Srb Housing Developers Private ... vs Government Of Telangana,
2025 Latest Caselaw 3904 Tel

Telangana High Court

Srb Housing Developers Private ... vs Government Of Telangana, on 13 June, 2025

                               1
                                                              SK,J
                                    W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch



         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

     WRIT PETITION Nos.22448 of 2014, 32345 of 2014,
      18250 of 2016, 18251 of 2016 and 18279 of 2016

COMMON ORDER:

As all these writ petitions arise out of the same

schedule property and interlinked with each other, they

are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.Nos.22448 and 32345 of 2014 are filed

seeking to declare the Government Memo bearing

No.17550/Assn.V(1)/2014-1 dated 19.05.2014 issued

by the respondent No.1 and the consequential mutation

proceedings issued by the respondent No.4 vide

Proc.No.B/1603/2013 dated 16.07.2014 in pursuance

of the directions issued by the respondent No.2-District

Collector vide Lr.No.E1/5710/2007 dated 28.05.2014

pursuant to the instructions of the respondent No.1

and consequential panchanama File bearing

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

No.G4/1319/2014 dated 05.08.2014 are illegal and

arbitrary.

3. W.P.Nos.18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016 are

filed seeking to declare the common order passed by the

Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District

dated 07.04.2016 in ROR revision in different case

numbers as illegal and arbitrary.

4. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.32345 of 2014 is the

respondent No.10 in W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and

respondent No.6 in W.P.Nos.18250 and 18251 of 2016.

The respondent Nos.7 to 9 in W.P.Nos.22448 and

32445 of 2014 are petitioners in W.P.Nos.18250, 18251

and 18279 of 2016.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned

counsel for the unofficial respondents.

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

6. The W.P.No.22448 of 2014 is filed by M/s.SRB

Dollar County Plot Owners Welfare Association formed

by the purchasers of the petitioner-Company in

W.P.No.32345 of 2014 challenging the same impugned

proceedings. For the purpose of narrating the facts,

W.P.No.32345 of 2014 is taken as a lead case in first

batch of cases.

Contentions of the petitioner in W.P.No.32345 of 2014.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956 and it acquired different extents

of lands from different persons, who had purchased

those lands from the freedom fighters namely Sri

V.H.Desai, Sri Raghavendra Rao and Balakistaiah, who

were granted the land admeasuring to an extent of

Ac.10.00 each in Sy.No.108 of Tondupally Village,

Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy by the then

Tahsildar, Shamshabad vide separate proceedings. The

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

petitioner-Company has developed the entire extent of

land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.00 gts after

obtaining mutation order from the respondent No.4-

Tahsildar and permission from the Grampanchayat,

Tondupally and after development, sold the same to

third party purchasers under registered sale deeds.

While it being so, the respondent No.4, without

conducting any enquiry, has passed resumption order

under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of

Transfers) Act, 1977 (For short 'the POT Act, 1977') vide

proceedings No.B/651/2005 dated 15.04.2006 stating

that the lands are assigned lands and the sale deeds in

favour of the petitioner are not valid, but he did not

take any steps in the entire extent of land admeasuring

to an extent of Ac.30.00 in Sy.Nos.108/AA, 108/E and

108/EE , but resumed only the land admeasuring to an

extent of Ac.25.00 gts, which was developed as plots by

the petitioner- Company.

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company

further submits that challenging the said resumption

orders, the petitioner-Company filed appeal before the

respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer and the

same was dismissed by order dated 20.06.2007 in

Appeal No.D/1179/2006, against which, the petitioner-

Company filed appeal under Section 4-A(2) of the POT

Act, 1977 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy

District as Case No.E1/5710/2007. In the meantime,

the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 9 also filed appeal

before the said Joint Collector in Case

No.E1/6809/2008 and also filed implead petition in the

appeal filed by the petitioner and the said implead

petition was dismissed by the Joint Collector by order

dated 02.12.2008, against which the unofficial

respondent Nos.7 to 9 filed W.P.No.3002 of 2009 and

the same was allowed by this Court vide order

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

dated 18.02.2009. Thereafter, the unofficial respondent

Nos.7 to 9 were impleaded as respondents in the appeal

filed by the petitioner.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company

further submits that the Joint Collector has allowed the

appeal filed by the petitioner under POT Act and set

aside the resumption orders and at the same time

dismissed the appeal filed by the unofficial respondent

Nos.7 to 9 as not maintainable in common order in

Case Nos.E1/5710/2007 and E1/6809/2008 dated

23.10.2009. Questioning the said order, the unofficial

respondent Nos.7 to 9 filed W.P.Nos.27424 and 28634

of 2009 and the same were disposed of by common

order dated 30.07.2012 observing that the appeal in

Case No.E1/6809/2008 filed by the writ petitioners

therein i.e, respondent Nos.7 to 9 herein, before the

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

Joint Collector-II shall stand allowed as in the case of

the appeal filed by the petitioner herein.

10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company

further submits that the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to

9 have filed ROR appeals against the mutation

proceedings for the suit schedule land and obtained

orders from the respondent No.3 on 17.11.2008 behind

the back of the petitioner and all the plot owners who

are in actual possession, on the alleged ground that the

sale deeds are not valid, while the matter is still

pending before the Joint Collector in appeal under the

POT Act, 1977.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company

further submits that after disposal of the writ petition

Nos.27424 and 28634 of 2009 dated 30.07.2012, the

unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 9 sought implementation

of the orders dated 17.11.2008 seeking

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

mutation/correction of the entries in the village records

in respect of the suit schedule land and basing on the

letter of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the

Government issued the impugned Memo stating that

the proceedings dated 17.11.2008 issued by the

respondent No.3-Special Grade Deputy Collector and

Revenue Divisional Officer setting aside the mutation

order dated 01.11.2000 issued by the respondent No.4

have attained finality to incorporate the names of the

legal heirs of the deceased freedom fighters/political

sufferers in the revenue records and further requested

the respondent No.2-District Collector to direct the

respondent No.4-Tahsildar to take necessary further

action to mutate/correction of entries in the village

revenue records. In pursuance to the said order, the

respondent No.2 has issued proceedings bearing

Lr.No.E1/5710/2007 dated 28.05.2014 directing the

respondent No.4 to take necessary action. The

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

respondent No.4, by his proceedings No.B/1603/2013

dated 16.07.2014 ordered to record the names of the

legal heirs of the deceased original assignees in the

revenue records and to incorporate necessary changes

in the revenue records in favour of the legal heirs of the

original assignees in respect of suit schedule property

and also prepared paper panchanama on 05.08.2014.

12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company

further submits that all the proceedings were issued

behind the back of the petitioner-Company and its

purchasers and therefore, the impugned proceedings

are without any jurisdiction and violation of principles

of natural justice.

13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company

further submits that one of the respondents in

W.P.Nos.18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016 i.e, D.

Muralidhar Reddy has filed revision in the year, 2010

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

vide Revision Petition No.E1/3392/2010

dated 31.09.2010 against the orders passed in ROR

Appeal dated 17.11.2008.

14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company

further submits that the respondent No.1 has no

jurisdiction under the Telangana Rights in Land and

Pattadar and Passbooks Act, 1971 either to direct

mutation or correction of entries in ROR and therefore,

the impugned memo is without any jurisdiction and all

the consequential and further proceedings of the

respondent authorities are also void. He further

submits that the mutation orders in favour of the

petitioner-Company are un-assailed and unaffected

till date and they are in force till date and the

respondent Nos.7 to 9 are not legal heirs of the original

pattadars and they have no subsisting right or interest

over the subject property.

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company

further submits that the respondent Nos.7 to 9 and

others filed O.S.No.213 of 2019 on the file of I

Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for

declaration to declare the various registered sale deeds

and the rectification deeds as null and void and not

binding upon them against one C.S.Rajender and

others who are some of the plot owners in the layout

and the same was decreed in terms of the compromise

on 14.08.2019. As some of the plot owners, who derived

their title from their vendors through the sale deeds

which were sought to be declared as void, were not

made as parties, they filed I.A.No.752 of 2019 to set

aside the said decree passed in O.S.No.213 of 2019 on

the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy

District and the same was allowed by order dated

23.10.2024, thereby the decree passed in O.S.No.213 of

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

2019 was set aside and the matter was reopened and

the same is pending.

16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1

in treating the orders in ROR Appeal in Case

Nos.C/2733/07 and C/2734/2007 dated 17.11.2008

attained finality in spite of pendency of revision petition

No.E1/3392/2010 filed by D. Muralidhar Reddy before

the Revisional Authority is arbitrary, illegal and

requested to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the

impugned memo and the consequential orders.

Contentions of the respondent Nos.7 to 9.

17. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 9

basing on the counter submits that there is no dispute

about assignment of land admeasuring to an extent of

Ac.10-00 each to the freedom fighters by the

Government and handing over possession to them. He

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

submits that the freedom fighters have not alienated

the said lands to various persons. Challenging the

mutations vide File Nos.B/703/2000, B/704/2000 and

B/706/2000 dated 01.11.2000, the respondent Nos.7

to 9 have filed appeals before the respondent No.3 and

the same were allowed vide proceedings in Case

Nos.C/2733/07 and C/2734/07 dated 17.11.2008

respectively and as the said proceedings have become

final, the revenue authorities are bound to implement

the said orders. The petitioner-Company without proper

verification has purchased the properties and the said

sale transactions are not binding on the respondent

Nos.7 to 9 as they are based on the forged sale deeds.

In the meantime, the Government has resumed the

land vide proceedings No.B/651/2005 dated

15.04.2006 and the said proceedings were challenged

by the respondent Nos.7 to 9 by filing appeals before

the revenue authorities stating that Act 9 of 1977 does

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

not apply to assignment granted to freedom fighters

and the same were dismissed by the Joint Collector-II

Ranga Reddy District. Challenging the said orders, the

respondent Nos.7 to 9 have preferred W.P.Nos.27424

and 28634 of 2009 and the same were allowed on

30.07.2012 by setting aside the resumption order

holding that the resumption of land allotted to the

freedom fighters is illegal under the provisions of the

POT Act, 1977.

18. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 9

further submits that based on the representations and

further clarifications, the Tahsildar has issued

proceedings No.B/1603/2013 dated 16.07.2014 by

incorporating the names of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 in

Form 1(B) of the Record of Rights Act and the necessary

mutations have been carried out in the revenue

records. The Government has only clarified about the

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

implementation of orders of Revenue Divisional Officer

in Case No.C/2733/2007 and C/2734/2007

dated 17.11.2008 as they have become final as per law.

19. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 9

further submits that the impugned Memo

dated 19.05.2014 is only the consequential order

by way of clarification in implementation of the

order dated 17.11.2008 and no fresh orders have been

passed and it is only clarificatory proceedings. The

petitioners have no right and the sale deeds have no

validity in the eye of law and if the petitioners have any

right, title and possession, they have to agitate the

same before the appropriate civil Court, but not by way

of these writ petitions. He further submits that as the

names of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 have been

incorporated and the impugned orders have been

carried out in the revenue records, the petitioners are

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

not entitled for any relief and the writ petitions are

liable to be dismissed.

Contentions of the respondent No.11 in W.P.No.22448 of 2014.

20. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.11 in

W.P.No.22448 of 2014 would submit that as per the

findings of the Joint Collector-II in the order

dated 07.04.2016 that the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Chevella is not competent to decide the validity or

otherwise of registered sale deeds, the order of the

Revenue Divisional Officer dated 17.11.2008 is void. He

further submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer

erred in finding that the alleged legal heirs of original

assignees have not received notices of the mutations

and the said plea is invalid and untenable as the

original assignee Sri V.H.Desai was very much alive by

the time of mutations which were done in the year,

2000 in favour of his vendees. He further submits that

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

though the vendor himself has not disputed the

mutations during his life time, his legal heirs cannot

question the mutations in the year, 2007 before the

Revenue Divisional Officer in Case Nos.C/2733/2007

and C/2734/2007 and they also filed a suit in

O.S.No.213 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for cancelation of

registered sale deeds and declaration of title.

21. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.11 further

submits that contrary to the findings of this Court in

W.P.Nos.27424 of 2009 and 28634 of 2009

dated 30.07.2012 and based on the presumption that

this Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the legal

heirs of the original assignees, the respondent No.1-

Government has issued the impugned memo and the

consequential proceedings of mutation, but no right of

mutation of the names of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 was

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

ordered in the said writ petitions. He further submits

that until their rights are decided by the Civil Court, the

respondent Nos.7 to 9 cannot claim any right or title to

the subject lands including possession or mutations

and requested to set aside the impugned proceedings.

Contentions of the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016.

22. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that

on the basis of the alleged forged sale deeds, one

D. Muralidhar Reddy and others had obtained mutation

proceedings from the Tahsildar dated 01.11.2000 and

challenging the mutation proceeding Nos.B/703/2000,

B/704/2000 and B/706/2000, the petitioners herein

have filed appeals vide No.C/2733/2007 and

No.C/2734/2007 under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act.

The said appeals were allowed vide proceedings dated

17.11.2008 on the ground that Sri Raghavender Rao

died on 11.01.1978 and the execution itself is disputed

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

and no procedure under ROR Act was followed and

even no notice was issued. Challenging the said orders,

one D. Muralidhar Reddy and the petitioner in

W.P.No.32345 of 2014 have filed three revisions before

the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District and the

same were disposed of by a common impugned order

dated 07.04.2016 by setting aside the orders passed by

the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, in case

No.B/1603/2013 dated 16.07.2014 with a direction to

record 'disputed' in the revenue records. Challenging

the said common order, the petitioners have filed

W.P.Nos.18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016 respectively.

23. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further

submits that as the subject land was maintained by the

Municipal Authorities and taxes are collected for the

existing structures in SRB Dollar County Colony by the

Corporation, the nature of current use of the subject

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

land is non-agriculture and therefore, the provisions of

ROR Act, 1971 does not apply. He submits that

revisions filed by the petitioners and another are barred

by limitation as the impugned orders therein were

passed in the year, 2008 and no application for

condonation of delay has been filed. The Joint Collector

has not taken into consideration the fact that fabricated

sale deeds were brought into existence in the year,

2000 by said D. Muralidhar Reddy and others by

producing a fake person in the place of the deceased

Raghavender Rao, who died in the year, 1978 itself and

in place of Sri V.H.Desai, who was bed ridden, and they

are not binding on the petitioners. He further submits

that the Joint Collector ought to have seen the

documents filed by the petitioners and failed to see that

no notice was issued to them by the Tahsildar at the

time of mutating the subject lands in favour of the

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

alleged purchasers and requested to allow the writ

petitions by setting aside the impugned common order.

Contentions of the respondent No.6 in W.P.Nos.18250

and 18251 of 2016.

24. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.6-

Company submits that pending appeal under the POT

Act, 1977, the petitioners and Sri Damodar

Chincholkar have obtained cancellation of mutation

orders in ROR Appeal from the respondent No.3 on

17.11.2008 behind the back of the respondent No.6 and

all the plot owners who are in actual physical

possession and consequently, the Government issued

impugned memo dated 19.05.2014 and pursuant to the

same memo, the Collector has issued proceedings

bearing Lr.No.E1/5710/2007, dated 28.05.2014

directing the Tahsildar to take necessary action and the

respondent No.5 issued proceedings dated 16.07.2014

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

to record the names of the legal heirs of the deceased

original assignees in the revenue records and to

incorporate necessary changes in the revenue records

and challenging the Government Memo dated

19.05.2014, the respondent No.6 filed W.P.No.32345 of

2014. Challenging the proceedings dated 16.07.2014,

one D. Muralidhar Reddy filed ROR Revision and the

respondent No.6 has filed two revision petitions against

the orders in ROR Appeal dated 17.11.2008 and the

same were disposed of by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga

Reddy, in the common impugned order

dated 07.04.2016.

25. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 further

submits that the respondent No.3 has rightly gave

finding that the legality or otherwise of the sale deeds

are beyond the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities in

ROR proceedings, but ought not to have directed the

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

respondent No.4 to record the lands as 'disputed' and

requested to dismiss the writ petition.

Contentions of the respondent No.6 in W.P.No.18279 of

2016.

26. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 submits

that the impugned Memo dated 19.05.2014 was issued

only to have personal gains of the Principal Secretary to

the then Government taking advantage of the State

bifurcation as the impugned instructions were issued

just about a week before formation of new States of

Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. He submits that

pursuant to the impugned Memo, the respondent No.2-

District Collector has issued directions to the

respondent No.5-Tahsildar to forthwith mutate the

names of the petitioners, but no notice was issued to

either the successors-in-title or the members of the

Association who are factually in possession of the plots.

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

The respondent No.5 has issued mutation orders vide

proceedings No.B/1603/2013 dated 16.07.2014 in

favour of the petitioners without any notice to the

factual possessors having known that the land in

Sy.No.108 of Thondupally was already developed into

plots under SRB Dollars County and is physical

possession of the members of the Association and

requested to dismiss the writ petitions.

Consideration and findings:

27. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record,

this Court is of the considered view that there are

parallel proceedings under POT Act and ROR Act with

regard to the suit schedule property between the

contesting parties. There is no dispute with regard to

assignment of Government land admeasuring to an

extent of Ac.10.00 gts each to the freedom fighters

namely Sri V.H.Desai, Sri Raghavendra Rao and Sri

Balakistaiah in the year, 1980. Thereafter, the third

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

parties have purchased the land through some

registered documents and the revenue authorities have

mutated the records in favour of purchasers in File

Nos.B/703/2000, B/704/2000 and B/706/2000

dated 01.11.2000. Subsequently, the petitioner-

Company has purchased the property. While it being

so, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Shamshabad

Mandal, has passed the resumption order under

Section 4 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 in

Proceedings No.B/651/2005 dated 15.04.2006 for the

land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.00 gts, which is

in possession of the petitioner-Company in

W.P.No.32345 of 2014. Aggrieved by the said

resumption orders, the petitoner company has filed

appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella

Division in Appeal No.D/1179/06 and the same was

dismissed on 20.06.2007. Against the said orders, the

petitioner-Company has filed appeal under

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

Section 4-A(2) of the POT Act, 1977 before the Joint

Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case

No.E1/5710/2007.

28. At that point of time, the respondent Nos.7 to 9 in

W.P.No.32345 of 2014 stated to be the legal heirs of

freedom fighters have filed appeals against the

resumption orders dated 15.04.2006 before the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella and the same was

dismissed in File No.D/2743/2007 dated 17.11.2007.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.7 to 9 have

filed appeal before the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy

District in Case No.E1/6809/2008 and also filed

implead petition in the appeal filed by the petitioner

company in Case No.E1/5710/2007 and the said

implead petition was dismissed on 02.12.2008 and

against the said order, they have approached this Court

by filing W.P.No.3002 of 2009 and the same was

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

allowed on 18.02.2009. In view of the same, the

respondent Nos.7 to 9 were impleaded as the

respondent Nos.3 to 5 in the appeal filed by the

petitoner company. Thereafter, the Joint Collector,

Ranga Reddy District has clubbed the two appeals filed

by the petitioner-Company as well as the respondent

Nos.7 to 9 and passed a common order by allowing the

appeal filed by the petitioner-Company and dismissing

the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.7 to 9.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the

respondent Nos.7 to 9 have filed W.P.Nos.27424 and

28634 of 2009 and the same were disposed by common

order dated 30.07.2012 and the operative portion of the

said order is as follows;

"10. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the observation that the appeal filed by the writ petitioners before the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District-2nd respondent shall stand allowed as in

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

the case of the appeal filed by M/s. S.R.B.Housing Developers Private Limited-5th respondent. No costs".

29. While pendency of appeals against the resumption

proceedings under the POT Act, the respondent Nos.7

to 9 have filed ROR appeal against the vendors of the

petitioner-company and others before the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Chevella against the mutation

proceedings granted in favour of vendors of the

petitioner-company and others in Case

No.C/2733/2007 and C/2734/2007. Thereafter, the

said appeals were allowed on 17.11.2008.

30. After disposal of W.P.Nos.27424 and 28634 of

2009, dated 30.07.2012, basing on the letter of the

District Collector, Ranga Reddy, the respondent No.1-

Government in W.P.No.32345 of 2014 has issued the

impugned Memo No.17550/Assn.V(1)/2014-1

dated 19.05.2014, stating that the appeal filed by the

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

unofficial respondents in File No.E1/6809/2008 was

allowed and the orders dated 15.04.2006 in File No.B/

651/2006 for resumption of the land in question is not

in existence and it was declared that the land is not

covered under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. The

proceedings dated 17.11.2008 passed by the Special

Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer,

Chevella setting aside the mutation orders dated

01.11.2000 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Shamshabad have attained finality to incorporate the

names of legal representatives of the deceased freedom

fighters/political sufferers in the revenue records and

directed the District Collector to instruct the Tahsildar,

Shamshabad to take necessary further action to

mutate/correction of entries in village revenue records

in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the

respondent Nos.7 to 9 and the said Memo

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

dated 19.05.2014 and consequential proceedings are

impugned in W.P.Nos.22448 and 32345 of 2014.

31. The contesting parties are not disputing with

regard to the revision petition filed one D. Muralidhar

Reddy, who is the respondent No.8 in W.P.No.18251 of

2016 and the respondent No.6 in W.P.No.18279 of

2016, against the orders passed in ROR appeal in Case

No.C/2733/2007 dated 17.11.2008 before the Joint

Collector, Ranga Reddy District. At the time of

arguments, this Court asked the learned counsel for

both sides about what is the stage of the revision

petition filed by said D. Muralidhar Reddy in File

No.E1/3392/2010. They have stated that said revision

petition is pending and the counsel for the petitioner-

Company has produced the entire file of the Revisional

Authority obtained through Right to Information Act,

2005, before this Court. The note file of the said

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

Revision Petition shows the endorsement of the then

District Collector to issue notice under POT Act for

enquiry and disposal and call for the records of the

lower Court on 28.06.2010 in spite of the revision filed

under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and

Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and thereafter, the case

was not taken up for hearing and the same is pending.

But, the Government has issued the impugned Memo

basing on the letter addressed by the District Collector

stating that the order dated 17.11.2008 in ROR appeal

has attained finality. At the time of passing of impugned

Memo or as on this date, the orders are not yet attained

finality as the revision petition filed by D. Muralidhar

Reddy is still pending in File No.E1/3392/2010. In

view of the same, the disposal of W.P. Nos.27424 and

28634 of 2009 on 30.07.2012 is not the basis for

mutating the records in favour of the legal heirs of the

freedom fighters as there is no finality of orders in ROR

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

Appeal dated 17.11.2008 as on the date of passing of

the impugned Memo dated 19.05.2014.

32. The impugned Memo issued by the respondent

No.1 is without verifying the records and without

issuing notice to the effected parties. In view of the

same, the impugned memo dated 19.05.2014 issued by

the respondent No.1 and the consequential proceedings

issued by the District Collector in Letter No.E/5710/

2007 dated 28.05.2014 and the proceedings bearing

No.B/1603/2013 dated 16.07.2014 issued by the

Tahsildar, Shamshabad and consequential

panchanama in File No.G4/1319/2014

dated 05.08.2014 are liable to be set aside.

33. The other writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.18250,

18251 and 18279 of 2016 have challenged the common

orders passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy

District in ROR revision in Case No.D1/2101/2014,

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

D1/2103/2014 and D1/2105/2014 dated 07.04.2016.

One D. Muralidhar Reddy has filed a revision against

the orders passed in File No.B/1603/2013 dated

16.07.2014 and the petitioner-company in

W.P.No.32345 of 2014 has filed revision petitions

challenging the orders in ROR appeal in Case

No.C/2733/2007 and C/2734/2007 dated 17.11.2008.

34. In view of the checkered history of the case, the

Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District has set aside

the orders of the Tahsildar in Proceedings

No.B/1603/2013 dated 16.07.2014, but directed to

record 'disputed' in revenue records and further

directed the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal shall await

the orders of this Court in W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and

pass suitable order only after the title of any one party

is established beyond doubt as per law. The Joint

Collector in the revision petition has rightly held that

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power to decide

the validity of the registered sale deeds in ROR appeal.

35. Now this Court is disposing of W.P.Nos.22448 and

32345 of 2014 by setting aside the Government Memo

dated 19.05.2014 and the consequential proceedings.

In view of the same, the contention of the petitioners in

these writ petitions is that after implementation of the

ROR proceedings, the respondent No.6 in W.P.No.18279

of 2014 i.e, D. Muralidhar Reddy and the petitoner

company in W.P.No.32345 of 2014 have filed revisions

before the Joint Collector is not acceptable as the said

D. Muralidhar Reddy has filed revision petition against

the order in ROR appeal dated 17.11.2008 in Case

No.E1/3392/2010. The writ petitioners in W.P.

Nos.18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016 are not denying

the revision filed by D. Muralidhar Reddy in Case

No.E1/3392/2010 and the same is pending.

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

36. At the time of disposal of the subject ROR revision

petitions, the Joint Collector has not clubbed the

revision petition filed by D.Muralidhar Reddy in the

year, 2010 for the same schedule properties and the

same is still pending before the Revisional Authority.

37. The writ petitioners in W.P.No.18250 of 2016 and

batch have contended that the respondents without

filing any delay petition filed revision petition after lapse

of more than 6 years, after implementation of the orders

in appeal and the order passed by the revisional

authority on 07.04.2016 are not maintainable. In fact,

as per Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and

Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971, there is no limitation to

file revision petition. Moreover, questioning the orders

in ROR appeal dated 17.11.2008, D. Muralidhar Reddy

has filed appeal in the year, 2010, but the same is not

taken up by the revisional authority and the same is

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

pending till date. In view of the same, the contention of

delay cannot be taken into account as there is no time

limit for filing the revision under Section 9 of the ROR

Act and within a reasonable period, the revision was

filed against the order dated 17.11.2008. The

Government basing on the letter of the District

Collector, Ranga Reddy District dated 08.05.2014

issued impugned Memo bearing No.17550/Assn.V(1)/

2014-1 dated 19.05.2014 declaring that the orders

passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in ROR Appeal

dated 17.11.2008 has attained finality and the said

finding is contrary to the record as there is a revision

pending before the competent authority against the

order dated 17.11.2008.

38. After filing of the writ petitions, the writ petitioners

in W.P.No.18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016 have filed

O.S.No.213 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for declaration to

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

declare the various registered sale deeds pertaining to

the suit schedule property and the rectification deeds

as null and void. Once the petitioners have filed the

suit for declaration of title and cancellation of registered

documents and not binding on them, the competent

Civil Court has to decide the rights of the parties and

till disposal of the said civil suit by deciding the rights

of the parties, the Revenue Authorities cannot set aside

the earlier mutation proceedings issued in the year,

2000. In view of the same, the contesting parties in all

these writ petitions have to agitate their rights before

the Civil Court in pending civil suits. After adjudicating

their rights by the Civil Court, they have to approach

the revenue authorities for mutation of revenue records

if their grievance is still subsists.

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

39. Learned Counsel for the both sides have relied on

numbers of Judgments. However, those Judgments are

not apply to the facts of the instant cases.

40. In view of the above findings, W.P.Nos.22448 and

32345 of 2014 are allowed, by setting aside the

Government Memo bearing No.17550/Assn.V(1)/

2014-1 dated 19.05.2014 issued by the respondent

No.1-Government and consequential proceedings

including letter bearing Lr.No.E1/5710/2007

dated 28.05.2014 of the respondent No.2 and

proceedings bearing No.B/1063/2013

dated 16.07.2014 of the respondent No.4 and the

panchanama bearing File No.G4/1319/2014

dated 05.08.2014 conducted by the Mandal Surveyor,

Shamshabad Mandal.

41. W.P.Nos.18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016 are

dismissed by granting liberty to both the parties to

SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch

approach the revenue authorities after disposal of the

suit in O.S.No.213 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District filed by the writ

petitioners for mutation of revenue records, if cause

survives. No order as to costs.

42. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in

these writ petitions, shall stand closed.

_______________ K. SARATH, J

Date:13.06 .2025 sj