[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Sidam Bapu Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 31 March, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                      AT HYDERABAD

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                   WRIT PETITION No.11066 of 2020

                             Dated:31.03.2026

Between:

Sidam Bapu Rao and
six others.
                                                              ...Petitioners

And:

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

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for

the records relating to order vide Case No.D1/1785/2018, dated

17.06.2020, passed by respondent No.2 and to declare the same as illegal,

arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of

India and to set aside the same.

2. Heard Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for petitioners,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri MD.Ajmal

Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

LNA, J

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

Syed Jaleel Shah, the husband of respondent No.4, was pattadar of

Acs.33-32 gts of land situated in Sy.No.3 of Pardi (K) Village, Jainath

Mandal, Adilabad District; that out of the said extent, he sold Acs.16-36

gts (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property") to one Mahadu

through a sadabainama, dated 12.03.1961, which was subsequently

regularized by the Tahsildar under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in

Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, "ROR Act, 1971");

and that the subject property was mutated in the name of Mahadu vide

proceedings No.ROR/8/88/05.

3.1. It is further averred that, after the death of Mahadu, his son,

Kumara Chinnaiah @ Chinnu, became the owner of the subject property

and his name was mutated in the revenue records; that Kumara Chinnaiah

@ Chinnu executed a registered gift deed No. 621/2009 dated

13.02.2009, conveying the subject property in favour of petitioner No.1

herein, and the property was thereafter mutated in his name.

3.2. Later, petitioner No.1 executed a registered gift deed vide

Document No. 2267/2015 dated 17.04.2015, conveying Acs.3-00 gts in

LNA, J

Sy.No.3/A/1 in favour of petitioner No.2, and another gift deed No.

2268/2015 dated 17.04.2015, conveying Acs.3-00 gts in favour of

petitioner No. 3. Petitioner No.1 also sold Ac.1-00 gts to petitioner No. 4

through a registered sale deed bearing document No. 2269/2015, Ac.1-00

gts to petitioner No.5 through a registered sale deed bearing document

No.1938/2019 dated 18.03.2019 and Acs.6-00 gts to Koredde Vinod in

the year 2012 through a registered sale deed bearing document

No.2446/2012. The said Koredde Vinod, in turn, sold Acs.2-00 gts to

petitioner No.6 and Acs.4-00 gts to one Ankath Swathi, who

subsequently sold the same to petitioner No.7. The names of the

aforesaid persons, in whose favour the gift deeds/sale deeds were

executed, were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks

were also issued to the respective persons. Thus, as of now, petitioner

No.1 is in possession of only Ac.1-31 gts out of the subject property.

3.3. It is further averred that after the death of Syed Jaleel Shah, his

wife-respondent No.4 herein filed an application dated 02.06.2016 before

respondent No. 2, claiming that her husband was the owner of the subject

property. Respondent No.2 conducted an enquiry by issuing notice only

to petitioner No.1 and, without impleading the necessary parties and

LNA, J

without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to them

and passed the order dated 17.06.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the

present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the subject property

was originally sold by Syed Jaleel Shah in favour of Mahadu under a

sadabainama, dated 12.03.1961, and the said transaction was

subsequently regularized under the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971.

Pursuant thereto, the name of Mahadu was duly mutated in the revenue

records, which attained finality and was never challenged during the

lifetime of Syed Jaleel Shah or thereafter for several decades.

4.1. He further submitted that respondent No.4 filed an application

claiming rights over the subject property after an inordinate and

unexplained delay of more than five decades from the date of original

transaction and such a stale claim ought not to have been entertained by

respondent No.2; that respondent No.2 without issuing notice to all the

affected parties, including the present petitioners and the subsequent

purchasers, and without affording them an opportunity of hearing,

conducted an enquiry and passed the impugned order in clear violation of

LNA, J

the principles of natural justice, particularly the principle of audi alteram

partem and prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 reiterating the contents of the

counter, further submitted that though opportunity was given to petitioner

No.1 by respondent No.2, neither counter has been filed nor any material

was placed on record by him, therefore, respondent No.2, basing on the

material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order,

dated 17.06.2020, allowing the Revision Petition filed by the respondent

No.4.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that

respondent No.2 issued notice to petitioner No.1, but as he failed to file

counter or produce any material, respondent No.2, based on the material

available on record, passed the impugned order allowing the Revision

Petition filed by respondent No.4 and as such, he has not committed any

illegality in passing the impugned order and hence, the Writ Petition

being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

7. The principal contention advanced by learned counsel for

petitioners is that the impugned order is in clear violation of principles of

LNA, J

natural justice, i.e., the same was passed without issuing notice to the

petitioners and without giving them an opportunity of being heard. In this

regard, it is apt to refer to Section 5(3) of ROR Act, 1971, which reads as

under:

Section 5(3): The Mandal Revenue Officer shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) issue a 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 and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit."

8. A Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh while

interpreting the aforesaid provision of law in Chinnam Pandurangam

Vs. M.R.O, Serilingampally Mandal and another 1, held that any order

passed by the authority without serving of notice on the affected parties is

2007 (6) ALD 348

LNA, J

illegal on the ground of violation of audi alterm partem and Rule 22(3)

clearly mandates service of notice in Form-No.XI on all the interested

persons. The relevant observations of the Full Bench in the said judgment

are extracted hereunder:

"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

LNA, J

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."

9. In the case on hand, petitioner Nos.2 to 7 claim to be the

donees/purchasers of different extents of subject property from petitioner

No.1 under registered documents and their names were also mutated in

the revenue records and they were issued pattadar passbooks with regard

LNA, J

to their respective extents of land. Therefore, they fall within the meaning

of 'affected parties'. However, surprisingly, the said persons, who are

necessary parties, were not impleaded in the Revision Petition.

10. No material is placed on record to show that notices are served on

petitioners Nos.2 to 7, who are affected parties, before passing of the

impugned order, which is contrary to Section 5(3) of ROR Act, 1971.

Therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in