Telangana High Court
T.Ramesh vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 2 May, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.308 and 316 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara):
Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior
Counsel representing Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government
Pleader for Revenue, for the official respondents and
Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri
N.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.6 to 9 in
W.A.No.308 of 2025 and for respondents No.3 and 4 in
W.A.No.316 of 2025. Perused the record.
2. The appeals are preferred by the appellant/respondent
No.6 in W.P.No.16804 of 2011 and respondent No.3 in
W.P.No.18918 of 2011 aggrieved by the impugned common order
dated 19.12.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.16804 and 18918 of 2011.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they are arrayed in writ petition No.16804 of 2011.
2 WA.Nos.308 & 316 of 2025
4. The writ petition i.e. W.P.No.16804 of 2011 is filed to
declare the Memo No.E/1117/2002 dated 29.01.2011 on the file
of respondent No.3-The Revenue Divisional Officer, Asifabad,
Adilabad District as illegal and to take steps based on the survey
report submitted by Deputy Inspector of Survey, Asifabad and to
direct respondent No.4-The Tahsildar to correct entries in the
revenue records by issuing Supplementary Sethwar in respect of
the lands held by the petitioners to the extent of Ac.47.83 cents,
Ac.38.02 cents and Ac.21.93 cents in Sy.Nos.520 and 524 of
Sirpur (T) and Mandal, Adilabad District.
5. The writ petition i.e. W.P.No.18918 of 2011 is filed to
declare the Memo No.E/1117/2002 dated 29.01.2011 on the file
of respondent No.3-The Revenue Divisional Officer, Asifabad,
Adilabad District as illegal and to direct respondent No.3 and 4-
The Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar to undertake a
fresh survey and identify the old survey numbers which is said to
have been converted and included in new survey numbers 520
and 524 (Government Lands) of Sirpur Town and Mandal in
Adilabad District.
3 WA.Nos.308 & 316 of 2025
6. Both the said writ petitions were disposed of with a
direction to respondent No.1-The District Collector, Adilabad
District, to take appropriate action as per the report submitted by
the Tahsildar, Sirpur (T) vide Rc.No.B/149/89, dated 29.12.2009
and to communicate the order to the contesting parties within
eight (8) weeks.
Facts of the case
7. The petitioners are the owners and possessors of their
respective lands in Sy.Nos.685, 658, 673, 687/1, 691, 692, 694,
685, 658, 673, 686, 690, 687/1, 674, 819 and 689 situated at
Sirpur Village and Mandal of Adilabad District. During recording
of Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 the aforementioned lands
were treated as Mazi Survey numbers and were converted into
Government lands. The petitioners claiming to be pattadars of the
land filed declarations under the provisions of A.P.Land Reforms
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The said lands were
computed to the holdings of the petitioners. When respondent
Nos.1 to 5 tried to evict the petitioners, a writ petition vide
W.P.No.369 of 1989 was filed and the same was disposed of vide
orders dated 03.09.1996 with a direction to the respondent Nos.1
to 5 to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders with respect
to land in Mazi Survey numbers, which were subsequently
renumbered as Sy.Nos.520/1 and 524/1 PP. Pursuant to the said
order, the respondent No.3/The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Asifabad issued notice on 15.03.2007 for conducting survey. Said
notice was questioned by the pattadars and the same was
dismissed.
8. Consequently, the Deputy Inspector of Survey conducted
survey on 23.07.2009 and a report is submitted. A podi sub-
division was done by showing the land of petitioners in
Sy.Nos.520 and 524 of Sirpur (T) Village. Then respondent
No.3/The Revenue Divisional Officer, addressed a letter to
respondent No.5/Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records
for providing Wasool Baqui, new and old cadastral maps for
identifying the land of the petitioners. In response to the said
letter, the respondent No.5 submitted report vide letter dated
24.01.2009. Respondent No.4/The Tahsildar submitted survey
and enjoyment report as per the Joint Collector's order dated
21.09.2009. But without considering the said order, respondent
No.3 issued impugned Memo No.E/1117/2002 dated 29.01.2011
expressing his inability to demarcate the property due to non-
availability of Wasool Baqui register. In addition, respondent No.3
directed the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for redressal.
9. Upon considering the rival contentions and the citation
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in
Muramalla Padmavathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
others 1, the learned Single Judge disposed of writ petitions with
a direction to respondent No.1-The District Collector to take
appropriate action based on the report submitted by the
respondent No.4- The Tahsildar, Sirpur (T) vide Rc.No.B/149/89,
dated 29.12.2009 and to communicate the same to the contesting
parties. Hence, the writ appeal.
Contentions of respondent No.6/writ appellant:
10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent
No.6/appellant argued that the learned Single Judge failed to
peruse the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.6 referring to
the previous litigation in O.S.No.20 of 1997 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, Adilabad District and its disposal
vide judgment and decree dated 13.04.2011 followed by appeal in
A.S.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad and its dismissal
vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2014.
2016 (3) ALD 650
11. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.6, in case, counter was perused, the writ petitions
would have been dismissed for suppression of material facts. A
team of surveyors have completed the enjoyment survey work and
report is submitted to respondent No.4-The Tahsildar reporting
that there is no sub-division record and therefore survey work
cannot be taken up. On the basis of the said report, respondent
No.3-The Revenue Divisional Officer issued impugned memo
dated 29.01.2011 relegating the parties to the Civil Court.
12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent
No.6/appellant further argued that the learned Single Judge
failed to consider that the father of respondent No.6 purchased
the property and became pattadar and therefore his name is
reflected in the Kasra pahani and orders of the Land Reforms
Tribunal dated 17.10.1977. A patta is issued in the name of
father of respondent No.6 and therefore, non-consideration of the
same resulted in material irregularity.
13. Further, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.6 referred to the decision of this Court in
W.P.No.369 of 1989 for conducting denova enquiry and found
that survey of disputed land cannot be done. Further, emphasis
is made on the prayer for issue of Supplementary Sethwar which
was considered by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25795 of
2006 and said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated
15.12.2006. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 emphasized
that in pursuance of the order passed in W.P.No.369 of 1989
dated 03.09.1996 for conducting of enjoyment survey, a revision
was filed before the Joint Collector and it was disposed on
30.04.2009 remanding the matter to respondent No.4-The
Tahsidar for initiating fresh action regarding enjoyment survey.
According to respondent No.6, the sequence of events show that
there are no survey or cadastral maps in the achieves department
and therefore survey cannot be taken up with the help of
geographical maps as complicated questions of fact are involved
and therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in granting the
relief to deal with complicated questions of fact. Hence, prayed to
allow the appeals by setting aside the impugned order.
Contentions of the writ petitioners:
14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners i.e. respondents No.6 to 9 in W.A.No.308 of 2025 and
respondents No.3 and 4 in W.A.No.316 of 2025, supported the
order of the learned Single Judge alleging that a survey report
has been submitted by respondent No.4-The Tahsildar vide
Rc.No.B/149/89, dated 29.12.2009 and therefore, action needs
to be taken pursuant to said report. It is argued that non-
availability of Wasool Baqui Register and Old Map cannot be a
ground to reject the relief sought by writ petitioners. It is argued
that relegating the parties to a civil court would result in
inordinate delay culminating in the matter reaching the revenue
authorities for execution of the decree.
Contentions of the learned Government Pleader
for Revenue:
15. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue argued that
the writ petitioners are not in possession of the subject land and
that the said land is Government land for which Mazi survey
numbers are given new survey numbers. Further, it is submitted
that relevant cadastral maps in respect of the subject land are
not available in the Land and Survey Department, as they are in
crumble condition and therefore, the relief sought by the writ
petitioners i.e. location of Mazi survey numbers in the new survey
numbers cannot be implemented.
Analysis of the Court:
16. A perusal of the record reveals that the learned Single
Judge considered the version presented by the writ petitioners
about their ownership and possession of lands in Sy.Nos.685,
658, 673, 687/1, 691, 692, 694, 685, 658, 673, 686, 690, 687/1,
674, 819 and 689 situated at Sirpur Village and Mandal of
Adilabad District, their conversion into Government lands during
the Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 and the order passed by this
Court in W.P.No.369 of 1989, dated 03.09.1996, wherein, a
direction was given to the respondent authorities to conduct
enquiry and pass appropriate orders with respect to the Mazi
survey numbers, which are newly numbered as Sy.Nos.520/1
and 524/1 PP which cover the lands of the writ petitioners.
Further, notices have been issued by respondent No.3-The
Revenue Divisional Officer pursuant to the orders of this Court in
W.P.No.369 of 1989, dated 03.09.1996 and said notices have
been subject of appeal followed by survey conducted by the
Deputy Inspector of Survey on 23.07.2009. There is also
reference to communication of respondent No.5-The Asst.
Director of Survey and Land Records about non-availability of
records of Wasool Baqui, new and old cadastral maps for
identifying the lands of the petitioners on ground.
17. The learned Single Judge relying upon the legal ratio laid
down in Muramalla Padmavathi's case (supra), proceeded to
direct respondent No.3-The Revenue Divisional Officer to take
action as per report submitted by the Tahsildar, Sirpur (T) vide
Rc.No.B/149/89, dated 29.12.2009.
18. In the entire above sequence of events, there is absolutely
no reference to the version presented by respondent No.6 i.e. writ
petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.16804 of 2011 filing a suit in O.S.No.20
of 1997 against respondent No.6 seeking perpetual injunction
and disposal of said suit vide judgment and decree dated
13.04.2011. As per the said judgment and decree, the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad categorically held that no documents
are produced by the writ petitioner No.2 to prove her ownership
and possession over lands claimed by her and therefore, the suit
has been dismissed. Further, the said judgment and decree have
been challenged vide A.S.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the Judge,
Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad
and the said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Over and
above, there is no reference to W.P.No.25795 of 2006, wherein,
the prayer is as follows:
"a writ of mandamus directing respondents, namely,
District Collector, Adilabad, Sub-Collector, Adilabad and
Mandal Revenue Officer, Sirpur to issue supplementary
sethwar in respect of lands in survey Nos.520/1 and
524/1 admeasuring Ac.38.2 guntas situated at Sirpur
village".
19. The above prayer is similar to the prayer of the current
writ petitions, wherein relief sought is to correct the entries in the
revenue records by issuing Supplementary Sethwar in respect of
lands held by the petitioners. In W.P.No.25795 of 2006, the
subject land is Ac.38.2 gts., in Sy.Nos.520/1 and 524/1 which
are the subject survey numbers of the current writ petitions. The
writ petitioner No.2 and her counsel did not cooperate with this
Court in providing information as to the relevant law and
regulations dealing with preparation of Sethwar and
Supplementary Sethwar or the competent authority who orders
preparation of Supplementary Sethwar as per the relevant
revenue laws. Since there was no assistance in providing relevant
information in spite of giving sufficient time, the said writ petition
has been dismissed. Once the writ petitioner No.2 suffered an
adverse order by this court in W.P.No.25795 of 2006, she is
precluded from filing subsequent writ petitions seeking same
relief i.e. with respect to writ petitioner No.2, the order in
W.P.No.25795 of 2006 operates as res-judicata.
20. Last but not least, the prayer in one of the current writ
petitions i.e. W.P.No.18918 of 2011 shows that the writ
petitioners do not have any knowledge about the location,
boundaries and identity of the old survey numbers which are
included in new survey numbers 520 and 524. In case, the writ
petitioners were truly in possession of the subject lands, there
would be no occasion to seek relief of location and identification
of the land on ground of old survey numbers in the new survey
numbers. The relief sought by the writ petitioners is sufficient to
conclude that they do not have possession over the subject lands
and therefore, do not have any locus standi to seek any kind of
relief.
21. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Ramjas Foundation and others vs. Union of India 2 and
Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. and others 3, a person who
does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be
heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such
person is not entitled to any relief and that a litigant is bound to
make full and true disclosure of facts. The writ petitioners herein
approached the Court with unclean hands. Therefore, the legal
ratio of the aforementioned citation is squarely applicable to the
writ petitioners for suppression of facts with respect to civil
(2010) 14 SCC 38
2013 (2) SCC 398
litigation and also in view of previous writ petitions, therefore, the
writ petitioners are not entitled to grant of any relief on merits.
22. In the result, the Writ Appeals are allowed setting aside
the impugned common order of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.16804 and 18918 of 2011, dated 19.12.2024. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any,
stand disposed of.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 02.05.2025
gvl
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.308 and 316 of 2025
(Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara)
Date: 02.05.2025
gvl
