Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districtr B. Learned

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 a writ, order, or direction more particutarly one in the nature of writ of tMandamus declaring the order in case No.B2l12sB/2017 dated 23-6-2017 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary. contrary to law and contrary to the provisions of AP/TS State rights in pattadar puss books Act, 1971 and consequently set aside the order in case No.B2l1S8l2O17 dated 23_6_2011 passed by the 2nd respondent. I l &'v l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 46039 OF 2017) 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 suspend the order in case No.B2l1 58/2017 dated 23-6-2017 passed by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SMT S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI N.INDRASENA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER '.i, 1a - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH W.P.No.37O79 of 2OL7 ORDER: This rvrit petition is filed questioning the order in Case No.B2l l58l2OI7 dated 23.06.2O17 passed by the respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and contraqr to the provisions of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 7971.

2. Heard Sri P. Lakshma lteddy, iearned counsel for the pctitioner, Smt S. Sravanthi, iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri N. Indrasena Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.5

3. [n spite of several adjournments, the respondents did not clroose to file counter. On 02.07.2025, this Court has granted time to filc counter as last charrce rvith a condition that if the respondent No.5 has failed to file counter, her rigi.r t l-o file counter is forfcited. In spite of that, the respondent No.S did not choosc to file counter. In view of the same, the u,rit petition is taken up for disposal basing on the records available. ,/ 2 SK, J W P No.37079 of 2017 '..1 \

4. l,earned Counsel for the petitioner submits that one Maidam Rajaiah, ',r,ho the brother of the father of petitioner, was the absolute owner and pattadar of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.l92lB, Ac. 14-20 gts in Sy.No.223 situated at Venkatapur Vil1age, Bhecmini Mandal, Mancherial District ald after his death, the petitioner's father namely Maidam Gudaiah has succeeded the said property and after his death, the petitioner, his mot her and his brothers have succeeded the said property ar-rrl thev are in possession and enjoyment of the said iands b1' cultivating the said lands

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.5 is claiming that she is the adopted daughter of late Maidam Rajaiah and the respondent No.4- Tahsildar has granted succession on her name br proceedings No.ROR/5/2008 and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in her favour. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed Appeal before the respondent No.3-Sub-Co1lector, \ =who in turn after conducting enquiry has set aside the said proceedings by remanding the matter to thc Tahsildar for fresh enquiry rvith a direction to the respondent No. 5 to i I I n i I I a. /: J SK, J W.P.No.37079 of2017 approach the civil Court for declaration of fact of adoption. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.S has hled a Revision before the respondent No.2-Joint Collector and the sarne was allowed observing that the respondent No.3, without verification of the adoption deed executed by the original pattadar and without verifying the physical possession of the land has set aside the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the respondent No.5.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.4 before mutation of the records in favour of the respondent No.5 has not issued any notice under Sub section 3 of Section 5 of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1977 to the petitioner. He further submits that as on the date of alleged adoption i.e,

72.O9.1998, the respondent No.5 was married with children of more than 20 years age arrd the respondent No.2 ought to have seen that there is no registered adoption deed in favour of the respondent No.5 and erroneously passed the order considering the plain paper as adoption deed which is unregistered document and which is not admissible in '1 4 SK, J W P No 37079 of2017 'r."r evidence arld requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following Judgment:-

1. Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districtr B. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the respondent No.4-Tahsildar after conducting enquin, and after verification of adoption deed executed bv the original pattadar and also verifying the physical possession of the land, succession was granted in favour of thc respondent No.5 and issued pattadar passbook and title deed in her favour in the year, 2008 and after considering all the documents, the respondent No.2 has allowed the revision by the impugned order and there is no need to interfere with by this Court and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

9. After hearing both sides and perusal of thc record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is questioning the order passed by the respondent No.2 in the r 2007 (61 ALT 134 (F.B) r: 5 SKJ W.P.No 37079 of2017 revision petition fiied by the respondent No.5 in Case No.B2l l5Bl2Ol7 dated 23.06.2017. The suit schedule property belongs to one Maidam Raj aiah, who is the paternal uncle of the petitioner and the respondent No.5 is claiming to be the adoptive daughter of said Maidam Rajaiah. The petitioner is claiming that he has succeeded the property as Class-II Iegal heir of said Maidam Rajaiah. The respondent No.4 has granted succession in lavour of the respondent No.5 basing on the ROR proceedings No.ROR/5/2008. The petitioner has made application to the respondent No.4 for mutation of the records in the year, 2O 15. In response to the sarne, the Tahsildar has issued Memo No.B/366/2015 dated 09.09.20 15 stating tha-t the suit schedule property was already mutated in the name of the respondent No.S. In view of the same, the petitioner herein has filed ROR appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, 7971, wherein the respondent No.3 after hearing both sides has passed orders in Proceedings No.D/881/2015 dated 03.10.20f6 stating that the respondent No.5 has failed to file any documentar5r evidence and without any record, the Tahsildar has mutated the name of the respondent No.5 by issuing successlon 6 SK. J W P No 37079 of2017 certificate and set aside the said proceedings No.ROR /Sl2OO8 and remanded the matter back for fresh enquiry and disposai and also observed that the respondent No.5 has to approach the Civil Court for declaration of fact of adoption as it is the appropriate forum.

10. Aggrieved by the orders of the respondent No.3, the respondent No.5 has filed revision petition under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 and the respondent No.2 has passcd the impugned order stating that the respondent No.3 u,ithout verifying the genuineness of adoption deed executed by the original pattadar and without verification of physical possession of the land has set aside the mutation proceedings after a lapse of 7 years and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Asifabad in Appeal Case No.D/881/2O 15 dared

03. 10.20 16. In fact, the respondent No.2, u,ithout verifying the records ald merely basing on the averments made by the respondent No.5 has set aside the orders passed by the appellate authority. In the order in the appeat, the respondent No.3 has categorically stated that the respondent No.5 has failed to file any documentar5r evidence with regard to the adoption deed and remanded the matter back to the 7 SK, J W P.No.37079 of 2017 rdspondent No.4 for conducting fresh enquiry and without considering the same, the respondent No.2 has set aside the said .proceedings. 1 1. This Court has granted interim order o-n 07 .ll.2Ol7 . ln spite of lapse of more than 7t/z lears, the respondent No.S did not choose to lile counter or vacate petition along with any document for disputing the substantial right. In view of the sarne, as per the records available, the respondent No.3 heard the matter and remanded back to the Tahsildar for conducting fresh enquiry about the rights of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.S. Both the parties have to produce their documents before the Tahsildar for adjudicating their rights as legal heirs of the deceased Maidam Rajaiah, the original pattadar of the subject land. But, the respondent No.2 without taking into account of the same allowed the revision petition hled by the respondent No.5.

12. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of, by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No.B2l 158/2OI7 dated 23.06.2017 and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.4-Tahsildar for 8 SKJ W P No 370/9 of 2017 ( conducting fresh enquiry. Till disposal of said enquiry. both the parties zrre directed to maintain status quo existing as on today with regard to the subject property. This order does not prcclude the parties to approach the Civil Court for succeeding thcir rights. Nc order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed SD/.K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPVtrY REGTSTRAR To, =eiN3* oFFrcER 1. The Principal Secretary, (Revenue Dept.) Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of //TRUE COPY// Telangana.

2. The Joint Collector, Mancherial District, Mancherial. 3. The Sub-Collector, ltlancherial, Mancherial District. 4. The Tahasildar, Bheemini Mandal, Mancherial District 5. One CC to SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI N.INDRASENA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies BSR BS $ HIGH COURT DATED:1610712025 ORDER WP.No.37079 of 2017 ( e o o 1HE Sh/ t 05 AUE lr25 ,l t Dt' i' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS CDc"(,'d { 6