Telangana High Court
Sidam Bapu Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 31 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.11066 of 2020
Dated:31.03.2026
Between:
Sidam Bapu Rao and
six others.
...Petitioners
And:
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Hyderabad and three others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to order vide Case No.D1/1785/2018, dated 17.06.2020, passed by respondent No.2 and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same.
2. Heard Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri MD.Ajmal Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2
LNA, J W.No.11066 of 2020
3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that one Syed Jaleel Shah, the husband of respondent No.4, was pattadar of Acs.33-32 gts of land situated in Sy.No.3 of Pardi (K) Village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District; that out of the said extent, he sold Acs.16-36 gts (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property") to one Mahadu through a sadabainama, dated 12.03.1961, which was subsequently regularized by the Tahsildar under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, "ROR Act, 1971"); and that the subject property was mutated in the name of Mahadu vide proceedings No.ROR/8/88/05.
3.1. It is further averred that, after the death of Mahadu, his son, Kumara Chinnaiah @ Chinnu, became the owner of the subject property and his name was mutated in the revenue records; that Kumara Chinnaiah @ Chinnu executed a registered gift deed No. 621/2009 dated 13.02.2009, conveying the subject property in favour of petitioner No.1 herein, and the property was thereafter mutated in his name. 3.2. Later, petitioner No.1 executed a registered gift deed vide Document No. 2267/2015 dated 17.04.2015, conveying Acs.3-00 gts in 3 LNA, J W.No.11066 of 2020 Sy.No.3/A/1 in favour of petitioner No.2, and another gift deed No. 2268/2015 dated 17.04.2015, conveying Acs.3-00 gts in favour of petitioner No. 3. Petitioner No.1 also sold Ac.1-00 gts to petitioner No. 4 through a registered sale deed bearing document No. 2269/2015, Ac.1-00 gts to petitioner No.5 through a registered sale deed bearing document No.1938/2019 dated 18.03.2019 and Acs.6-00 gts to Koredde Vinod in the year 2012 through a registered sale deed bearing document No.2446/2012. The said Koredde Vinod, in turn, sold Acs.2-00 gts to petitioner No.6 and Acs.4-00 gts to one Ankath Swathi, who subsequently sold the same to petitioner No.7. The names of the aforesaid persons, in whose favour the gift deeds/sale deeds were executed, were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were also issued to the respective persons. Thus, as of now, petitioner No.1 is in possession of only Ac.1-31 gts out of the subject property. 3.3. It is further averred that after the death of Syed Jaleel Shah, his wife-respondent No.4 herein filed an application dated 02.06.2016 before respondent No. 2, claiming that her husband was the owner of the subject property. Respondent No.2 conducted an enquiry by issuing notice only to petitioner No.1 and, without impleading the necessary parties and 4 LNA, J W.No.11066 of 2020 without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to them and passed the order dated 17.06.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the subject property was originally sold by Syed Jaleel Shah in favour of Mahadu under a sadabainama, dated 12.03.1961, and the said transaction was subsequently regularized under the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971. Pursuant thereto, the name of Mahadu was duly mutated in the revenue records, which attained finality and was never challenged during the lifetime of Syed Jaleel Shah or thereafter for several decades. 4.1. He further submitted that respondent No.4 filed an application claiming rights over the subject property after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than five decades from the date of original transaction and such a stale claim ought not to have been entertained by respondent No.2; that respondent No.2 without issuing notice to all the affected parties, including the present petitioners and the subsequent purchasers, and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, conducted an enquiry and passed the impugned order in clear violation of 5 LNA, J W.No.11066 of 2020 the principles of natural justice, particularly the principle of audi alteram partem and prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 reiterating the contents of the counter, further submitted that though opportunity was given to petitioner No.1 by respondent No.2, neither counter has been filed nor any material was placed on record by him, therefore, respondent No.2, basing on the material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order, dated 17.06.2020, allowing the Revision Petition filed by the respondent No.4.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that respondent No.2 issued notice to petitioner No.1, but as he failed to file counter or produce any material, respondent No.2, based on the material available on record, passed the impugned order allowing the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.4 and as such, he has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and hence, the Writ Petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
7. The principal contention advanced by learned counsel for petitioners is that the impugned order is in clear violation of principles of 6 LNA, J W.No.11066 of 2020 natural justice, i.e., the same was passed without issuing notice to the petitioners and without giving them an opportunity of being heard. In this regard, it is apt to refer to Section 5(3) of ROR Act, 1971, which reads as under:
Section 5(3): The Mandal Revenue Officer shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) issue a 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 and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit."
8. A Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh while interpreting the aforesaid provision of law in Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. M.R.O, Serilingampally Mandal and another 1, held that any order passed by the authority without serving of notice on the affected parties is 1 2007 (6) ALD 348 7 LNA, J W.No.11066 of 2020 illegal on the ground of violation of audi alterm partem and Rule 22(3) clearly mandates service of notice in Form-No.XI on all the interested persons. The relevant observations of the Full Bench in the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
"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 recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 8 LNA, J W.No.11066 of 2020 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.
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."
9. In the case on hand, petitioner Nos.2 to 7 claim to be the donees/purchasers of different extents of subject property from petitioner No.1 under registered documents and their names were also mutated in the revenue records and they were issued pattadar passbooks with regard 9 LNA, J W.No.11066 of 2020 to their respective extents of land. Therefore, they fall within the meaning of 'affected parties'. However, surprisingly, the said persons, who are necessary parties, were not impleaded in the Revision Petition.
10. No material is placed on record to show that notices are served on petitioners Nos.2 to 7, who are affected parties, before passing of the impugned order, which is contrary to Section 5(3) of ROR Act, 1971. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, it is to be held that the impugned order passed by an authority without serving notice on the affected parties is nullity.
11. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merits of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that it is appropriate to remand the matter back to respondent No.2 for fresh adjudication.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.06.2020 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 with a direction to consider the application dated 02.06.2016, submitted by respondent No.4, by duly issuing notice to the writ petitioners, who are the affected parties, and 10 LNA, J W.No.11066 of 2020 affording them an opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate orders as contemplated under law. Respondent No.2 shall complete the entire exercise within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
______________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Date: 31.03.2026 Dr