High Court · 2025

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 pleasedtoissueaWrit,orderorDirectionparticularlyoneinthenatureofWritof certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of cancel{ation passed by the 2.d Respondent vide No.D1/576712O15 dated 15.03.2016 cancellingthemutationproceedingsNo.B/8/2010dated10.03.2015,Pattadar PassBookandTitleDeedwithnumber5Tl5l3againstkhatanumber342in respect of an extent of 30 guntas of private patta land belonging to petitiofler in Survey No.186/4A of Manikonda (Jagir), RajeMranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, passed by the 3rd Respondent vide No.D1/5767f2015 dated 15.03.2O16 andquashthesameincludinganyconsequentialresumptironordersaStotally illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, amounting to mala-fide exercise of power and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession of the Petitioners private patta land to an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas of rand betonging to petitioner in survey No.1g6/44 of Manikonda (Jagir), Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District I.A. NO: I OF 2016 P. NO: 15709 oF 20161 Petition under section i51 epc praying that in the circumstances .stated in'the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend impugned order of canceflation passed by the 2nd Respondent vide No.D'1/5767/2015 dated 15.03.2016 cancefiing the mutation proceedings No-B/B/2O10 dated 10.03.2015, pattadar pass Book and rifle Deed with number 571513 against khata number 342 to an extent of Ac.0.30 guntas of private pafta land belonging to petitioner in Survey No. .186/4,4 of Manikonda (Jagir), Rajendranagar Mandai, Ranga Reddy District Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt ALLTKA SURESH Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.12531 of2OL6- ORDER: This writ petition is hled questioning the impugned order passed by the respondent No'2 in Case No.D 15767 1201.5 clated 15.03.2016 cancelling the mutation proceedings No.B/8/2010 dated 10.03'20 15, pattadar passbook and title deed with No-571513 against khata No.342 in respect of the pctitioner's private patta land to an extent of Ac.O-3O gts in Sy.No. 186/AA situated at Malikonda (Jagir), Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and to quash thc said order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 2

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0_30 gts in Sy.No.1g6/AA situated at Manikonda (Jagir), Rajendranagar Malda-l, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from one K. yadi Reddy through registered sale deed d,ated 29.I2.2OO9 and, his name was mutated in the revenue rennr,.j c ^-r pattadar passbook and title deed were issued to him. The petitioner has constructed a compound wall around his property. On 29.O7.2015, at the instalce of the responcient No.3, some persons came to the land of the petitioner atrd demolished the compound wall on northern side of his land causing damage to the gate stating that he has encroached into the nala portion. Thereajter, the petitioner fired w.F.No.253z4 of 2o1s and the same is pending. J

4. l,earned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner stating that a suo mottt revision is taken up for cancellation of mutation order ald pattadar passbooks' The respondent No.2, without considering the documents hled by the petitioner and without affording opportunity of hearing, has taken up suo-moto revision under Section 9 oi lhe ROR Act, 197 I and cancelled the pattadar passbook ald title deeds in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has encroached upon the naia portion of Bulkapur and aLso directed the respondent No.3-Tahsildar to resume the nala land encroached and ensure steps to protect it'

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further subrnits that if the petitioner has encroached upon the nala land' the respondents can take appropriate action as per the Land Encroachment Act, but they cannot cancel the- 4 pattadar passbook and title deed of the petitioner and moreover, the respondent No.2 has not considered the documents filed by the petitioner a_long with his explanation. He further submits that merely basing on the assumptions and presumptions, the respondent No.2 has passed the mpugned order and requested to a-llow the writ petition by setting aside the impr-.rgned order.

6. Learned Assistant Government pleader lbr Revenue, vehemently contended that the petitioner has encroached the Government land of Bulkapur nala and in view of the same, the respondent No.2 has taken up suo moto revision and rightly passed the impugned order and there is no violation of any rules and requested to dismiss the writ pctition.

7. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent No.2 has taken up suo motu revision under Section 9 of ) the ROR Act, 197 | and cancelled the pattadar passbook ald title deed in favour of the petitioner granted on 10.03.2O10 for the suit schedule property' Admittedly, the respondent No.2, without disclosing the documents filed by the petitioner and his explanation, passed the impugned order by cancelling the ROR proceedings No.B/8/2010 dated. 10.03.2010 and also the pattadar passbook and title deed issued to the petitioner with No.571513 against khata No.342 and directed the respondent No.2 to resurne the nala land encroached by him. B. The respondent No.2, without giving any hnding with regard to the pattadar passbook and title deed and only basing on the encroachment of nala, passed the impugned order and the same is liable to set aside' The respondent No.2 has to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner ald also the documents filed I ) 6 by him and pass a reasoned order and without there being any finding, the respondent No.2 cannot cancel the pattadar passbook and title deed of the petitioner. 9 In view of the above hndings, the Writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No.D1l5767 /2ots ciateci i5.03.2016 and the matter is remaaded back to the respondent No.2 for lresh consideration after glvlng opportunity to the petitioner including personal hearing. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in utt petition, shall stand closed. SD/- L.LAKSHMI BABU ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR I/TRI.JE COPY// To, State of Telangana, Hyderabad - 500 022 ECTION OFFICER '1 . The Principal Secretary Department of Revenue, Telangana Secretariat, The 2. The Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District, A 177 , Khatafabad, Hyderabad 3. The DC & Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 4. One CC to Sri Allika Suresh, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at If Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies TJ PSK $ HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 ORDER WP.No.12531 ot 2016 o( e |.r E s.Y4 ,4. 2:' FEB roI * Dn .Sn41692o , (\( > z A DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \5 !tr