WP/38004/2014 of Singireddy Venkat Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, on 23 June 2026

ORDER:

This writ petition is frled aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent in Case No.E5/7625/2oo8

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father purchased land admeasuring Ac.1.3O guntas in Sy.No.113, situated at Bogaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through Ar1 unregistered Sale Deed executed by Alwal Venkaiah, and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The petitioner's father filed an application under the Record of Rights Act (ROR Act) seeking regularization of the unregistered Sale Deed. The unofficial respondents filed their objections. After following the procedure contemplated under the ROR Act, Respondent No.4 regularized the unregistered Sale Deed. Aggrieved thereby, the unofficial respondents preferred an appeal before Respondent No.3, which was dismissed on 18.04.2006, granting liberty to the appellants therein to resolve their dispute before the competent Civil Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that, after a lapse of 2/z years, the unofficial respondents filed a revision petition before Respondent No.2 without filing any application seeking condonation of delay, contending that the subject land was alceslra-l property. Without properly verifying the material availabte on record, Respondent No.2 set aside the orders passed bv Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitroner further submits that the unofficial respondents did not file any document to establish that the subject properlv rvas a:rcestral property and, therefore, failed to substantiate their claim in that regard.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that, in the impugned order, Respondent No.2 observed that Respondent No.4 had passed the order dated 26.1O.1996 without issuing notice to the revision petitioners and without examining the witnesses. However, Respondent No.4 had, in fact, issued notices to the aJlected parties, namely, Respondent Nos.S and 6, who filed their objections. Apart from that, Respondent No.4 had also examined the witnesses before passing the order. Therefore, Respondent No.2 ought to have dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation itself. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impug:ned order and allow the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.S and 6 has frled a counter-affidavit stating that the father of Respondent Nos.S and 6 was the absolute owner ald possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 1.11 guntas in Sy.No.113 of Bogaram Village. After his death, Respondent Nos.S and 6, being his legal heirs, have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and have been cultivating the same without any interference.

7. karned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 further submits that the petitioner herein, who had no connection whatsoever with the said land, filed O.S, No.72 of 1983 before the Court of the District Munsiff, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of Ac. 1.30 guntas in Sy.No.1 13 and the said suit was dismissed by order dated 13.02.1992. The said judgment was not challenged on appeal and, therefore, attained finality. Consequently, the petitioner has no right, title, or interest in the suit land, having failed to establish titie thereto

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6 further submits that the petitioner, suppressing material facts, submitted an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) seeking mutation under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 However, without issuing any notice to the respondents, the

MRO passed proceedings dated 12.02.1999 gllowing the petitioner's claim for mutation. The said order was never communicated to the unoffrcial respondents and was passed behind their back.

9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 further submits that challenging the order dated 12.02.1999, the unofficial respondents filed an appea-l before the RDO and the RDO dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the unofficial respondents preferred a revision before the 2"d respondent, who upon due appreciation of the facts, evidence, and material available on record, set aside the orders passed by the RDO as well as the MRO on the ground that they were devoid of merit and contrar5r to the provisions of Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land ald Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 arrd Rule 22 of the Rules, 1989 framed thereunder and consequently, allowed the revision

10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6 further submits that the 2"d respondent passed a well- reasoned order after duly considering the material on record and the applicable legal provisions. Therefore, the said order

1S legal, valid, and justifred ald does not warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, the r,r,rit petition 1S devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed

11. Heard both sides and perused the record

12. In the present case, the 4th respondent passed the order dated 26.1O.1996 by observing as follou's :- "IVotices in Form No.ll and 12 haue been issued to the concerned as required under the Act. In response to the notices rssued Sri Alu.tala Laxrnaiah and Alu.tala Kosaiah haue filed on objection petition stating that afier the death of lheir father the unregi.stered document stated to be executed bg his father Lote. Sn. A. Venkaiah is created bg Sn. S. Chilkareddy u,tith forged signature, and theg neuer sold tlrc land to the patitioner, but his fatlrcr giuen to the petitioner's father on leose for graztng purpose and requested not to regulaise the aboue document. On the request of the Respondents a chance of heaing tuas giuen to both the parties. Case heard on 7-9-9t; and 26 1O-

96. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the reuenue records. As per reuenue records, petitioner's name u)as recorded as occupant ouer the Sg.No.113 ert. Ac 1-!lA @s. since the date of purchase. The Respondents foiled to proue the auerments made in their objedion petition ond they could not conuince the court houl the petitioner came into posihon of [and. In uieu of the aboue, I come to conclusion that the document executed bg late A.Venkaiah is genuine. As such I order for regulorization of unregistered doanment executed bg late Si.A. Venkaiah in fauour of S. Chilka Reddg, Under Section 5-A of the Act.' I

13. Thereafter, the 4tt' respondent passed an order dated l2.O2.lggg mutating the name of the petitioner and his father in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. Aggrieved by the same, the unofficial respondents filed an appeal before the 3'd respondent, and the same was dismissed on 18.04.2006 by observing as follows :- " Afier heaing the arguments of the appellant and perusal of counter affidouit filed by th-e respondents the court doth tle order os under. The main issue inuolued in the co,se is ualiditg of sale transaction uhich took place behteen father of appellants ond respond.ents on 11-5-74. Another issue in possession of the suit land. The appellants and the respondents stating that the land is in their possession. According to the reuerlue records the land is in the possession of respondents and the ciuil suit filed bg them agoinst the oppellants uos dismissed in default Either this court or tlte lotuer court is not the proper fonlm to test the uatiditg of the sa:le transoction u.thich took place on 11-5-74' According to sub section (2) of Section 8 of A.P ROR in Land ond Pattadar Pass Books Act 197 1 , if ang person is aggrieued as to ang nght of uhich he is in posses sion bg an entry made in ang record of ight he moA institute a suit against anA person denying or interested to deng his title to such ight for declaration of Hs right under Chapter (6) of the specific relief Act 1963. I

In uiew of the legal position noted aboue the appeol i-s dismissed uith an aduise to the appeLlants to settld their case in ciuil court.'

14. Aggrieved by the szrme, respondent Nos.S and 6 filed a revision before the 2"d respondent, and the same was allowed on 11.1 l.2ol4 by obserrring as follows : The RDO ought to haue seen that the aboue prouision of Sec.8 (2) applies to the respondents before tL.e Appellate Authoitg. In the impugned order the RDO him.self leld that according to reuenue records the land is in posse.ssion of the respondents and the ciuil suit filed bg them zgainst the appellants utas dismbsed in defoult- So in accordantce u.tith the aboue prouisions, the oppellate authoitg should houe aduised the respondents therein to approach ciuil court ano settle their case os the names of the respondents are recordec' in reuenue records in possession column of the pahani and the appellonts are denging it. Alreadg the respondents Lnd filec!. a sui/ OS No.72/ 88 before the Dbt. Mun sif, Medchal o.gainst the appel[ants and the same Loas dismissed. Taking ail the aboue things into consideration it uLas for the appellate out.\oitA to set aside the orders of he MRO, Keesara possed in file No.B/2303/1996, dated: 12.02.1999 in uthich tlTe alleged unregistered transaction sole bosing on a receipt dated: 11.05.1974 utas regularized for an ertent of Ac.l.3ogts in Sg.No.Ji3 u.there os the said receipt sags the extent as Ac.2.OO gts. In the light of aboue obsentations I do not hesitate to set aside the impugned order passed bg the RDO, R.R.East Duision in ftle No.A2/ 1608/ 1999, dated: 18.04.200(i os tuell a-s the orders of the MRO Keesara passed in file No'B/2303/96' dated-: 12.02.1999 being deuoid of meits contrasg to the proui.sions made U/ 5.5-A of the A'P. Rights in I'and ond Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rule-22 of the Rules, 1989 framed theretuith- In the result the reuision is alloued' Section 5-A of the ROR Act reads as follows :-

1) NottDith.standing ongthing contained in this Act, the Transfer of Propertg Act. 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other latu for the time being in force, [uhereo,s person is an ocd)pant] bg uirtue of on alienation or trantsfer made or effected otheruise than bg regi.stered document, the alienee or the transferee mag' uitltin such peiod as mag be prescibed, applA to the Mondal Reuenue OJficer for a certificate declaing that such alienation or transfer is ualid.

2) On receipt of such application, the MRO sLall, afier making such enquiry as maA be prescribed, require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the office of the MRO an amount equal to tlLe registration fees and the stamp duty that tuould haue been pagoble had the alienation. or transfer be effected bg a registered- dncument in accordance with the proubion's of the Registration Act, 1908, as fixed bg the registeing officer on a reference mad.e to him bg the MRO on the basis of the ualue of the propertA arriued at in such monner os mag be prescibed'

16. In the instant case, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5-A of the ROR Act before the 4ft respondent' stating that he had purchased the land in question and requesting regularization of the sale transaction dated

11.05.1974, which took place between respondent No.2 and the father of the appellants. Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent conducted an enquiry into the matter and issued certificates in Forms 13-B and 13-C in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings dated L2.O2.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the unofficial respondents preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which dismissed the appeal with an observation that the parties should work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court. 17 . After dismissal of the appeal, the respondent Nos.S and 6 neither approached the Civil Court nor closecl the litigation Instead, after waiting for about two and a half years, they filed a revision petition before the 2"d respondent. In the revision proceedings, based solely on the averments made by the revision petitioners, the 2.d respondent allowed the revision setting aside the orders that had been passed in favour of the petitioner.

18. Once concurrent findings were recorded by both the respondent authorities, the revisional authority ought to have advised the parties to approach the competent Civil Court.

Instead, u,ithout doing so, it simply set aside the orders passed bY resPondent Nos'3 and 4' lg . The main contention of the unofficial respondents 5 and 6 is that the subject land was ancestral property' The unofficial respondents did not file any document to establish that the subject property was ancestral property and' therefore, failed to substantiate their claim in that regard'

20. ,n" Otn resPondent aJforded oPPortunitles to the unofficiai resPondents twice to substantiate their claim that the ProPerty is ancestral ProPerty' However, on both occasions, they failed to produce any evidence in support of their contention' Furtheflnore' the revenue records disclose that the petitioner's name has been recorded as the occupant ofanextentofAc'1'3Ogts'inSy'No'l13'sincethedateof purchase. According to the resPondents, the entlre transaction ald the revenue records are fabricated and created documents' If that is so' the unofficial respondents ought to have approached the competent Civil Court and sought appropriate relief against the petitioner herein'

In the present case, 10.12.2014, this Court while on rssulng notice before admission granted status-quo obtaining as on that day with regard to possession o t the land in dispute be maintained by both the parties till .si_x weeks and the same was not extended from time to time.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this r.r.rit petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order passed by the 2".1 respondent. The parties are at liberty to seek appropriate relief with regard to the entries in the revenue rr:cords before the competent Civil Court. It is made clear that, in the event the parties approach the trial Court, the tnal court shall entertain the matter without delay. No costs. ralstng any objection regarding As a sequel, miscellaneous applications any, shall stand closed. pending, if SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

\ ,uTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, The State of Telangana, Revenue Department,, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District, Ranga Reddy., -

3. The Special Grade Deputy Collector & Re,,,enue Divjsional, Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Ranga Reddy distrjct.

4. The Thasildar, Keesara tt/andal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. One CC to Sri Gaddam Srinivas, Advocate tOpUCl

6. Two CCs to the Gp for Revenue, Hign Court fo. tn" St"te of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT]

7. One CC to P Sridhar Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)

8. One CC to K Krishna Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)

9. Two CD Copies TJ TKS I

HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 2310612026 1Y\ 01 JtlL 2020 S 1,6 fF o \-

\,,->\,2 '.r../., \'. * -- ' .:\:

\.-]-.

ORDER

WP.No.38004 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t 0l t,-.