[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

L. Balram Krishna vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2026

       IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                               AT HYDERABAD

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  WRIT PETITION No.25277 of 2019

                               DATED:16.04.2026

Between:

Balram Krishna
                                                               ...Petitioner
And:
The State of Telangana,
reptd by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Hyderabad
and three others.
                                                            ...Respondents
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the

orders, dated 07.10.2019, passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Petition

No.6/2012, filed under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and

Pattedar Passbook Act, 1971, as illegal and arbitrary and to suspend

operation of the said order.

2. By the impugned order, respondent No.2 allowed the Revision

Petition, thereby cancelling the pattadar passbook and title deed issued in

the favour of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Acs.8.16 gutnas

in Sy.No.22, Acs.4.08 gts in Sy.No.23 and Acs.10.07 gts in Sy.No.24

LNA, J

situated at Sayannaraopalem, H/o Mustiband Village, Dammapet Mandal,

Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

3. Heard Sri P.Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Devara

Samhitha, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

4. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ petition are that the

schedule lands, which were purchased from the source of joint family

properties, were allotted to the petitioner when the family was separated in

year 2001; that pattadar passbooks and title deed were issued to him in the

year 2013; that after ten years, the respondents filed Revision before

respondent No.2 under Section-9 of the Telangana State Rights in Land

and Pattedar Passbook Act, 1971 (for brevity 'the ROR Act') basing on a

forged photostat copy of a partition deed dated 15.05.2004; that when

respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their supporters tried to interfere with the

possession of the petitioner over the subject lands, he filed

O.S.No.198/2013 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special

Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam and

obtained interim orders, dated 16.07.2013, in his favour.

4.1. It is further averred that respondent Nos.3 and 4 after alienating

the valuable properties that were allotted to them, filed the Revision

Petition, with a delay of ten years from the date of issuance of pattadar

LNA, J

passbook in favour of the petitioner, that too, by suppressing the material

facts; and that respondent No.2 without considering the objections of the

petitioner entertained the Revision and allowed the same. Challenging the

said order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in the Revision,

though the petitioner raised contention that the alleged partition deed

dated 15.05.2004 is not a genuine one and is a created document by

respondent Nos.3 and 4 for their wrongful gain and further, placed the

injunction order passed in favour of petitioner in O.S.No.198 of 2013,

respondent No.2 did not appreciate the said facts. He further submitted

that respondent No.2 allowed the Revision without considering the

objections raised by the petitioner and also ignoring the delay of 10 years

in approaching the said authority, which is not properly explained by the

revision petitioners, and hence, the impugned order passed by respondent

No.2 is per se illegal and arbitrary and as such, the same is liable to be set

aside.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioner placed

reliance on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

Abdul Rafeeq and others V. State of Telangana 1, wherein it is held as

follows:-

2018(1) ALD 385

LNA, J

"In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the revisional powers cannot be used arbitrarily at a belated stage for the reason that the order passed in revision under Section 34 of the 1976 Act, is a judicial order. What should be reasonable time, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

....... From the long line of precedent decisions, it is manifest that though Constitutional Courts have conceded revision power per se, but were concerned about manner of exercise of such power in individual cases. Courts expressed displeasure in invoking such power after long lapse of time and upsetting settled issues. Therefore, courts have laid down limits to exercising such power. Courts have held that even in the absence of fixing time limit such power ought to be exercised within reasonable time. However, what is reasonable time is left to be decided in individual cases."

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that

petitioner, in support of his claim that the partition deed is false, has relied

upon the affidavit dated 31.12.2014, given by one Padma, who is sister of

petitioner and respondent No.4, stating that she has not signed the said

document. However, the said affidavit dated 31.12.2014 turned to be false

and forged document in view of the affidavit dated 18.07.2024 given by

said Padma itself stating that she has no knowledge about the affidavit,

dated 31.12.2024 and the said affidavit is not made with her consent.

LNA, J

7.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 further submitted though

respondent No.4 is in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands, the

petitioner managed the officials, manipulated and obtained pattadar

passbooks and title deed in his favour in the year 2013; that respondent

No.4 is not a party to the suit in OS.No.198 of 2013 filed by the petitioner

and hence, the interim orders passed therein are not binding on respondent

No.4.

7.2. He further submitted that the petitioner had neither filed a copy of

the partition deed, which he claims to be forged, nor any document in

support of his contention that the subject lands belong to him. Learned

counsel finally submitted that the revisional authority, after perusing all

the material papers produced by the petitioner herein as well as the

revision petitioners and after considering the arguments advanced on their

behalf, rightly allowed the Revision. The petitioner failed to point out any

illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and hence, the Writ Petition

is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that

as per the report of the Tahsildar, vide Lr.No. B/989/2012,

dated.05.10.2012, it is evident that the petitioner had obtained pass books

without any valid orders from revenue authorities, and his family

members had no knowledge with regard to the same, since the pass books

obtained by the petitioner are not recorded in the confirmation register.

LNA, J

Learned Assistant Government Pleader finally submitted that respondent

No.2, after perusing the material papers before him and after hearing

arguments of both sides, has delved into the merits of the case and rightly

allowed the Revision by the impugned order, which does not suffer from

any illegality or infirmity and as such, the Writ Petition is misconceived

and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. From the above narrated facts, it is evident that on one hand,

respondent Nos.3 and 4 are claiming the subject lands on the basis of a

purported partition deed, dated 15.05.2004, and on the other hand,

petitioner is claiming the said partition deed to be false and fabricated one

and he claims to have purchased the subject lands from the source of joint

family properties. That apart, there are two affidavits dated 31.12.2014

and 18.07.2024 of one Padma, who is sister of petitioner and respondent

No.4, on record which are quite contrary to each other. The said affidavits

were allegedly given by Padma in respect of the partition deed, which

goes to the root of the case of either of the parties.

10. Thus, there are serious disputed questions of fact and title with

regard to the subject lands which requires detail examination of the

documents and evidence as well.

11. It is a well settled principle that entries in revenue records are only

for fiscal purposes and do not confer any title. The proper remedy for the

LNA, J

parties is to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief.

Insofar as the issue of entertaining and adjudicating the Writ Petition

when there are disputed questions of title, there are a catena of decisions

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one amongst it is rendered in State of

Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh & Ors 2 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court,

after considering the rival pleadings of both the parties, held as under:-

"Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the writ petition was misconceived insofar as it asked for, in effect, a declaration of writ petitioner's title to the said plot. It is evident from the facts stated hereinabove that the title of the writ petitioner is very much in dispute. Disputed question relating to title cannot be satisfactorily gone into or adjudicated in a writ petition."

12. In view of the above judgment, it is manifest that this Court, in

exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

cannot go into and adjudicate disputed questions, particularly those

relating to title, succession and validity of testamentary documents.

13. Adverting to the aforesaid settled proposition of law to the present

case, from the pleadings averred by both the parties, it is very much

evident that there exist serious disputed questions of title and facts, i.e.,

validity of the partition deed, genuineness of the two affidavits allegedly

AIR 1992 SC1018

LNA, J

given by one Padma, sister of the petitioner and respondent No.4, with

regard to the partition deed.