Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1526 (TS)

Battu Limbaiah v. State of Telangana

2025-11-17

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER : K. SARATH, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order dated 15.06.2021 in File No.D/ST/75/2021/Case No.D1/795/2018, passed by the respondent No.2/Special Tribunal, Jagtial, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Sub-Collector & Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Metpally, was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents. In spite of service of notice none appeared for the respondent Nos.5 and 6. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.155, and another extent of Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.156 of Korutla Villaeg and Revenue Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject lands’). Originally the said land belongs to one Thirumala Raja Goud, who had only one daughter by name Rajavva and she was married to one Battu Bhoomanna. The petitioner is the son of said Bhoomanna and Rajavva and after death of his parents the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same being the sole legal heir. While it being so, the petitioner came to know that the names of the fathers of unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been recorded as Pattadars and possessors of the subject lands from 1999- 2000 onwards. The families of unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 were never in possession and enjoyment of any piece of land and Tirumala Raja Goud, who was the original owner, nor the petitioner had sold any piece of land to the fathers of the respondent Nos.5 and 6. The official respondents have recorded the names of the unofficial respondents without any valid document or proceedings and without there being any physical possession. Challenging the said entries, the petitioner filed application before the respondent No.4, but he did not pass any orders. Questioning the inaction of the respondent No.4 the petitioner filed W.P.No.1273 of 2003 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent No.4 to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner. 4. Challenging the said entries, the petitioner filed application before the respondent No.4, but he did not pass any orders. Questioning the inaction of the respondent No.4 the petitioner filed W.P.No.1273 of 2003 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent No.4 to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitoner also filed appeal in Case No.B/10/2017 under Section 5 (5) of the ROR ACT for not being corrected the entries by the respondent No.4 and the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal on 11.05.2018 without verifying the documents and pahanies filed by the petitioner which shows the name of the grandfather of the petitioner the last 50 years in respect of the subject land. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the Appeal, the petitioner filed revision under Section 9 of the ROR ACT , 1971 before the respondent No.3 and later the same was transferred to the respondent No.2. The said revision was disposed of on 04.02.2021 without putting any notice to the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner filed a review pursuant to the directions of Division Bench of this Court dated 18.03.2021 in WP (PIL) No.20 of 2021. Thereafter the matter was taken up by the respondent No.2. When the matter was taken up for hearing by the respondent No.2 on 15.06.2021 the Counsel for the petitioner argued at length, but none appeared for the unofficial respondents. In spite of the same, the respondent No.2 dismissed the revision on 15.06.2021 with an observation that the revision petitioner has not filed any additional evidence in support of his contentions. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the name of the grandfather of petitioner was clearly shown in the pahanies till 1998-99 and 2000 and thereafter the names of the unofficial respondents have been recorded without reference to any lawful orders under the provisions of the ROR ACT . The appellate authority has mentioned in its order that there was validation in the year, 1996 in favour of the unofficial respondents vide File No.B/482/1996, but failed to furnish the so-called file. 6. The appellate authority has mentioned in its order that there was validation in the year, 1996 in favour of the unofficial respondents vide File No.B/482/1996, but failed to furnish the so-called file. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner obtained copy of Inward Register of the Tahsildar, Korutla, for the year 1996 under Right to Information Act and the Sl.No.482, pertaining to the Finance/Money Lending Licence Renewal, but not validation proceedings in favour of the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 and without there being any proceedings, the respondent authorities have recorded the names of the fathers of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 from the year 1999 onwards. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent No.2 dismissed the revision by way of a cryptic order without mentioning which additional material is required and without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has not considered the documents filed by the petitioner and passed impugned order and therefore requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 and also sought to direct the official respondents to record the name of the petitioner in respect of the subject land. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioner has challenged the entries recorded in the name of the unofficial respondents in respect of the subject lands before the respondent No.4. After due enquiry and on verification of the records the respondent No.4 has found the names of the fathers of the respondent No.5 and 6 in the records from 1999-2000 onwards and advised the petitioner to file appeal under the provisions of ROR before the Sub-Collector, Metpally and accordingly the petitioner has filed appeal under Section 5 (5) of the ROR ACT , 1971 in Case No. Rev-BORORA/10/2017-Revenue and the said appeal was dismissed on 11.05.2018. Being Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision before the Joint Collector, Jagtial under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 vide Case No.D1/795/2017. Subsequently the revision was transferred to the Special Tribunal/Respondent No.2 and after hearing both sides, the revision was dismissed by upholding the orders passed by the Sub-Collector, Metpally. 9. Being Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision before the Joint Collector, Jagtial under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 vide Case No.D1/795/2017. Subsequently the revision was transferred to the Special Tribunal/Respondent No.2 and after hearing both sides, the revision was dismissed by upholding the orders passed by the Sub-Collector, Metpally. 9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the names of the fathers of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 are existing in the records from 1999-2000 onwards by virtue of ROR Proceedings in File No.482/1996 of the respondent No.4 and the petitioner has opted to challenge the same after lapse of 15 years which is time barred one and the representation of the petitioner or his appeal is not supported by any petition for condoning such delay. Further, the petitioner has not filed any pahanies nor any additional evidence in support of his possession and on the other hand the respondent No.4 has observed that the subject land including the vacant land of Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.156 is in use for public purpose and dismissed the review petition on 15.06.2021. 10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that this Court passed interim orders in this Writ Petition on 29.07.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021, directing the respondent No.4 to produce the file bearing No.B/482/1996 by the next date of hearing. But the said file could not be traced even after thorough search in the office of the respondent No.4 and there are no merits in the writ petition 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 the grandfather of the petitioner namely Thirumala Raja Goud was the original owner and pattadar of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.155 and Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.156, situated at Korutla Village and Mandal. The contention of the petitioner is that, after death of grandfather of the petitioner and his parents, the petitioner came into possession of the subject land. While it being so, without any notice to the petitioner or his family Members the revenue authorities have mutated the names of the fathers of the respondent No.5 and 6 in respect of the subject land without there being any proceedings. While it being so, without any notice to the petitioner or his family Members the revenue authorities have mutated the names of the fathers of the respondent No.5 and 6 in respect of the subject land without there being any proceedings. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the Sub-Collector and the said appeal was dismissed on the ground that the grand father of the petitioner sold an extent of Ac.1.00 Guntas in Sy.No.156 and an extent of Ac.0.27 guntas in Sy.No.156 under a simple sale deed dated 06.08.1976 and the same was validated by the then Tahsildar, Korutla in File No.B/482/1996 and issued proceedings on 29.19.1996 and the names of fathers of the respondents Nos.5 and 6 were recorded and the said land was using for cattle shed of the villagers i.e. public purpose. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision before the respondent No.3/Joint Collector and the same was later transferred to the Special Tribunal/Respondent No.2 in the year, 2020. 12. The main contention of the petitioner is that the grandfather of the petitioner or his parents never sold the subject property to the fathers of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and there is no proceedings with regard to mutation of the records. The revenue authorities without following any procedure and without there being any proceedings mutated the names of the fathers of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the subject property from 1999 onwards, in spite the petitioner is in possession of the subject property since long time. The Revenue Divisional Officer without verifying the records and only basing on the report of the Tahsildar, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and it clearly shows that the Special Tribunal/respondent No.2 without taking account of the contentions raised by the petitioners, merely basing on the orders of the Sub-Collector, Metpally dismissed the revision. 13. During the course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court about Memo vide USR No.111889 dated 10.10.2025 filed by the petitioner and along with the said Memo the petitioner filed copy of Inward Register of the year 1996 of the Tahsildar, Korutla, which was obtained under RTI Act and it clearly shows that Sl.No.482, pertaining to renewal of a Finance/Money lending licence, but not pertaining to the validation proceedings. At Para No.7 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 it is stated that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court on 29.07.2021 in the instant writ petition, they searched for the ROR file No.482/1996 but could not be traced even after through search in the office of the respondent No.4. It clearly shows that the respondent authorities have failed to produce the ROR Proceedings No.B/482/1996, through which the simple sale deed 06.08.1976 in respect of the subject land was validated. 14. As per the documents furnished by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner under RTI Act, Sl.No.482 pertains to renewal of Finance/Money lending license, but not validations proceedings in respect of the subject land. It clearly shows that, the then Tahsildar mutated the revenue records without any proceedings and in view of the same the question of delay in challenging the ROR proceedings in File No.482/199 does not arise as held by this Court in Gunda Saralamma (died) per LRs Vs. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC Online TS 940. 15. The respondent No.4 without following valid procedure and without there being any proceedings, mutated the names of the fathers of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the subject property. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, without verifying the records and without considering the submissions made by the petitioner, dismissed the appeal as well as the revision. In view of the same, the impugned orders passed by the respondents authorities are liable to be set aside. 16. In view of the above finding, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 in File No.D/ST/75/2021/Case No.D1/ST/75/2018, dated 15.06.2021 and the orders passed by the respondent No.3 in Rev.BORORA/10/2017- Revenue, dated 11.05.2018 and also entries in the Revenue records in favour of the unofficial respondents pertaining to the suit schedule property by directing the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, to conduct fresh enquiry in respect of the subject property i.e. agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.155, and another extent of Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.156 of Korutla Village and Revenue Mandal, by issuing notices to the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents and after considering the documents, including the personal hearing and pass appropriate orders as per the Telangana Bhu Bharathi (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025. Till conclusion of the said enquiry, both parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession existing as on today. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also closed.