Kontham Kistamma Vs The State of Telangana

B. Satish Kumar, Fathers name Not^{known to petitioner Occ- Govl Employee,} (the then Tahasildhar Wargal Mandal) Presentty working at^Papanapet Mandal, Medak^District.

¶16

Domalapali Ramulu @ Ramaiah,^{S/o Late DomalapaliP-e{qtu ag.gd55 years} Occ- Ag'riculture, R/o .,labbapur village.^{Wargal Mandal Siddipet District}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Courtmay be} please{ to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more^{particularlyone in the} nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate^{order declaring impugned} letter No.D1/29412025 d1.22.02.2025, as^{issued by the 2nd respondent, District} Collector, directing me to approach^{competent civil court for the redressalof} grievance, for title over the said land , as^per the^{provisions of ROR Act 2020,} without conducting any inquiry^{and without issuing any notice as illegal,arbitrary,}

¶19

unwarranted and contrary to the provisions of ROR Act, in violrrtion of principles of natural^justice and Article 300-4 Constitution of lndia consequr,,ntly to set aside the same by directing the 2nd respondent to conduct detailed inqr iry in the interest of justice.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Fgtitiqr! under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim guspension of impugned letter No.D1129412025 dt.22.02.2025, as issued by the 2nd respondent, District Collector as otherwise petitioner stands to sutfer serious fiardpfip and irreparable loss and injury.

¶22

Counsel for the Petftioner:SRl. N MANOHAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent NO 1TO 4:9P FOR REVENUE

¶24

Counsel for tfe Respondent NO 5 TO 6 :-----

¶25

The Gcqrt made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BTIASKAR REDDY

¶27

trTRIT PETITION No.10655 of2o25

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed seeking lollowing relief:

¶30

'For the reasons stated in the accompanying aflidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order declaring impugned letter No.D1/294 l2O2S dt.22.02.2025, as issued by the 2"a respondent, Distnct Collector, directing me to approach competent civil court for the redressal of grievance, for title over the said land, as per the provisions of ROR Act 2O2O, without conducting any inquiry and wrthout issuing any notice as illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted and contrary to the provrsions ot RoR Act, in violation of principles of natural justice and Article 3O0-A Constitution of India consequently to set aside the same by directing the 2nd respondent to conduct detailed inquiry in the interest ofjustice, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon,ble Court may deem fit ald proper in the circumstances of the case. "

¶31

It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 3.oo guntas in Survey No.56/A, situated at Jabbapur village, wargal Mandal, Siddipet District (old Medak District) (for short, 'the subject propertyJ, having purchased the same under registered Sale Deed uid_e Document No.6 123 of 2O 1 5 dated 14.12.2015. It is stated that the petitioner made an application in Mee seva dated 03.o3.2o16 uide Application No.MUo2160o6424ga for mutation and for issuance of pattadar passbook in respect of the subject property and as there was no response, the petitioner intimated the 4h respondent in Form 6(A) dated i23.o4 .2o lg 6y submitting the registered Sale Deed dated .l' 14-72.2015, but there was no response. It is further stated that the 4rh

¶32

=-]

¶33

2

¶34

CVBR, J IV.P.No.1O655 of 2025

¶35

respondent instead of mutating Acs. 3.OO guntas in Sr rvev No.56/A, has only mutated to an extent of Acs. 1.o0 guntas and issuecl pattadar passbook to the said extent in her favour uide^passbook No.Sl ]220o40734 dated 05.72.2024 and thr: remaining extent of land admeasurir g Acs. 2.OO guntas was mutated in thc name of the 6th respondent. It is furr her stated that the petitioner made an application to furnish the document; pertaining to the mutation proceedings No.2300o37698 in favour of the 6rr respondent under the provisions of Right to Information Act and the 4ft re: pondent furnished information by enclosing documents i.e., unregistered sare deed, check memo' Form I3A, I 3E}, from which it is evident that r hr 5s respondent in collusion with the 6rl'respondent has mutated the subjec land in his favour by misrepresenting the material facts. The grievance of tl e petitioner is that the petitioner made an application in prajavani ( rievance cell on 10.12.2024 to the 2nd respondent requesting to conduct enquiry and issue pattadar passbook in her favour, but the 2"d respondent ruithout conducting any enquiry and without verifying the documents on r :cord and without calling for records from the 46 respondent has issued tlre impugned letter No.Dl / 29a /2o25 dated 22.o2.2o2s to 4rh responder rt to inform the petitioner to approach the civil court for redressal of her g -ievance as per the provisions of the Telangana state Rights in Land and pattadar passbooks Act, 2O2O. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶36

CVBR, J W.P.No.10655 of 2025

¶37

3

¶38

t I

¶39

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this wnt petition IS disposed of at the admission stage

¶40

karned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as per Sub-Section 2 of Section 14 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,2O2O, whoever being a public servant, tampers^with record of rights or passes an order, which is fraudulent, shall^{be liable for} the penalty of removal or dismissal from service besides criminal^proceedings under any applicable laws.

¶41

In view of the above submission, since the 2"d respondentDistrict Collector instead of conducting an enquiry on the^{representation} being submitted by the petitioner on IO.12.2024, as the allegations^{are made} against the 5h respondent who is the then Tahsildar, calling a^{report from} the very same officer and^passing the^{impugned order or examiningthe} records relating to the said transaction and relying upon the^{report sent by} the very same officer and rejecting the claim of the^petitioner is notⁱⁿ accordance with law and the same is not in consonance^{with the principles} of natural^justice. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that^{the ends of} justice would be met if the impugned letter No.Dl 1294 /2O25 dated 22.O2.2O25 issued by the 2"d respondent is set aside.

¶42

Accordingty, the impugned letter No.Dl /294 /2025^dated 22.02.2025 issued by the 2"d respondent is^{set aside} and the^matteris

¶43

.I

¶44

4 CVBR, J lV.P.No- 1O655 of 2O2S

¶45

remitted back to the 2nd respondent for re-examination r Lnd 2'd respondent is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry after issuing notic,rs to the petitioner - and the 6ff respondent and all other interested and :rffer ted parties, whose names are recorded in the revenue records and after verification of the records and its genuineness of making entries in the revt:nue records, pass appropriate reasoned orders strictly in accordance with l; Lw rvithin a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of thi,; order.

¶46