Writ petition challenging a Joint Collector's revision order remanding a mutation dispute for fresh enquiry. Since the appellate order under revision had already been acted upon by the Tahsildar without any stay, the Court held the revision order had become infructuous and set it aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3383 I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO: 10132 OF 2020
Between:
Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased Petitioner No.1 as per C.O. dt.28.06.2023 in l.A.No.I ot 2022.
...PETITIONERS
AND
t.
t
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of l'ndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records in case
No.F2l108312019 dated 8.2.2020 passed by 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to law.
lA NO.: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings bearing No.F2l 108312019 dated 8.2.2020 passed by 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition.
counsel for the Petitioner: sRl E.MADAN MOHAN RAo, Sr. couNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 4: AGp FOR REVENUE
counsel for the Respondent No.5: sRl K.V.SUDHAKAR 0vor pREsENr) The Court made the fottowing: ORDER
-l
,t-!
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WP.No. 10132 of 2020
Dated:22.12.2025
Between:
Sukkala Chandraiah,(died)
per LRs. and others.
.Petitioners
And:
The Stqte of Telangana, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Deportment, .Hyderabad and four others.
Respondents
ORDER..
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of
Certiorari calling for the records in Case No.F2l108312019, dated
08.02.2020, passed by respondent No.2 and to quash the same as
rl
illegal, arbitrary and withoutjurisdiction.
the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4. Though Sri K.V.Sudhakar, advocate, entered appearance for respondent No.5,
\
2
LNA, J WP.No.l0I32 of 2020
none appeared on his behalf therefore, the writ petition is disposed of on appreciating the material available on record. 3. Leamed senior counsel for petitioner submitted that originally, grandfather of petitioner Nos.l and. 2, viz., Sukkala Yellaiah was the owner of rand admeasuring Acs. 17.30 guntas in Sy.No.250/A of Dathrapaly village, yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District and that during his life time, he partitioned the said land among his five sons, in which, the father of petitioner Nos.l and 2 namely Bakkaiah has got Acs.2.22guntas to his share and subsequently, after his death, petitioner Nos. r and 2have succeeded to half share each out of Acs.2.22 guntas.
3.1. Leamed senior counsel further submitted that petitioner No.1 expired during the pendency of the present writ petition and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are brought on record as his legar representatives. when the matter stood thus, the name of respondent No.5 was mutated in the revenue records in respect of an extent of Acs.2.00 gts of rand, by respondent No.4-Tahsildar, vide proceedings No.B/l95812013, dated lo.o2.2ol3, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice to interested persons, including the petitioners. Aggrieved by the
v
:'i
3
LNA, J WP.No.l0Ii2 of 2020
same, petitioner Nos.l and 2 fiIedan Appeal under Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, rg7L, before respondent No.3, who vide proceedings dated 02.03.20rg set aside the mutation sanctioned by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.5 and remanded the matter to respondent No.4 for de nova enquiry. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 preferred a Revision before respondent No.2 vide File No'1083/2019, however, there was no stay, therefore, pursuant to order, dated 02.03.20r9, respondent No.4 proceeded with de nova enquiry and after considering the materiar placed on record, he passed orders on 02.07.2019 by which an extent of Ac. r.r0 % guntas of land was restored to the share of each of petitioner Nos. r and 2 and the name of respondent No.5 to an extent of Acs.2.00 has been deleted from his passbook and respondent No.4 further directed the village Revenue officer to make necessary changes in the RoR records/pahanies and on-line records and also to indicate the name of petitioner Nso.r and 2 in future pahanies under proper attestation. 3'2. Learned senior counsel further contended that it appears that the order dated o2.o7.2org passed by respondent No.4-
4
LNA, J ll/P.No.I0I32 of 2020
Tahsildar was not brought to the notice of respondent No.2 during the pendency of Revision before him, as such, respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated oa.ozt.zozo set aside the order dated 02'03'2019 of respondent No.3 and remanded the matter to respondent No.4 for fresh enquiry and to pass appropriate orders. He further submitted that though respondent No.5 preferred Revision against the order passed by respondent No.3, no interim order was granted therein staying the order passed by respondent No.3, therefore, respondent No.4 acted pursuant to the order passed by respondent No.3 and passed the impugned order and as such, the order passed by respondent No.2 in Revision, which is subsequent to the order dated 02.07.2019, passed by respondent No.4, has become infructuous and prayed to allow the writ Petition.
4- Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue submitted that pursuant to order dated o2.o3.zol9 of respondent No.3, respondent No.4 has conducted denova enquiry and passed orders dated 02.07.2019, therefore, nothing remained for respondent No.2 to decide in the Revision and it appears that
.!
5
I
. LNA,J lVP.No.t0I32 of 2020
\ \
respondent No.2 passed order in Revision beingunaware of the fact that the impugned order therein was acted upon.
E
6
LNA, J l/P.No-10132 o/2020
completion of denova enquiry has passed orders dated 0g.02.2020 remanding the matter to respondent No.4 for fresh enquiry. 7 ' since the order impugned before respondent No.2 in Revision was already given effect to during the pendency of the Revision, the order dated 0g.02.2020 passed by respondent No.2, which is impugned in the present writ petition, setting aside the impugned order therein, i.e., order dated oz.o3.z0l9 passed by respondent No.3, has literally become infructuous and cannot be implemented.
9 As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
That Rure Nisi has made Absorute as above witness The Hon'ble sRl APARESH KUMAR Slr,iclt iLtrri"r.lu"ti"l ol.,-uri" Monday, the Twenty seiond Day of December, i*o ilrousand and rwenty Five.
To,
S .P. PONNA KRISHNA STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER
t
1 The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Hyderabad, State of lelangana.
3' I[LrJ"*nue
,-l
{'
/
I
i
'-",,:-'F:-=:F
ft--
. I .. .': . "_i;'t '' '' .t*,... ."::;t$$3$;;;;
i}
HIGH COURT
DATEDi 2211212025
\ \
ORDER
sa
(
8 o6JAN?o26
*
.i
WP.Noj10132 of 2020
I
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS
b
1 issue framed by the court
Was the Joint Collector's revision order dated 08.02.2020 valid when the order under revision had already been given effect to during the pendency of the revision?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Sukkala Chandraiah (died per LRs)
Sukkala Yadagiri
Smt. Sukkala Sunitha
Sukkala Shilpa
State of Telangana, Department of Revenue
Sukkala Nagaraju
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
