IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

[ 3304 ]

...PETITIONER

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR FIAO

WRIT PETITIOhl NO: 38004 0F 2014

Between:

AND

Singireddy Venkat Reddv,,

.SJo. _Chilka

Reddy, Aged about 44 years,

Occ - Agricutture, R/o. ff-fifo.f -gZ, eog;iu, Vffr[",'r<"".rra Mandat, Ranga

Reddy district.

The State- of Telangana, Revenue Department,, Rep. by its

principal

Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Joint Collector-|, Ranga Reddy District, Ranga Reddy.,

_

The Sp_ecial_Grade Deputy coilector & Revenue Divisionar, officer, Ranga

Reddy East Division, Ranga Reddy district.

The Thasildar, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.,

_

Alwal Laxmaiah, S/o. Venkaiah,.fOed about 65 years, Ryo. Bogaram Village,

Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy disirict.

Alwal Kashaiah,, S/o. Venkaian,.nOgO about 54 years, Rl/o. Bogaram Village,

Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy disirict.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased

to lssue a direction, order or writ more particurarry one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus decraring the action of the Respondent No.2 in passing the order in case

No.D51762512008, vide order dated 11.11.2014, allowing the revision petition filed by

the Respondent Nos.5and6 and setting aside the order passed by the 3rd

Respondent in File No.A2l1608/1999, dated 1g.4.2006, as well as the order passed

2

3

4

ti.

by the Respondent No.4 in fite No.B/2303/1996, dated 26 10.1996, as arbitrary,

illegal, contrary to settled principles of law and arso contrary to A.p. Rights in Land

and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1g71 and the Rules made there under, as applicable

to the state of relangana , and as also being in violation of Article 14 and 300-4 of

the constitution of lndia, and consequenfly set aside the order dated

.l .1

..1 i.2014 in

Case No.D5/762512O08 passed bythe Respondent No.2.

t.A. NO:1 0F 2014(WPJI/IP. NO1 47544 OF 2014

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 pteased suspend the

order passed by the Respondent No.2, vide Case No

11.11 .2014, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

t.A. NO:1 0F 201s{WPMP.NO: 1376 OF 2015

D51762512008, dated

)

Petition uncer Section 1s'1 cpc praying that in the circLrmstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the

interim orders dated 10.12.2014 passed in wp.No.3gO04 of 2014 untir further

Orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Gp FOR REVENUE (TG)

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S and 6:--

The Court made the following: ORDER

1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

ITYDERABAD

I,

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAMA.VARAPU RT"'ESHWAR RAO

Date: a1 ' o 6-

a,o)+'

WRIT PETITION No.38OO4 of 2OL4

Between:

Singireddy Venkat Reddy.

.. Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana and others.

Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is frled aggrieved by the order dated

11.11.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent in Case

No.E5/7625/2oo8

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner's father purchased land admeasuring

Ac.1.3O guntas in Sy.No.113, situated at Bogaram Village,

Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, throughAr1

unregistered Sale Deed executed by Alwal Venkaiah, and

since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of

the said property. The petitioner's father filed an application

under the Record of Rights Act (ROR Act) seeking

2

regularization of the unregistered Sale Deed. The unofficial

respondents filed their objections. After following the

procedure contemplated under the ROR Act, Respondent No.4

regularized the unregistered Sale Deed. Aggrieved thereby, the

unofficial respondents preferred an appeal before Respondent

No.3, which was dismissed on 18.04.2006, granting liberty to

the appellants therein to resolve their dispute before the

competent Civil Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further

submits that, after a lapse of 2/z years, the unofficial

respondents filed a revision petition before Respondent No.2

without filing any application seeking condonation of delay,

contending that the subject land was alceslra-l property.

Without properly verifying the material availabte on record,

Respondent No.2 set aside the orders passed bv Respondent

Nos.3 and 4.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitroner further

submits that the unofficial respondents did not file any

document to establish that the subject properlv rvas a:rcestral

3

property and, therefore, failed to substantiate their claim in

that regard.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further

submits that, in the impugned order, Respondent No.2

observed that Respondent No.4 had passed the order dated

26.1O.1996 without issuing notice to the revision petitioners

and without examining the witnesses. However, Respondent

No.4 had, in fact, issued notices to the aJlected parties,

namely, Respondent Nos.S and 6, who filed their objections.

Apart from that, Respondent No.4 had also examined the

witnesses before passing the order. Therefore, Respondent

No.2 ought to have dismissed the revision petition on the

ground of limitation itself. Hence, it is prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impug:ned order

and allow the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.S and 6

has frled a counter-affidavit stating that the father of

Respondent Nos.S and 6 was the absolute owner ald

possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 1.11 guntas in Sy.No.113

of Bogaram Village. After his death, Respondent Nos.S and 6,

4

being his legal heirs, have been in possession and enjoyment

of the said land and have been cultivating the same without

any interference.

7. karned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.5 and 6

further submits that the petitioner herein, who had no

connection whatsoever with the said land, filed O.S, No.72 of

1983 before the Court of the District Munsiff, Medchal, Ranga

Reddy District, seeking declaration of title and perpetual

injunction in respect of Ac. 1.30 guntas in Sy.No.1 13 and the

said suit was dismissed by order dated 13.02.1992. The said

judgment was not challengedonappeal and, therefore,

attained finality. Consequently, the petitioner has no right,

title, or interest in the suit land, having failed to establish titie

thereto

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6

further submits that the petitioner, suppressing material

facts, submitted an application before the Mandal Revenue

Officer (MRO) seeking mutation under the provisions of the

A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971

However, without issuing any notice to the respondents, the

5

MRO passed proceedings dated 12.02.1999 gllowing the

petitioner's claim for mutation. The said order was never

communicated to the unoffrcial respondents and was passed

behind their back.

9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6

further submits that challenging the order dated 12.02.1999,

the unofficial respondents filed an appea-l before the RDO and

the RDO dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the

unofficial respondents preferred a revision before the 2"d

respondent, who upon due appreciation of the facts, evidence,

and material available on record, set aside the orders passed

by the RDO as well as the MRO on the ground that they were

devoid of merit and contrar5r to the provisions of Section 5-A

of the A.P. Rights in Land ald Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971

arrd Rule 22 of the Rules, 1989 framed thereunder and

consequently, allowed the revision

10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6

further submits that the 2"d respondent passed a well-

reasoned order after duly considering the material on record

and the applicable legal provisions. Therefore, the said order

6

1Slegal, valid, and justifred ald does not warrant any

interference by this Court. Therefore, the r,r,rit petition1S

devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed

11. Heard both sides and perused the record

12. In the present case, the 4th respondent passed the

order dated 26.1O.1996 by observing as follou's :-

"IVotices in Form No.ll and 12 haue been issued to the

concerned as required under the Act. In response to the notices

rssued Sri Alu.tala Laxrnaiah and Alu.tala Kosaiah haue filed on

objection petition stating that afier the death of lheir father the

unregi.stered document stated to be executed bg his father Lote.

Sn. A. Venkaiah is created bg Sn. S. Chilkareddy u,tith forged

signature, and theg neuer sold tlrc land to the patitioner, but his

fatlrcr giuen to the petitioner's father on leose for

graztng

purpose and requested not to regulaise the aboue document.

On the request of the Respondents a chance of heaing

tuas giuen to both the parties. Case heard on 7-9-9t; and 26 1O-

96. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the

reuenue records. As per reuenue records, petitioner's name u)as

recorded as occupant ouer the Sg.No.113 ert. Ac 1-!lA @s. since

the date of purchase. The Respondents foiled to proue the

auerments made in their objedion petition ond they could not

conuince the court houl the petitioner came into posihon of [and.

In uieu of the aboue, I come to conclusion that the

document executed bg late A.Venkaiah is genuine. As such I

order for regulorization of unregistered doanment executed bg

7

late Si.A. Venkaiah in fauour

of S. Chilka Reddg, Under Section

5-A of the Act.'

I

13. Thereafter, the 4tt' respondent passed an order dated

l2.O2.lggg mutating the name of the petitioner and his

father in the revenue records in respect of the land in

question. Aggrieved by the same, the unofficial respondents

filed an appeal before the 3'd respondent, and the same was

dismissed on 18.04.2006 by observing as follows :-

" Afier heaing the arguments of the appellant and

perusal of counter affidouit filed by th-e respondents the court

doth tle order os under.

The main issue inuolued in the co,se is ualiditg of sale

transaction uhich took place behteen father of appellants ond

respond.ents on 11-5-74. Another issue in possession of the suit

land. The appellants and the respondents stating that the land

is in their possession. According to the reuerlue records the land

is in the possession of respondents and the ciuil suit filed

bg

them agoinst the oppellants uos dismissed in default Either

this court or tlte lotuer court is not the proper fonlm to test the

uatiditg of the sa:le transoction u.thich took place on 11-5-74'

According to sub section (2) of Section 8 of A.P ROR in Land ond

Pattadar Pass Books Act 197 1 , if ang person is aggrieued as to

ang nght of uhich he is in posses sion bg an entry made in ang

record of ight he moA institute a suit against anA person

denying or interested to deng his title to such ight for

declaration of Hs right under Chapter (6) of the specific relief Act

1963.

I

8

In uiew of the legal position noted aboue the appeol i-s

dismissed uith an aduise to the appeLlants to settld their case in

ciuil court.'

14. Aggrieved by the szrme, respondent Nos.S and 6

filed a revision before the 2"d respondent, and the same was

allowed on 11.1 l.2ol4 by obserrring as follows :

The RDO ought to haue seen that the aboue prouision

of Sec.8 (2) applies to the respondents before tL.e Appellate

Authoitg. In the impugned order the RDO him.self leld that

according to reuenue records the land is in posse.ssion of the

respondents and the ciuil suit filed bg them zgainst the

appellants utas dismbsed in defoult- So in accordantce u.tith the

aboue prouisions, the oppellate authoitg should houe aduised

the respondents therein to approach ciuil court ano settle their

case os the names of the respondents are recordec' in reuenue

records in possession column of the pahani and the appellonts

are denging it. Alreadg the respondents Lnd

filec!. a sui/ OS

No.72/ 88 before the Dbt. Mun sif, Medchal o.gainst the

appel[ants and the same Loas dismissed. Taking ail the aboue

things into consideration it uLas for the appellate out.\oitA to set

aside the orders of he MRO, Keesara possed in file

No.B/2303/1996, dated: 12.02.1999 in uthich tlTe alleged

unregistered transaction sole bosing on a receipt dated:

11.05.1974 utas regularized for an ertent of Ac.l.3ogts in

Sg.No.Ji3 u.there os the said receipt sags the extent as

Ac.2.OO gts.

In the light of aboue obsentations I do not hesitate to

set aside the impugned order passed bg the RDO, R.R.East

Duision in ftle No.A2/ 1608/ 1999, dated: 18.04.200(i os tuell a-s

9

15

the orders of the MRO Keesara passed in file No'B/2303/96'

dated-: 12.02.1999 being deuoid of meits contrasg to the

proui.sions made U/ 5.5-A of the A'P. Rights in I'and ond

Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rule-22 of the Rules, 1989

framed

theretuith- In the result the reuision is alloued'

Section 5-A of the ROR Act reads as follows :-

1) NottDith.standing ongthing contained in this Act, the Transfer

of Propertg Act. 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other

latu for

the time being in force, [uhereo,s

person is an ocd)pant]

bg uirtue of on alienation or trantsfer made or effected otheruise

than bg regi.stered document, the alienee or the transferee mag'

uitltin such peiod as mag be prescibed, applA to the Mondal

Reuenue OJficer for

a certificate declaing that such alienation or

transfer is ualid.

2) On receipt of such application, the MRO sLall, afier making

such enquiry as maA be prescribed, require the alienee or the

transferee to deposit in the office of the MRO an amount equal to

tlLe registration fees and the stamp duty that tuould haue been

pagoble had the alienation. or transfer be effected bg a

registered- dncument in accordance with the proubion's of the

Registration Act, 1908, as fixed bg the registeing officer on a

reference mad.e to him bg the MRO on the basis of the ualue of

the propertA arriued at in such monner os mag be prescibed'

16. In the instant case, the petitioner filed an application

under Section 5-A of the ROR Act before the 4ft respondent'

stating that he had purchased the land in question and

requesting regularization of the sale transaction dated

10

11.05.1974, which took place between respondent No.2 and

the father of the appellants. Pursuant thereto, the 4th

respondent conducted an enquiry into the matter and issued

certificates in Forms 13-B and 13-C in favour of the petitioner

vide proceedings dated L2.O2.1999. Aggrieved by the same,

the unofficial respondents preferredanappeal before the

appellate authority, which dismissed the appeal with an

observation that the parties should work out their remedies

before the competent Civil Court.

17 . After dismissal of the appeal, the respondent Nos.S and

6 neither approached the Civil Court nor closecl the litigation

Instead, after waiting for about two and a half years, they filed

a revision petition before the 2"d respondent. In the revision

proceedings, based solely on the averments made by the

revision petitioners, the 2.d respondent allowed the revision

setting aside the orders that had been passed in favour of the

petitioner.

18. Once concurrent findings were recorded by both the

respondent authorities, the revisional authority ought to have

advised the parties to approach the competent Civil Court.

11

Instead, u,ithout doing so, it simply set aside the orders

passed bY resPondent

Nos'3 and 4'

lg . The main contention of the unofficial respondents

5

and 6 is that the subject land was ancestral property' The

unofficial respondents did not file any document to establish

that the subject property was ancestral property and'

therefore, failed to substantiate their claim in that regard'

20. ,n" Otn resPondent

aJforded oPPortunitlesto the

unofficiai resPondents

twice to substantiate their claim that

the ProPerty

is ancestral ProPerty'

However, on both

occasions, they failed to produce any evidence in support of

their contention' Furtheflnore'

the revenue records disclose

that the petitioner's name has been recorded as the occupant

ofanextentofAc'1'3Ogts'inSy'No'l13'sincethedateof

purchase. According

tothe resPondents,

theentlre

transaction ald the revenue records are fabricated and

created documents' If that is so' the unofficial respondents

ought to have approached the competent Civil Court and

sought appropriate

relief against the petitioner herein'

11

In the present case, 10.12.2014, this Court while

on

rssulng notice before admission granted status-quo obtaining

as on that day with regard to possession

o t the land in

dispute be maintained by both the parties till .si_x weeks and

the same was not extended from time to time.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this r.r.rit petition is

disposed of by setting aside the impugned order passed by the

2".1 respondent. The parties are at liberty to seek appropriate

relief with regard to the entries in the revenue rr:cords before

the competent Civil Court. It is made clear that, in the event

the parties approach thetrial Court, the tnal court shall

entertain the matter without

delay. No costs.

ralstng any objection regarding

As a sequel, miscellaneous

applications

any, shall stand closed.

pending, if

SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

6

\

,uTION OFFICER

To,

1. The Principal Secretary, The State of Telangana, Revenue Department,,

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, Ranga Reddy., -

3. The Special Grade Deputy Collector & Re,,,enue Divjsional, Officer, Ranga

Reddy East Division, Ranga Reddy distrjct.

4. The Thasildar, Keesara tt/andal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. One CC to Sri Gaddam Srinivas, Advocate

tOpUCl

6. Two CCs to the Gp for Revenue, Hign Court fo. tn" St"te of Telangana, atHyderabad[OUT]

7. One CC to P Sridhar Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)

8. One CC to K Krishna Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)

9. Two CD Copies

TJ

TKS

I

HIGH COURT CC TODAY

DATED: 2310612026

1Y\

01 JtlL 2020

S 1,6 fF

o

\-

12

\,,->

\,2

'.r../.,

\'. * --

' .:\:

1

\.-]-.

ORDER

WP.No.38004 of 2014

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT COSTS

t

0l

t,-.