Telangana High Court
Nalluri Damodher Rao, vs State Of Telangana, on 3 April, 2025
1
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
*****
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
Between:
1. Nalluri Damodher Rao and another.
...Petitioners.
AsND
1. State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 03.04.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment : Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of
judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
2
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
+ W.P.No.27455 of 2017
% Dated 03.04.2025
# Nalluri Damodher Rao and another.
...Petitioners.
AND
$ 1. State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner: Sri V.R.Avula, learned Senior
Counsel for Sri K. Rama Rao.
^ Counsel for Respondents :Assistant Government Pleader
for Revenue.
Sri Harindra Prasad, learned
Senior Counsel for
K. Ravi Mahender for the
respondent No.6.
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1 2003 (1) ALD 681
2 2000 (6) ALD 153
3 2003(1) ALD 826 (DB)
4 2007 SCC OnLine AP 459
5 1999 SCC OnLine AP 785
6 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 609
7 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306
8 (1976) 3 SCC 160
9 2003 SCC OnLine AP 852
10 Un-reported Judgment of this Court
in W.P.No.12748 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019.
111995 Supp (3) SCC 249
12 2006(2) ALT 44 (S.B.)
13 2019 SCC Online TS 3455.
3
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the
respondent No.2 in passing of order in Case
No.D1/2963/2016 dated 15.07.2017 for rectification of
mutations for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-32
gts in Sy.No.42/1A of Battisawargoan Village, Mavala
Mandal, Adilabad District as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri V.R.Avula, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Revenue and Sri Harindra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel
for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on
record.
3. After filing this writ petition, the respondent No.5
expired and the respondent No.6 was impleaded as the
legal representative of the deceased respondent No.6. The
respondent No.7 got impleaded himself as the respondent,
but failed to file counter. None appeared for the respondent
No.7 on the date of hearing.
4
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits
that the father of petitioner No.1 has purchased the land
admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts and
Ac.2-12 gts through registered documents bearing No.153
of 1980 dated 21.02.1980 and bearing document No.135 of
1981 dated 21.02.1981 respectively and the petitoner No.1
has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of
Ac.2-00 gts through registered document bearing No.687 of
1981 dated 27.07.1981 and the said lands are situated in
Sy.No.42/1A situated at Battisawargoan Village, Mavala
Mandal, Adilabad District and their names were also
mutated in the revenue records for the land admeasuring
to an extent of Ac.3-32 gts and Ac.2-00 gts respectively and
out of the said lands, they have sold the land admeasuring
to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts to the third parties. In the year,
2014 the respondent No.5 filed application to cancel the
mutation of the petitioner No.1 and his father alleging that
wrong patta was granted to them, the respondent No.3
issued notices to the petitioners and also called for report
5
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
of the respondent No.4-Tahsildar. After due enquiry, the
respondent No.3 has dismissed the said application on
21.04.2016 and challenging the same, the respondent No.5
filed a revision before the respondent No.2 and the same
was allowed on 15.07.2017 remitting the matter to the
respondent No.4-Tahsildar for rectification of entries in the
revenue records.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the petitioners are in possession of the
subject property and mutations were effected in the year,
1983 and the respondent No.5 filed application in the year
2014 i.e, after 30 years by creating fake documents without
approaching the competent Civil Court for agitating his
rights over the subject lands.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the respondent No.2 without application of
mind has entertained the revision and issued notice to the
petitioners. The petitioners have submitted a detailed
counter raising various grounds including delay, but the
respondent No.2 without looking into the same allowed the
6
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
revision petition. The said order of the respondent No.2 is
nothing but deciding the title of the property as well as
unsettling the settled rights of the individuals, which is
beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent No.2. It is an
admitted fact that the petitioners are in possession of the
property and the mutation was effected beyond more than
30 years back and the respondent No.5 also sought for
delivery of possession of the property. Without going into
the said issues and without explaining the inordinate delay
of more than 30 years, the respondent No.5 has
approached the respondent authorities and the respondent
No.2 has entertained the same and passed the impugned
order, which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the
provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar
Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act 1971’) and
requested to set aside the impugned order and allow the
writ petition.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied
on the following Judgments:-
7
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
1. V. Goutham Rao vs. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Jagtial, Karimnagar District 1
2. Velagapudi Satyanarayana vs. District Collector,
Nalgonda 2
3. M.B.Ratnam vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga
Reddy District 3
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
based on the counter submits that as per the revenue
records, Sri Neerati Pedda Ganga was the original pattadar
of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-32 gts in
Sy.No.42/1A situated at Battisawargoan Village of Mavala
Mandal, whereas other than pattadars were sold out the
said land to the petitioners and accordingly, the patta was
granted to the petitioners for the suit schedule land. He
submits that in the impugned order, the respondent No.2
noticed that the then Tahsildar erred in issuing orders for
transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner No.1 and his
1 2003 (1) ALD 681
2 2000 (6) ALD 153
3 2003(1) ALD 826 (DB)
8
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
father and implemented in the revenue records wrongly for
the schedule land.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
further submits that at the time of registration, the
executors of the sale deeds were not pattadars in the
revenue records, but at that point of time Sri Neerati Pedda
Ganganna was the pattadar and in view of the report of the
Tahsildar, the matter was remitted to the Tahsildar for
rectification of entries in the revenue records and directed
to pass appropriate orders basing on the records as
required under Section 15(3) of Telangana Rights in Land
and Pattadar Pass Book Rules, 1989. As per the revenue
records and registration documents, the mutation
proceedings issued in favour of the petitioners were not in
procedure and the respondent No.2 has rightly remitted
the matter and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6
based on the counter submits that the respondent No.6 is
the owner and possessor of the subject land having
inherited from her father-in-law Sri N. Pedda Ganganna.
9
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
He submits that no notice was issued to the husband of
the respondent No.6 before deleting the name of her father-
in-law in the revenue records. In response to the RTI
application of the respondent No.6, the revenue authority
has informed that there are no mutation proceedings of the
year, 1983 pertaining to the subject lands and in the
absence of any mutation proceedings, the amendment of
revenue records is illegal and nullity. He further submits
that as the father of the respondent No.5 died in the year,
1973, the question of registration of suit schedule lands in
the year, 1980 or 1981 by him does not arise and the
petitioners are claiming the subject lands by virtue of false
sale deeds created by them in collusion with the revenue
authorities. He submits that after the revision petition was
allowed, the revenue authorities have issued pattadar
passbook and title deed in favour of the respondent No.6
and the Mandal Surveyor has conducted survey, fixed the
boundaries and handed over possession to her and she is
enjoying the subject land peacefully and he requested to
dismiss the writ petition.
10
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 has
relied on the following Judgments:-
1. Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue
Officer 4
2. C.S.H.N.Murthy vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh 5
3. Allala Ravinder Reddy vs. The State of Telangana
rep. by its Director, Municipal Administration,
Srecretariat, Hyderabad 6
5. D.L.F.Housing Constrution (P) Ltd., vs. Delhi
Municipal Corporation 8
operative House Building Society, Hyderabad 9
12. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record,
this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners
herein are questioning the order passed by the respondent
4 2007 SCC OnLine AP 459
5 1999 SCC OnLine AP 785
6 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 609
7 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306
8 (1976) 3 SCC 160
9 2003 SCC OnLine AP 852
11
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
No.2 in revision petition No.D1/2963/2016
dated 15.07.2017 filed by the deceased respondent No.5
under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. The case of the
petitioners is that the father of petitioner No.1 Sri Nalluri
Gopal has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of
Ac.3-32 gts and the petitioner No.1 has purchased the land
admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.42/1A
situated in Battisawargoan Village, Mavala Mandal,
Adilabad District through registered sale deeds. After
purchase, the name of the father of petitioner No.1 was
recorded as pattadar for the land admeasuring to an extent
of Ac.3-32 gts through proceedings No.A1/1118/1983
dated 23.08.1983 and thereafter, the name of the petitoner
No.1 was also mutated in the revenue records for the land
admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts and out of the said
land, the petitioners sold away the land admeasuring
Ac.1-00 gts to the third parties. While it being so, in the
year, 2014 the respondent No.5 herein made
representations to the respondent No.3 for cancellation of
said mutations and the same was rejected by the
respondent No.3 in Proc.C/658/2014 dated 21.04.2016
12
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
stating that the mutation of Revenue Records and pattas
were granted by virtue of registered sale deeds prior
to 1984-85 and the request of the respondent No.5 was
rejected by granting liberty to seek redressal in the civil
Court. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent No.5
filed revision before the respondent No.2 under Section 9 of
ROR Act, 1971. After hearing both sides and basing on the
report of the Tahsildar, the respondent No.2 has passed
the impugned order in Case No.D1/2963/2016
dated 15.07.2017.
13. In the impugned order, the respondent No.2 has
stated that the revision is liable to be remitted for
reconsideration basing on the records, but at the same
time directed the respondent No.4 for rectification of
entries in the revenue records and pass appropriate orders
basing on the records as required under Section 15(3) of
the Act, 1971.
14. The contention of the petitioners is that the
respondent No.5 after more than 30 years has approached
the respondent No.3 by filing application without stating
13
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
anything about the delay and the respondent No.3 has
rightly rejected the application of the respondent No.5 and
directed him to approach the competent Civil Court and
without approaching the competent Civil Court, the
respondent No.5 has approached the respondent No.2 by
filing a revision against the rejection orders, which is not
maintainable as there is no proper appeal as per ROR Act
and the mutation proceedings were effected before the
amendment of Section 5-B of ROR Act i.e, prior to
31.10.1993 and the revision itself is not maintainable as
per the orders of this Court in M.B.Ratnam‘s case (supra
3).
15. The other contention of the petitioners is that if any
grievance, the unofficial respondents has to approach the
competent civil Court and the entries made in the record of
rights would be amended in accordance with the
declaration of the Civil Court as per Section 8(2) of the ROR
Act as held by this Court in V. Goutham Rao’s case (supra
1). The contention of the petitioners is that the revision
petition is not maintainable after a lapse of 30 years as
14
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
held by this Court in Velagapudi Satyanarayana‘s case
(supra 2).
16. In the instant case, basing on the registered
documents, the then Tahsildar has mutated the records in
favour of the father of the petitioner and the petitioner No.1
in the year, 1983. As per the report of the Tahsildar
dated 23.12.2014, on verification of faisal patti of
Battisawargaon village for the year 1982-83, it was found
that under Fouthi Mubadula Kammi statement at Sl.No.3,
Neerati Pedda Ganga S/o.Pochiga was recorded as pattadar
in Sy.No.42/1A to an extent of Ac.5-32 gts, but the father
of the petitoner No.1 has purchased the land to an extent
of Ac.1-20 gts out of Ac.5-32 gts in Sy.No.42/1A vide
registered document No.153/80 dated 21.02.1980 from
Neerati Ganganna S/o. Ganganna and Neerati Poshetty
S/o.Ganganna, but they were not the pattadars as on the
date of registration and the petitioner No.1 has purchased
the land to an extent of Ac:2-00 from one Smt Mutyala
Narsamma through registered document dated 27.07.1981
and she was also not the pattadar of the said land. There
15
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
is no link document with regard to the land purchased by
said Mutyala Narsamma from the pattadars.
17. As per the writ affidavit, father of the petitioner No.1
has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of
Ac.1-20 gts through registered document No.153/1980
dated 21.02.1980 from Neerati Ganganna and Neerati
Poshetti and the said registered documents filed along with
the material papers in the writ affidavit at page Nos.25 to
33. As per the translation, it is stated that the name of
vendor is Nireti Ganganna S/o. Pedda Ganganna only. The
other extent of land Ac:2-12 gts through registered sale
deed document No.135/1981 dated 21.02.1981 from Nereti
Ganganna as per writ affidavit and the said registered
documents filed along with the material papers at page
No.34 shows that the same was purchased from Neerati
Pedda Gangaram S/o. Ganganna and Neerati Poshetti
S/o.Ganganna. It clearly shows that the facts stated by
the petitoner in the writ affidavit are contrary to the
registered documents and the petitoner nowhere disputed
with regard to the death of Neerati Pedda Ganganna in the
16
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
year, 1973 as stated by the respondent No.6 in their
counter.
18. The contention of the unofficial respondent is that
before mutating the records, the authorities have to issue
notice to all the persons whose names were incorporated in
ROR. In the instant case, the name of father of the
respondent No.5 was recorded as pattadar in the year,
1982-83, but without issuing any notice to the family
members of the deceased pattadar, the then Tahsildar has
mutated the records.
19. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6
has relied on the Judgment in Chinnam Pandurangam’s
case (supra 4) and relevant portion is extracted as under:-
“10. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. If an
application is made for amendment of the existing entries in the Record
of Rights, the person whose name already exists in such record is
entitled to contest the proposed amendment. He can do so only if a
notice regarding the proposed amendment is given to him by the
recording authority. An order passed against a person whose name
already exist in the Record of Rights without giving him notice of the
proposed amendment and effective opportunity of hearing is liable to be
declared nullity on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram
partem, which, as mentioned above, represent the most important facet
of the rules of natural justice. It needs no emphasis that the rules of
natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quasi-judicial
proceedings. The rule of hearing is also applicable in purely
administrative proceedings and actions where any public authority
passes an order affecting the rights of any individual. The applicability
of the rules of natural justice to purely administrative actions has been
17
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss)
Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and has been reiterated in various
judgments including those of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970
SC 150, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, S.L.
Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136, Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union
of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
11. From the above discussion, it is clear that the requirement of
issuing notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the
Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the
amendment is independent of the requirement of publication of notice
in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rules 19
and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is
required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the
substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which, as mentioned
above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing
to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and
who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment.”
In the instant case, there is no record to show that
the revenue authority has issued notices to the legal heir of
the pattadars before mutating the revenue records. In view
of the same, the above Judgment squarely apply to the
instant case.
20. Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 is extracted as
under:
“9. Revision. [Substituted with the marginal heading by Act
No.9 of 1994.]The Collector may either suo-motu or on an application made to
him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority,
Mandal Revenue officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under section
3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or
maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness,
legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or
18
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the
collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be
modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he
may pass orders accordingly.
Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be
passed under this section unless he had an opportunity of making
a representation.
As per Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971, the Collector
may either suo-motu or on an application made to him
call for and examine the record of any Recording
Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue
Divisional Officer under Sections 3,5,5A or 5B in
respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained
to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness,
legality or propriety of any decision taken. In view of
the same, entertaining the revision filed by the
unofficial respondents is within the power of Joint
Collector under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971. In the
instant case also basing on the revision petition filed by
the unofficial respondents, the respondent No.2 has
verified the records and also basing on the report of the
Tahsildar passed the impugned order. In view of the
same, the contention of the petitioners that the
19
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017respondent No.2 has no power or authority to entertain
the revision is not acceptable.
21. This Court in number of cases held that in ROR
proceedings, the aggrieved party without availing
alternative remedy of appeal can approach the revisional
authority under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971. This
Court in Ramaswamy Satyagoud vs. The State of
Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Hyderabad 10 held at para
No.12 as follows:
“12. On the issue of preferring revision without availing
remedy of appeal the decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner do not come to the aid of petitioner.
In Bhupathi Varalamma while dealing with the power of
revision, learned single Judge of this Court has not ruled, as
sought to be contended that revision is not maintainable when
remedy of appeal is available. Learned single Judge held that
ordinarily if remedy of appeal is available, revision should not
be entertained. However, learned single Judge held that in
exceptional situations where the authority which passed the
order patently lacked jurisdiction to pass order and to prevent
abuse of power exercised by such an authority and
miscarriage of justice being caused to the aggrieved party,
revision can be entertained. Kola Satya Rao was also decided
by learned single Judge who decided Bhupathi Varalamma.
In the said case, revisional authority satisfied that it was not
feasible or practicable to the aggrieved party to file an appeal
or that the subordinate authority has passed an order, which
is ex-facie contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act
or in violation of the principles of natural justice, it can
exercise its revisional jurisdiction to step in and correct such
procedural illegality or impropriety. Learned single further10 Un-reported Judgment of this Court
in W.P.No.12748 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019.
20
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017observed that “If the facts of the case justify, an aggrieved
party can be allowed to bypass the appellate remedy and seek
intervention of the revisional authority.” Said view of the
learned single Judge is followed by another learned single
Judge in T. Santosh Kumar. Decision in Yelangani Papaiah
is also on similar lines. On a plain reading of provision in
Section 9 and as considered by this Court in several decisions,
merely because a person has not availed remedy of appeal, it
cannot be said that revision is not maintainable.
The contention of the petitioners is that the
respondent No.5 without filing appropriate appeal filed
revision before the respondent No.2 under Section 9 of
ROR Act and the same is not maintainable. The
findings of the above Judgment apply to the instant
case, without filing any appeal, can file revision under
Section 9 of the ROR Act and the same is valid. In view
of the same, the contention of the petitioners is not
acceptable.
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs.
Brundaban Sharma 11, held at para Nos.16 and 18 as
under:
” 16. It is, therefore, settled law that when the revisional
power was conferred to effectuate a purpose, it is to be
exercised in a reasonable manner which inheres the concept
of its exercise within a reasonable time. Absence of limitation
is an assurance to exercise the power with caution or
circumspection to effectuate the purpose of the Act, or to
prevent miscarriage of justice or violation of the provisions of
the Act or misuse or abuse of the power by the lower11 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249
21
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017authorities or fraud or suppression. Length of time depends
on the factual scenario in a given case. Take a case that patta
was obtained fraudulently in collusion with the officers and it
comes to the notice of the authorities after a long lapse of
time. Does it lie in the mouth of the party to the fraud to plead
limitation to get away with the order? Does lapse of time an
excuse to refrain from exercising the revisional power to
unravel fraud and to set it right? The answers would be no.
18. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the
Board of Revenue exercised the power under Section 38B after
an unreasonable lapse of time, though from the date of the
grant of patta by the Tahsildar is of 27 years. It is true that
from the date of the alleged grant of patta 27 years did pass.
But its authenticity and correctness was shrouded with
suspicious features. The records of the Tahsildar were
destroyed. Who is to get the benefit? Who was responsible for
it? The reasons are not far to seek. They are self-evident. So
we hold that the exercise of revisional power under Section
38B by the Board of Revenue was legal and valid and it
brooked no delay, after it had come to the Board’s knowledge.
That apart as held by the Board of Revenue, the order passed
by the Tahsildar without confirmation by the Board is nonest.
A nonest order is a void order and it confers no title and its
validity can be questioned or invalidity be set up in any
proceeding or at any stage.
23. The Judgment of this Court in Smt Munganda
Venkataratnam vs. Joint Collector, West Godavari
District, Eluru 12, squarely apply to the instant case. The
relevant portion in para No.15 is as under:-
“Since in para 25 of K. Rattamma v. G. Kotaiah 1975(2)
An.WR 122, it is held that B.S.Os are only executive
instructions for the guidance of the revenue officials and
nothing more, Prima facie BSO 15(180 relied on by the
petitioners does not confer any right on them to cling on to the
assignments made because it is well known that fraud vitiates
everything. Recently the Apex Court, in State of Andhra
Pradesh v. T.Suryachandra Rao, after discussing the entire
case law on the subject of fraud, held that no order obtained
by fraud can be sustained. It is also well known that in case
of fraud the period of limitation would commence from the
date of discovery of fraud. Therefore, merely because a person12 2006(2) ALT 44 (S.B.)
22
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017could successfully shield the fraud played by him in obtaining
assignment of Government land for several years, he cannot
be heard to say that in view of the lapse of time the
assignment in his favour cannot be cancelled. When power is
vested in an authority to do an act, and if that authority
exercises that power erroneously due to the fraud played on it,
that authority has the implied power to undo its earlier act,
performed by it as a result of the fraud played on it. First
respondent without correctly appreciating the law and facts
seems to have erroneously set aside the order cancelling the
assignments but since that part of the order of first
respondent, setting aside cancellation of assignments, became
final, I do not wish to interfere with that part of the order of
the first respondent”.
24. The findings in the above Judgments squarely apply
to the instant case. In the instant case also the petitioners
have purchased the schedule land through registered
documents other than the pattadar and basing on the said
registered documents and without issuing any notice, the
mutation was taken place in favour of the father of the
petitioner No.1 and also the petitioner No.1 contrary to the
ROR Act. The respondent No.2 has rightly given a finding
that there was discrepancy in conducting enquiry with
regard to ascertaining the rights of the parties as per the
ROR Act, 1971.
23
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
25. The Judgment of this Court in M. Ramulamma v.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District 13
also apply to the instant case. The relevant portion in
para Nos.62, 63. 64 and 65 as under:
“62. It is not the case of respondent nos.3 to 6 that any notice
was given to the petitioners at the time when the order
H/206/1976 dt.19.02.1982 was passed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Hyderabad (East) Division granting
Occupancy Rights to Thota Balakrishna Reddy. It is also not
their case that the said order was served on the petitioners.
63. Therefore, the limitation for challenging the said order
would commence only from the date of knowledge of the order
and not from the date of the said order.
64. In Bipromasz Bipron Trading Sa v. Bharat Electronics
Ltd.6, the Supreme Court declared that an official order takes
effect only when it is served on the person affected.
65. In State of W.B. v. R.K.B.K. Ltd.7, the Court declared that
unless an adverse order is communicated, it does not come
into effect (2012) 6 SCC 384 MSR,J ::19:: crp_3848_2018 and
the person affected cannot be blamed for not preferring appeal
within the specified time when it is not communicated to him.
It held:
“35. … … … the words used in Para 10 are “date of the
order”. In the scheme of the Control Order, the order comes
into effect from the date of receipt by the agent or the dealer.
Once that becomes the decision, the commencement of
limitation of 30 days for the purpose of Para 10 would be the
date when the order is effective. The High Court in Rani Sati
Kerosene Supply Co. has opined that if the order of
cancellation is not served on the affected person and the
appeal period expires, there is the possibility that the adverse
order would become unassailable. The reasoning is totally
fallacious. An appeal can only be preferred when the order is
effective. The ineffective order, that is to say, uncommunicated
order cannot be challenged. Therefore, the reasoning given by
the Court in earlier judgment is erroneous and hence, the13 2019 SCC Online TS 3455.
24
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017reliance thereupon by the impugned order is faulty. There has
to be a purposive construction of the words “from the date of
order”. To place a construction that the date of an order would
mean passing of the order, though not made effective would
lead to an absurdity.”
In the instant case, apparently there is discrepancy in the
proceedings and no notice was issued to the effected
parties. In view of the same, the above order of this Court
squarely apply to the instant case as the limitation starts
from the date of knowledge of the order and not from the
date of orders.
26. The Judgments relied on by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners are not squarely apply to the
instant case as the facts are different in the instant case.
27. The respondent No.5 has not filed any appeal to the
respondent No.3 under Section 5-B of ROR Act and he was
only filed a representation. At the time of disposal of the
revision, the respondent No.2 after perusal of the report of
the respondent No.4 and also the registered documents,
passed impugned order and remitted back to the Tahsildar
for re-consideration, but further directed the Tahsildar to
mutate the records in the name of the respondent No.5.
25
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
The further direction issued by the respondent No.2 is
contrary to the direction of remand for reconsideration. In
view of the same, the direction issued to the Tahsildar in
the impugned orders for mutation of records and
rectification of entries without conducting enquiry and
without giving opportunity to the petitioners is arbitrary
and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.
28. It is a fit case for conducting fresh enquiry under
ROR Act as there is discrepancy in the documents filed by
the petitioners and also the proceedings under ROR Act
were not followed for mutating the revenue records. The
petitioners cannot take shelter on the ground of delay for
reviewing of earlier orders which were passed without
following the due procedure.
29. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is
partly allowed by setting aside the directions in so far as
the direction to the Tahsldar, Mavala for rectification of
entries in the revenue records of the suit schedule property
in Case No.D1/2963/2016 dated 15.07.2017 issued by the
respondent No.2-Joint Collector, Adilabad, is concerned
26
SK, J
W.P.No.27455 of 2017
and further remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Mavala
to conduct de novo enquiry for mutation of the records and
also issuance of pattadar passbooks for suit schedule land
after issuing notice to the petitioners as well as the
unofficial respondent No.6 by giving opportunity to the
both sides including personal hearing. Till conclusion of
the de novo enquiry, both parties are directed to maintain
status quo existing as on today in all respects of the suit
schedule land. No order as to costs.
30. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date:03.04.2025
sj
L.R.copy to be marked.
[ad_1]
Source link