Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 496 (TS)

Soma Narayana v. Prl. Secy. , Rev. Dept.

2025-04-30

K.SARATH

body2025
JUDGMENT : K.SARATH This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.E/231/2016 (RC.No.D1/2254/2015) dated 24.10.2017 in setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.A/200/2013 dated 25.01.2014 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Smt R. Madhavilata, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 7. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-10 gts in Sy.No.84/38 situated at Vallemkunta Village Shivar, Malhar Rao Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District, was assigned to the petitioner through final patta certificate No.A3/509/1980 date -11-1980 and since then, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of same by cultivating it. When the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were interfered with his possession and enjoyment, the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.49 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, for perpetual injunction and the same was decreed ex parte on 07.09.2010. He submits that the respondent No.4 has issued 1-B proceedings and also entered his name in the revenue records from the year, 1980 and the same was continued till date and his name was shown in the pattadar and possessor column in the pahanies of the year 1980-81 and 2014-15. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 by playing fraud got entered the name of the respondent No.7 in the pahanies of the year, 2014-15 as if he is the pattadar of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.84/66 and illegally interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the subject land. The petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3 in File No.A/200/2013 and the same was allowed on 25.01.2014 and cancelled the pattadar passbooks and patta certificate issued in favour of the respondent No.7. The petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3 in File No.A/200/2013 and the same was allowed on 25.01.2014 and cancelled the pattadar passbooks and patta certificate issued in favour of the respondent No.7. Against the said order, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 have preferred a revision before the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2, without considering the material on record and purport of the order passed by the respondent No.3, allowed the revision in Rc.No.E/231/2016 (RC No.D1/2254/2015) dated 24.10.2017 by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 and cancelled the patta issued in favour of the petitioner for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-10 gts in Sy.No.84/38 situated at Vallamkunta Village and directed the respondent No.4 to seize the pattadar passbook and title deed from the petitioner and delete his name in the revenue records, which is illegal and arbitrary and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7 based on the counter submits that the petitioner has failed to produce the original patta of assignment before the respondent No.2 and without any right and title, mere entries in the revenue records does not confer any right to the petitioner. As per the report dated 29.06.2017 submitted by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, the respondent No.7 is in possession of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.30 gts in Sy.No.84/66 and as per the survey and panchanama, the petitioner is not in possession of the property and there is no need to interfere with the order of the respondent No.2. She further submits that in the impugned order, the respondent No.2 observed that the land in Sy.No.84 is Government land as per the Sethwar and it was assigned long back to the landless poor and as per the report of the Tahsildar dated 27.02.2017, there is no record in which year the alleged assignment was made in favour of the petitioner and in fact, he has not produced any record or documents held by him in support of his claim. Whereas the respondent No.7 has granted agricultural patta vide proceedings Lr.No.B/12/2006 dated 07.02.2007 for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.30 gts in Sy.No.84/66 situated at Vellamkunta Village and the pahanies for the year 2017-18 and the ROR stands on her name and she was holding pattadar passbooks and title deeds and as such, after considering all the relevant documentary evidence, the respondent No.2 allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the respondent No.3 dated 25.01.2014. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7 further submits that the name of the respondent No.7 was entered in the year, 2007 basing on the patta certificate No.B/12/2006 dated 07.02.2007 and the appeal was filed by the respondent No.3 in the year, 2013 i.e, after delay of 6 years. She submits that against the order passed by the Tahsildar, appeal has to be preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer within 60 days from the date of the order. She further submits that as the petitioner failed to establish his alleged patta and possession of land in Sy.No.84/66, there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the land in Sy.No.84 situated Vallemkunta Village Shivar, Malhar Rao Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District, belongs to the Government and the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.105-12 gts was assigned to the landless poor long back as per the sethwar, survey and land records. The petitioner and the contesting respondent No.7 are claiming the lands assigned to them admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-10 gts in S.No.84/38 and Ac.1.30 gts in S.No.84/66 respectively. The contention of the petitioner is that the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-10 gts in Sy.No.84/38 situated at Vallemkunta Village Shivar, Malhar Rao Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District was assigned in favour of the petitioner vide patta certificate No.A3/509/1980 and pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued in his favour by the respondent No.4. Whereas the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.84/66 situated at Vellamkunta Village was assigned to the respondent No.7 vide proceedings Lr.No.B/12/2006 dated 07.02.2007. 8. Whereas the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.84/66 situated at Vellamkunta Village was assigned to the respondent No.7 vide proceedings Lr.No.B/12/2006 dated 07.02.2007. 8. The petitioner has filed ROR appeal before the respondent No.3 for granting assignment patta in favour of the unofficial respondents and as they are interfering with the possession of the property of the petitioner claiming through assignment patta granted in favour of the respondent No.7 on 07.02.2007. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, the respondent No.3 has allowed the ROR appeal in File No.A/200/2013 dated 25.01.2014 by setting aside the patta certificate and also ROR passbooks issued in favour of the respondent No.7 on the ground that the name of the petitioner was reflected in the assignment records and the concerned pahanies since 1980-81 as on that date and the name of the respondent No.7 was not reflected in the said records besides that the concerned Tahsildar has filed a report after making inspection that excess pattas for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.00 gts were issued during the period of the year 2007-08 without verifying the records and without delivering the possession. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 have filed ROR revision before the respondent No.2. 9. The respondent No.2, basing on the subsequent Tahsildar’s report, has stated that there is no record in the office showing in which year the land assignment was made in favour of the petitoner herein and also the petitoner has failed to produce the assignment patta and set aside the proceedings of the respondent No.3 dated 25.01.2014 and also cancelled the mutation proceedings and title deeds in favour of the petitioner for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-10 gts in Sy.No.84/38 of Vallemkunta Village and directed to seize the pattadar pass book and title deed from the petitioner. The respondent No.2 while disposing the revision petition has obtained the survey report from the A.D. S & LR, Jayashankar Bhupalpally. At the time of conducting survey by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land records, whether any notice was sent to the petitoner or not clear and no where it was mentioned. The respondent No.2 while disposing the revision petition has obtained the survey report from the A.D. S & LR, Jayashankar Bhupalpally. At the time of conducting survey by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land records, whether any notice was sent to the petitoner or not clear and no where it was mentioned. Moreover, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are claiming the land to an extent of Ac.1-30 gts and the respondent No.2 has stated in the impugned proceedings in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.10 gts, the patta of the petitioner was cancelled and directed to seize the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. 10. The respondent No.2 has failed to take into account the pahanies since 1980-81 as stated in the order passed by the respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order without taking into account of the records and merely basing on the report of the Tahsildar, as the assignment proceedings were not available and also the petitioner failed to produce the assignment patta certificate. The respondent No.2, basing on mere assumptions and presumptions and without taking into the available record as in the pahanies pertaining to 1980-81 onwards, where the name of the petitoner was reflected in the pahanies and without verifying the concerned records and merely basing on the report of the Tahsildar, cannot cancel the mutation proceedings and also the pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioner which were not the subject matter in the revision petition. In view of the same, the matter has to be reconsidered by the revisional authority by giving opportunity to the petitoner as well as the unofficial respondents if necessary they have to conduct survey in the presence of both sides. The respondent No.2 failed to consider that the petitoner has obtained orders from the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.49 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Manthani on 07.09.2010. In view of the same, this is a fit case to remand the matter to the revisional authority. 11. The contention of the unofficial respondent is that the petitoner after 6 years of mutation proceedings filed appeal before the respondent No.3 and the same is not maintainable on the ground of delay. In view of the same, this is a fit case to remand the matter to the revisional authority. 11. The contention of the unofficial respondent is that the petitoner after 6 years of mutation proceedings filed appeal before the respondent No.3 and the same is not maintainable on the ground of delay. In fact, the Tahsildar without following due procedure and without issuing notices to the effected parties granted mutation in favour of the respondent No.7 and the date of knowledge of the orders has to be taken into account and as such the contention of the unofficial respondent on delay cannot be acceptable. 12. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.E/231/2016 (RC.No.D1/2254/ 2015) dated 24.10.2017 and the matter is remanded back to the Revisional Authority for conducting de novo enquiry under ROR Act in existing Rules and pass appropriate orders as per law. Till disposal of the ROR proceedings, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo existing as on today. No order as to costs 13. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.