Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1125 (TS)

Kodicherla Anjalaiah v. State of Telangana

2025-09-26

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER : K.Sarath, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 27.04.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, Vikarabad District/respondent No.2 in Revision case vide File No.D1/2900/2018, whereby the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Viakarabad/respondent No.3 in Appeal No.C/379/2010 dated 04.09.2017 were set aside. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents and Mrs.Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 and perused the record. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.12.10 guntas in Sy.No.22, situated at Pommapur Village, Bantwaram Revenue Mandal, Vikarabad District (hereinafter after referred to as ‘subject lands’) were Government lands and the Government, by exercising its rights as owners, gave the said lands to the elders of the petitioners on lease on ‘Ek Sal Cultivation’ and the leaseholders were also paying rents through challans in respect of the subject lands. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, one Manohar Rao filed W.P.No.2991/1980 against the Tahsildar, Marpally Taluq restraining him from putting the said lands trough auction ‘Ek Sal Cultivation/One Year Cultivation’ basis and from dealing with the same in pursuance of the Notification No.A/265/1980 subject lands in pursuance of the Notification No.A3/265/1980 dated 10.06.1980 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 13.02.1981, which establishes that the subject lands are Government lands as per Section 12 of the ROR ACT . 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that in the light of the orders passed by this Court in WP No.2991/1980 coupled with the challans, through which the rents were being paid, the subject lands are Government lands. Contrary to the same, the respondents in collusion and in connivance created several documents in the year, 2017 and the fact that the subject lands being Governments lands have been buried for the advantage of the unofficial respondents and the Government failed to protect its own lands despite specific pleadings. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that upon the application made by the petitioners the Revenue Divisonal Officer concluded the enquiry and passed orders setting aside the orders of the Tahsildar, Bantwaram in File No.B/496/2009 dated 13.02.2009 and cancelled the Pattadar Pass Books and title Deeds issued in favour of the unofficial respondents. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that upon the application made by the petitioners the Revenue Divisonal Officer concluded the enquiry and passed orders setting aside the orders of the Tahsildar, Bantwaram in File No.B/496/2009 dated 13.02.2009 and cancelled the Pattadar Pass Books and title Deeds issued in favour of the unofficial respondents. Assailing the same, the unofficial respondents filed WP No.40560 of 2017 and also filed Revision Case No.D1/2900/2018 and this Court granted interim stay. While it being so, the Joint Collector, Vikarabad vide orders dated 27.04.2019 allowed the Revision covering the subjects lands as patta land. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 have pleaded different set of facts in their application for mutation. The MRO/Tahsildar in the panchanama recorded a different fact. Only during the proceedings in the year 2017, circumventing with the specific pleadings of the writ petitioners with regard to large scale creation of false documents, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have created further documents and trying to circumvent with the assertion of the petitioners with regard to the fraudulent facts and also cheating committed by the respondent No.5 and 6 in obtaining succession proceedings in their favour to deprive the rights of the petitioners. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the Joint Collector, failed to note the fraudulent claim of the respondent Nos.5 and 6, changing of their stand from time to time by depriving the rights of the petitioners over the subject lands and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Joint Collector in the Revision. 9. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents, would submit that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 along with the others are the owners and possessors of the agricultural lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.12.10 guntas situated in Sy.No.22, situated at Pomampur Village, Bantwaram Mandal, Viakarabad District. The grandfather of the petitioners by name Sayappa purchased the said lands from one Ahmed through Sadabainama through unregistered sale deed dated 20.12.1971 and the family of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been in possession of the said lands for over a period of five decades and even now cultivating the said lands by raising cotton crop during the Kharif season. The petitioners never cultivated the subjects land under the auction on ‘Ek Sala Cultivation’ and the said lands are not Government lands and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have true title and possession over the subject lands. 10. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents would further submit that, the petitioners have tried to digress and side track the issue by making an allegation of forgery on the unofficial respondents without any proof and the petitioners have no title nor documents to prove their contentions. The unofficial respondents were issued with passbooks pertaining to Ac.6.20 guntas and the their family members viz., Bichamma, Rajanarayana and Pentammaa have also applied for mutation for the remaining extent i.e. Ac.5.30 guntas, out of total extent of Ac.12.10 guntas in Sy.No.22. The unofficial respondents Nos.5 and 6 have also filed O.S.No.90/2012 against the petitioners pertaining to Ac.6.20 guntas, which was decreed in their favour restraining the writ petitioners from interfering with the possession over the subject lands. The petitioners have filed a representation before the Joint Collector and the Sub-Collector with a malicious intent claiming the land in question as Government lands. The land in question is a patta land and the claim of the petitioners that the said land is Government land is not tenable. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the farmers and solely dependant on the said lands and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 11. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that in this writ petition the petitioners are questioning the order dated 27.04.2019 passed by the Respondent No.2 in File No.D1/2900/2018, by setting aside the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.C/379/2010. 12. The main contention of the petitioners is that the subject land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.12.10 guntas in Sy.No.22 situated at Pommapur Village, Bantwaram Mandal of Viakarabad District belongs to the Government. The petitioners and others are cultivating the subject land on Ek Sal basis and the same was also subject matter in WP No.2991 of 1980 which was filed against the Tahsildar, Marpally Taluq and the respondent authorities have colluded with the unofficial respondents and granted title deeds in favour of the unofficial respondents and the same are liable to be set aside. 13. 13. At the time of admission, this Court granted interim orders on 17.07.2019 directing to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date. After filing of the counter and on hearing both sides, the interim order was vacated on 10.02.2020 on the ground that the petitioners have failed to produce any documents to show that the subject land is a Government land. 14. Initially the Tahsildar issued mutation proceedings in favour of the unofficial respondents vide Proc.No.B/296/2009 dated 13.02.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners and others have filed representations before the respondent No.3 and the same was taken as suo-motu appeal under Section 5 (5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and after hearing both sides, the said appeal was allowed on 04.09.2018 by setting aside the mutation proceedings issued by the Tahsildar in favour of the unofficial respondents in Proc.No.B/296/2009 dated 13.02.2009. The finding of the respondent No.3 in the said suo-motu appeal reads as follows: “The appellants herein submitted that the land bearing Sy.No.22 is a Government land and they have remitted an amount of Rs.155-00 and 155.00 through Challan Nos.396 and 857 dated 06.06.1983 and 29.11.1985, cultivated the above land on Ek-sala cultivation. But not produced any orders passed by the competent authority and also not mentioned the Survey Number on Eksala receipt. As per the Kasara phanai the land bearing Sy.No.22 is patta land as such the contention of the appellants that the land bearing Sy.No.22 is Government land is not correct. The above said appeal was allowed by the respondent No.3 only basing on the ground that the Tahsildar, Bantwaram Mandal has informed that file No.B/296/2009 in which order was issued by the then Tahsildar is not available in the office. 15. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent No.3, the un official respondents have filed revision before the respondent No.2 vide Case No.D1/2900/2018 and the said revision was allowed on 27.04.2019 by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 in Case No.C/379/2010 dated 04.09.2017. The relevant paras of the findings reads as under: “As seen from the copy of Khasara Phanai 1954- 55 of Pommapur Village, land bearing in Sy.No.22 (12.10) is classified as Patta and stands in the name of Syed Ahmed Saab and in the 15 th Column, Bairu Saiga S/o Malladu is shown as protected tenant of the land. The relevant paras of the findings reads as under: “As seen from the copy of Khasara Phanai 1954- 55 of Pommapur Village, land bearing in Sy.No.22 (12.10) is classified as Patta and stands in the name of Syed Ahmed Saab and in the 15 th Column, Bairu Saiga S/o Malladu is shown as protected tenant of the land. As per the details of classification of land obtained from the District Survey Officer, Vikarabad, the land in Sy.No.22 as per Sethwar is classified as Sarkari (Means Patta) in the name of Syed Ahmed Sab. Therefore, there is no dispute about the nature of the land. The RDO, Vikarabad in the impugned orders rightly held that the land in Sy.No.22 is not a Government Land and it is patta land. xxx xxx Though the respondents claim that the land in question is Government land they cultivated the land as Ek-sala auction purchasers, they have not filed any cogent record in support of their claim Xerox copies of challans stated to be relating to remittance of auction amounts do not contain the details such as Survey Number, extent., etc. They have not adduced evidence other than this and their nature of interest in the land is also not known. Generally it is the pattadar or his legal heirs and successors in interest by way of purchasers etc. who would have objection in the regularization, but in the instant case the respondents who are the third party laid objections without any iota of evidence. As such their claim is rejected” 16. In the above orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and as per the revenue records it clearly shows that the subject is not a Government land and it is patta land and they are not claiming it. Without any claim from the revenue auithorities, now only basing on the averments of the petitioners it cannot be treated that the subject land is a Government land. Moreover, the petitioners failed to file any proceedings to show that the subject land is a Government land. After filing of the instant writ petition, the suit filed by the unofficial respondents against some of the petitioners and others in O.S.No.90 of 2012 was decreed on 12.10.2023 granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the unofficial respondents over the subject land. 17. After filing of the instant writ petition, the suit filed by the unofficial respondents against some of the petitioners and others in O.S.No.90 of 2012 was decreed on 12.10.2023 granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the unofficial respondents over the subject land. 17. In view of the same, it clearly shows that the petitioners failed to file any valid documents before the revenue authorities or before the competent Civil Court to prove that the subject land belongs to the Government and they are in possession of the same. 18. In view of the above circumstances, the contention of the petitioners cannot be taken into consideration for cancellation of the mutation proceedings granted in favour of the unofficial respondents. If the petitioners have any right over the subject property, then can file appropriate suit before the competent Civil Court for agitating their rights. 19. In view of the above finding, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders dated 27.04.2019 passed by the Respondent No.2/Joint Collector, Vikarabad in Revision case vide File No.D1/2900/2018. 20. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 21. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.