Bholaboina Durgaiah, Medak Dist. And 3 Others v. Joint Collector, Sangareddy And 6 Others

ii rl HIGH,COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) [ 33031 !l ii ,i ll tb \4 rl T FRIDA HE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO iwRrr PETriloN No: 6091 oF 2oo8 Between:

'1 . Bholaboina Durgaiah, S/o. Late Narasaiah

2. Bholaboina Durghiah @ Ramulu, S/o. Late Narasaiah

3. Rajamallaiah, S/o. Nagaiah

4. Karre Yellawa, Wo. Mallaiah (All are Rl/o. Bhommaram Village, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak Distric P t.) ETITIONERS i AND il il The Joint Collecto , Medak district at Sangareddy. The Revenue Divisional Officer,, [\/edak.

The Tahsildar, Yeldurthy,, Medak District.

Palley Yellaiah, S/o. Saya Goud Rl/o. Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy (tt/), lvledak District.

j Palley Yadagiri, S/o. Yellaiah Rl/o. Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy (M), Medak District.

i ri Kukadev Siddiramirlu, S/o. Chandraiah Rl/o. Nagasanpally Village, Yeldurthy (M), Medak District.

Kukadev Kistaiah, S/o. Narsaiah Rl/o. Nagasanpally Village, Yeldurthy (M), lvledak District.

tr Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, set aside the Proceedings in Case No.E/2801/2007 dt 03.08.2007 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and consequential order in case No.Bl32Ol2OO7 dt- 29.12.2007 on the file of Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, without juiisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions laid down in A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and consequently direct the respondents not to change the petitioner names from Revenue Record,

/ l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008 WPMP. NO: 7929 OF 2008) 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 direct the respondent authorities not ot change the Petitioners names from the Revenue Records with regard to Sy.No.933 admeasuring Ac.2-33 gts situated at - ij Bommaram hamlet of Maisaipet Village, Yeldurthy [i/andal, Medak District, Counsel for the PetitioriLrs: Snl K. RAJANNA rl H Counsel for RespondUrlt No". 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel tor RespondU#l *.". 4 to 7: SRt P. VENKAT REDDY li lt rJr The Court made the Ling: ORDER !r i !

i!

II iI I I j.t I fl I it ,.

:i L

;7 // HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.6091 of 2OOE ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

'to issue a u.trit order or direction more parTicularlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandannus set aside ihe Proceedings in Case No.E/2801/2OO7 dt. O3.O8.2OO7 on the ille of the Respondent No'2 and consequential order in case No B/32O/2OO7, dt.2g.12.2)O7 on the file of Respondent No'3 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable uithout juisdiction uiolotiue of pinciples of natural justice and also contrary to tie prouisions taid doutn in A'P' Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act,1971 and consequentlg direct the respondents not to change the petitioner names from Reuenue Record'"

Heard Sri P.Madhusudhana Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri K.Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos'1 to 3'

Perused the record.

3.

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 06.12.202g, there was no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 7. To give one more opportunity' the matter was posted to 08-12.2023, 12'12'2023, 19'12'2023' arld, 27.12.2023 there was no representation on beha-lf of

respondent Nos.4 to 7 on the said dates' To afford final indulgence, the matter was posted to 29'12'2023' Today also, no rePresentatron on behalf of the unofhcial respondents. In view of the same, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits' 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners a-re owners ald possessors of the agricultural lald to an extent of Acs.2.33 guntas in Sy No'933 situated at Bhommaram hamlet of Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy Maldal, Medak District, ald the sa-Ine was purchased from respondent No.4 through simple sale deed dated 09.05.196 1 and since then the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land' He further submits that the ordinary sale deed was regularized by respondent No.3 exercising the powers conferred under Section 5-A of the A.P.Rights in Lartd and Pattadar Passbooks Act,l97 | (hereinafter called 'the Act' for brevity) and issued 13-B certificate on 04.04'1997 and the petitioners names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also iqsqed' b\;

al

5.

While things stood thus, unoflicial respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed application before respondent No.2 on 26.O4.2OO7 to issue necessa-ry direction to respondent No.3 for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deeds in respect of Sy.No.933 to an extent of Acs.2-33 guntas situated at Bhommaram hamlet of Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District, and also incorporate their names in the revenue records and the sarne was treated as case No.E/I7OS l2OO7, and respondent No.2 after due verihcation of the records, dismissed the application by giving cogent reasons by its order dated 30.06.2OO7 ard respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have not filed any appeal and the same has become final. Thereafter, the unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed review petition before respondent No.2 to review the order dated 3O.06.2007, although, respondent No.

2 is not having arry authority or jurisdiction to entertain the said review application. However, he allowed the said application and passed the order on 03.08.2007. In pursuant to the said order, respondent No.3 issued order case No.B/32O/2007, dated 29 .12.2OO7 cancelling the pattadar passbook and title €4,.

deeds and also issued 13-B certilicate in favour of the petitioners 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that respondent No.2 is not having authority or jurisdiction to review his own order and no such review power is provided under the provisions of the Act. Hence the impugned order passed by resporrdent No.2 dated 03.08.2007 is illegal and without jurisdiction. 7 .

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that respondent No.2 after foilowing thc due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder passed the impugned order and there is no illegality or irregularity in the said order. 8.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties arrd after perusal of the material available on record, which clearly reveals that the petitioners are claiming the rights over the subject property basing on the simple sale deed executed by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners and the said sale deed was regularized by respondent No.3 invoking the provisions of

the RoR Act and rules made thereunder and were issued 13-B certificate on 04.O4.199T and also, the record further reveals that the pattadar and passtrooks were also issued in favour of the petitioners. Respondent No.2 initiated the proceedings basing upon the representation submitted by respondent Nos.4 and 5 for correction of revenue entries and dismissed the application filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 30.06.2007. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 without availing the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 5(5) of the Act hled review petition and the same was t II allowed on 03.08.2007.

$ 9.

It is very much reievant to place on record that as per the provisions of the Act, lg7l and rules made thereunder, the R.D.O./respondent No.2 is not having any power to entertain the review petition to review his own order dated 30.06.2007. Hence the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 dated 03.08.2007 is liable to be declared as without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 dated O3.O8.2OOZ and consequential

order passed by respondent No.3 dated 29.72.2007 are liable to be set aside. Accordingiy, set aside

11. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, the unofficial respondents are granted liberty to avail the remedies under common law by approaching competent Civil Court, if so advised. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stard closed.

,tir rq if,t lt II SD/.P.CH. NAGABHUSHAM BA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII lrl sEcTlo OFFICER ll \ I To, '1 . The

2. The

3. The

4. One

5. Two

6. One

7. Two MBC SB Joint Colle Medak district at Sangareddy Revenue Divisional Officer,, IMedak.

Tahsildar, Yeldurth y,, Medak District CC to Sri K Rajanna Advocate [OPUC CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTJ CC to Sri enkat Reddy Advocate [OPUC] CD Copies ",t

HIGH COURT DATED: 2911212023 gE s}4yA.

( )oo ( ]'7 3 0 JAli 2024 {:

* ll il tl * Dt:.9 Pr"r ('.\rZo tI

ORDER

WP.No.6091 of 2008 itil rt iI ,a ir l;

t i , I i t.

I t I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION I I WITHOUT COSTS \ 1,o>t^