1. B.Janardhan Rao v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 4th respondent issued in Prcgs.No.B/1 42812018 dated 29.1O.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and contrary to the judgment and decree passed in AS.No.122711994 dated 25.03.1996. I.A.NO:1 OF 2018 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 direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners by suspending the orders of the 4th respondent issued in Prcgs.No.B/ 142812018 dated 29.'10.20'18, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI R.SUSHANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.4O764 of 2O18 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appe-aring for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record. 2, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the land in old Sy.No.331 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.27.14 guntas situated at Alwal Village, Matkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is a panmaktha inam land and Maharaja Shiv Raj Bahadur was the original inamdeir of the said land and the said land was under cultivation by the ancestors of the petitioners as joint family property. During revlsl0n survey of lands, a-fter abolition of Jagirs, Sy.No.33 1 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.27-14 guntas was coffelated to Sy.Nos.537 to 54 1. However, by mistake, Sy.No.537 was recorded -t \ 2 SKJ W.P.No.a0764 of 2018 as Kharij Khata with regard to the remaining extent of land in Sy.No.538 to 541, the occupancy right certificate was granted in favour of Sri B.Raghupathi Rao and his brothers by the Revenue Divisiona,l Officer vide proceedings in File No.A1 1588 11975, dated 05.iO.1981 and the said order has become final. Thereafter, the revenue authorities initiated proceedings for the land in Sy.No.537, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-04 guntas under Section 6 of the Lald Encroachment Act basing on the wrong entry in the revenue records as Khariz Khata. Thereafter, one of the family members of the petitioners i.e., Sri B.Narsingh Rao filed O.S.No.62 of 1984 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ralga Reddy District seeking declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.537, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-04 guntas situated at Alwal Village, Ranga Reddy District. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Court kL-- .#Bi:::.', 3 SK, J W.P.No.40764 of 2O18 of District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the sarne was renumbered as O.S.No.19 of 1993 and in the said suit, the State Government represented by the Secretary, the District Collector and Mandal Revenue Ofhcer, Malkajgiri Mandal were impleaded AS defendants. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, the said Sri B.Narsingh Rao filed A.S.No. 1277 of 1994 before this Court and the same was disposed of by this Court with a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of title and for injunction. The Judgment of this Court in A.S.No.1277 of 1994 dated 25.O3.1996 has become linal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the said Sri B.Narsingh Rao made representation to the Collector on 17.O8.2OO7 requesting to correct the record of rights. In view of no action from the respondents, the said Sri \ \ 4 w.c.,.o.+oza+ qZf/a B.Narsingh Rao hled W.p.No.21575 of 2OO7 before this Court and this Court disposed of the same on 14'03.201g directing the respondent No.4 to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 issued impugned proceedings dated 29.10.2Ola stating that the petitioners are not entitled for correction of entries in the revenue records over the lar_rd in Sy.No.537, admeasuring to arr extent of Ac.3_O4 guntas as patta instead of Government land. Once the Court of Competent Civil Jurisdiction has alreacly held that the said Sri B.Narsingh Rao is the owner of the property arrd the respondents having suffered the decree have to necessarily implement the same in the revenue records and cannot take a contra stand. The respondent No.4 is sitting over the Judgment of this court in A.S.No. l2Z7 of 1994 dated 25.03.1996 and the impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and requested to set aside the h I 5 SK, J W.P.No.40764 of 2018 impugned proceedings and direct the respondents to record. the names of the petitioners as per ROR Act. 4. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue basing on the counter submits that they are not disputing the civil proceedings in O.S.No.19 of 1993 on the file of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and also in A.S.No.1977 of 1994 flted before this Court. There is no direction from this Court to correct the extent of Ac.3-O4 guntas instead of Ac.3-22 guntas in Sy.No.537 recorded in the settlement records and enter the name of the Sri B.Narsingh Rao as pattadar. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, records were examined with reference to the application and passed orders on

29.10.2018 rejecting the request of Sri B.Narsingh Rao for correction as Sy.No.537 with an extent of Ac.3-O4 guntas as patta instead of Government land Khariz Khata to an extent of Ac.3-22 guntas as it is not a part of old Sy.No.331 but corresponding to old 6 SKJ W.P.No.40764 of 2018 ,! l Sy.No.2B6 with an extent of Ac.3-22 guntas. The impugned order passed by the respondents is not contrary to the orders of this Court in A.S.No. 1277 of 1994, dated 25.O3.1996 and requested to disrniss the wrlt petrtlon

5. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are questioning the memo issued by the respondent No.4 rejecting for rccording the names of the petitioners as pattadars in view of the orders passed by this Court in A.S.No.1277 of 1994, dated 25.03.1996. There is no dispute with regard to the disposal of A.S.No.1277 of 1994 by this Court on 25.O3.1996 for the same schedule property. The contention raised by the respondents in the counter was also considered by this Court in A.S.No.l277 of 1994. The orders passed by this Court become final and no appeal was filed by the \ respondents herein against the Judgment and Decree 7 SK, J W.P.No.40764 of 2018 passed in A.S.No.1277 of 1994 dated 25.03.1996. The oflicial respondent Nos.2 and 4 herein are the respondents in A.S.No.1277 of 1994. Therefore, the respondents cannot take different stand which was rejected by this Court in A.S.No.1277 of 1994.

6. In view of the same, the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.4 in Proceedings No.B/J42812O18, dated 29.10.2018 is liable to be set aside and the revenue authorities have to correct the revenue records as per Judgment and Decree of this Court in A.S.No.1277 of 1994, dated 25.O3.1996.

7. In view of the above findings, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the Proceedings No.B/J42812018, dated 29.10.2018 issued by the respondent No.4 and the respondents are directed to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records with regard to the suit schedule property as per Section 8(2) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 197 | by taking into account I i i I a SK, J W.P.No.40764 of 2018 of the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No. 1277 of 1994 by this Court dated 25.03.1996. However, there shall be no order as to costs

8. Misceilaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY/I SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ./ v SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad-

2. The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 3.TheRevenueDivisionalofficer'tVlalkajgiriDivision'Medchal-tr4alkajgiri District.

4. The Tahsildar, Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. O'ne CC to SRI R.SUSHANTH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies SA GJPv /l C) 'l oR 1!'lF- S14 r..( Y o( t-, i) .,1; 28 Juu zffi !) t- 'r -,it cr\ EO t HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 ORDER WP.No.40764 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \o"oPq+ Fnto