Aluvala Ganesh Babu vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 123 Tel

Telangana High Court

Aluvala Ganesh Babu vs The State Of Telangana on 30 March, 2026

    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

                                   HYDERABAD

   HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  WRIT PETITION No.15786 OF 2020
                              Dated:30.03.2026

Between:

Aluvala Ganesh Babu
and four others.
                                                              ...Petitioners

And:



The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
 Hyderabad and four others.

                                                            ...Respondents

ORDER:

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

action of respondent No.4 in changing the revenue records in respect of

land admeasuring Ac.0-15 gts in Sy.No.127 (new)/Sy.No.132 (old),

situated at Somidi Village, Babu Camp, Siddhartha Nagar, Kazipet,

Warangal District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property') and

LNA, J

incorporating the name of respondent No.5, without notice to the

petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri S.Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Though Sri Pawan

Kumar Agarwal, advocate, entered appearance for respondent No.5, there

is no representation on his behalf.

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

originally, the petitioners' grandfather, late Aluvala Komuraiah, was the

pattadar and possessor of the subject property, and his name was reflected

in the pahanies from the year 1979-1980 until the illegal change was

effected on 10.08.2020; that after the death of Komuraiah, his son,

Sambaiah, inherited the subject property, and his name was entered in the

revenue records; that on the death of Sambaiah, the petitioners and their

mother inherited the subject property and became the joint owners and are

in peaceful possession of the same.

3.1. It is further averred that while the matter stood thus, respondent

No.4 issued pattadar passbooks in favour of respondent No.5, without

issuing any notice to the petitioners, allegedly on the strength of a simple

unregistered sale deed said to have been executed in favour of respondent

LNA, J

No.5 by one Alice Cyriac and three others; that as per respondent No.5, his

vendors have acquired rights over the subject property by virtue of an

unregistered agreement of sale allegedly executed by the petitioners'

father; and that on coming to know about issuance of pattadar passbooks in

favour of respondent No.5, the petitioners submitted several

representations to respondent No.2.

3.2. It is further averred that subsequently, the petitioners filed an appeal

before respondent No.3 under Section 5(B) of the Telangana State Record

of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, "ROR

Act, 1971"), seeking to set aside the order passed by respondent No.4 and

to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of respondent No.5; that

respondent No.3, after verifying the records, issued notice dated

15.07.2020 to all the parties, including respondents No.4 and 5, directing

them to appear along with relevant documents at 11:00 A.M. on

05.09.2020; that while the matter was pending before respondent No.3,

respondent No.4, in collusion with respondent No.5, arbitrarily changed

the revenue records on 10.08.2020, by entering the name of respondent

No.5 as pattadar and possessor in the pahanies, without issuing any notice

to petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

LNA, J

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.5

and his vendors are claiming rights over the subject property basing an

unregistered agreement of sale allegedly executed by the petitioners'

father-Sambaiah, but, according to the petitioners, no such agreement of

sale exists. He further submitted that an unregistered agreement of sale

does not confer any right, title or interest in respect of immovable property

in favour of the agreement holders, therefore, question of acquiring

saleable rights over the subject property on the basis of such an alleged

agreement of sale by the vendors of respondent No.5 does not arise; that

respondent No.4 issued pattadar passbooks in favour of respondent No.5

on the basis of an unregistered simple sale deed, behind the back of the

petitioners; that when the appeal filed by petitioners before respondent

No.3 was pending, respondent No.4, in collusion with respondent No.5,

illegally and arbitrarily altered the revenue records on 10.08.2020, by

entering the name of respondent No.5 as pattadar and possessor in the

pahanies, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, which is contrary to

the law laid down by the Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer,

Serilingampally Mandal and ors1.

2007 (6) ALD 348 (FB)

LNA, J

4.1. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that the entire

subject property is shown as "Residential Houses" in the revenue records,

in such a case, respondent No.4 lacks jurisdiction and further, he cannot

decide disputed question of title. By contending as above, learned counsel

for petitioners prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

5. Counter has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 stating that the

simple sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.5 by Alice Cyriac

and three others was regularized, as the latter claimed to have purchased

the subject property from one Sambaiah (petitioners' father); that

consequently, pattadar passbooks were issued in favour of respondent No.5

vide PPB No.233948, Khata No.295, during the year 2010, by duly

following the procedure laid down under the ROR Act, 1971, and the same

was implemented in the pahani for the year 2009-10. It is further stated that

the appeal filed by petitioners, under Section 5(B) of the ROR Act, 1971,

before the RDO, was subsequently taken up by the Special Tribunal,

which, in turn, disposed of the appeal on 06.02.2021, observing that the

matter was subjudice, as S.A.No.1070 of 2003 was pending before this

Court and advised the petitioners to seek adjudication of title subject to

outcome of the Second Appeal.

LNA, J

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that

sadabainama under which respondent No.5 purchased the subject property

from father of the petitioners was regularized and Form XIII-B was issued

under Section 5A of ROR Act, 1971 by duly following the procedure as

stipulated under the ROR Act, 1971 and consequently, the name of

respondent No.5 was entered in the revenue records. She finally submitted

that the action of respondent No.4 is not illegal and arbitrary and hence, the

Writ Petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.

7. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is necessary to refer to

the relevant provisions of the ROR Act, 1971, as per which, a person

acquiring any right as owner, pattadar, etc, shall intimate the same to the

Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), upon which, the Mandal Revenue

Officer is bound to amend the ROR by issuing notice to all persons whose

names are entered in the record in writing and who are interested in or

affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason

to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby.

8. In Chinnam Pandurangam's case (cited supra), the Full Bench of

the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh interpreted Section 5(3) of the

ROR Act and held as hereunder:

LNA, J

"..If an application is made for amendment of the existing entries in the Record of Rights, the person whose name already exists in such record is entitled to contest the proposed amendment. He can do so only if a notice regarding the proposed amendment is given to him by the recording authority. An order passed against a person whose name already exist in the Record of Rights without giving him notice of the proposed amendment and effective opportunity of hearing is liable to be declared nullity on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, which, as mentioned above, represent the most important facet of the rules of natural justice. It needs no emphasis that the rules of natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The rule of hearing is also applicable in purely administrative proceedings and actions where any public authority passes an order affecting the rights of any individual. The applicability of the rules of natural justice to purely administrative actions has been recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and has been reiterated in various judgments including those of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136, Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC

180.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the requirement of issuing notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment is independent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rules 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form- VIII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment."

LNA, J

9. From a reading of the afore judgment, it is clear that any order

passed by the authority without serving of notice on the interested

parties/affected parties is illegal on the ground of violation of audi alterm

partem, and Rule 22(3) of the Rules clearly mandates service of notice in

Form No.XI on all the interested persons.

10. A perusal of the record shows that in the appeal filed by the

petitioners before respondent No.3, seeking cancellation of the pattadar

passbooks issued in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of the subject

property, respondent No.4 was issued notice calling upon him to be present

along with the relevant documents. Thus, respondent No.4 was well aware

of the fact that petitioners are interested/affected parties in the subject

property, being the legal heirs of one Aluvala Sambaiah, whose is name is

reflected in all the revenue records. In such a scenario, respondent No.4 is

bound to issue to the petitioners, who are interested/affected parties, before

effecting any amendment of the existing entries in the revenue records.

But, respondent No.4 has entered the name of respondent No.5 in the

revenue records without issuing any notice to the petitioners before making

such alteration/change, therefore, respondent No.4 has acted in a manner

which is in clear violation of Section 4 of the ROR Act, 1971 and the ratio

LNA, J

laid down in Chinnam Pandurangam (cited supra) and hence, the said

action is illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained.

11. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the entry

of the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records is set aside and the

matter is remanded back to respondent No.4, with a direction to issue

notice to the petitioners and all other affected parties, if any, afford them

an opportunity of hearing, adjudicate the matter afresh and then pass

appropriate orders as per the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971. Respondent

No.4 shall complete the entire exercise within a period of three (03)

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no

order as to costs.

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:30.03.2026

dr