The High Court · 2025

1. Government of Andhra pradesh, Rep,. by its Secretary, Revenue , 2. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 4' Naravana, sio. Sri Raianna practicing Advocate Birori Virage and raruq Nanded Mandal, Maharastra State. " ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit tited therewith, t'ne Hign cd,t;;ry o" pr"rr"a to.r.ssu-e an appropriate writ orde.r or direction moie partrurady one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the order or tne fno respondent in case No. D2l2l2oo4 dt. 18-i-2006 as iflegar, nufi void olitr".yino to pass appropriate orders as are deeemed fit and proper in ttre inierests "fl;;ti;- - "-,i-t..."oin.,. "nu I.A. NO:1 oF 2008(w PMP. NO: 1729 3 0F 2008) Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the writ petiiioni, tne rign court may o" pr".""o o 'oititzno+ suspend the operation of the order of the 2nd respondent in case No. dt. 1B-1 -2006 pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K DURGA PRASAD Counsel forthe Respondent Nos'1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No'4: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.13402 of2OO8 This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "...declaring the order of respondent No.2 in Case No.D2/2/2004 dated 18.01.2006 as illegal and arbitrary ..."

2. The petitioner submits that he is an agriculturist and claims to be having lands in Rudrur Village and claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.972/l and 922/2 to an extent of Ac.O_19 gts., and Ac.O-77 gts., respectively in the said Rudrur village (subject propertlr). It is submitted that petirioner has purchased the said lands prior to 199 1 on a plain paper which was executed by Mr.R.Manik Rao and R.Narayana. Thereafter, the document was regularized in ROR File No.A3/49/91_92 after collecting stamp duty and transfer fee and the petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records. Originally the said lands belongs to one R.Manik Rao. During his life time, petitioner was in peaceful possession of the said land as the same was purchased from R.Manik Rao. While things stood thus, respondent No.4, who claims 2 to be owner of the subject land' has hled an appea-l before respondent No'3 which was dismissed' Aggrieved lly the said dismissal, respondent No'3 filed revision under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971.'The said revision was allowed to the extent of Ac.0-18 gts', which was in petitioner's possession for more than 2O years and while allowing the said revision respondent No.2 directed respondent No'3 to can<:el and modify the orders issued to the petitioner an d alter the pahanies, pattadar passbooks and title deeds issuerl to the petitioner.

3. It is further submitted that revision petitioner ls nottheresidentofthevillageandhasteftthevillag'einthe year lg4l. Respondent No'2 upheld thr: order of respondent No.3 to the extent of Ac'O-39 gts'' in 51 'No'743 and allowed the appeal for the lands in Sy'Nos 727/ 1 and 727/2 to an extent of Ac'O-18 gts'' onty and r-he said finding is not based on any record ar.rd the revision petitioner has not produced any evidence to sho"r that he is the original owner. Respondent No'2 without considering the said fact, has allowed the revision which is contrary to -) law and is unsustainable under the eye of law. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though they arc in possession for more than 20 years, the revision petitioner has filed appeal before respondent No.3 for alteration of names in pattadar passbook without proving his title and that the revision petitioner is not in possession for more than 6O years and in such a vier.r,, the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed.

4. This Court has issued notice to respondent No.4 i.e., the revision petitioner, however none has appeareci on his behalf. This Court, thereafter, directed substituted service of notice and the peritioner has alfected publication on I2.O1.2O25. Even after sen.ice of notice, none has appeared for respondent No.4.

5. The Joint Collector i.e., respondent No.2 in his order dated 18.01.2006 held rhat the land in Sy.No.743 to an extent of Ac.O_39 gts., of Rudrur Village stands in the name of S.Manik Rao and after his demise, his sons executed regjstered document Nos.4Bl/90 dated O1.O3.1990 in lavour of respondenr No.2 i.e., revision 4 pctltioner. Aiter the registr:ation, thc land rvas ii:"utatei in the name of respondent l'lo'2 i'e'' the revision petitloner' hou,ever,therevisiorrpetitionerhasnctfiledanyc:ontra cviclence,assuchthereisnonecessitytointerfcr.cwilhthe fincling of appellate authority i'e'' Revenuc Divisional Officer with regard to Sy'No'743 to an extent cf 4':'0-39 gts., of Rudrur Village in Ref No'A2/5O9't l97 As far as Sy.Nos.927 to an extent of Ac'0-19 gts'' and 9l>'7 12 to at cxtent of A<:.0-17 gts', stands in the name of Nzrrayzrn Rao ancl Manik Rao. It is further recorded that from the records c,f l{evenue Divisional Oflicer in File No'A2/5C94 llt7 ' Lh'e above lands are sold by sons of Manik Rao uide l{e[ No.A3/49lRudrur/89 dated O4'02't992' aftci- collecting stalnp duty and transfer fee' Ilowcver' as seen [r'rm Lhc revcnue records, the said lands stands in tltc name o[ resPondent No.4 i.e., rer'ision petitioner rt,l-ro r:ateEoricallv stated that he never sold' lands to anybody Rt:coriLing the saici Submissions the Joint Collector allou'ed the re" ision DetltiontotheextentoflandsinSy.No.g2T/ladmeasuring Ac.0 O9 gts., and g27 /2 admeasuring Ac'O-09 gts" stands in thc name of respondent No'4 i'e', revision pt:titioner and l- 5 directed the MRO and RDO to take necessary action to make alteration in the pahanies, pattadar passbooks.

6. karned counsel for the petitioner submits that revision petitioner has left the village in the year 1941 itself and now at this point of time is claiming the land. It is further recorded that from the records of Revenue Divisional Officer in File No.A2l5O94 /gZ, the above lands are sold by sons of Manik Rao uid.e Ref No.A3/49/Rudrur/89 d.ated, O4.O2.t992, alter collecting stamp duty and transfer fee. Lear-ned counsel for the submit that respondent No.2/Joint Collector without verifying the sarne has passed impugned order. petitioner would

7. No counter affidavit has been filed tiil date The matter pertains to the year 2OOg, Learned Assistant Governrrrent Pleader for Revenue prays this Court to pass appropriate orders.

8. In such view of the matter, since the Joint Collector has not verilred the earlier proceedings in File I t 6 No.A3l49lRudrur/S9 dated O4'02 'lgg2, the order dated 18.10.2006 is hereby set aside to the extent'of leLnds in Sy.No.927l1 admeasuring Ac.O-09 gts', and Sy'Nct'927/2 admeasuring Ac.O-09 gts., which stands in the name of revision petitioner i.e., respondent No'4 and the matter is remanded back to the Joint Collector/respondent No'2 to verify the earlier proceedings issued in favour of pt:titioner and by duly putting on notice to respondent No'4' pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law withitr a Feriod of six(6) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' g.With the above observations, this writ petition ts disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any' shall stand closed, However, there shall be no order as to t:osts' SD/. L. VIJAYA LAKSHMI T REGISTRAR SI /ITRUE COPY// \=a,r,o* oFFlcER To, 1 ) 3 4 5 The Secretary, Revenue, State of Telangana' Secretariat' Hyderabad' The Joint Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District' The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan' Nizamabad District' One CC to SRI K DURGA PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE 'High Court for the State of Telangana

6. Two CD CoPies KKS -L ^o HIGH COURT DATED:0110412025 I .-::r:_--_\ \ ;:liia}\ v.\,\ . ) \:, .., ,\ ' $P 20[ i]l G C)( :'i' 02 ''i.l ; . ORDER WP.No.13402 of 2008 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS