Hinamakonda District to issue E- pattadar pass book in favour of the petitioner and f rrther directed not to accept any sale deed in respect of above said land by the resrondent No. 5 and 6 to be executed in favour of the 3rd party, by suspending rhe proceedings No. E3/Spl. Tribunal 1547 12021, ( old Fite No. tu6909/2013 )datrrd o3.07,202.1-of the 2nd respondent forthwith pending disposal of the above writ pr:tition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A JAGAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI J K RANJIT KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.5: --- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASI{AR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3O536 OF 2023 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "....lo issue an appropiote ui| order or direct[on more particularly one in the nalure of Wit of Certiorari call for recording pertaining to the proceedings No.Ej/Spl Tribunal /547 /2021 Otd File No.A/69O9/2O)3 dated O3.O7.2O21 of the 2"d respondent in rejecting rectf.cation of exteti and issuing e-Pattadar Pass book in fauour of the petitioner lhe land an e\1ent of Ac.3.OO in Sy.No.1475 sttuated at Madikonda Village, Kaz.ipet Mandal, Hanamakonda Distict is illegaL, arbrtrary, uiolation of the pinaples of natural justice contrary to the prot)isions of Telangana State Rights n Land qnd Pattadar Pa-ss Book Acl, 1971 (Act 9 of 2O2O) and os well as tle uiolation oI the fundamenlel ights guaronteed under the Constitution of India set aside thc soma consequentlA direct the 2ndrcspondent to recttfA an extent of lond an extent of Ac.2.10 guntos to AC.3.OO qnd issue E-Pattadar Pass Book in the name of lhe petitioner for the aboue said land... "

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her late husband purchased land to an extent of Ac.3.O0 guntas in Sy.No.1475 situated at Madikonda Village, Kazipet Mandal, Hanamakonda District, under registered sale deed dated 08.05.2008 and his name was mutated in the revenue records and he was also issued pattadar passbook and title deed as per the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, l97l (for short "ROR Act, 1971") and since the date of purchase, her husband was in possession of the said property. It is further case of the petitioner that when respondent Nos.5 and 6 tried to 2 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjcyment of the subject property, her husband instituted a suit vi'le O.S.No.788 of 2OO9 on the hle of II Additional Junior C ivil Judge at Warangal and the said Court vide order datel 18.09.20O9 granted interim injunction restraining the respor,dents therein from interfering with the subject property and tht said order is subsisting as on date. It is also case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in connivance with the rer enue officials, obtained mutation proceedings in File No.A/640 l2)O8 in respect of subject property and also pattadar passbooks jn their favour and challenging the same, the petitioner along wit h others, filed an appeal under Section 5(B) of ROR Act, 1971 and pending adjudication of the said appeal, the Government has repealed ROR Act, 1971 and enacted new Act called as " he Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books AcL, 2C2O" (for short 'ROR Act, 2O2O\ and all the cases pending before the revenue authorities under the ROR Act, 1971 were tran';ferred to the Special Tnbunal, and the said case was disposed of uide order dated 03.07.2021 in Pro.No.E3lSpl. Tribunal/ ;47 /2O21-Old File No.A/69O9/2013 relegating the parties to pursue their remedies in the pending suit. Hence the writ petit on J

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

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's husband purchased the subject property under registered sale deed and his name was mutated in the revenue records and he was also issued pattadar passbook and title deed under the provisions of ROR Act, 197 1 . It is further submitted that without issuing any notice to the petitioner's husband or the petitioner, the respondent Nos.s and 6 in connivance with the revenue officials obtained mutation proceedings in File No.A/6aO/2OO8 in respect of the subject property, which is in violation of the law laid down by this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal & othersl, wherein this Court has obserwed that before initiating any proceedings, a notice has to be issued to all the interested persons over the subject property. It is further submitted that challenging the aforesaid mutation proceedings, the petitioner, along with others filed an appeal but the Special Tribunal wit-hout applying mind to the facts of the case, rejected the same and relegated the parties to pursue their remedies in the pending suit. It is contended that the impugned order passed I aIR 2oo8 aP I5 4 by the respondent No.2 in rejecting the claim of th: petitioner for rectification of entries and to issue e-pattadar passbooks stating that civil disputes are pending has nothing tc do with the exercising power as per the provisions of ROR Act,2O2O.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, the petitioner's husband instituted a suit vide O.S.N r.788 of 2OO9 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judg: at Warangal and the said Court vrde order dated 18.09.2OO9 g-anted interim injunctron in favour of the petitioner's husband r estrainrng the respondents therein from rnterfering with the sulrject property. Challenging the mutation proceedings in File No.A/640/2OOB and the issuance of pattadar passbooks in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 rn respect of subject property, the petitioner, along with others, filed an appeal under Section 5(5) ol the Ac1, I97 I and the Special Tribunal disposed of the same vir [e order dated

03.O7.2021 in Proc.No.E3/Spl.Tribunal/547 /2)21-Old File No.A/ 6909/2013 relegating the parties to pursue the remedies in the pending suit vrde O.S.No.788 of 2079 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The Spr:ciaL Tribunal, being a statutory body constituted under the A.ct, 2O2O, is empowered to adjudicate such disputes and rectifv entries in the revenue records. Instead of discharging its statut( ry duties, the n I 5 Tribunal relegated the petitioner to the civ court without even rendering findings on the core issue. Such an approach amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. In view of the above, the impugned order passecl by the respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated O3.OZ.2O2l passed in pro.No.tr3/Spl. Tribunal/547 /2O21-Otd, File No.A/6909/2O13 by the respondent No.2 is set aside. The respondent No.3 is directed to re-adjudicate the appeal in proc.No.E3l Spl.Tribunal /547 /2O2t_ Old File No.A/6909/2013 afresh in accordance with the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act.2O2O or the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2024, whichever is applicable and rectify the entries in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbooks to the petitioner, in accordance with law. If the petitioner is found ineligibte, the respondent authorities shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Til[ such time, both parties shall maintain status quo existing as on date, in all respects, in respect of the subject property. No order as to costs. 6 Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pendinrg in this writ petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII s )/- ,l Q\E . TIRUMALA DEVI Ury REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER IiSi;8:H'' secretary Revenue Department, su".ui irt Buirdinss, The District Collector, Hanamakonda, Hanamakonda D strict. Ili ##i,ffi ,? l]fl,H: PJ::'d The Tahsildar, Kazipet Mandal, Kazipet, Hanamakonda District. One CC to SRt. A JAGAN Advocate tOpUCl One CC to J K RANJTT KUI Han a m a ko n d a R e ve n u : D i vi s io n, ro Gp FoR -."lilHT::j::H" sta,e orre,angana BJ.?". Two CD Copies To, 1 2 J

4. b.

7. 8 KKS GJP I HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 ORDER WP.No.30636 of 2023 . .::-\ I tt,l - I,1. \: * o.,..".r... o o .-) t 12JUil ffi ?i :-.,/ :i/ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS s 6rt'c' w