Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 381 (TS)

Bolla Yugandhar v. State of Telangana

2025-04-22

B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

body2025
ORDER : (B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2 - District Collector, Mulugu District (erstwhile Warangal), as being violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (for short ‘Act 2020’); and for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to issue pattadar passbook to him in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.4-11 guntas in Survey No.3299 and Acs.0-22 guntas in Survey No.3299/1 situated at Ramachandrapur Village, Mulugu Mandal and District, pursuant to the Order No.F/541/2013 dated 30.05.2013 passed by respondent No.3 - Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu, and the order in Proceeding No.B/1082/018 dated 01.09.2018 passed by respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Mulugu District. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as under: (a) The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.4-33 guntas in Survey Nos.3299 and 3299/1 situated at Ramachandrapur Village, Mulugu Mandal and District, having inherited the same from his father Mr. Laxmaiah. The petitioner had been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land since 1992. (b) That one Umer Khan was predecessor-in-title and pattadar of the subject land. While so, the then Tahsildar of Mulugu Mandal who was hand in glove with the third parties mutated the name of Mr. Dodda Santhosh Kumar (who is impleaded as respondent No.5) in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.4-11 guntas in Survey No.3299 and also the name of Mr. Madoori Thirupathi (who is impleaded as respondent No.6) in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.0-22 guntas in Survey No.3299/1 and they were issued pattadar pass books based on the enjoyment list prepared by the Mandal Inspector Mr. Polu Dasari Ramesh. On coming to know about illegal entries made in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6, the petitioner and his parents approached the then Tahsildar and made several representations. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 referred the matter to respondent No.3 who in turn has taken up suo moto appeal under Section 5-B of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘Act 1971’) and issued proceedings No.F/541/2013 dated 30.05.2013. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 referred the matter to respondent No.3 who in turn has taken up suo moto appeal under Section 5-B of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘Act 1971’) and issued proceedings No.F/541/2013 dated 30.05.2013. (c) It is stated that in the appeal, respondent No.3, having conducted detailed enquiry in the matter, based on ‘Field Enquiry Report’ conducted by the then Tahsildar and based on the statements of adjoining pattadars, recorded a finding that respondent Nos.5 and 6 got their names illegally entered in respect of the subject land, directed respondent No.4 to delete the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 from the revenue records and also to cancel the pattadar pass books issued in their favour in respect of the subject land. Further, a direction was given to respondent No.4 to issue pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioner who is in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject land. (d) It is stated that upon representations made by the petitioner to respondent No.4, field enquiry was got conducted through the Village Revenue Officer (VRO), Ramachandrapur, as to the actual possession of the petitioner. Accordingly, the VRO, Ramachandrapur, submitted the report dated 31.07.2018. Thereafter, respondent No.4 passed order dated 01.09.2018 in Proceedings No.B.1082/018 directing necessary corrections to be made in the revenue records/entries by issuing notice to all concerned. (e) It is stated that the petitioner had been pursuing the matter with respondent Nos.2 to 4 for correction of revenue records and issuance of pattadar pass books; however, for the reasons best known to them, no steps have been taken for rectifying the names in the revenue records and for issuing pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was compelled to file W.P. No.24407 of 2021 seeking for a direction to the authorities to correct the entries in respect of the subject land pursuant to the order dated 30.05.2013 in Proceedings No.F/541/2013 passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 01.09.2018 in Proceedings No.B/1082/018 passed by respondent No.4. In the said writ petition, this Court passed the order dated 04.10.2021 directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 03.08.2021 and pass necessary orders thereon in accordance with law, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. In the said writ petition, this Court passed the order dated 04.10.2021 directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 03.08.2021 and pass necessary orders thereon in accordance with law, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. (f) It is submitted that subsequent to the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner made representation to respondent No.2, in Dharani Portal, requesting to consider his case in terms of the order dated 30.05.2013 passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by respondent No.4 for issuance of pattadar pass book in respect of the subject land. It is submitted that respondent No.2, instead of exercising power conferred on him under the Act 2020 which is enacted in the place of the Act 1971, called for reports from respondent Nos.3 and 4 who in turn submitted separate reports dated 22.11.2021 to respondent No.2. It is contended that in both the reports submitted by respondent Nos.3 and 4, possession of the petitioner was acknowledged and it was stated that the petitioner is cultivating the subject land. However, the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 was passed by respondent No.2 on the basis of the report of respondent Nos.3 and 4 dated 24.02.2022. 3. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed the counter affidavit stating as under: (a) The petitioner is not the owner of the subject property as alleged in the writ affidavit. The petitioner, on one hand, says that the subject land was inherited by him from his father and, on the other, he purchased the same from one Umer Khan. Respondent No.4 conducted enquiry in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No.410 dated 12.05.1994 and issued pass books and title deeds in the month of January, 2010 in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and since then, they had been in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands. (b) It is stated that originally, one G.M. Umer Khan was pattadar of the land in Survey Nos.3299 and 3299/1 (new), corresponding to old Survey No.639/1, admeasuring Acs.82-00 guntas of land. Survey No.639/1 was sub-divided into various survey numbers including Survey Nos.3299 and 3299/1. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 purchased the land to an extent of Acs.12-00 guntas situated at Ramachandrapur Village, Mulugu Mandal and District, from Mr. Survey No.639/1 was sub-divided into various survey numbers including Survey Nos.3299 and 3299/1. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 purchased the land to an extent of Acs.12-00 guntas situated at Ramachandrapur Village, Mulugu Mandal and District, from Mr. G.M. Umer Khan, but the name of respondent No.6 alone was shown in possession column in the pahani for the year 2008-2009. Respondent No.6 sold an extent of Acs.4-20 guntas, out of Acs.12-00 guntas, in Survey No.639/1 under sada binama dated 10.07.2009 in favour of respondent No.5. Since then, respondent No.5 is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Respondent No.4, based on enjoyment list, issued pattadar passbooks to the persons who are in occupation of the lands in Survey No.639/1 (old) and Survey Nos.3299 and 3299/1 (new) including respondent Nos.5 and 6. The petitioner and his family members are in possession and occupation of Acs.19-38 guntas of land in various sub-divisions of Survey No.639/1 situated at Ramachandrapur Village. The petitioner and his family members are entitled only to an extent of Acs.8-29 guntas as per the enjoyment list prepared by the revenue officials under G.O.Ms.No.410 dated 12.05.1994. In order to grab the land of respondent Nos.5 and 6, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. (c) It is submitted that respondent No.4 has no authority to file appeal before respondent No.3 under Section 5-B of the Act 1971 against the orders relating to issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent No.3 does not have power to entertain appeal under Section 5-B of the Act 1971. The appeal under Section 5-B of the Act 1971 can be filed only against the orders passed under Section 5-A of the Act 1971 and the order dated 30.05.2023 passed by respondent No.3 is unsustainable under law. (d) It is submitted that the petitioner made an application in Form No.10 under Rule 22 (2) of the Act 1971 to regularise the land allegedly purchased by him from respondent Nos.5 and 6 in terms of Section 5-A of the Act 1971. The pahani dated 22.04.2013 issued by the Respondent No.4 discloses that respondent No.5 is in possession of the land admeasuring Acs.4-11 guntas in Survey No.3299. Thus, respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner and advised the petitioner to approach the civil court for redressal of his claim. The pahani dated 22.04.2013 issued by the Respondent No.4 discloses that respondent No.5 is in possession of the land admeasuring Acs.4-11 guntas in Survey No.3299. Thus, respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner and advised the petitioner to approach the civil court for redressal of his claim. (e) It is submitted that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject land. Respondent No.4 submitted a wrong report stating that the petitioner is in possession of the subject land. Respondent No.2 conducted enquiry pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P. No.24407 of 2021 and the order dated 03.03.2022 was passed directing the parties to approach the competent civil court. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were issued pattadar pass books based on their enjoyment and as per the list prepared by the revenue officials. Dharani Portal also discloses that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. The petitioner has not filed any material evidencing his ownership and possession over the subject land. The petitioner is relying upon the alleged agreement dated 04.05.2011, to which respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not parties or subscribed their signatures. The said document cannot form basis to claim ownership over the subject land. The petitioner is trying to rely upon the statement of one Mrs. Kanakam Bharathamma, wife of Mr. Laxmi Narsu. The said statement is concocted one. On enquiry with the said person, she has informed that she has not given statement to the effect that the land in Survey No.3299 admeasuring Acs.5-20 guntas belongs to Bolla Laxmaiah and the petitioner is in possession of the said land. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard Mr. S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, and perused the material on record. 5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2, having recorded that the petitioner is in physical possession of the subject land as per the report dated 24.02.2022 of respondent No.4, however, by noting that names of some other persons are recorded as pattadars, passed the impugned order. It is submitted that the question of issuing pattadar pass books to respondent Nos.5 and 6 does not arise when they are admittedly not in possession of the subject land. It is submitted that the question of issuing pattadar pass books to respondent Nos.5 and 6 does not arise when they are admittedly not in possession of the subject land. 5.2. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the earlier order dated 30.05.2013 passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by respondent No.4, and contrary to the order dated 04.10.2021 in W.P. No.24407 of 2021. 6. Mr. A. Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, submitted that there are serious disputed questions of title, as such, the parties may be relegated to the Civil Court. The claim of the petitioner is self-contradictory. On one hand, the petitioner is contending that the subject lands were inherited from his father Mr. Laxmaiah, and on the other hand, it is claimed that he has purchased the same from the previous owner Mr. Umer Khan. The order dated 30.05.2013 passed by the respondent No.3 in exercise of the appellate power under Section 5-B of the Act 1971 is illegal and void. Respondent No.3 does not have any suo moto power to entertain any appeal under the provisions of the Act 1971. Surprisingly, respondent No.4 has referred the complaint to respondent No.3 for correction of revenue records and the same was treated as appeal by respondent No.3 under Section 5-B of the Act 1971 which has got no application whatsoever regarding mutation of record of rights. Section 5-B of the Act 1971 deals with appeal preferred challenging the order passed under Section 5-A of the Act 1971. 7. It appears from the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 of respondent No.2 that he has relied upon the report of respondent Nos.3 and 4 dated 24.02.2022. It is pertinent to note here that date of the report of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is noted as ‘24.02.2022’ in the reference column of the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 of respondent No.2, but the date of Exs.P-2 and P-3 individual reports filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 is ‘22.11.2021’. However, it is immaterial whether the date of the report of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is “22.11.2021 or 24.02.2022” for the reason that in the impugned order dated 03.03.2022, respondent No.2 has categorically recorded that as per the report of the Tahsildar (respondent No.4), the petitioner is in physical possession of the subject land. 8. However, it is immaterial whether the date of the report of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is “22.11.2021 or 24.02.2022” for the reason that in the impugned order dated 03.03.2022, respondent No.2 has categorically recorded that as per the report of the Tahsildar (respondent No.4), the petitioner is in physical possession of the subject land. 8. In paragraph No.1 of Page No.2 of the impugned order, respondent No.2 recorded the following findings as per the report of respondent No.4: “Further, the Tahsildar reported that, at present Sri Bolla Yugender, S/o. Laxmaiah is physical possession over the subject lands but some of the extent was cultivating and some of the extent has been kept padava. Moreover, a dispute is pending among the applicant and Sri Dodda Santhosh Kumar, S/o. Shekaraiah & Sri Maduri Thirupathi, S/o. Venkataiah for ownership title and advised the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to settle his land issue. Due to above reason, the Tahsildar, Mulugu has recommended for rejection in Dharani portal for issue of ePPB in favour of applicant by name Bolla Yugender, S/o. Laxmaiah under Court cases Intimation category. In the reference 5 th read above, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu after verifying the report together with its enclosures furnished by the Tahsildar, Mulugu and reported that, there is a land dispute among the applicant and others on the Sy.No.3299 to an extent Ac.4.11 gts and Sy.No.3299/1 to an extent of Ac.0.22 gts and also informed that as per the Hon’ble High Court orders respondent No.2 i.e. the District Collector, Mulugu consider the representation made by the petitioner and issue orders in accordance with law preferably within a period of eight weeks. Due to said mentioned reasons and as per the Tahsildar report, the issuing of PPB under court case intimation category, the Grievance application Nos. RC2100004226 and RC 2100004230 for Sy. No.3299 to an extent of Ac.4.11 gts and sy.No.3299/1 to an extent of Ac.0.22 gts of lands situated at Ramachandrapuram village of Mulugu Mandal recommended for rejection in Dharani Portal. In view of the above said reasons and as per the Tahsildar report it is observed that the petitioner is in physical possession of the said land and on verification of the revenue records the other names are recorded as pattedars. In view of the above said reasons and as per the Tahsildar report it is observed that the petitioner is in physical possession of the said land and on verification of the revenue records the other names are recorded as pattedars. As per the new ROR Act, the authority has no right to cancel the pattedar pass books/rectification of names entered in records in favour of others at present. Hence, the petitioner is advised to approach the competent court for redressal of his claim to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the applications of the applicant’s are hereby rejected.” 9. Having categorically noted that as per the report of respondent No.4, the petitioner is in physical possession of the subject land, respondent No.2 held that the authority does not have right to cancel pattadar passbook or rectify the names entered in favour of others. In the opinion of the Court, respondent No.2 being the head of the Revenue Administration of the District has dealt the matter in a casual manner. Appropriate steps that could have been taken by respondent No.2 was either to suo moto implead respondent Nos.5 and 6 or direct the petitioner to implead them. It was incumbent upon respondent No.2 to find out how names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were entered in the revenue records and how pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to them. 10. Respondent Nos.5 and 6, who were not parties before respondent No.2 were brought on record in this writ petition by the order dated 03.08.2022 in I.A. No.2 of 2022. 11. Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, submitted that pattadar pass books issued to respondent Nos.5 and 6 remained unchallenged and now due to passage of time from the order of respondent No.2 dated 03.03.2022, it would be just and necessary to direct the parties to prove their title and possession over the subject land before the competent Civil Court. 12. The case of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is that they have purchased Acs.12.00 of land from the pattadar Mr. Umer Khan, but name of respondent No.6 alone was shown in possession column in the pahani of 2009-10. Respondent No.6 sold an extent of Acs.4-20 guntas out of Acs.12-00 in Survey No.639/1 under the sada binama dated 10.07.2009 in favour of respondent No.5. Umer Khan, but name of respondent No.6 alone was shown in possession column in the pahani of 2009-10. Respondent No.6 sold an extent of Acs.4-20 guntas out of Acs.12-00 in Survey No.639/1 under the sada binama dated 10.07.2009 in favour of respondent No.5. That basing on the enjoyment list, respondent No.4 issued pattadar pass book to the persons who are in possession of the land in Survey Nos.631/9 (old), 3299 and 3299/1 (new) including respondent Nos.5 and 6. Further, the petitioner and his family members are in possession and occupation of Acs.19-38 guntas of land as per the enjoyment list prepared by the revenue officials in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.410 dated 12.05.1994. Nowhere in the counter affidavit or during the submissions, it was stated by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, as to how pattadar pass books were issued to respondent Nos.5 and 6. On a specific query by this Court, whether there are mutation proceedings in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6, learned counsel expressed his ignorance. Thus, it has to be assumed that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been issued pattadar pass books without any mutation proceedings and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act 1971. Even according to respondent Nos.5 and 6, they have purchased the subject land under sada binama. Their counter affidavit is not clear as to whether respondent No.5 has purchased an extent of Acs.12-00 of land from Mr. Umer Khan under the registered document. It is stated that respondent No.6 has sold an extent of Acs.4-20 guntas out of Acs.12-00 guntas in Survey No.639/1 under the sada binama dated 10.07.2009 to respondent No.5. 13. Under Rule 26(6) of the ROR Rules 1989, pattadar pass book shall be issued only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land. 14. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not properly advised by his counsel before the revenue forum. 13. Under Rule 26(6) of the ROR Rules 1989, pattadar pass book shall be issued only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land. 14. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not properly advised by his counsel before the revenue forum. Instead of challenging the pattadar pass books / mutation, as the case may be, issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6, either before respondent No.3 by way of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act 1971 or before the Joint Collector by way of revision under Section 9 of the Act 1971, they approached respondent No.4 for correction of revenue records and he referred the same to respondent No.3 who has suo moto taken up the same as an appeal under Section 5-B of the Act in File No.F/541/2013. 15. It is no doubt true that Section 5-B of the Act 1971 was wrongly invoked by respondent No.3. Not only because he does not have suo moto power, but also because appeal could not have been entertained on the complaint / representation made by respondent No.4. It needs no emphasis that the petitioner ought to have approached proper forum by preferring appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act 1971 as stated supra. 16. For the mistake committed by respondent No.3 in exercising suo moto power under Section 5-B of the Act 1971 and apparently improper legal advice given to the petitioner, he cannot be made to suffer. 17. As correct advice was not given to the petitioner before the revenue forum, it resulted in complicating the case of the petitioner. Had respondent Nos.5 and 6 not been parties to this writ petition, this Court would not have had any other alternative except to remand the case granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings; however, it may be noted that after the Act 2020 came into force, Act 1971 stood repealed and the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) and revision under Section 9 of the Act 1971 are no more available. Similar appeal and revision remedy are not available under the Act 2020 and the impugned order or any other passed by respondent No.2 or 3 and 4 would be amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. Similar appeal and revision remedy are not available under the Act 2020 and the impugned order or any other passed by respondent No.2 or 3 and 4 would be amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. Respondent No.2 failed to consider and verify as to how names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were entered as pattadars and pattadar pass books were issued to them. Pattadar Pass Books / Title Deeds will be issued pursuant to mutation or succession proceedings, as the case may be. Respondent No.2 lost sight of the fact that there were no mutation proceedings produced or relied upon by respondent Nos.5 and 6, without which the pattadar pass books issued to them have to be treated as null and void. Surprisingly, respondent No.2 held in the impugned order that it does not have power to cancel pattadar pass books and direct rectification of names entered in the records. The cancellation of pattadar pass books / rectification of records would depend on the manner by which pass books are issued and entries in revenue records are made. The issuance of pattadar pass books is consequential to mutation proceedings, as stated above. So, when mutation proceedings / entries in revenue records are not backed by any valid proceedings, the pattadar pass books and revenue entries have to be ignored as being void. 19. In view of the same, though the petitioner has not challenged pattadar pass books issued to respondent Nos.5 and 6, this Court has no hesitation to hold that such pattadar pass books are void as they are not preceded by any mutation proceedings. The pattadar pass books issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the subject lands have to be treated as non est in the eye of law. 20. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2. The pattadar pass books issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the subject lands have to be treated as non est in the eye of law. 20. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2. As it is informed that the Government has enacted The Telangana Bhu Bharathi (Record of Rights in Land) Act 2025 (Act No.1 of 2025) and the Rules made thereunder, the petitioner is directed to submit appropriate application before the authorities concerned for mutation of revenue records and to record him as pattadar and possessor in respect of the subject land admeasuring Acs.4-33 guntas in Survey Nos.3299 and 3299/1 situated at Ramachandrapur Village, Mulugu Mandal and District, and for issuance of pattadar pass book / title deed. On such application being filed, appropriate action shall be taken by respondent No.2 in accordance with law by issuing notice to the petitioner, respondent Nos.5 and 6 and other interested persons, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of such application without reference to the impugned proceedings and the earlier proceedings. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.