Tirmalamma v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 pass an order to issue any appropriate writ order or Direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No. 2 in rejecting of the petitioner online application No. 1M2300001377, dated. 2010212023 vide Prog No Dt21BOl2O23, dt.21- 07- 2023 lo remove in the list of prohibited properties as government land in respect of agricultural Land admeasuring AC. 6- 17gts in Sy' No. 149 situated at Bapur Village, Utkoor Mandal, Narayanpet Dist T S by showing the petitioner name as pattadar in Dharani as arbitrary illegal and also violative of Articles 14 and 3004 of the constitution of lndia and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to remove in the list of prohibited ,1' properties as government rand in respect of agricurturar Land admeasuring AC. 6- 17gts in sy No 149 situated at Bapur Virage, Utkoor Mandat, Narayanp-et Drst , T. S by showing the petitioner name as pattadar in Dharanr. l.A.NO:1 oF 2024 I I Petition Under section '1 51 cpc praying tnat in ttre circumstances stated in the qffidavit fired in support of the writ petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondents to remove in the rist of prohibited properties as government land in respect of agricultural Land admeasuring AC. 6_ 17gts in Sy. No. 149 situated at Bapur Village, Utkoor Mandal, Narayanpet Dist, T. S by showing the petitioner name as pattadar in Dharani pending disposal of wrrt petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI NAMBI KRISHNA Counsel forthe Respondents: AGp FOR REVENUE The Court made the foilowing ORDER i' I I t I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASXAR REDDY ORDER: 1VRIT PETI TION No.330a9ot 2024 . This Writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following reliel - :l ,;r;; '""to pass an order to issue ang- appropiate writ, order or Direction more particlllartu in the rutfit1s "t wiitii"i"^"i'a2"i".""n the action of the Respondents more Dotl:cut?lts tt n".pi^,iiifrZ,.l h ,.j."dns of the petitio ner o n tine ap oiicatio" n.r t uiibiili i'ii' iiiJa 2 o/ 02/ 2 02 s uide prog No.D/ 2t 8(;/ 2o2.t at.zt o.z zozl- i" ,.,iiiJ"t" src tist of l:!!:r"o o-1.!ies as souemment tand in ,.rp";,.;i;s;"rtturat Land odmeasunng AC.6.ITqts in sy.No.I49 ri, r"rii:;".a,ip# i)tthge, utkoor Mandat. Narqsonpet Dist. r- s aa .iri,ii iir"f.iir""r., name as pattadar in Dharani as arbitrary iti.got oni Zbo'"^iiiirJ,Lf o*r." ,, and 3004 of the Constitution-of ridia ";;';;";i;.ri" "o*. ona consequetltlg direct the Respond.ents to remoue in the tij of prohibited. properTles os gouentment t":d ' ;i'*";;;fturat Land admeasurins AC.6.t 7ots in Stl.No 149 "tr";;; ";'B;:;.Vittage, urkoo, {:,il;1,,X';Xti:::'- ?" i s os "i'*i"i*,f,',"fii,i,"^1", name os 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6- lZ guntas in Sy.No.l49, situated at Bapur Village, Utkoor Mandal, Narayanpet District, having acquired the same under registered sale deed bearing Document No.4354 /2020, dated 22.05.2020 from Smt.Manikyamma W/o.Saibanna. It is further case of the petitioner that her name was mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings No.B/ROR/9113/2O2O dated 22.06.2020 and. she was also issued Pattadar Passbook No.TO126004O42l videKhata No.601g7. It is the case of the petitioner that when she tried to sell the subject land t I J 2 due to financial difficulties, she was surprised to know that the subject land was shown in the list of prohibited properties as Government land. It is also case of the petitioner that she submitted online application bearing No.LM230O00tgiZ, aatea 20.O2.2023, seeking to delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties and when there was no action, she 1iled W.p.No.6200 of 2023 and this Court vide order dated 09.03.2023, directed the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner,s application, by issuing notice to affected parties and after affording an opportunity of hearing, pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 instead of considering her application, rejected the sarne vide proceedings No.D/2180/2023, dated 21.O2.2023, stating rhat as per the report of the respondent No.4, the petitioner purchased the land on impersonated documents from the person who is not concerned with the subject land and not inclined to transfer the rand from Notional Khata to patta. Hence the writ petitioi-r. /) Considercd the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's vendor, Smt. Manikyamma W/o Saibanna, was alive at the time of execution of the registered sale deed dated 22.O5.2O2O i J and passed away only ot 77.02 .2020, as evidenced by the death certificate issued by the competent authority. It is submitted that the allegation of impersonation of the documents is baseless and unfounded. Placing reliance on Section 6 of the Telangana Rights in Laird and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, the learned counsel submitted that entries made in the Record of Rights shall be presumed to be true, unless the same are rebutted after conducting an enquiry. It is further submitted that in the absence of granting decree by the competent court declaring the sale transaction as null and void, the revenue authorities are not competent to decide the genuineness or validity of the sale deed. It is submitted that respondent No.2, without any authorit5r, relied upon the report of respondent No.4-Tahsildar, which was neither supplied to the petitioner nor was any opportunity provided to dispute the same, passed ttre impugned order violating the principles of natural justice. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reiiance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managlng Director, ECIL, Hgderabod os. B. Karunakar and othersl.

5. On careful examination of the impugned Proceedings No.Dl2180l2023 dated 21.O7.2023 issued by the respondent No.2, it is seen that the petitioner's application seeking removal of her ' l rsel; a scc 72'1 : 1993]|Supp- (2) S.c.R. 576 -- -.f 4 land from the list of prohibited properties was rejected solely on the basis of a report submitted by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar. However, a copy of the said report was neither furnished to the petitioner, nor she was given any opportunity to knou, the contents of the report or to respond to the same. The action on the part of respondents amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It is settled principle of raw that any report on the basis of which an order has been passed is required to be supplied to the person against whom the said order is being passed. The said principle was upheld by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Managing Dirbctor, ECIL, Hgderabad vs. B. Karunakqr and. others (supra). Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had purchased the subject land under registered sale deed dated, 22.05.202O, and her name was duly mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook was also issued. There is no challenge to the said sale deed before any competent civil court, nor any civil court declared the sale deed as null ald void. In the absence of any such declaration, the respondent No.2, being revenue authorit5r, has no jurisdiction to conclude that the sale deed was executed on impersonation or that the said sale deed does not confer aly title in favour of the petitioner. It is settled law that revenue authorities are not conferred with any power to decide the validity or otherwise of the title and possession, except making entries in the revenue record.s -----------.. I I for the purpose of collection of revenue cist' It is also settled law that the entries made in the revenue records does not confer any title and such entries can be corrected by instituting appropriate civil suit, for amendment of the records. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated, 21.07.2023 issued by the respondent No'2 are liable to be set aside.

6.Fortheaforesaidreasons'theimpugnedProceedings No.D l2l8O 12023 dated 2l 'O7 '2023 issued by the respondent No 2 is set aside. The respondent No'2 is directed to re-examine the petitioner's application in accordalce with the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act' 2020 or the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act' 2O25' as the case may be, by issuing notice to the petitioner as well as any other interested persons claiming rights over the subject lands and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing and duly taking into consideration the revenue records and documents relied upon by the parties, rectify the entries in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbooks to the petitioner, in accordance with law' If the petitioner is found ineligible, the respondent No'2 shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner' The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receiPt of a coPY of this order' 6 --i

7. Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII S -L. VIJAYA LAXMI TANT REGISTRAR ER I I ./ To 1 2 3 4 6 7 SA BS M-- i 1 l t I I aI ! : j ! I I I : i i I I I I I L HIGH COURT DATED:1010412025 ORDER WP.No.33089 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @nl lL 'L3 1 f\E .S in f( O 23 t'ii, 2025 Dr.. ^ ^:.. rf-! t ./ r\ ^ -t'