Telangana High Court
Dhanikula Vengal Rao S/O Vengaiah ... vs The State Of Telangana, on 12 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.13514 of 2016 & 33558 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is
similar, they were heard together and are being disposed of by
this common order.
2. W.P.No.13514 of 2016 is filed seeking to declare the
action of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial in treating
the representation dated 25.08.2015 of the unofficial
respondents as an appeal and passing the order dated
12.03.2016 in File NO.G/6024/2015 by going into serious
questions of title as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the
same.
3. W.P.No.33558 of 2022 is filed seeking to declare the
action of the Tahsildar, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District, in
changing the patta in the revenue records from the name of the
petitioner to the names of respondent Nos.5, 14 and 15 herein
and thereafter in the name of respondent No.14 in respect of the
petitioner's land in Survey No.42/2 (old) Survey No.42/2G/4,
42/2G/5, 42/2G/6 (New) admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas situated
at Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District,
and consequently converting the petitioner's land into non-
agriculture purpose by issuing NALA order dated 01.04.2022 in
favour of respondent No.14 vide proceedings No.2200353558 of
respondent No.4, despite order dated 21.04.2016 in IA.No.1 of
2016 (WPMP.No.16894 of 2016) in W.P.No.31514 of 2016 as
illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to consequently
set aside the same.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
arrayed in W.P.No.33558 of 2022.
5. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and
possessor of land in Survey No.42/2 admeasuring Ac.4.00
guntas situated at Seetharampalli Village, Naspur Mandal,
Mancherial District, having purchased the same through
registered sale deed bearing Document No.4208/2010 dated
12.07.2010. It is stated that the name of the petitioner has
been mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books
and title deeds have also been issued in his favour. It is further
stated that when respondent Nos.7 to 13 interfered with his
peaceful possession over the subject land, he was constrained
to file a suit vide O.S.No.191 of 2012 on the file of the learned
Principal Junior Civil Judge at Mancherial, seeking perpetual
injunction, which was decreed vide judgment dated 09.03.2015,
against which the unofficial respondents filed an appeal vide
A.S.No.46 of 2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at
Mancherial and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree
dated 05.10.2010. It is further stated that on a representation
dated 25.08.2015 being submitted by the unofficial
respondents, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial
Division, treating the same as suo motu appeal, without
affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed ex
parte order dated 12.03.2016 in File No.G/6024/2015 allowing
the appeal and cancelling the ROR proceedings issued in favour
of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13514 of
2016 and this Court, vide order dated 21.04.2016 in
W.P.M.P.No.16894 of 2016, granted interim suspension of the
order dated 12.03.2016.
6. It is further stated that despite the said interim order of
suspension passed by this Court, till the year 2020 the
respondent authorities have not updated the revenue records in
respect of the subject land of the petitioner in Dharani portal
and instead, in October, 2020, they uploaded the names of
respondent Nos.5, 14 and 15 in respect of the subject land of
the petitioner by deleting his name and consequently, the
Tahsildar, Naspur Mandal, issued NALA order dated 01.04.2022
in favour of respondent No.15 vide proceedings No.2200353558.
Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.33558 of 2022.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended
that even though the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial
Division, is not conferred with the power to entertain any
representation as suo motu appeal for deciding the lis among the
parties with regard to title, he passed the impugned order dated
12.03.2016 thereby deciding the title, without issuing any
notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing, which is
illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel further contended that
even though the said order dated 12.03.2016 has been
suspended by this Court in W.P.No.13514 of 2016, the
Tahsildar issued NALA order dated 01.04.2022 in favour of
respondent No.14 and taking advantage of the consequential
revenue entries, respondent No.14 is trying to create third party
rights over the subject land of the petitioner and if such illegal
entries are continued in the name of respondent No.14 and if
any third party rights are created over the subject land, the
petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and as
such the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial
respondents vehemently contends that the respondent
authorities have taken into consideration the fact that the
unofficial respondents are in possession of the subject land,
which is the pre-requisite for mutation of entries in the revenue
records, and rightly passed the impugned orders and as such
they do not warrant any interference by this Court.
9. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the record.
10. It is well settled that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not
empowered to suo motu entertain appeal and cancel the
pattadar pass books and title deeds, as held by a learned Single
Judge of this Court in the case of Thota Narsinga Rao vs. The
State of Andhra Pradesh and others 1. However, in the instant
case, even though there are serious disputes among the parties
with regard to title, possession and consequential mutation of
entries in the revenue records in respect of the subject land,
which are required to be decided by a competent Civil Court in a
comprehensive civil suit based on evidence, the Revenue
Divisional Officer suo motu entertained the appeal and passed
the impugned order dated 12.03.2016 thereby deciding the title,
cancelling the ROR proceedings issued by the Tahsildar and
directing the Tahsildar to make corrections in the entries in
respect of the subject land, which is ex facie illegal and as such
the impugned order dated 12.03.2016 passed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Mancherial, in File No.G/6024/2015 is liable
to be aside.
11. So far as the impugned NALA order dated 01.04.2022 is
concerned, it is evident that even though this Court granted
2007(1) ALD 500
interim suspension of the order dated 12.03.2016 passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial in File No.G/6024/2015,
in W.P.M.P.No.16894 of 2016 in W.P.No.13514 of 2016, the
Tahsildar, Naspur Mandal, has passed the said order and as
such it deserves to be set aside.
12. Resultantly, the writ petitions are disposed of, by setting
aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2016 passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial in File
No.G/6024/2015NALA as well as the order dated 01.04.2022
passed by the Tahsildar, Naspur Mandal, vide proceedings
No.2200353558. It is needless to observe that if the parties are
having any grievance with regard to title in respect of the
subject land, they are at liberty to approach the competent Civil
Court seeking appropriate relief, in accordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
12.02.2025
JSU
