Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1523 (TS)

Mohd. Yousuf v. State of Telangana

2025-11-17

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER: K. SARATH, J. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned order dated 22.01.2021 in Case No.ST/D1/601/2021 (B/2955/201911/2021) rejecting the claim of the petitioners for correction of records pertaining to the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac:25.18 gts in Sy.Nos.61, 63, 64, 75 and 414 situated at Manmarri Village, Shahbad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal on merits by holding an enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Gulam Hyder, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government for Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri Keshav Hulsurkar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.8 to 20. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolute owners of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.18 gts in Sy.Nos.61, 63, 64, 75 and 414 situated at Manmarri Village, Shahbad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having succeeded the same from their father namely Mohd. Ali, who was the pattadar of the said lands and his name was reflected in the revenue records till his death on 25.12.1968. Thereafter, one Sikander Ali and others have got mutated their names in the revenue records in the year, 1970. Thereafter, on the representation filed by the petitioners, the respondent No.5 has conducted enquiry and issued proceedings ROR No.354/89 dated 18.09.1991 for correction of the revenue records and granted Fouthi Izafa in favour of the petitioners. As the said proceedings were not implemented, the petitioners have filed another petition, but the respondent No.5 has rejected the said petition vide Proceedings No.B/4029/97 dated 11.12.1997. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioners have filed appeal before the respondent No.4 and the same was dismissed by order dated 01.05.2014. Challenging the order dated 01.05.2014, the petitioners have preferred revision before the respondent No.3 under Section 9 of the ROR ACT , 1971 and the same was allowed in Case No.D5/3348/2006 dated 11.12.2006 by setting aside the order of the respondent No.4 directing the respondent No.5 to pass orders afresh by giving notice to all the parties. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the unofficial respondents claiming to be legal heirs of one Sikandar Ali and Mohd. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the unofficial respondents claiming to be legal heirs of one Sikandar Ali and Mohd. Omer have filed W.P.No.4614 of 2007 and the same was disposed of on 14.09.2018 directing the parties to produce relevant evidence before the respondent No.5 and thereafter, the petitioners have filed a petition before the respondent No.5 for correction of revenue records and to enter the names of the petitioners as successors of late Mohd. Ali by granting Fouthi Izafa and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in view of order in W.P.No.4614 of 2007 dated 14.09.2018. As per G.O.Ms.No.4 Revenue Department dated 12.01.2021, the Special Tribunal was constituted and the said petition filed by the petitioners was transmitted to the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal to conduct enquiry. Learned counsel further submits that the Special Tribunal without conducting enquiry and without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioners has dismissed the petition by the impugned order, which is illegal and arbitrary and requested to set aside the same. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the Special Tribunal after considering the entire material on record has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners for correction of records and there is no need to interfere with the impugned order by this Court and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents based on the counter submits that the petitioners are not residents of Manmarri Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The father of petitioners namely Mohd. Ali and his brothers were the owners of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.18 gts in Sy.Nos.61, 63, 64, 75 and 414 situated at Manmarri Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the name of the father of petitioners was recorded in the revenue records as he was eldest among his brothers and they sold their entire land to various persons including the fathers of the respondent Nos.9 to 20 and the husband of the respondent No.8 during their life time. The fathers of the respondent Nos.9 to 20 and the husband of the respondent No.8 have purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.12.18 gts in Sy.Nos.61, 63, 64 and 75 through registered sale deed document No.175/1970 and the said transaction was mutated in revenue records in the year 1976 vide File No.D1/1909/76 and since then the respondents are in possession of the said land by cultivating the same without any interruption. 7. Learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents further submits that as per the order of this Court in W.P.No.4614 of 2007 dated 14.09.2018, the respondent No.5 issued notice to all parties on 11.12.2019 by fixing the date of hearing on 28.12.2019 and the petitioners’ counsel has argued the matter and the respondents herein have filed counter, documents and also written arguments before the respondent No.5 on 15.02.2020 and later the matter was transferred to the Special Tribunal. He further submits that as the matter was already argued before the respondent No.5, the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal has passed the order after considering the material available on record and there is no need to interfere with by this Court and the writ petition is filed with false and baseless allegations to drag on the matter and there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 8. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that in the instant case, there is a chequered history with regard to the suit schedule property. The petitioners and the unofficial respondents have contested the matter before the respondent authorities with regard to the entries in the revenue records and mutation of the revenue records since long time and finally, this Court has passed orders in W.P.No.4614 of 2007 dated 14.09.2018 directing both the parties to appear before the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Shabad and produce evidence in support of their claim and the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Shabad shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In view of the same, the petitioners have filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Shabad Mandal, who in turn has issued notice to the petitioners as well as the respondents vide Notice No.B/2955/2019 dated 11.12.2019. Pending consideration, the said petition was transmitted to the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal in view of the ROR ACT , 2020. In view of the same, the petitioners have filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Shabad Mandal, who in turn has issued notice to the petitioners as well as the respondents vide Notice No.B/2955/2019 dated 11.12.2019. Pending consideration, the said petition was transmitted to the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal in view of the ROR ACT , 2020. The Special Tribunal, after transmission of the case, without issuing notice to the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents and only mentioning as basing on the record has disposed of the petition filed by the petitioners in Case No.ST/D1/601/2021 dated 22.01.2021 by upholding the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella in File No.C/5713/1997 dated 01.05.2004. 9. The main contention of the petitioners herein is that in the earlier round of litigation, after hearing both sides, this Court has specially directed the Tahsildar concerned/Mandal Revenue Officer, Shabad, to hear the parties personally and obtain the documents of the parties on either side and shall maintain transparency while dealing with the matter and also provide parties the required documents as per procedure if applied. In spite of the said direction, the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioners and without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners and also the documents filed by them, has passed the order impugned. Whereas the contention of the unofficial respondents is that they have filed counter and the counsel for the petitioners has argued before the respondent No.5 and the unofficial respondents have filed written arguments before the respondent No.5 and thereafter, the respondent No.2- Special Tribunal after considering the same has passed the impugned order. 10. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal, there is no consideration with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioners and also the submissions made by the unofficial respondents. Merely recording the direction of this Court in W.P.No.4614 of 2007 dated 14.09.2018 and also the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella in File No.C/5713/1997 dated 01.05.2004, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondent No.5-Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Shabad has to hear both the parties and consider the material on record as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.4614 of 2007 dated 14.09.2018 and pass a reasoned order. 11. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondent No.5-Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Shabad has to hear both the parties and consider the material on record as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.4614 of 2007 dated 14.09.2018 and pass a reasoned order. 11. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the order in Case No.ST/D1/601/2021 dated 22.01.2021 on the file of the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District and the matter is remanded back to the Tahsildar, Shabad Mandal, for fresh consideration by giving opportunity to the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents including personal hearing and pass appropriate orders as per law within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.4614 of 2007 dated 14.09.2018. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.