Chinnala Kistaiah And Another v. The Collector

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF IUAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6797 OF 2020 Between:

Chinnala Kistaiah, S/o Late Rayamallu, Aged 56 years, Fl/o Narrashalapalli, Medipalli, -NTPC-Jyothinagar, Ramagundam, Chinnala Sathaiah, S/o.Late Rayamallu, Aged 54 years, H.No.5-6-163/1 '1lA, Peddapally District R/o H.No.5-4-105, Peddapally District ...PETITIONERS AND 1.

N arrasha lapa lli, [/ledipalli, NTPC-Jyothinagar, Ramagundam,

1. The Collector, Peddapally, Peddapally District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally, Peddapally District

3. The Tahsildar, Ramagundam, Peddapally District

4. Eerla Papaiah, S/o.Ramaiah, Aged 60 years, F/o H.No.5-4-109, Narrasha la palli, Medipalli, NTPC-Jyothinagar, Ramagundam, Peddapally District

5. Eerla Rajaiah, S/o.Ramaiah, Aged 57 years, R/o H.No.5-4-109, Narrashalapa lli, Medipalli, NTPC-Jyothinagar, Ramagundam, Peddapally District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 2.26 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in taking steps to examine and consider the interim relief of granting staying of all further proceedings of the impugned proceedings Ref. No.B2l218612017 dated 1810212020 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to statutory provisions and consequently direct the lst respondent to examine, consider and pass necessary orders / directions staying all further proceedings of the impugned proceedings Ref. No.821218612017 dated 1810212020 of the 2nd respondent till the disposal of the Revision Petition.

lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings Ref. No.E212186120'17 dated 1810212020 of the 2nd respondent duly directing the respondent to examine, consider and pass necessary orders / directions staying all further proceedings of the impugned proceedings Ref. No.821218612017 dated 1810212020 of the 2nd respondent till the disposal of the Revision Petition, pending disposal of Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. K. RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI ALLADI RAVINDER The Court made the following: ORDER

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1to 3, and learned counsel appearing for private respondents 4 and 5.

The facts lie in b narrow compass. On an application made by respondents 4 and 5, the revenue entries with respect to the property in Ac.023% guntas in Survey No.249lA of Medipalli village, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District, were directed to be altered by order dated 18.02.2020 by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) in purported exercise of power under Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, though the same is not stated in specific terms. The grievance of the petitioners is that they filed a revision petition before the 1't respondent under Section 9 challenging the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the RDO, and the 1't respondent is refusing to pass orders in the revision petition stating that there is a proposal to amend the law.

Having regard to the undisputed facts, the exercise of power by the RDO by order dated 18.02.2020 directing to alter the revenue entries of subject property by substituting the names of respondents 4 and 5 in place of the earlier entries standing in the name of petitioners, after a long period of 16 years as per the petitioners, is itself illegal. This Court, in G. Prabhakar v. The State of Telanganal, held as under:

"A perusal of Sections 3 to 5 and 9 of the Act leave no manner of doubt that the Tahsildar is not vested with any powers to make corrections either suo motu or on an application except at the time of making entries for the first time in terms of the notification issued under Sections 3(1), 3(2) of the Act. Any corrections in relation to the entries could be made in the given circumstances satisfying Section 3(3) of the Act within one year. lf the case requiring corrections of the revenue records beyond the time limit of one year, necessary orders can be passed only by the District Collector in exercise of the revisional powers and the Tahsildar is not vested with any such power."

Challenge to the entries in revenue records beyond one year/ except in cases falling under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, can only be undertaken by the District Collector under Section 9 of the Act. This being the legal position, the same was lost sight of by 2nd respondent.

As a revision petition has already been filed before the 1st respondent by the petitioners, the 1st respondent shall consider the revision petition and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks of lifting of lockdown, by taking into consideration the law as declared by this Court and also keeping in view the jurisdiction issue. Pending disposal of the revision petition by the 1't respondent, the impugned order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent shall stand suspended. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ' zots 1q ALD 427 Sd/. SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM V a REGISTRAR uDrcrAL) //TRUE CO !1'* sEcroN oFFrcER z "\sl>o To, The Collector, Peddapally, Peddapally District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally, Peddapally District. The Tahsildar, Ramagundam, Peddapally District One CC to Sri K. Ram Reddy Advocate IOPUCI Two CCs to the GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad. (OUT) Ohe CC to Sri. Alladi Ravinder, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

CHR

HIGH COURT CKR,J DATED:1 410512020 'j,1 ,\I i: 6.

I \\\\ " 'li j, :} ,-:

2t ./j r"lt . -Yv,r'

ORDER

W.P.No.6797 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS