The High Court · 2025

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 Vacate the lnterim Order dated 14111/2017 passed in W.P.N/.P.No.47511 o'f 2017 in W.P.No.38262 of 2017, and dismiss the Writ Petition with exemplary costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRAVAN KUMAR PURELLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 TO 7: SRI VENKATESHWAR VARANASI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH W.P.No.38262 of 2017 This writ petition is filed questioning' the order passed respondent No.2 in Rc.No.E/231/2016 (RC.No.D1/2254/2015) dated 24.7O.2O17 in setting aside the order passed by the rcspondent No.3 in Appeal No.Al2OO/20 13 dated 25.01.2O14 as illegal ancl arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counscl for the peLitioner, lcarned Assistant Governmcnt Plcader for Revenue and Smt R. Madhavilata, Iearned counsel for the responde nr Nos.5 and 7.

3. Learned Counscl [or thc pelitioncr surbrnits that the lard admeasuring to an cxrcnr ol Ac.2 l0 gts in S_v.No.84/38 situated at Vallemkunra Villagc Shivar, Malhar Rao Mandarl, Jayashalkar Bhupalapall,,,, l)istricL. was assigned to the petitioner through final parta cerril'icare No.A3i 5O9/ 1980 date -11^1980 and since then, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of same by cultivating it. When thc respondent Nos.5 arrd 6 wcre interfct-<_.d wrlh his possession and enjoyment, the petiLioner filcd suiL in O.S.No.49 of 2OO7 on the file of Junior Civit J r-rclge, h4anrthani, for perpetua.l 2 SK, J W P No 38262 of2017 injunction and the salne was decreed ex parte on 07.09.2010. He submits that the respondent No.4 has issued 1-B proceedings and a-lso entered his name in the revenue records from the year, 1980 and the same \ /as continued till date and his name was shown in the pattadar and possessor column in the paharries ofthe year 1980-8l and2OI4-15.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent Nos.S to 7 by playing fraud got entered the name of the respondent No.7 in the pahanies of the year, 2Ol4-15 as if he is the pattadar of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.B4/66 and illegally interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the subject iand. The petitioner filed appcal before the respondent No.3 in File No.A/2OOl2Ol3 and the same was allowed on

25.01.2014 and cancelled the pattadar passbooks and patta certificate issued in favour of the respondent No.7. Against the said order, the respondent Nos.S to 7 have preferred a revision before the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2, without considering the material on record and purport of the order passed by the respondent No.3, allowed the revision in Rc.No. E/ 23 1 / 20 1 6 (RC N o.D t I 2254 I 20 I5l dated 24.1O.2O 17 , a J SK, J W P No 38262 of2017 by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 and cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-lO gts in Sy.No.B4 l38 situated at Vallamkunta Village and directed the respondent No.4 to seize the pattadar passbook and title deed from the petitioner and delete his name in the revenue records, which is illegal and arbitrary and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order-

5. Learned Counsel lirr thc respondent Nos.5 to 7 based on the counter submits that the petitioner has failed to produce the original patta of assignment before the respondent No.2 and u,ithout any right and title, mere entrics in the revenue records does not confer any right to the petitioner. As per the report dated 29.06.2017 submitted by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, the respondent No.7 is in possession of the lald admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1.30 gts in Sy.No.84/66 and as per the survey arrd panchanama, the petitioner is not in possession of the property and there is no need to interfere with the order of Lhe respondent No.2. She further submits that in the impugned order, the respondent No.2 observed that the land in Sy.No.S4 is Government land / I I 1 I I i ! 4 SK, J W.P.No 38262 of 2017 as per the Sethwar and it was assigned long back to the landless poor and as per the report of the Tahsildar dated 27.O2.2O17 , there is no record in which year the alleged assignment was made in favour of the petitioner and in fact, he has not produced any record or documents held by him in support of his claim. Whereas the respondent No.7 has granted agricultural patta vidc proceedings Lr.No.B/ 12 I 2006 dated 07 .O2.2OO7 for the lald admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.30 gts in Sy.No.B4 166 situated at Vellamkunta Village arrd the pahanies for the year 2017-18 and the ROR stands on her name and she was holding pattadar passbooks and title deeds and as such, after considering a-11 the relevant documentary evidencc, the respondr:nt No.2 allowed the revision by setting aside the ordcr of the respondent No.3 dated 25.O1.2014.

6. l,earned Counsel for the respondent Nos.S to 7 further submits that the name of the respondent No.7 was entered in the year, 2007 basing on the patta certihcate No.B/1212006 dated 07.02.2007 and the appeal was filed by the respondent No.3 in the year, 20 13 i.e, after delay of 6 years. She submits that against the order passed by the Tahsildar, appeal has to ,) SK. J W.P.No.38262 of 2017 be preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer within 60 days from the date of the orcler. She further submits that as the petitioner failed to estabtish his alleged patta afld possession of land in Sy.No.84/66, there are no merits in the writ petition and requcsted to dismiss the writ petition.

7. After hearing both sides ald perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the land in Sy.No.g4 situated Vallemkunta Village Shivar, Malhar Rao Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District, belr;ngs to Government and the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.105- 12 gts was assigned to the landless poor long back as per the sethwar. survey and land records. The petitioner and the contesting respondent No.7 are claiming the lands assigned to them admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2_ 10 gts in S.No.84/38 and Ac.t.30 gts in S.No.g4/66 respeclively. The contention of the petitioner is that the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2- 10 gts in Sy.No.84/38 situated at Vallemkunta Village Shivar, Malhar Rao Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District was assigned in favour of the petitioner vide patta certificate No.A3/509/ 19g0 and pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued in his favour \ ,:r. rt i&ta{i.&i. . 6 SK, J W P No.38262 of2017 by the respondent No.4. Whcrcas the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.84/66 situated at Vellamkunta Village was assigned to the respondent No.7 vide proceedings Lr.No.B/ 1 2 / 2006 dated 07 .O2.2OO7 . B. The petitioner has filed ROR appeal before the respondent No.3 for granting assignment patta in favour of the unofficial respondents and as they are interfering with the possession of the property of the petitioner claiming through assignment patta granted in favour of the respondent No.7 on 07 .O2.20O7. After hearing both sides ald perusal of the record, the respondent No.3 has allowed the ROR appeal in File No.A/2OOl2Ol3 dated 25.01.2014 by setting aside the patta certificate and a,lso ROR passbooks issued in favour of the respondent No.7 on thc ground that the name of the petitioner was reflected in the assignment records and the concerned pahanies since 1980-8 1 as on that date and the narne of the respondent No.7 was not reflected in the said records besides that the concerned Tahsildar has filed a report after making inspection that excess pattas for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.O0 gts were issued during the period of the year 2OO7 -O8 without verifying the records l l '* 1 SK, J W P.No 38262 of 2Oi 7 artd '"(,ithout delivering the possession. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos.S to 7 have filed RoR revision before the respondent No.2.

9. The respondent No.2. basing on ,the subsequent Tahsildar's rcport, has stated that there is no record in the office showing in which year the land assignment was made in favour of the petitoner herein and a,lso the petitoner has failed to procluce the assignment patta and set aside the proceedings of the respondent No.3 dated 2s.or.2or4 and, also cancelleci the mutation proceedings and title cleeds in favour of the petitioner for the land admeasurrng to an extent of Ac.2-iO gts in Sy.No.g4 l3B of Vallemkunta Village and directed to seize the pattadar pass book and title deed lrom the petitioner. The respondent No.2 r.r,hile disposing the revision petition has obtained the survey report iiom the A.D. s & LR, Jayashankar Bhupalpalry. At the time of conducting survey by the Assistant Director of survey and Land records, whether any notice was sent to the petitoner or not crear and no where it was mentioned. Moreover, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are claiming the land to an extent of Ac. I-30 gts and the respondent No,2 has stated in the impugned proceedings in \ \ 8 SK. J W.P.No.38262 of 2017 i respect of the land to an cxtent of Ac 2 10 gts' the patta of the petitioner was calceiled and directed to se ize the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. iO. The respondent No.2 has failed to Lakc into account the pahanies since 1980-8 1 as stated in the order passed by the respondent No.3' The respondent No 2 has passed the impugned order n'ithout laking into account of the records and merely basing on th c report of thc Tah sildar' as the assignment proceedings were not available and also the petitioner failed to produce the assignment patta certihcate ' The respondent No.2, basing on mere assumptions ald presumptions and without taking into the available record as in the pahanies pertaining Lo I 980-81 onr'vards' urhere the name of thc petitone r w'as rcflected in thc pahanies and without verifying the conccrned records and merely basing on the report of the Tahsildar, cannot calcel the mutation proceedings and also the pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioner which were not the subject matter in the revision petition' In view of the same' the matter has to bereconsideredbythercvisionalauthorilybygiving opportunity to the petitoner as well as the unofficial / ,...!, 9 SK, J W.P.No 38262 of 2017 respondents if necessary they have to conduct survey in the presence ol both sides. The respondent No.2 failed to consider that the petitoner has obtaineQ orders from the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.49 of 2O0Z on the hle of Junior Civil Judge, Manthani on 07.09.2010. ln view of the same, this is a fit case to remand the matter to the revisional authority. 11 The contention oI the unofficial respondent is that the petltoner alrcr 6 years of mutatlon proceedings filed appeal before the respondent No.3 and the same is not maintainable the ground of delay. In fact, the Tahsildar without following duer procedure and r'vithout rssuing notices to the effected paities granted mutation in favour of the respondent No.7 and the date of knowleclge of the orders has to be taken into account and as such thc contention o1- the unofficial respondent on delay calnot be acceptable. I

12. In view ol the above findings, disposed of by setting aside irnpugned order passed by the respondenr No.2 in Rc.No.E/231l2016 (RC.No.Dt/22Sal 20 1s) the Writ petition is dated 24.70.2O1T and the matter is remanded back to ...,/-'., \\ I t0 SK, J W P No 38262 o12017 the Revisional Authority for conductin g cle nouo cnquiry under ROR Act in existing Rules and pass appropriate orders as per 1aw. Till disposal of the ROR proceedings' both thc parties are directed to maintain status quocxisting as on today. No order as to costs 1a Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY/I SD/. P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / -t SECT,IOf.I OFFICER To District. Hvderabad, State of Telanqana.

1. The Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department, secretariat Buildings, 2. tfr;JJi;t-6orlbCoi .tavr.r,'ankar Bhupalapallv District, Bhupalapally' 5. fi"i" n."i^* biuisiondt Officer, Manthani Division, Ivlanthani, Karimnagar +. fn"e iansiioar, Malahar Rao Mandal, Malhar Rao village and.trilandal' .lavashankar Bhuoalapallv District (erstwhile Karimnagar qLSt!'l-ct) 5 o,i.;cCt" Snr SnnvhukuMAR PURELLA, Advocate to.P^q9l^. 6. 6;; ac 6 sRi Ver.txnresHwAR VARANASI, Advol:ate tgP-u.cl ;. il; cc.i"-e i rbn REVENUE, High court for the state of Telangana' at 8. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad. [OUT] PSK. I t HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ORDER WP.No.38262 of 201 a n \r^ ,",9 \^' \\ f TE( o 4 .g j s\ I aL, ^5t'I 't -'' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS l4