Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1230 (TS)

Akula Pullaiah v. State of Telangana

2025-10-15

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : E.V.VENUGOPAL, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to set aside the Rc.No.A3/2332/2014, dated 09.05.2022 issued by respondent No.5 and quash the claim of the respondents stating that the subject lands are Government lands in the interest of justice or pass any appropriate order …” 2. Heard Sri G.Rama Chander Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and with their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the pattadar and possessor of the agricultural land situated in Sy.No.67/5 of Khanapur Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner is in actual possession of the land to an extent of Acs.4.03 guntas and the unaccounted area is located adjacent to the accounted area for which the petitioner’s name is recorded as pattadar and possessor. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, submitted a report vide No.B/1553/1985, dated 02.12.1991 stating that during preparation of sub-division records in respect of the Government land situated in Sy.No.43 of Khanapur Village, it was observed that the land to an extent of Acs.11.25 guntas in Sy.No.43 is gap area and not accounted for in any of the revenue records and he requested the District Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District to include Acs.11.25 guntas in Government land and issue supplementary Sethwar by assigning new survey number. Then, he verified the technical records of Khanapur village, which is adjacent to Ibrahimpatnam and Nomula villages, got a combined sketch prepared and noticed that an extent of Acs.57.01 gts is available, which was not accounted for in the village records. He therefore initiated proceedings under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short “the Act) for inclusion of the gap area in the village boundary of Khanapur village, Manchal Mandal. After initiating the proceedings under Section 90 of the Act, notices were issued calling for objections from the villagers of Khanapur and Ibrahimpatnam Village. After initiating the proceedings under Section 90 of the Act, notices were issued calling for objections from the villagers of Khanapur and Ibrahimpatnam Village. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that some of the villagers filed objections stating that the excess area is wrongly demarcated and that it is their patta land and sought a resurvey. Then, the District Revenue Officer passed an order vide proceedings No.G7/3302/89 stating that, though on 17.09.1956, the Additional Collector, Hyderabad in judgment No.207 gave directions to the Tahsil Office to send the detailed proposals to the L.R. Assistant of Collector (Assistant Director and S & LR) after duly examining the correctness of the records, if necessary, to issue supplementary sethwar, it was not done; that the Inspector of Survey Department surveyed the land and had drawn a detailed map duly fixing the boundaries of the land in Sy.No.46; and the rights of the objector are in no way affected in deciding the present issue and the documents filed by him are not relevant. He opined that the survey report and the records reveal that an extent of Acs.57.00 of land is unaccounted in the Revenue records of Khanapur village and therefore, he directed the Assistant Director (S&LR), Ranga Reddy District to include this extent of land in Khanapur village by granting lost survey numbers in the Settlement Records treating it as Government land. 4. Challenging the same, one Hari Krishna Reddy filed appeal under Section 158 of the Act which was numbered as C.C.L.A.No.P5/485/1996 and after considering the material, the said appeal was dismissed stating that the said Hari Krishna Reddy did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his contention that Acs.17.00 guntas of land claimed by him belongs to himself and also rejected the claim of the unofficial respondent in the appeal. Assailing the same, Hari Krishna Reddy filed W.P.No.12828 of 2003 and one M.Radha Krishna Rao, who is respondent No.5 in the appeal, filed W.P.No.15987 of 2003. This Court, vide common order, dated 19.01.2017, while allowing both the writ petitions, observed as under:- “24. Assailing the same, Hari Krishna Reddy filed W.P.No.12828 of 2003 and one M.Radha Krishna Rao, who is respondent No.5 in the appeal, filed W.P.No.15987 of 2003. This Court, vide common order, dated 19.01.2017, while allowing both the writ petitions, observed as under:- “24. Therefore to the extent that the 2nd respondent had declared that the land claimed by petitioners is Government land, and that the petitioners have no title to the said land, and to the extent that this finding has been confirmed by the 1st respondent, the order passed by the 1st respondent on 19-02- 2003 cannot be set sustained. Therefore, only to this extent, the order is set aside. The question of title to the unaccounted for land, which was subject matter of the proceedings before the 2nd respondent even after its inclusion in Khanapur village, it is left open to be adjudicated in the proper forum at the instance of either of the parties. 25. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the right, title or interest of either the petitioners or the State of Telangana in regard thereto. 26. The Writ Petitions are allowed as above. No costs.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that while disposing of the said writ petitions, this Court observed that the matter pertaining to the un-accounted lands is to be adjudicated by proper forum and it is open for the parties to initiate proceedings before appropriate forum. Therefore, the petitioner, along with the petitioners in the above writ petitions, has made representations before respondent No.2 and acting on the said representations, respondent No.2 vide his letter in File No.E4/2464/2017, dated 06.07.2017 directed respondent No.4 to implement the Zamia Sethwar and sought to file report in that matter. In spite of receipt of the said letter, respondent No.4 failed to file any report. On the request made by them, respondent No.2 again directed respondent No.4 to file a detailed report vide Letter No.A4/2332/2014, dated 15.12.2017. Therefore, the petitioner and another filed W.P.No.15241 of 2019 seeking a direction to respondent No.4 to submit a detailed report. In spite of receipt of the said letter, respondent No.4 failed to file any report. On the request made by them, respondent No.2 again directed respondent No.4 to file a detailed report vide Letter No.A4/2332/2014, dated 15.12.2017. Therefore, the petitioner and another filed W.P.No.15241 of 2019 seeking a direction to respondent No.4 to submit a detailed report. By an order, dated 27.10.2021, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Tahsildar to submit a detailed report as directed by the District Collector vide his letters, dated 06.07.2017 and 15.12.2017, if not already filed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. When the Tahsildar did not comply with the said order, C.C.No.125 of 2022 has been filed, wherein respondent No.5 herein filed a counter stating that the gap area lands admeasuring Acs.56.22 guntas is demarcated as Government lands and Sy.Nos.80, 81, 82 and 83 are given as new survey numbers and are incorporated in Khanaput village to an extent of Acs.3.32 guntas in Sy.No.80; Acs.13.04 guntas in Sy.No.81; Acs.7.24 guntas in Sy.No.82 and Acs.32.02 guntas in Sy.No.83 vide proceedings in Rc.No.A3/2332/2014, dated 09.05.2022 in File No.A1/1658/96. Challenging the said proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed contending that even though this Court in its common order, dated 19.01.2017 passed in W.P.Nos.12828 and 15987 of 2013 had clearly observed that the gap area lands are not Government lands and the District Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the title to the property and the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, which was confirmed by the appellate authority, was set aside but respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein without having regard to the said order have declared that the gap area lands are Government lands and incorporated the said lands as Government lands in Khanapur Village, only with an intention to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents would submit that, as per the common order passed by this Court, the petitioner has got every opportunity to raise his contention before the civil Court by filing appropriate application and the petitioner also filed suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.151 of 2024 and the same is pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam. Therefore, he would submit that parallel proceedings cannot be conducted while the matter has been ceased before the civil Court seeking indulgence of this Court and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. In reply to the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it has come to the knowledge of ceasing of the matter before the civil suit the present writ petition has been filed. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and after perusing the material placed, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has already initiated the civil Court proceedings and precisely, after lapse of seven years whether the said suit falls within the limitation or not it is for the civil Court to decide the same on merits and when the matter is ceased before the civil Court, this Court cannot decide the questions of fact in this writ petition and hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 10. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.