Yenaganti Srikanth vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 438 Tel

Telangana High Court

Yenaganti Srikanth vs The State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2026

      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                      AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                 WRIT PETITION No.2672 of 2020

                        DATED: 07.04.2026

Between:

Yenaganti Srikanth                               ...Petitioner

                                 AND

The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.                 ...Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to

proceedings No.D1/2059/2018, dated 08.01.2020 of respondent

No.2 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without

jurisdiction.

2. Heard Sri P.Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and

Sri P.Sasidhar Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8.

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that

petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 8 are own brothers; that their

father purchased land admeasuring Acs.8-18 gts in Sy.No.833 on LNA,J

10.04.1983, Ac.0-07 gts in Sy.No.832, Ac.0-18 gts in Sy.No.833 and

Ac.1-17 gts in Sy.No.834 on 01.01.1985, situated at Veldi Village,

Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District, under simple sale deeds

from one Sundaragiri Manohar Rao and obtained Pattadar Passbook

and title deed in his favour; that petitioner's father purchased several

properties at Adilabad, Mancherial, Karimnagar and Mandamarri and

the same were being used for commercial, residential and

agricultural purposes; that family partition was affected between

petitioner's father and his 10 sons including petitioner and

respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the year 2006 and 2011; and that land

admeasuring Acs.8-18 gts in Sy.No.833 (hereinafter referred to as

'subject land') was allotted to the share of petitioner; that petitioner's

father executed simple sale deed to an extent of Acs.8-18 gts in

Sy.No.833 in favour of petitioner and the same was regularized by

respondent No.4 vide proceedings No.B/3875/2005-06, dated

05.12.2008 and Form-13B & 13C Certificates as well as Pattadar

Passbook and title deed were issued in favour of the petitioner and

his name was also mutated in the revenue records.

4. It is further averred that aggrieved by the regularization

proceedings dated 05.12.2008, respondent Nos.5 to 8 have filed an

appeal No.D/14420/2016, before respondent No.3; that the appellate LNA,J

authority without considering Section 6(A) of the A.P.Rights in Land

and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, allowed the appeal and set aside

the proceedings of respondent No.4 vide Order dated 18.06.2018,

though respondent Nos.5 to 8 filed the said appeal after lapse of 8

years. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner filed revision vide

revision petition No.D1/2059/2018 before the Joint Collector,

Karimnagar, and the said revision was also dismissed vide Order

dated 08.01.2020. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is

filed.

5. Counter has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 8 by

contending that land admeasuring Acs.8-18 gts in Sy.No.833 was

purchased by respondent Nos.5 to 8 under registered sale deed

Nos.380, 378, 379 and 381 of 1987 respectively, admeasuring

Acs.2-00 gts each and their names were recorded in revenue records,

pahanies as well as 1-B Register and they were issued with Pattadar

Passbooks and title deeds; and that they are cultivating the same

without any interruption. It is further averred that petitioner has

fraudulently obtained regularization proceedings by a fabricated

simple sale deed dated 14.06.1998 in respect of land admeasuring

Acs.8-18 gts in Sy.No.833 and obtained 13-B and 13-C certificates;

that the said certificates were issued even without any notice to LNA,J

respondents, who are Pattadars and possessors of the said land; that

as per G.O.Ms.No.1765, dated 06.10.2015, the Sadabainama

executed in favour of small and marginal farmers who have less than

Acs.5-00 gts can only be regularized and Form-I application can be

received and further, Form-X application of simple sale deed can be

received on or before 31.03.2008, as per G.O.Ms.No.77, dated

25.01.2008; that in the present case, no such application was

received prior to cut off date i.e., 31.03.2008, therefore, respondent

No.4 ought not to have passed the regularization proceedings as

much as the simple sale deed was regularized, though the same is

executed in respect of Acs.8-18 gts contrary to G.O.Ms.No.1765,

dated 06.10.2015; that petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.63 of 2018,

for partition and separate possession, before II-Additional District

Judge, Karimnagar, claiming the subject land admeasuring Acs.8-18

gts in Sy.No.833 as joint family property, which is contrary to the

contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition; that the said

suit was dismissed for default; that pursuant to the Orders passed

by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the names of respondent Nos.5 to 8 were

recorded in the revenue records and in Dharani Portal as Pattadars

and assigned Khata Nos.60103, 60104, 60105 & 60106 respectively.

LNA,J

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that subject land

was purchased by petitioner's father and the same was alienated in

favour of petitioner by way of simple sale deed and the same was

validated by respondent No.4 by following due procedure as

contemplated under Section 5(A) of the RoR Act, 1971, however,

respondent No.3 without considering the facts and law in proper

perspective had set aside the regularization proceedings of

respondent No.4. He further submitted that the Joint Collector has

committed error in dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner

on erroneous observations and by referring to report submitted by

Tahsildar to Lokayuktha that validation proceedings are not available

in the office records. He further submitted that the Joint Collector,

instead of referring to the contentions put forth and the material

placed on record, has relied upon the report submitted by the

Tahsildar to Lokayuktha and dismissed the revision and therefore,

the same is unsustainable and finally prayed to allow the writ

petition.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 would

submit that petitioner had fraudulently obtained validation

proceedings by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts and in

fact, respondent Nos.5 to 8 have purchased the subject land under LNA,J

registered sale deed in the year 1987 and the Tahsildar without

issuing any notice to unofficial respondents, passed validation

proceedings contrary to intent and purport of Section 5(A) of RoR Act,

1971, therefore, the same is unsustainable. He further submitted

that the Joint Collector by duly taking into consideration the fraud

played by the petitioner and by referring to the report of the

Tahsildar, submitted to the Lokayuktha, has rightly dismissed the

revision preferred by the petitioner.

8. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for respondent

Nos.5 to 8 relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by

Lrs. and others, 1 wherein, it was held as under:-

"The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property- grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court- process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."

9. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 further submitted

that there was no delay in filing the appeal and the same was filed

(1994) 1 SCC 1 LNA,J

immediately within the prescribed period from the date of knowledge

and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan Lal

Vs. State of U.P and others, 2 and finally prayed to dismissed the

writ petition and the same is devoid of any merit.

10. Perusal of the record discloses that petitioner has taken

inconsistent pleas while claiming the subject land. In the writ

affidavit, it is contended that father of petitioner and respondent

Nos.5 to 8 purchased the subject land in the year 1983 and the same

was transferred to the petitioner by way of simple sale deed and that

the same was validated by Tahsildar vide proceedings

No.B/3875/2005-06, dated 05.12.2008. It is also contended that the

subject land was allotted to his share during partition, which took

place among the family members in the year 2006 and 2011.

Petitioner had filed a suit vide O.S.No.63 of 2018, before II-Additional

District Judge, Karimnagar, for partition, wherein, the petitioner

claimed the subject land as joint family property, therefore, there is

clear inconsistency in the contention of the petitioner. Whereas, the

contention of respondent Nos.5 to 8 is consistent and they are

claiming subject land vide registered sale deed Nos.380, 378, 379

and 381 of 1987 respectively.

(1975) 2 SCC 779 LNA,J

11. It is relevant to note that there is cloud over simple sale deed,

which is evident from the observation of the respondent No.3-R.D.O

in his Order dated 18.06.2018, wherein, it was observed that on the

complaint filed by respondent No.5 before Lokayuktha, respondent

No.4-Tahsildar, submitted a report, as per which, the names of

respondent Nos.5 to 8 were recorded as Pattadars in respect of

Acs.2-00 gts each for the years 1997-99 and 2009-10 and

subsequently, the name of petitioner was recorded in respect of land

admeasuring Acs.8-00 gts and the name of petitioner's father was

recorded in respect of land admeasuring Acs.0-18 gts in the pahanies

for the year 2011-12; and that later, the name of Pochaiah was

rounded off and the name of petitioner was recorded.

12. In the report of Tahsildar, it is further mentioned that the

entire extent of Acs.8-18 gts in Sy.No.833 was validated vide file

No.B/3875/2005-06, dated 05.12.2008, basing on unregistered sale

deed dated 14.06.1988, said to have been executed by respondent

Nos.5 to 8 as well as Pochaiah i.e., father of petitioner. It is further

mentioned that file No.B/3875/2005-06, dated 05.12.2008,

mentioned in Form-13B and 13C could not be traced out from their

office and the same seems to be not genuine, as no serial number

was allotted after 1359 to any current/file in their office for the LNA,J

relevant year. From the report of the Tahsildar, it can be construed

that the genuinity of validation proceedings are in serious dispute.

13. It is also relevant to note that respondents are claiming the

subject land vide registered sale deeds, whereas, the petitioner has

taken contradictory pleas i.e., as Joint Family Property in O.S.No.63

of 2018, whereas, before the Tahsildar, petitioner claimed to have

purchased the same under simple sale deed. Further, in the writ

affidavit, petitioner claimed that subject land was allotted towards

his share during the family partition in the year 2006 and 2011,

however, the petitioner has failed to substantiate any of the pleas by

placing sufficient material before this Court. In so far as, delay is

concerned, it is the specific contention of the respondent Nos.5 to 8

that appeal was filed within stipulated time from the date of

knowledge, however, no specific dates have been mentioned in the

Counter.

14. It is evident from the material placed on record that petitioner

obtained the regularization proceedings from respondent No.4 by

suppressing and misrepresenting the facts, therefore, the ratio laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu

(supra) squarely applies to the present case. Further, according to

respondents, no notice has been issued to respondent Nos.5 to 8 in LNA,J

the validation proceedings, which is contrary to RoR Rules, 1989, as

per which, a notice is mandatory to the vendor of the Sadabainama,

therefore, the regularization proceedings of Tahsildar, are contrary to

the procedure prescribed under RoR Rules, 1989, and thus,

respondent No.3-R.D.O has rightly set aside the regularization

proceedings and respondent No.2 has not committed any error in

dismissing the revision. In considered opinion of this Court, the

petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the

impugned Order dated 08.01.2020, and therefore, writ petition fails

and is liable to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.

                                 _______________________________________
                                 JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
DATE:      07.04.2026
Tri