Telangana High Court
WP/6091/2008 of BHOLABOINA DURGAIAH, MEDAK DIST. AND 3 OTHERS Vs JOINT COLLECTOR, SANGAREDDY AND 6 OTHERS on 29 December 2023
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) 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
ii rl[ [33031]HIGH,COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA!l,iAT HYDERABADiill(Special Original Jurisdiction)tbrlFRIDA\4THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEIVBERTWO 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 NarasaiahBholaboina 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 District.)PETITIONERS
i
AND
il
ilThe Joint Collecto , trMedak district at Sangareddy.
The Revenue Divisional Officer,, [\/edak.
The Tahsildar, Yeldurthy,, Medak District.
4Palley Yellaiah, S/o. Saya Goud Rl/o. Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy (tt/), lvledakDistrict. jDistrict. j Palley Yadagiri, S/o. Yellaiah Rl/o. Masaipet Village, Yeldurthy (M), MedakDistrict. i [ri]District. i [ri]
6Kukadev Siddiramirlu, S/o. Chandraiah Rl/o. Nagasanpally Village, Yeldurthy(M), Medak District.(M), Medak District.
Kukadev Kistaiah, S/o. Narsaiah Rl/o. Nagasanpally Village, Yeldurthy (M),lvledak District.lvledak District.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus, set aside the Proceedings in Case No.E/2801/2007 dt03.08.2007 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 inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to directthe respondent authorities not ot change the Petitioners names from the RevenueRecords with regard to Sy.No.933 admeasuring Ac.2-33 gts situated at- ijBommaram 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
liltThe Court made the LrJring: ORDER!r
i!i!IIij.tIIIIflIit,.L:i
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. [SREENTVAS ][RAO]
WRIT PETITION No.6091 [of ][2OOE]
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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]direct [the ][respondents ][not ][to ][change]consequentlg the petitioner names from [Reuenue ][Record'"]
2Heard Sri P.Madhusudhana [Kumar, ][learned ][counsel]
Sri [K.Rajanna, ][learned counsel ][for ][the]representing 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]there [was ][no ][representation ][on ][behalf ][of]06.12.202g, 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]the [matter ][was ][posted ][to ][29'12'2023' ][Today]indulgence, also, no [rePresentatron]on behalf of [the ][unofhcial]In [view ][of ][the ][same, ][this ][Court is ][not ][having]respondents. any option [except ][to ][proceed ][with ][the ][matter ][on ][merits']4. Learned counsel [for the petitioners submits ][that ][the]a-re owners [ald ][possessors ][of ][the ][agricultural]petitioners lald to an extent [of ][Acs.2.33 ][guntas ][in ][Sy ][No'933 ][situated]at Bhommaram [hamlet ][of ][Masaipet ][Village, ][Yeldurthy]Medak [District, ][ald ][the ][sa-Ine ][was purchased ][from]Maldal, No.4 [through simple ][sale ][deed ][dated]respondent 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]No.3 [exercising ][the ][powers conferred ][under]respondent 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.4and 5 have filed application before respondent No.2 on26.O4.2OO7 to issue necessa-ry direction to respondent No.3for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deeds in respectof Sy.No.933 to an extent of Acs.2-33 guntas situated atBhommaram hamlet of Masaipet Village, YeldurthyMandal, Medak District, and also incorporate their namesin the revenue records and the sarne was treated as caseNo.E/I7OS l2OO7, and respondent No.2 after dueverihcation of the records, dismissed the application bygiving cogent reasons by its order dated 30.06.2OO7 ardrespondent Nos. 4 and 5 have not filed any appeal and thesame has become final. Thereafter, the unofficialrespondent Nos.4 and 5 filed review petition beforerespondent No.2 to review the order dated 3O.06.2007,although, respondent No.2 is not having arry authority orjurisdiction to entertain the said review application.However, he allowed the said application and passed theorder on 03.08.2007. In pursuant to the said order,respondent No.3 issued order case No.B/32O/2007, dated29 .12.2OO7 cancelling the pattadar passbook and title 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 reviewpower 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 therespective parties arrd after perusal of the materialavailable on record, which clearly reveals that [the]petitioners are claiming the rights over the subject [property]basing on the simple sale deed executed by respondentNo.4 in favour of the petitioners and the said sale deed wasregularized by respondent No.3 invoking the provisions of
the RoR Act and rules made thereunder and were issued13-B certificate on 04.O4.199T and also, the record furtherreveals that the pattadar and passtrooks were also issuedin favour of the petitioners. Respondent No.2 initiated theproceedings basing upon the representation submitted byrespondent Nos.4 and 5 for correction of revenue entriesand dismissed the application filed by respondent Nos.4and 5 on 30.06.2007. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 withoutavailing the remedy of appeal as provided under Section5(5) of the Act hled review petition and the same wasallowed on 03.08.2007.
9. It is very much reievant to place on record is very much reievant to place on record much reievant to place on record reievant to place on record place on record record that as peras perthe provisions of the Act, lg7l and rules made thereunder,the R.D.O./respondent No.2 is not having any power toentertain the review petition to review his own order dated30.06.2007. Hence the impugned order passed byrespondent No.2 dated 03.08.2007 is liable to be declaredas without jurisdiction and contrary to law.
It is very much reievant to place on record is very much reievant to place on record much reievant to place on record reievant to place on record place on record record that as peras per
10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passedby respondent No.2 dated O3.O8.2OOZ and consequential II
$
llI
order passed by respondent No.3 dated 29.72.2007 areliable to be set aside. Accordingiy, set aside
11. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, theunofficial respondentsare granted liberty to avail theremedies under common law by approaching competentCivil Court, if so advised. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stard closed.
,tirSD/.P.CH. NAGABHUSHAM BArqASSISTANT REGISTRARif//TRUE COPYII,tlt1IIsEcTlolrlOFFICER
IITo,'1 . TheJoint ColleMedak district at Sangareddy2. TheRevenue Divisional Officer,, ",tIMedak.3. TheTahsildar, Yeldurth y,, Medak District4. OneCC to Sri K Rajanna Advocate [OPUC6. 5. TwoOneCC CCs to GPto Sri Forenkat Revenue, Reddy HAdvocate igh Court for the State [OPUC]of Telangana. [OUTJ
7. Two
CD Copies
MBCSB
\
lliltltIitilrtiI,airl;ti,I
it.EIItII
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2911212023
1gE s}4yA.(()]'oo3 0 [JAli ]20247**{: Dt:.9 Pr"r ('.\rZoORDER
WP.No.6091 of 2008
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS
\[1,o>t^]