Telangana High Court
Smt. Annapurnamma vs The State Of Talangana And 4 Others on 16 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.1240 OF 2020
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus;
1) To declare that the impugned
Compt.No.E1/18772/2019, dated 02.01.2020 as
illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.
2) The orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide
B/2589/2017, dated 25.08.2018 and consequential
orders issued by the 4th respondent vide orders
bearing No.B/5092/2018, dated 22.01.2019 are
holds good.
3) Further hold that sub-section (1) of Section 3 of
T.S.Assigned Land (POT) Act, 1977 (for short 'the
Act, 1977) is not applicable to present case.
2. Heard Sri Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel
representing learned counsel on record for the petitioner, Sri
H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader
representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue
appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Ajay Kumar
Kulkarni, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.
3. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that her late
husband, Shivappa, being a landless poor person, made an
application to the Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hyderabad, for the
allotment of agricultural land for cultivation. Pursuant to
this application, the Bhoodan Yagna Board allotted land
measuring Acs. 3.18 guntas in Survey No. 652, situated at
Ponnakal Village, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District
(hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property'), after
collecting a donation of Rs.87.50, vide proceedings No.7138
dated 18.03.1983, with a direction to the 4th respondent to
issue a consequential patta to him.
4. Based on the directions of the Bhoodan Yagna Board,
the 4th respondent issued an order bearing
No.D.Dis.C/1108/1985, dated 10.10.1985, mutating the
name of the petitioner's husband in the Record of Rights
(ROR). The petitioner's husband remained in possession and
enjoyment of the said property by cultivating it until his
death on 04.10.2007. Since then, the petitioner has been in
continuous possession and enjoyment of the property.
However, the name of one Ghattanna was recorded as
pattadar in respect of the subject property. Therefore, the
petitioner approached the 3rd respondent/Revenue Divisional
Officer, Mahabubnagar District, requesting the deletion of
Kavali Ghattanna's name from the ROR and entry of her
name as pattadar. The 3rd respondent, after issuing notices
to both the petitioner and Ghattanna and examining the
material placed before him, directed the 4th respondent to
delete the name of Ghattanna and enter the name of the
petitioner in the ROR, vide proceedings No. B/2589/2017,
dated 25.08.2018. Based on these directions, the 4th
respondent deleted Ghattanna's name and entered the
petitioner's name in the ROR, after following the due
procedure established by law.
5. While things stood thus, the 5th respondent, claiming
to be the legal heir of the donor of the subject land, filed a
petition dated 31.08.2019 before the 2nd respondent/Joint
Collector, seeking a stay of the proceedings initiated by the
3rd respondent. Based on the said representation, the 2nd
respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated
02.01.2020, wherein not only was the petition filed by the 5th
respondent dismissed, but the orders passed by the 3rd and
4th respondents were also set aside. Further, the 2nd
respondent directed the 4th respondent to restore the earlier
entries and record the subject property as "Bhoodan
Sarkari," and to initiate proceedings under Section 3(1) of
the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1977.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the
averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition, submits that the 3rd respondent passed orders
dated 25.08.2018 based on the proceedings of the Secretary,
Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hyderabad, in File
No.7138/1983 dated 18.03.1983, allotting the subject
property in favour of the petitioner's husband. As such, no
perversity can be attributed to the orders passed by the 3rd
respondent. Pursuant to the directions of the 3rd respondent,
the 4th respondent entered the name of the petitioner as
pattadar by deleting the name of one Kavali Ghattanna from
the pattadar column in the Record of Rights (ROR).
7. He further submits that the 2nd respondent committed
an error in concluding that the petitioner approached the 3rd
respondent after a lapse of 32 years from the date of grant of
patta, and also erroneously found that neither the petitioner
nor her husband was ever in possession of the subject
property. It is further submitted that once the Bhoodan
Yagna Board has allotted the property by way of a
notification, it cannot unilaterally retract or cancel the same.
In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of
this Court in Kambala Sesharatnam and others v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh 1, wherein it is held as
follows:
"13. In fact, as per the provisions of the A.P.Bhoodan and
Gramdan Act, 1965 once a donation made to Bhoodan
Board is vested in the Board under Section 15 of the said
Act, there is no provision for denotification. On the other
hand, as per Section 29 of the said Act any person whose
interests are effected as a result of the donation of any land
for the purpose of Bhoodan Yagna or Gramdan whether
before or after the commencement of the Act has to
institute a suit in a civil Court having jurisdiction."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, in
the counter filed before the 2nd respondent, the petitioner
2012(4) ALD 259
has enclosed the following documents: (1) true extract of the
pahani for the year 1971-1972; (2) true extract of the pahani
for the year 1976-1977; (3) cash receipt issued by the A.P.
Bhoodan Yagna Board; (4) copy of the proceedings issued by
the A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board vide No.104/1/1983, dated
18.03.1983; (5) copy of the proceedings issued by the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Moosapet, vide No.C/1108/1985,
dated 10.10.1985; (6) copy of the proceedings of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, vide No.B/2589/2017,
dated 25.08.2018; and (7) copy of the proceedings of the
Tahsildar, Addakal, vide No.B/5092/2018, dated
22.01.2019.
9. He further submits that, based on the aforesaid
documents, the petitioner has perfected her title over the
subject property. Therefore, the 2nd respondent ought not to
have passed the impugned proceedings setting aside the
orders of the 3rd and 4th respondents. Accordingly, he prays
that the writ petition be allowed.
10. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Revenue, upon instructions, would submit that
the Bhoodan Yagna Board was not made a party to any of
the proceedings either before the 2nd respondent or the 3rd
respondent. The said Board has also not been impleaded as
a party in the present writ petition. The 2nd respondent,
based on the documentary evidence produced by both the
petitioner and the 5th respondent, rightly set aside the orders
of the 3rd and 4th respondents and directed initiation of
action under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Andhra
Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1977, after duly serving notices
in Form-I and Form-II to both parties. As such, no perversity
can be attributed to the action of the 2nd respondent, and
there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
insofar as the subject property is concerned.
11. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent would
submit that the 2nd respondent, upon perusal of the material
placed before her, found that the name of one
Sri Kavali Ghattanna had been recorded as pattadar in
respect of the subject property without any supporting
documentary evidence. As such, the 2nd respondent has
rightly passed the impugned proceedings. He further
submits that the petitioner has not filed any documentary
proof to substantiate her claim. Moreover, the 2nd
respondent has rightly observed that, although patta was
granted in favour of the petitioner's husband in the year
1983, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent for
correction of revenue records only after a lapse of 32 years,
which is barred by limitation. He therefore submits that
there is no illegality in the order passed by the 2nd
respondent
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and the
learned counsel for the 5th respondent, and upon perusal of
the material placed before this Court, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the 2nd respondent passed the
impugned orders based on the documentary evidence
submitted by both the petitioner and the 5th respondent. As
such, no illegality or infirmity can be found in the order
passed by the 2nd respondent.
13. In fact, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue, the Bhoodan Yagna Board
was not made a party to any of the proceedings before
respondents 2 to 5, nor has it been impleaded in the present
writ petition before this Court.
14. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition, and
the same is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly,
dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner as well as the
5th respondent to assert their respective rights before the
competent civil Court, in accordance with law, if they are so
advised.
15. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel,
miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand
dismissed.
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Dated : 16-09-2025
KVS
