The High Court · 2025

1. Smt. Khatija, Wo. Late Sri. Md. Azharuddin, Aged major, Occ Housewife, R/o Kachireddypally Village, Ganga(haram Mandal, Karimnagar District.

2. Smt. Munna Bee, Wo. Late Sri. Md. Sharfuddin, Aged major, Occ; Housewife, R1o. Kachireddypally Village, Gangadharam Mandal, Karimnagar District. .....PErTlONERSl RESPOT{DENTS NOS.3 & ' AND

1. Sri. Dudekula Shaheb Hussain, S/o. Late Sri. Raj Mohammed, Aged 65 years, Occ ; Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-72, Kachireddypally Village, Gangadharam Mandal, Karimnagar District. .....RETPOTIPENTTWRIT PEIITIOI|ER

2. The State of Telangana, Revenue Departmenl, Rep. by its, Principal $ecretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahsildar, Gangadhara Mandal, Gangadhara. ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances olated in tho affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased ta vacate the interim stay order dated 01 .11.20'17 W.P.M.P.No.45309 of ?O17 in W.P.No36476 ot 2Q17 , pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI T.SURYA SATISH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : SRI C.DAMODAR REDDY The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.36476 OF 2OL7 ORDER:

1. This writ is hled questioning the proceedings No.B/2l48l2OlO dated 26.O4.2O1| issued by the respondent No.2, whereby it was directed the Village Revenue Officer, Kachireddypalli, to record the names of unofficial respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the Revenue Records in respect of land admeasuring to an extent o[ Ac.L.27 guntas, in Sy.No.65/A ol Kachireddypally Village, Gangadharam Mar.rdal. Karimnagar District, without issuing any notice to the petitoner and sought a direction to the ofhcial respondents to set aside the impugned proceedings.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleadcr for Revenue and the learned Senior Counsel appearing lor the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the record. \ 2 SI(, J wP 36476 2017 1 - 3. The learned Counsel lor the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner an<1 possessor o[ the land a.dmeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.27 guntas in Sy.No.65,/A, situated at Kachireddypalll. Village, Gangadharam Mandal, Karimnagar Disl,rir:t (hereinafter relerred 1-o as 'subject land') and the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenuc record and Pattadar Pass book and title deed were also issued to him vide Passbook No.43322O and Title l)eed No.436. While it being so, when the family Mernbers of the unofficial respondent Nos.3 and 4 startc:d interfering with the possession of the petitioner ovel the subject land, the oetitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.!t9 of 2011 or-r the file ol' Junior Civil Judge; Vemulawada against them, in which the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also filed their written statement. When the said suit came for hearing, the respondent No.3 and 4 hewe produced impugned Proc.No.B/2l48l2OlO dated 26.O4.2O11 passed lhe respondent No.2, basing ,rn the joint \ ) I sr, J wP 35475 2017 application made by the respondent No.3 and 4 dated

11.10.201O, by which the names of the husbands of the respondent Nos.3 ald 4 were directed to be recorded in place of the petitioner. The said proceedings were issued without issuing any notice to the petitioner or his brothers.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the impugned proceedings it is stated that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are in possession of the subject 1and. As a matter of fact the petitioner is in possession of the subject land. The impugned proceedings does not contain the manner in which the respondent Nos.3 and 4 acquired the subject land and therefore requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4, basing on the I counter, would submit that in the year, 1964 the father of the respondent No.3 namely Abdul Khader and his., I -/ k 4 SI(, J wP 36476 2017 -- , !i\: 'l brother latt: Azaruddin (@ Nazeeruddin, husband of the respondent No.3, have jointly purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.O0 guntas 1n Sy.No.65/tu\, situated at Kachireddypally Village, Gangadhara Mandal, Karimnagar District from one Dasthagiri though an unregistered sale deec and since the date of the purchase Abdul Khader and Azaruddin were in possession. During their lile timr:, the said Abdul Khader and Azaruddin have submitt(rd the said simple sale deed belore the Revenue auth,lrities and after conducting enquiry the revenue authorities have issued Form No. 1 and i-B in favour Sharfoddin Mohammed S/o. Abdul Khader and Azarurldin to an extent of Ac. i.IO guntas each and both of them are in joint and c:ontinuous possession of the said land Subsequently the said Sharfoddin and Azanrddin have died, leaving behind the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as their legal heirs. I t t 5 sI(, ./ wP 36476 2077

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 would further submit that in the year, 2011 when the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have noticed wrong entries, they have filed application on 1 1. 10.2010 before the revenue authorities and after conducting detailed enquiry the revenue authorities have passed orders on 26.04.2011 directing the Village Revenue Ofhcer to correct the entries in respect of the property of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 would further submit that the petitioner is no way concerned with the subject land and with a malafide intention filed O.S.No.99 of 20 11 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Vemualwada against the brothers of the respondent No.3 viz., Dudeukula Madhar, Dudekula Mohinuddin and Dudekula Manaar, son of the respondent No.3 for perpetual injunction. On receipt of summons in the said suit, Dudekula Madhar and others have filed written statement on 04.05.2011 and t 6 SK, J wP 36476 2017 hled relevant documents and the order pass':d by the -: respondent No.2 and thc trial in the said suit was also completed.

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the rt:spondent Nos.3 and 4 would further submit that by suppressing the materia-l facts the petitioner hled the instant writ petition challenging the order passed by the r':spondent No.2 in Proc.No.B/214812O1O dated 26'04 2011 and there is no irregularity or illegality in the said order and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition. g. After hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order was passed by the Respondent No.2/Tahsilclar basing on the representation of the respondent Nos'3 and 4 and report of the Marldal Revenue Inspector dated 23.04.2011 directing to mutate the names ol the respondent No.3 and 4, without issuirrg any notice to the enjoyers/pattadars of the subject land' In the \ SIr, J wP 36476 2017 reference No.2 of the impugned order the respondent No.2 mentioned the notice dated 18.03.20 i0 said to have issued, but the respondents tailed to show that the notice sent to the petitioner was served, whose nzune was recorded as pattadar of the subject land. As per the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 797 I (for short 'ROR'Act), before mutating the revenue records, the respondent-authorities have to follow the procedure as contemplated under the ROR Act and have to issue notices to the pattadars. Admittedly, in the instant case, no procedure was followed by the respondent No.2 before mutating the records in respect of the subject Iands. Without following the procedure as contemplated under ROR Act, if any mutation takes place, the same is liable to be set aside. In view of the same, this is a fit case to remand back the matter to the respondent No.2 for conducting de nouo enquiry as contemplated under the t ROR Act. - t: / a SK, J wP 36476 2077

10. Accor<lingly, this writ petition 1S disposed of by setting aside the impugned Proc.No.B/2748 l2OlO dated 26.04.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 and the matter is remanded back to the respondent-authorities to conduct de nouo enquiry lor mutation of recor.ds in respect of the sutlect land admeasuring to art extent of Ac.l.27 guntas, in Sy.No.65/A of Kachireddypally Village, Gangadharam Mandal, Karimnagar District, after issuing notices to the petitioner as well as ttre unoffucial respondents including the affected parties and pass appropriate orders rvithin three (3) months fi-om the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to ,losts.

11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION oFrrcen To SA BS {. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Tahsildar, Gangadhara Mandal, Gangadhara. 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI T.SURYA SATISH, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI C.DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies w 1_ t +.- HIGH COURT DATED:21 t04t2025 ORDER tttlP.No.36476 ot 2017 a' o \ gE SI,{t 1 1 s JUN I DE sPn1 '2 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. q co€4 Yr- 6tAa5 €