V. Goutham Rao v. Revenue Divisional OIIicer, Jagtial, Karimnagar Districtl

Judgment

2. J.

4. t

6. State of Telangana, Rep. its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Joint Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District. The Tahasildar, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District. Neerati Chinna Ganganna (died) per Lr - 6, S/o Ganganna, Aged about 40 years, Rl/o. Batti Sawargaon Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District. Neerati Ashamma Wo. late Ganganna, Rl/o. Batti Sawargaon Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District. R6 is brought on record as Lr of deceased R5 as per C.O. dt. 14-12-17 in WPMP 49500 of 17

7. Syed Muzamil Shah, S/o. Late Syed Muffasil Shah, Aged 44_years, occ. Blrsiness R/o.H No. 2-3-280, Khanapur, Adilabad, Adilabad District, Respondent No. 7 is impleaded as per as per C.O.dt. 29.01 .2024 in lA No. 1t2022. ' ...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 an order / direction or any appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent herein in entertaining revision and passing orders. dated 15.07.2017 in Case No D11296312016, dated 15.07.2017 tot rectification, of mutations effected about 32 years back in respect of land in an extent of Ac.5.32 in Sy.No. 42114 of Battisawargoan Vilage, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District, as highly arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction and authority and contrary to the provision of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and to set aside the same l.A. NO: 2OF 20'1.7(WPMP. NO: 34111 OF 2017 ) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in ihe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the orders dated 15.07.2017 in Case No. D11296312016 of the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP. NO: 5143 OF 20171 Between:

1. 2 AND Neerati Chinna Ganganna (died) per Lr - 6, S/o Ganganna, Aged about 40 years, Fl/o. Batti Sawargaon Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District. Neerati Ashamma Wo. late Ganganna, aged about 65 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No.'1 -1 66 12, Bafti Sawargaon Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District. ...PETITIONER/PROPOSED L.R

1. Nalluri Damodar Rao, S/o late Gopal Rao, Aged 50 years, R/o H.No. 7-7- 14, Bhukthapur, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

2. Nalluri Vengamamba, W/o Late Gopal Rao Aged 70 years, Rl/o H.No. 7-7- 14, Bhukthapur, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

3. State of Telangana, Rep. its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. The Joint Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 6. The Tahasildar, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

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 passed in WPMP No.341 11 of 2017 in WP No.27455 oI 2017 dated 18-08-2017 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V.R AVULA SR. COUNSEL REPRESENTTNG, SC FOR SRI. RAMA RAO KOCHIRI, ADVC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI HARINDRA PRASAD,SC REPRESENTING FOR SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER, ADV The Court made the following: ORDER SK, J W. P.No.27455 of 20 I7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH ORDER: W.P.No.27455 of 2O17 This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in passing of order in Case No. D 1 / 2963 /2016 dated 1 5.07 .2017 for rectihcation of mutations for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5 32 Sy.No.42/ lA of Battisawargoan Village, Mavala Maldal, Adilabad District as illegal and arbitrary

2. Heard Sri V.R.Avula, learned Senior Counsel lor the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Harindra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.

3. After filing this writ petition, the respondent No.5 expired and the respondent No.6 was impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased respondent No.6. The respondent No.7 got impleaded himself as the respondent, but failed to file counter. None appeared for the respondent No.7 on the date of hearing SK, J W.P.No.2i 455 ot 20 17

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of petitioner No. t has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1-20 gts and Ac.2-12 gts through registered docum6nts bearing No. 153 of 1980 dated 21.02.i980 and bearing document No. 135 of 198 1 dated 21.O2.198 1 respectively and the petitoner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-OO gts through registered document bearing No.6g7 of 1981 dated 27.O7.198 1 and the said lands are situated in Sy.No.42/ 1A situated at Battisawargoan Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District and their names were also mutated in the revenue records for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-32 gts and Ac.2_00 gts respectively and out of the said lands, they have sold the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.l.O0 gts to the third parties. In the year, 2074 the respondent No.S filed application to calcel the mutation of the petitioner No.1 and his father alteging that wrong patta was granted to them, the respondent No.3 issued notices to the petitioners and also called for report J SK, J W.P.No.27455 of 2017 of the respondent No.4-Tahsildar. After due enquiry, the respondent No.3 has dismissed the said application on

21.O4.2016 and challenging the same, the respondent No.5 hled a revision before the respondent No.2 and the same was allowed on 15.O7.2O 17 remitting the matter to the respondent No.4-Tahsildar for rectification of entries in the revenue records

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are in possession of the subj ect property and mutations were effected in the year, 1983 and the respondent No.5 filed application in the year 2Ol4 i.e, after 30 years by creating fake documents without approaching the competent Civil Court for agitating his rights over the subject lands.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further subm its that the respondent No.2 without application of mind has entertained the revision and issued notice to the petitioners. The petitioners have submitted a detailed colunter raising various grounds including delay, but the respondent No.2 without looking into the same allowed the / 4 SK, J w.P.No 2 7455 of 2017 revision petition. The said order of the respondent No.2 is nothing but deciding the title of the property as well as unsettling the settled rights of the individuals, which is beyond the jurisdiction ol the respondent No.2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are in possession of the property and the mutation was effected beyond more than 30 years back and the respondent No.5 also sought for delivery oI possession of the property. Without going into the said issues and without explaining the inordinate delay of more than 30 ]rears, the respondent No.5 has approached the respondent authorities and the respondent No.2 has entertained the same and passed the impugned order, which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Tetangana Rights in Land ald Pattadar Pass Book Act, 197 | (for short 'the Act 197 l') and requested to set aside the impugned order and allow the writ petition.

7. tearned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following Judgments:- \ \ ,/x ) SK. J W.P No.27455 of 20 17

1. V. Goutham Rao vs. Revenue Divisional OIIicer, Jagtial, Karimnagar Districtl

2. Velagapudi Satyanarayana vs. District Collector, Nalgondaz

3. M.B.Ratnam vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy Districts

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue based on the counter submits that as per the revenue records, Sri Neerati Pedda Ganga was the original pattadar of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-32 gts in Sy.No.42/1A situated at Battisawargoan Village of Mavala Mandal, whereas other than pattadars were sold out the said land to the petitioners and accordingly, the patta was granted to the petitioners for the suit schedule land. He submits that in the impugned order, the respondent No.2 noticed that the then Tahsildar erred in issuing orders for transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner No. I arrd his r 2003 ( 1) ALD 681 2 2000 16l ALD r53 r 2003( l ) ALD 826 (DB) SIi, J W P.No.27 4 55 ot )Ot7 father and implemented in the revenue records wrongly for the schedule land. l

9. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue further submits that at the time of registration, thg .executors of the sale deeds were not pattadars in the revenue records, but at that point of time Sri Neerati pedda Ganganna was the pattadar and in view of the report of the Tahsildar, the matter was remitted to the Tahsildar for rectification of entries in the revenue records and directed to pass approprrate orders basing on the records as required under Section 15(3) of Telangana Rigl_rts in Land and Pattadar pass Book Rules, 1989. As per the revenue records artd registration documents, the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the petitioners lr,ere not in procedure ald the respondent No.2. has rightl_v remitted the matter and requested to dismiss the writ petrtion. \

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 based on the counter submits that the respondent No.6 is the owner and possessor of the subject land having inherited from her father_in_law Sri N. Pedda Ganganna n. 1 SK. J W.P.No 27455 of 2O17 He submits that no notice was issued to the husband of the respondent No.6 before deleting the name of her father_ in-law in the revenue records. In respbnse to the RTI application of the respondent No.6, the revenue authority has informed that there are no mutation proceedings of the year, 1983 pertaining to the subject lalds and in the absence of any mutation proceedings, the amendment of revenue records is illegal and nu[ity. ]{e further submits that as the father of the respondent No.5 died in the year, 1973, the question of registration of suit schedule lands in the year, 1980 or 198 1 by him does not arise and the petitioners are claiming the subject lands by virtue of false sale deeds created by them in collusion with the revenue authorities. He submits that after the revision petition was aJiowed, the . revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the respondent No.6 and the Mandal Surveyor has conducted survey, fixed the boundaries and handed over possession to her and she is enjoying the subject land peacefully and he requested to dismiss the writ petition. 8 SK, J W. P. No.274.55 of 2017

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 has relied on the following Judgments:-

1. Chinnam Pandurangam vs. . Mandal Revenue Officer+

2. C.S.H.N.Murthy vs. Government of Andhra Pradeshs

3. Allala Ravinder Reddy vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Director, Municipal Administration, Srecretariat, Hyderabada

4. State ofRajasthan vs. Bhawani Singhz

5. D.L.F.Housing Constrution (Pl Ltd., vs. Delhi Municipal Corporations

6. Konkana Ravinder Goud vs. Bhavanarishi Co- operative House Building Society, Hyderabade

12. After .hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners herein are questioning the order passed by the respondent 1 ) 4 2007 SCC Online AP 459 5 1999 SCC Online AP 785 6 20 l5 SCC OnLine Hyd 609 7 1993 Supp (l) SCC 306 8 (L976) 3 SCC 160 e 2003 SCC OnLine AP 852 i) -' 9 SK, .I W.P.No.27455 of 2017 No.2 revlslon petition No.Dl/296312016 dated 15.07.2017 filed by the deceased respondent No.5 under Section 9 of the Act, 197 1. .The case of the petitioners is that the father of petitioner No.1 Sri Nalluri Gopal has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-32 gts and the petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.42/lA situated in Battisawargoan Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District through registered sale deeds. After purchase, the name of the father of petitioner No.l was recorded as pattadar lor the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-32 gts through proceedings No.Al / 1 1 18/ 1983 dated 23.08.1983 and thereafter, the name of the petitoner No.1 was also mutated in the revenue records for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-OO gts and out of the said land, the petitioners sold away the land admeasuring Ac.l-00 gts to the third parties. While it being so, in the year, 2Ol4 the respondent No.5 herein made representations to the respondent No.3 for cancellation of said mutations and the sarne was rejected by the respondent No.3 in Proc.Cl658l2014 dated 21.O4.2016 t0 SK, J W. P. No.27455 of 2017 stating that the mutation of Revenue Records and pattas \ rere granted by virtue of registered sale deeds prior to 1984-85 and the request of the respondent No.5 rvas rejected by granting liberty to seek redressal in the civil Court. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent No.5 liled revision before the respondent No.2 under Section 9 of ROR Act, 197 l. Alter hearing both sides and basing on the report of the Tahsildar, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order in Case No.Dl 12963 12016 dated 15.07.2017.

13. In the impugned order, the respondent No.2 has stated that the revision is liable to be remitted for reconsideration basing on the records, but at the same time directed the respondent No.4 for rectihcation of entries in the revenue records ald pass appropriate orders basing on the records as required under Section 15(3) of the Act, 1971.

14. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No.5 after more than 30 years has approached the respondent No.3 by filing application without stating_ \ SK, J w.P. No.27455 ot 2017 anything about the delay and the respondent No.3 has rightly rejected the application of the respondent No.5 and directed him to approach the competent Civil Court and without approaching the competent Civil Court, the respondent No.5 has approached the respondent No.2 by filing a revision against the rejection orders, u,hich is not maintainable as there is no proper appeal as per ROR Act and the mutation proceedings were eflected before the amendment of Section 5-B of ROR Act i.e, prior to 3 i.10. 1993 and the revision itself is not maintainable as per the orders of this Court in M.B.Ratnam,s case (supra 3).

15. The other contention of the petitioners is that if any grievance, the unofficial respondents has to approach the competent civil Court and the entries made in the record of rights would be amended in accordance with the declaration of the Civil Court as per Section B(2) of the ROR Act as held by this Court in V. Goutham Rao,s case (supra 1). The contention ol the petitioners is that the revision petition is not maintainable after a lapse of 3O years as \ t2 SK, J w. P. No.27455 of 20l7 held by this Court in Velagapudi Satyanarayana's CASE (supra 2)

16. In the instant case, basing on the registered documents, the then Tahsildar has mutated the records in favour of the father of the petitioner and the petitioner No' 1 in the year, 1983. As per the report of the Tahsildar dated 23.12.2014, on verification of faisal patti of Battisa'*,argaon village for the year 1982-83, it rvas found that under Fouthi Mubadula Kammi statement at Sl.No.3, Neerati Pedda Ganga S/o.Pochiga was recorded as pattadar in Sy.No.42/ 1A to an extent of Ac.5-32 gts, but the father of the petitoner No.1 has purchased the iand to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts out of Ac.5-32 gts in Sy.No.42l1A vide registered document No.153/80 dated 21.02.1980 from Neerati Ganganna S/o. Ganganna and Neerati Poshetty S/o.Ganganna, but they were not the pattadars as on the date of registration and the petitioner No' t has purchased the land to an extent of Ac:2-00 from one Smt Mutyala Narsamma through registered document dated 27.O7.1981 and she was also not the pattadar of the sard land. There \ \ n t3 SK, J W. P. No.27455 of 2017 is no link document with regard to the land purchased by said Mutyala Narsamma from the pattada-rs. 17 . As per the writ affidavit, father of the petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7-2O gts through registered document No.153/198O dated 21.02.1980 from Neerati Ganganna and Neerati Poshetti and the said registered documents filed along with the material papers in the writ affidavit at page Nos.25 to

33. As per the translation, it is stated that the name of vendor is Nireti Ganganna S/o. Pedda Ganganna only. The other extent of land Ac:2-72 gts through registered sale deed document No.135/1981 dated 21.02.198 1 from Nereti Ganganna as per writ affidavit and the said registered documents fiIed along with the material papers at page No.34 shows that the same was purchased from Neerati Pedda Gangaram S/o. Ganganna and Neerati Poshetti S/o.Ganganna. It clearly shows that the facts stated by the petitoner in the writ affidavit are contrary to the registered documents and the petitoner nowhere disputed with regard to the death of Neerati Pedda Ganganna in the \ t4 SK, .I W.P.No 274J5 ot 2017 a\ year, 1973 as stated by the respondent No.6 in their coun ter.

18. The contention of the unofficial respondent is that before mutating the records, the authorities have to issue notice to all the persons whose names were incorporated in ROR. In the instant case, the name of father of the respondent No.5 u'as recorded as pattadar in the year. 1982-83, but rr',ithout issuing any notice to the famil-r' members of the deceased pattadar, the then Tahsildar has mutated the records.

19. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 has relied on the Judgment in Chinnam Pandurangam's case (supra 4) and relevant portion is extracted as under:- t'lO. Th. rssuc deserves to be considered from another angle lf an application is madc for amendment of the existing entries in the Record oi Right", thc person rvhose name already exists in such record is entitled to contest the proposed amendment. He can do so only if a notice regarding the proposed amendment is given to him by the recording authority. An order passed against a person whose name already cxist in the Record of Rights without giving him notice of the proposcd amendment and effective opportunity of hearing is lrable to be deciared nullttv on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, which, as mentioned above, represent the most important facet of the rules of natural Justice lt needs no emphasis that the rules of natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The rule of hearing is also applicable in purell' proceedings and actions where any public authority "d-i.ri"t.itir" passes an ordci aftecting the rights of any individual The applicabilitl' of thc rules of r.ratural justice to purely administrative actions has been 1 \ t5 SK.] W.P. No.27455 of 2017 recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Onssa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Del, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and has been reiterated in various .judgments inctuding rhose of A.K Kraipak v. IJnion of India, AIR 1970 SC 150, Maneka Oandhi v. (Jnion of Ind.ia, AIR 1978 SC 597, S.L. Kapoorv. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136, Swadeshi Cotton MiLtsv. Union of tndia, AIR 1981 SC 818 and Otga Te is.v. Bombay Municipctt Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180. 11. From the above discussion, it is clear that the requirement of issuing notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment is independent of the requirement o[ pubtication of notice in accordance rvith the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rules l9 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation o[ the substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons u'hose names are entered in the Record of Rtghts and uho are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment." In the instant case, there is no record to show that the revenue authority has issued notices to the legal heir of the pattadars before mutating the revenue records. In view of the sarne, the above Judgment squarely apply to the lnstant case. Section 9 of the ROR Act, 197 1 is extracted as

20. under: '9. Revision. [Substituted uith the maroino.l headinq bu Act No.9 o 1994. The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to hrm, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue officer or Revenue Divisional Ofhcer under section 3, 5, 5A or 58, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, lcgality or propriet_!' of any decision taken, order passed or \ \ l6 SK, J W.P.No.27455 of 20 t7 t proceedings madc in respect thereoI and if it appears to the collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified. annulled or revcrsed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass ordcrs accordingly- Provided that r1o such order adversely alfecting any person shall be passed under this scction unless he had an opportunity of making a representation. As per Section 9 of the ROR Act, 197 1, th,e Collector may either suo-motu or on an application made to him call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3,5,5A or 58 in respect of any record ol rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of arry decision taken. In view of the same, entertaining the revision filed by the unofficial respondents is within the power of Joint Collector under Section 9 of ROR Act, 197 1. In the instalt case also basing on the revision petition hled by the unofficial respondents, the respondent No.2 has verified the records and also basing on the report of the Tahsildar passed the impugned order. In view of the sarne, the contention of the petitioners that the t1 SK. J W.P.No.27455 of 2017 respondent No.2 has no power or authority to entertain the revision is not acceptable. 2I. This Court in number of cases held that in ROR proceedings, the aggrieved party without availing alternative remedy of appeal can approach the revisional authority under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 797 I This Court in Ramaswamy Satyagoud vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad 10 held at para No.12 as follows: "12. On the issue of preferring revision without availing remedy of appeal the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel [or thc petitioner do not come to the aid of petitioner. In Bhupathi Varalamrra rvhile dealing with the power of revision, learned single Judge of this Court has not ruled, as sought to be contended that revision is not maintainable when remedy of appeal rs available. Learned single Judge held that ordrnarily if remedy of appeal is available, revision should not be entertained. However, Ieamed single Judge held that in exceptional situations where the authority which passed the order patently lacked jurisdiction to pass order and to prevent abuse of porver exercised by such an authority and miscarriage of justice being caused to the aggrieved party, revision can be entertained. Kola Satya Rao was also decided by learncd single Judge who decided Bhupathi Varalamma. ln the sard case, revisional authority satisfied that it was not feasible or practicable to the aggrieved party to file an appeal or that the subordinate authority has passed an order, which is ex-facie contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act or in violation of the principtes of natural justice, it can excrcise its revisional jurisdiction to step in and correct such procedural illegalit-v or impropriety. Learned single further r(r Un reported Judgmcnt of this Court in W.P.No. 12748 of 2019 dated 21.08.2O19 l8 SK' .J W.P.No.27455 of 2017 .4. observed that 'lf the facts of the case'justity'-an' aggrieved parry can bc arlowed,i";;;; il:.:l::le' "J,T"j1J ":r"[: revrstonS*.1"'i, ' ,i..' n.i iearned "ingt' intervention of .lhe j.:l-J ;:';;;: ;"' i "'"" i n !",iilXo'.'i.t5. is aLo on "i' i t "' r' nl'l"Jn- section 9 and as constoer;:;t":;';;il merelv because a Pers ;;"'; :;;J, The contention ol the petitioners is that the Papaiah :, it' l"f:i5J:,:1"."J:i:'ili' remedy of appeal, it that r' visiorr rs nor maintarnabrc' .Yerangani respondentNo.5withoutfilingappropriateappeallrled revision before the respondent No'2 under Section 9 of ROR Act and the same is not maintainable' The findings of the above Judgment apply to the instant case, without fiiing any appeal' can file revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act and the same is valid ln view of the same, the contention of the petitioners is not accePtable.

22. The Hon'ble SuPreme Court in State of Orissa vs' Nos.16 and 18 as Brundabhn Sharmarr' held at Para under: a purpose it rs to be "16.[tis,thereforc'settledlawthatwhentherevisional Dower was conlerred to "r't1tJtnt" H";'.;; ;" a rcason a bre 1."*U: ;I:till;:; :ii;i:TXi of its exercise r'vithin a reasonaure ""1:--:l:":-,;; .artion or is an assurance lo cxer|rse lhe power with cauttor circumsDectron to tltectuate" th" p"po"" of t he Act' ir ;::;;;;i;;;,.iage or 3 ustrcc o;ll;nil$::'o!'",'ii''il"*31 ir,. nat or misuse or abr \ 199s SuPP (3) SCC 249 w ,/ t9 SK, J W.P.No.2745.5 of 2017 authorities or fraud or suppression. Length o[ time depends on the factual scenario in a given case- Take a case that patta was obtained fraudulently in collusion with the officers and it comes to the notice of the authorittes after a long lapse of time. Does it lie in the mouth of the party to the fraud to plead Iimitation to get away with the order? Does_lapse of time an excuse to refrain from exercising the revisional power to unravel lraud and to set it right? The answers would be no.

18. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue exercised the power under Section 38B after an unreasonable lapse of time, though [rom the date of the grant of patta b], the Tahsildar is of 27 years. [t is true that from the date of the alleged grant of patta 27 years did pass. But its authenticity and correctness was shrouded with suspicious [eatures. The records of the Tahsildar were destroyed. Who rs to gct the bcnefit? Who was responsible for it? The reasons are not lar to seek. They are self-evident. So rve hold that the excrcise o[ revisional power under Section 38E} b) the Board of Revenue was legal and valid and it brooked no dcla,v, after it had come to the Board's knowledge. That apart as held b1 the Board of Revenue, the order passed by the Tahsildar without confirmation by the Board is nonest. A nonest order is a void order and it confers no title and its validity can be questroned or invalidity be set up in any proceeding or at any stage.

23. The Judgment of this Court in Smt Munganda Venkataratnam vs. Joint Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru12, squarely apply to the instant case. The relevant portion in para No. 15 is as under:- \ 'Since in para 25 of K. Rattamma v. G. Kotaiah 1975(2) An.WR I22, it is held that B.S.Os are only executive instructions for the guidance of the revenue off,rcials and nothing more, Prrma facie BSO 15(180 relied on by the petitioners does not con[er any rrght on them to cling on to the assignments made because it is wetl known that fraud vitiates everything. Recently the Apex Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. T.Suryachandra Rao, alter discussing the entire case law on the subject of fraud, hetd that no order obtained by fraud can be sustained. lt is also well known that in case of fraud thc pcriod of limitation would commence from the date of discovcn of fraud. Therefore, merely because a person t2 2006(2) ALT 44 (S. B.) 20 SK, J W. P.No.27455 of 2017 could successfully shield the fraud pla,ved by him in obtaining assignment of Government land for sever3l ys2p5, Ite cannot be heard to say that in vierv of the lapse o[ time the assignment in his favour cannot be cancelled. When pouer is vested rn an authority to do an act, and if that authority exercises that power erroneously dLle to the fraud played on it, that authority has the implied po.wer to urldo its earlier act, performed by it as a result of the lraud played on it. First respondent without correcth, appreciatlng the la!( and facts seems to have erroneously set aside thc order cancellinU the assignments but since that part of the order oI first respondent, setting aside canccllation oI assignments. be<:ame final, t do not wish to interfere u,ith that part o[ the order of the first respondent". 24 The findings in the above Judgments squarely apply to the instant case. In the instant case also the petitioners have purchased the schedule land through registered documents other than the pattadar and basing on the said registered documents and without issuing any notice, the mutation was taken place in favour of the father of the petitioner No.1 and also the petitioner No.1 contrar5r to the ROR Act. The respondent No.2 has rightly given a finding that there was discrepancy 1n conducting enquiry with regard to ascertaining the rights of the parties as per the ROR Act, 1971. 7 i, 2t SK, J W. P.No.27455 of 20l7

25. The Judgment of this Court in M. Ramulamma v Revenue Divisional Oflicer, Ranga Reddy Districtr3 also apply to the instant case. The relevant portion in para Nos.62 , 63. 64 and 65 as under: "62. It is not the case of respondent nos.3 to 6 that any notice was given to the petitioners at the time when the order LI/20611976 dt. t9.02 1982 was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, H,yderabad (East) Division granting Occupancy Rights to Thota Balakrishna Reddy. It is ilso not their case thal the said order was served on the pelitioners.

63. Therefore, the limitation for challenging the said order would commence only lrom the date of knowledge of the order and not lrom thc date of the said order.

64. In Bipromasz Bio ron Tradins tronics Ltd.6, the Supreme Court declarcd that an olficial order takes effect only whcn it is served on the person aflected Sa v. Bharat Elec

65. In State of W.B v. R. K.B.K. Ltd.7 , the Court declared that unless an adverse order is communicated, it does not come into eIfect (2012) 6 SCC 384 MSR,J ::19:: crp 3848_2018 and the person affected cannot be blamcd for not preferring appeal within the specified tim<: rr,hen it is not communicated to-him. lt hetd: '35. ... ... ... the rvords used in para 10 are ,,date of the order". In the scheme of the Control Order, the order comes into effect from the date of receipt by the agent or the dealer. Once that becomes the decision, the commencement of limitation of 30 days lor the purpose of para 1O would be the date when the order is effective. The High Court in Rani Sati Kerosene Suppl.y Co. has opined that if the order of cancellation is not served on the affected person and the appeal period expires, there is the possibility that the adverse order would become unassailable. The reasoning is totally fallacious. An appeal can only be preferred *hen the order is effective. The ineffective order, that is to say, uncommunicated o-rder cannot be challenged. Therelore, the reasoning given by the Court in earlicr judgment is erroneous and hince, the 13 2019 SCC Online TS 3455 72 s(, J W t' No 2;i455 ot 2017 reliance thereupon by the impugned order is faulty. There has to be a purposive construction of the lvords "from the dat€ of order". To place a construction that the date o[ an order u'ould mean passing of the order, though not made e[fcctive rvould lead to an absurdity. " In the instant case, apparently there is discrepancv in the proceedings and no notice was issued to the effected parties. In view of the same, the above order of this Court squarely apply to the instalt case as the limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the order and not I'rom the date of orders. 26 . The J udgments relied on by the learned Se nior Counsel for the petitioners are not squarely apply to the instant case as the facts are different in tl-re instant case

27. The respondent No.s has not filed any appeal to the respondent No.3 under Section 5 B of ROR Act and he n'as only filed a representation. At the time of disposal of the revision, the respondent No.2 after perusal of the report of the respondent No.4 and also the registered documents, passed impugned order and remitted back to the Tahsiidar l for re-consideration, but further directed the Tahsildar to mutate the records in the name of the respondent No.5. 23 SK, J w .1, .N o .27 455 of 20 17 The further direction issued by the respondent No.2 is contra4r to the direction of remand for reconsideration. In view of the same, the direction issued to the Tahsildar in the impugned orders for mutation of records anit rectification of entries without conducting enquiry and without giving opportunity to the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

28. It is a fit case for conducting fresh enquiry under ROR Act as there is discrepancy in the documents Iiled by the petitioners and also the proceedings under ROR Act were not followed for mutating the revenue records. The petitioners cannot take shelter on the ground of delay for reviewing of earlier orders which were passed without following the due procedure.

29. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is partly allowed by setting aside the directions in so far as the direction to the Tahsldar, Mavala for rectification of entries in the revenue records of the suit schedule property in Case No.D112963 12016 dated 15.07.2017 issued by the respondent No.2-Joint Collector, Adilabad, is concerned- ,// I I 24 SK, J W.P. No.27'155 of 2017 tr, and further remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Mavala to conduct de nouo enquiry for mutation of the records ald also issuance of pattadar passbooks for 6uit scheclule Iand aiter issuing notice to the petitioners as lr'e11 as the unofficial respondent No.6 by giving opportunity to the both sides including personai hearing. Till conclusion ol the de nouo enquiry, both parties are directed Lo maintain status quo existing as on today in all respects of thc suit schedule land. No order as to costs

30. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, sha,ll stand closed. That Rule Nisi has b Witness the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Third DaY Of APril Tw -"fhe een made absolute as above' :=usti;1JuJoi Peur-, on this rhursdaY And TwentY Five "r."na /ITRUE COPY// SD/. A SI SRINIVASA REDDY sierur REGISTRAR - \L\--- - lsEcrtott oFFlcER One One Fair CoPY to the Hon'ble Sri Justi (For His LordshiPs Kind Perusar) K.SARATH To, The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' Secretariat, HYderabad The Joint Collector, Adilabad District' Adilabad' The Revenue Divisional Officer' Adilabad, Adilabad District' The Tahasildar, Mavala Mandal' Adilabad District 11 LR Copies The Under S-ecl.etary' Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs' New Delnr'

1. ,

4. 5 6 7'. I I

7. The Secretar Buitdings,Hy#;rJr"j:"9'na Advocates Association, Library, High court : :.":: to sRt. RAMA RAo KocHtRrAdvocate [opucj 9. One CC to SRI K. RAV| MAHENDER Advocate tOpUCj .l0.TworCCs to Gp FOR REVENUE,High Court for the State of Telangana. t*o CD Copies ^*J, GJP s -1- j,,!. \ I I HIGH COURT DATE D:0 310412025 ORDER WP.No.27455 of 2017 q )c t) trE s 14 7'c oT. 6 5 lllAY 20fr i D 1L-.' ?: a:, ]\ .+ 1,: ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @q'o s ( \.f