[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
Sri.Kuntu Mush Marilingappa vs The State Of Telangana on 21 April, 2025
1
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
WRIT PETITION Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
W.P.No.9064 of 2019
Between:
1. Sri Rama Prabhakar and others.
...Petitioners
AND
1. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...Respondents
W.P.No.9093 of 2019
Between:
1. Sri Kuntu Musli Marilingappa and others.
...Petitioners
AND
1. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 21.04.2024
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.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
%Dated 21.04.2025
# W.P.No.9064 of 2019
Between:
1.Sri Rama Prabhakar and others.
...Petitioners
AND
1. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...Respondents
W.P.No.9093 of 2019
Between:
1. Sri Kuntu Musli Marilingappa and others.
...Petitioners
AND
1.State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri P. Soma Sekhara Naidu.
^ Counsel for Respondents :Assistant Government Pleader
for Revenue.
Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior
Counsel.
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1 (1978)1 SCC 405
2 (2015) 3 SCC 695
3 (2005) 7 SCC 627
4 (2015) 4 ALD 248
5 (2009) 4 ALT 593
6 (2005) 6 SCC 149
7 2002 SCC OnLine AP 536
8 2006 SCC OnLine AP 177
9 (2009) 11 SCC 18
10(2008) 1 ALD 836
3
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
Since both these writ petitions are filed
questioning the order passed by the respondent No.3-
Joint Collector in Revision Case No.D1/87/205
dated 16.02.2019, they are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both
the writ petitions, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Revenue and learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
in W.P.No.9064 of 2019, the petitioner No.1 has
purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of
Ac.7-10 gts in Sy.No.8/A and 8/AA through registered
sale deed document No.683/1997 dated 12.06.1997,
4
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
the petitioner No.2 has purchased the land
admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7-06 gts in Sy.No.126
through registered sale deed document No.638/1995
dated 28.03.1995, Ac.2-04 gts in Sy.No.122 and
Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.123 through registered sale deed
document No.637/1995 dated 28.03.1995 and the
petitioner No.3 has purchased the land admeasuring to
a total extent of Ac.15.26 gts in Sy.No.125 through
registered sale deed document No.639/1995
dated 28.03.1995 and the petitioners have purchased
the properties from the respondent No.7 herein i.e, Sri
Doshi Ravindra Chary, and the said lands are situated
in Kusumurthy Village, Krishna Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District and their names were mutated
in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were
also issued in their favour and since then, they are in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of those lands for
more than 30 years.
5
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in
W.P.No.9093 of 2019, the grandfather of the petitoner
No.1 and great grandfather of the petitoner Nos.2 to 5
i.e. late Sayanna was the protected tenant of land
admeasuring to an extent of Ac.12.26 gts in Sy.No.142
situated at Kusumurthy Village and a certificate of
ownership was issued by the competent authority
under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 vide File
No.E/1513/75. After the death of said Sayanna, his
sons had inherited the said property and thereafter the
petitioners being legal heirs have inherited the same
and through family arrangement, they have divided the
said land and obtained pattadar passbooks and they
have been in lawful possession and enjoyment of their
respective shares of land.
6
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
5. For the purpose of narrating the facts,
W.P.No.9064 of 2019 is taken as a lead case.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that as per the revenue records, one Kista
Chary and his successors were the pattadars and
owners of the suit schedule land and the same was
purchased by the petitioners. The Land Reforms
Tribunal, Narayanpet in respect of suit schedule
properties and other lands initiated land reforms
proceedings against the successors of said Kista Chary
and held that the declarant holds the land admeasuring
to an extent of 1.5386 standard holding in excess of the
ceiling area on the notified date in C.C.No.1412 of 1975
dated 09.06.1976. The respondent authorities have also
granted pattas to some individuals in respect of said
excess land of the legal heirs of late Kista Chary,
however, the possession remained with the legal heirs
of late Kista Chary. He further submits that against the
7
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
said proceedings dated 09.06.1976, the two widows of
late Kista Chary filed Land Reforms Appeal No.14 of
1982 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal,
Mahabubagar and the same was allowed on 02.12.1983
holding that the appellants therein have to be treated
as separate individuals and they were entitled to
separate holding each and the said Judgment has
became final. In view of the said Judgment, the pattas
granted in favour of some individuals in respect of the
excess land as per the proceedings dated 09.06.1976
were cancelled by the revenue authorities.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary is the adopted
son of two widows of Kista Chary and the legal heirs of
late Kista Chary were in possession and enjoyment of
the subject lands as pattadars and the petitioners have
purchased the suit schedule land from Sri Doshi
Ravindra Chary on different dates. While it being so,
8
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
the respondent No.6-Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy Uttaradi
Matt claiming to be a Charitable institution has filed a
revision petition on 16.10.2015 before the respondent
No.3 under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Lands
and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘ROR Act,
1971’) stating that the suit schedule lands are service
inam lands which are inalienable and the Matt has
been recorded as Inamdar and alleged that the said
Kista Chary was a poojari of the said institution.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the respondent No.6 without there being
any right, title and interest has filed revision before the
respondent No.3. The respondent No.6 without any
material as Inamdar or owner or possessor of the lands
purchased by the petitioners at any point of time and
never claimed any right for more than six and half
decades. He further submits that the respondent No.3
without conducting any enquiry and without obtaining
9
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
any report from the respondent No.5 passed the
impugned order, which is illegal and arbitrary.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further
submits after filing this writ petition, under the
provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 the
petitioners have obtained a copy of order in Appeal
Case No.F2/23/2011 dated 07.12.2013 passed by the
Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, wherein it clearly
discloses that the issue involved in the said case was in
respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.213, 214, 215,
215/Paiki, 212 and 292 of Kolpur Village of Maganoor
Mandal, whereas the lands in the impugned order are
in respect of Sy.Nos.1,8,122, 123, 125, 126 and 142
situated at Kusumurthy Village of Krishna Mandal and
therefore, the respondent No.3 has erroneously basing
on the order of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in
Appeal Case No.F2/23/2011 dated 07.12.2013 passed
10
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
impugned orders which has no relevance or bearing on
the subject lands.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that even as per the impugned order, said
Uttaradi Matt was neither Inamdar nor possessor of the
subject lands and the respondent No.6 was never
registered as an occupant of the subject lands. He
further submits that the documents produced by the
petitioners clearly establish that the petitioners and
their predecessors are having title and possession over
the subject lands and the respondent No.6 is neither
having title nor possession over the subject lands and
no document is produced before the respondent No.3 or
before this Court that the schedule land belongs to
Endowment Institution as Inamdar and also the
provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act,
1955 have no application to the present case and in
view of the same, the impugned order passed by the
11
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
respondent No.3 is illegal and arbitrary and requested
to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned
order.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on
the following Judgments:-
1. Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi1
2. Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District vs. D.
Narsing Rao2.
3. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs.
Darius Shapur Chenai3
5. Lingamdinne Chandrasekhar Reddy vs. Joint
Collector5
1
(1978)1 SCC 405
2
(2015) 3 SCC 695
3
(2005) 7 SCC 627
4
(2015) 4 ALD 248
5
(2009) 4 ALT 593
12
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Revenue based on the counter submits that as per the
revenue records, the subject lands were classified as
Khidmath Inam (Seva Inam) and Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy
was recorded as Inamdar and Kista Chary as Poojari of
the institution and the subject lands are held in the
name of charitable institution and no one will get
ownership rights over the subject lands except the
institution. He submits that as per Section 3(1) of
Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, all the Inams
were abolished and vest in the State w.e.f. 20.07.1955
and no occupant will get any right over the inam land
unless re-grant is made under Section 4(i) of the said
Act and any sale transactions in respect of inam land
without grant of ORC are not valid and there is no right
over the suit lands and Kista Chary being poojari has
no alienable rights as the subject lands belonged to
Charitable Institution of Uttaradi Mutt.
13
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Revenue further submits that as per Section 3(2)(b) of
the Telangana Abolition of Inam Act, 1955, all rights,
title and interest vest in inamdar are vested absolutely
in the State free from all encumbrances and as per the
revenue records, the subject lands are in the name of
the respondent No.6 and as per Section 4(1) of the
Inams Act, the institution alone is entitled for
ownership rights over the subject lands and late Kista
Chary was only a Poojari to perform pooja and no
ownership rights will accrue to him by virtue of mere
possession over the subject lands. He further submits
that after considering all the aspects, the respondent
No.3 has set aside the ORC granted over the lands
situated at Kolpur Village as Uttaradi Matt is religious
institution vide proceedings No.F2/23/2011
dated 07.12.2013 and the Certificate issued under
Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
14
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950, is not valid
and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6
based on the counter averments submits that the
subject lands are Inam lands belonging to the
charitable institution and the respondent No.6 has right
over the same. He submits that said Kista Chary was
Poojari performing his duties in the respondent No.6
institution and he was cultivating the same for the
purpose of maintaining the institution and he has no
right over the subject lands and as such the declaration
alleged to have been filed before the Land Reforms
Tribunal is null and void. He further submits that the
petitioners have not filed any document to show that
Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary is the adopted son of the
widows of late Kista Chary. He further submits that the
respondent No.6 has right, title and possession over the
subject property and as such it has rightly preferred the
15
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
revision and the respondent No.3 after examining the
facts and appreciating the documents has passed the
impugned order and there are no grounds to interfere
with the impugned order and requested to dismiss the
writ petition.
15. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on
the following Judgments:-
3. N. Ramakrishna vs. Special Officer and
Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings,
Visakhapatnam8
4. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs.
Aafloat Textiles India Private Limited9
16. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record,
this Court is of the considered view that in both the writ
6
(2005) 6 SCC 149
7
2002 SCC OnLine AP 536
8
2006 SCC OnLine AP 177
9
(2009) 11 SCC 18
10
(2008) 1 ALD 836
16
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order of
the respondent No.3 dated 16.02.2019 in ROR revision
filed under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971. The
petitioners herein have purchased the properties
through the registered documents for different extents
on different dates respectively in Sy.Nos.1,8,122,
123,125 and 126 situated at Kusumurthy Village of
Krishna Mandal, erstwhile Mahabubnagar District.
After their purchase, the revenue authorities have
mutated the names of the petitioners in respect of their
purchased lands by issuing mutation proceedings on
different dates. The petitioners in W.P.No.9093 of 2019
are legal heirs of the protected tenant for the lands
situated in Sy.No.142 at Kusumurthy Village. While it
being so, the respondent No.6 filed revision before the
respondent No.3 under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971 for
cancellation of mutation proceedings in favour of the
petitioners for the suit schedule properties and stated
17
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
that the lands are classified as service inam lands and
one Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy was recorded as Inamdar
and Sri Kista Chary S/o.Raghavendra Chary stated to
have performing as Poojari to the said institution and
the suit schedule lands are meant for maintenance of
the said institution. During his life time, late Kista
Chary stated to have cultivated the suit schedule lands
and maintained the institution and after his demise,
one Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary S/o. Kista Chary has
been brought on record as pattadar and possessor of
the subject lands without any valid orders from the
competent authority. The said Doshi Ravindra Chary
without any power sold away the suit schedule lands to
the petitioners and stated that as per the Abolition of
Inams Act, 1955, the transactions between the said
Doshi Ravindra Chary and the petitioners are null and
void and no effect would be given for such registration.
18
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
17. There is no dispute with regard to purchase of the
suit schedule properties by the petitioners in
W.P.No.9064 of 2019 through registered documents
and also the competent authority has mutated their
names sand issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds
in different proceedings in the year, 1997. The
petitioners in W.P.No.9093 of 2019 are legal heirs of Sri
Sayanna in whose favour the Certificate under Section
38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 was issued for the land
situated in Sy.No.142 in proceedings No.E/1513/1975.
18. The petitioners herein contended that the
respondent No.6 was never recorded as owner of the
property on behalf of Uttaradi Matt and there is no
record in respect of the existence of Sri Veda Vyasa
Swamy during the year, 1954 or immediate preceding
period. The impugned order passed by the respondent
No.3 stating that late Kista Chary was only priest to
19
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
Uttaradi Matt and the institution only is entitled to be
recorded as an occupant against the subject lands and
also the ORC granted in respect of the said lands in
favour of late Kista Chary in File No.A/4079/93 of
Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet has been set
aside in Inam Appeal Case No.F2/23/2011 of the Joint
Collector, Mahabubnagar. But, the schedule property in
Inam Appeal is in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.213,
214, 215, 215/Paiki, 212 and 292 situated at Kolpur
Village of Maganoor Mandal.
19. The main contention of the respondent No.6 is
that the schedule lands are classified as ‘Khidmath
Inam, Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy was recorded as Inamdar
and Sri Kista Chary as Poojari (priest) to the institution,
but the respondent No.6 has not filed any document to
show that Sri Veda Vyasa Swamy was the Inamdar or
late Kista Charry as Poojari of the respondent No.6
institution.
20
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
20. The respondents in their counters in W.P.No.9093
of 2019 have not denied the Certificate of Ownership
issued under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act,
1950 in favour of late Sayanna. The respondent No.3
without discussing the rights of the petitioners in
W.P.No.9093 of 2019 in Sy.No.142 passed impugned
order.
21. The respondent No.3, without taking into account
of the proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal and
also the Certificate of Ownership under Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act,
1950, passed the impugned order. The respondent
No.3 cannot nullify the rights of the petitioners in
W.P.No.9093 of 2019 granted under Section 38-E of the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 and also rights of vendor of
21
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
the petitioners in W.P.No.9064 of 2019 were acquired
through Land Reforms Proceedings in the ROR revision
proceedings.
22. The Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel
for the petitioners with regard to revisional powers
under Section 9 of the ROR Act must be exercised
within reasonable time as held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Joint Collector‘s case (supra 2) and
unreported Judgment of this Court in Susheela‘s case
(supra 4) apply to the instant case. The relevant portion
of the Judgment in Joint Collector‘s case (supra 2) as
under:
“22. The High Court was of the view that the entries in the Khasra
Pahani for the year 1954-55 reflected the names of the predecessors-in-title
of the writ-petitioners although according to the Government the said
entries were made fraudulently by the then Patwari of the village. The
High Court further held that since the entries showing ownership and
possession of the writ-petitioners had continued unchallenged for nearly 40
years before the Government issued G.O.M.s 850 Rev. (Asn.III) Dept. dated
24-9-1991 the Government was not justified in making any allotment in
disregard of the same. The High Court also took the view that the proposed
correction of the alleged fraudulent entries nearly 50 years after the entries
22
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019were first made was also legally impermissible even when the revisional
power being invoked to do so did not prescribe any period of limitation. The
High Court recorded a finding that the predecessors-in-title of the writ-
petitioners had registered sale-deeds in their favour and that the State
Government or its officers had not denied that the writ-petitioners or their
predecessors-in- title had remained in possession of the subject land. The
High Court held that exercise of revisional powers, even where no period of
limitation is prescribed, must be within a reasonable period.
32. In the case at hand, while the entry sought to be corrected is described
as fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice impugned before the High
Court as to when was the alleged fraud discovered by the State. A specific
statement in that regard was essential for it was a jurisdictional fact, which
ought to be clearly asserted in the notice issued to the respondents. The
attempt of the appellant-State to demonstrate that the notice was issued
within a reasonable period of the discovery of the alleged fraud is,
therefore, futile. At any rate, when the Government allowed the land in
question for housing sites to be given to Government employees in the year
1991, it must be presumed to have known about the record and the
revenue entries concerning the parcel of land made in the ordinary course
of official business. In as much as, the notice was issued as late as on 31-
12-2004, it was delayed by nearly 13 years. No explanation has been
offered even for this delay assuming that the same ought to be counted
only from the year 1991. Judged from any angle the notice seeking to
reverse the entries made half a century ago, was clearly beyond reasonable
time and was rightly quashed.
In the instant case also, the mutation has taken
place in favour of the vendor of the petitioners in
W.P.No.9064 of 2019 after disposal of appeal before the
Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in the year, 1983 and
23
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019the Certificate issued under Section 38-E of Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture
Lands Act, 1950 in favour of late Sayanna, who is
ancestor of the petitioners in W.P.No.9093 of 2019 in
the year, 1975. In view of the same, the above finding is
squarely apply to the instant case.
23. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on
the Judgments in Mohinder Singh Gill‘s case (supra 1)
and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited’s
case (supra 3), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that when a statutory functionary makes an order
based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged
by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be
supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit
or otherwise and the counters filed by the respondents
cannot be taken into account. The Judgments relied on
by the learned counsel for the petitioners are apply to
the instant case as the impugned order passed by the
24
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
respondent No.3 is only basing on the orders in the
Inam Appeal Case No.F/23/2011 passed by the Joint
Collector, Mahabubagar, but in the counter they have
taken other stand and the same cannot be taken into
account.
24. The Judgments relied on by the learned Senior
Counsel for the unofficial respondents in State of A.P’s
case (supra 6), Thotta Kistaiah‘s case (supra 7), N.
Ramakrishna‘s case (supra 8), Commissioner of
Customs (Preventive)’s case (supra 9) and Sri
K.G.Krishna Murthy‘s case (supra 10) are not
pertaining to the ROR Act, 1971 and the same are
pertaining to Abolition of Inams Act. In the instant case,
the respondents have failed to file any document to
show that the respondent No.6-Uttaradi Matt is
Inamdar of the suit schedule property. The impugned
order was passed only basing on Inam Appeal Case
No.F2/23/2011 on the file of the Joint Collector,
25
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
Mahabubnagar, which does not belongs to the suit
schedule properties. In view of the same, the said
Judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for
the respondent No.6 are not apply to the instant case
as the facts are different from the instant case and
those Judgments cannot be taken into account.
25. At the time of admission on 19.12.2019, this
Court called for the records and the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Narayanpet appeared before this Court and
produced the records. After verifying the records, this
Court feels that “the lands in survey numbers in File
No.A/4079/93 does not concerned with the lands in
survey numbers in the present issue arises and held
that the Joint Collector has allowed the revision on the
assumption that the earlier Occupancy Right Certificate
granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer was set aside
by the Joint Collector in the above proceedings.
Therefore, prima facie, the view taken by the Joint
26
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
Collector appears to be not valid”. Thereafter, the
official respondents and the respondent No.6 have filed
their counters but, they have failed to file any
documents along with their counters to show that the
respondent No.6 was Inamdar of the suit schedule
lands and said Kista Chary was poojari of the said
institution.
26. The official respondents in their counter have not
given any reply with regard to the orders of the Land
Reforms Tribunal dated 09.06.1976 and Land Reforms
Appellate Tribunal, Mahabubnagar dated 02.12.1983.
As per the Land Reforms Proceedings, the suit schedule
properties are subject matters in C.C.No.1412/1975 on
the file of Land Reforms Tribunal, Narayanpet, dated
09.06.1976 and also before the Land Reforms Appellate
Tribunal, Mahabubnagar in L.R.A.No.14 of 1982
dated 02.12.1983. The competent authorities have
taken the suit schedule land as ceiling surplus land
27
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
and conducted enquiry under Land Reforms
Proceedings and declared that the land belongs to the
widows of late Krista Chary i.e., Smt Venkamma and
Laxmibai. In the Land Reforms Tribunal case, the
vendor of the petitioners i.e., Doshi Ravindra Chary
S/o. Kista Chary was shown as son of Laxmibai, now
the respondents cannot deny the status of Doshi
Ravindra Chary, the respondent No.7 herein, as
adopted son of late Kista Chary.
27. After disposal of appeal by the Land Reforms
Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No.14 of 1982, the revenue
authorities have mutated the records in favour of the
vendor of the petitioners in W.P.No.9064 of 2019 and
thereafter, the petitioners in W.P.No.9064 of 2019 have
purchased the suit schedule land through registered
documents and their names were also mutated in the
revenue records in the year, 1997. The competent
authority has issued Certificate under Section 38-E of
28
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agriculture Lands Act, 1950, in favour of late Sayanna
in proceedings No.E/1513/1975 for the land in
Sy.No.142 and mutated the records.
28. After mutation of records, after lapse of 18 years
in respect of suit schedule lands in W.P.No.9064 of
2019 and after lapse of 40 years in respect of suit
schedule lands in W.P.No.9093 of 2019, the respondent
No.6 filed ROR revision before the respondent No.3 and
the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order stating
that the property is inam land and Sri Veda Vyasa
Swamy was Inamdar and late Kista Chary as Poojari to
the said Uttadadi matt without any record and also
relied on the orders in Inam Appeal Case
No.F/23/2011. But the subject property in the said
Inam Appeal is not pertaining to the suit schedule
property and the same belongs to different village. In
view of the same, the order passed by the respondent
29
SK,J
W.P.Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
No.3 is liable to be set aside on the ground that without
any valid documents and without basing on the
relevant proceedings and only basing on mere
presumptions and assumptions passed the impugned
order.
29. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petitions
are allowed by setting the impugned order in Revision
Case No.D1/87/205 dated 16.02.2019 passed by the
respondent No.3 and directed the respondent
authorities to restore the entries in the revenue records
as per mutation in favour of the petitioners. No order as
to costs.
30. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in
these writ petitions, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SARATH, J
Date:21.04.2025
sj
L.R.copy to be marked
[ad_2]
Source link