Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 792 (TS)

Pathula Padmamma v. State of Telangana

2025-06-09

RENUKA YARA, SUJOY PAUL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, ACJ. Ms. K. Manasa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 4; Sri B. Bhagath Sain, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 and Sri G. Venkateshvarlu, leaned counsel for respondent No.8. 2. Heard on admission. 3. This intra-court appeal takes exception to the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18192 of 2021. 4. Criticizing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s name was deleted from the revenue records without putting her to notice. Thus, principles of natural justice were grossly violated. In that event, despite availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition can be entertained. It is submitted that the civil suit, although is a remedy, nothing prevents this Court to entertain this writ petition when principles of natural justice were violated. 5. The other side supported the impugned order. 6. Learned Single Judge has given the following findings in the impugned order:- “4. Per contra, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has submitted that Sri P. Ram Reddy (husband of the petitioner) during his lifetime has sold the lands in Sy.Nos.83 and 84 situated at Kothapally Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, to the respondent Nos.5 to 8 under sadabainama and since the date of purchase, they are in possession of the same. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.5 to 8 got validated sadabainama vide proceedings Nos.ROR/B/264/2005 and ROR/B/268/2005 dated 17.06.2006 issued by the respondent No.4 and they were also issued pattadar passbooks in their favour. It is contended that suppressing the above facts, the petitioner obtained Pouthi Izafa/succession and got mutated her name in the revenue records and when the same was brought to the notice of the respondent No.4, the respondent No.4 deleted the name of the petitioner from the revenue records in 4 respect of lands admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts in Sy.No.83 and Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.84/A/1, total admeasuring Ac.4-20 gts and incorporated the names of respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the revenue records. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 03.02.2021 in Case No.D1/82/2021 (File No.B/ROR/8945/2019) directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 03.02.2021 in Case No.D1/82/2021 (File No.B/ROR/8945/2019) directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal. It is further submitted that even though the petitioner filed review petition and got reopened the case for hearing the matter afresh, the respondent No.2 rightly dismissed the said Case No.D1/82/2021 vide order dated 21.06.2021. It is submitted that there is no illegality or legal infirmities in the impugned order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. As seen from the material placed on record, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the respondent-authorities have followed the procedure as contemplated under ROR Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is seen from the record that the respondent No.5 to 8 got validated the sadabainama vide proceedings Nos. ROR/B/264/2005 and ROR/B/268/2005 dated 17.06.2006 issued by the respondent No.4 and consequently, got mutated their names in the revenue records. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed revision case on the file of respondent No.2 and the same was dismissed holding that the matter is purely civil in nature and relegated the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of her grievance. It is pertinent to state that the issues with regard to the genuineness of the sadabainamas and the consequential mutation of entries in the revenue records are required to be decided after adducing elaborate evidence in a properly constituted civil suit. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or legal infirmities in the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law, if she is so advised.” 7. This Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law, if she is so advised.” 7. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is based on the judgments of Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others , [ (2003) 2 SCC 107 ] , Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks , Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Chinnam Panduangam S/o. Late Maniah v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, 2007 (6) ALT 164 8. This is trite that despite availability of alternative remedy, interference can be made if principles of natural justice are violated, the vires of a provision is called in question or order is passed by an incompetent authority etc. However, the judgment of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) was revisited by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Another , [ (2005) 8 SCC 264 ] wherein it was opined as under:- “17. …But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute….” 9. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show that if the appellant is relegated to avail the alternative remedy, it will cause palpable injustice to her. The impugned order is not alleged to have been passed by an incompetent authority. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. 10. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the matter involves question of facts and the same can be gone into in a better way by Civil Court. Since a plausible view is taken, we are not inclined to disturb the impugned order. The writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.