Dismissed

Smt. Annapurnamma v. The State of Talangana and 4 others

Telangana HC16 Sept 2025WP/1240/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claimed pattadar rights over Bhoodan-allotted land through her late husband; the Joint Collector had set aside earlier revenue orders and directed restoration of 'Bhoodan Sarkari' entries and proceedings under Section 3(1) of the A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act. The High Court found no illegality in the Joint Collector's order, noting the Bhoodan Board was not impleaded, and dismissed the petiti

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Annapurnamma Vs The State of Talangana and 4 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1240 OF 2020

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Smt. Annapurnamma, W/o Late Shivappa, Aged about 66^{years, Occ.} Agriculture, R/o.[t/usapet Village, Musapet [Vandal,^{MahaboobnagarDistrict,} Telangana State.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Talangana, Represented by its^{Principle Secretary, Revenue} Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad,Telangana State-500002.

¶12

fhe Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, Mahaboobnagar^District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, Mahaboobnagar^District. 4. The Tahsildar, Addakal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶14

Konda Jagadeeshwar, S/o Mahadevappa, Rl/o.^{Ponnakal Village,Addakal} Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, Telangana State.

¶15

..,RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,} the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate wrtt, order or direction more^{particularlyone in} the nature of writ of mandamus, (i) to declare that, the^impugned Compt.No.Ell1877212019, dated 0210112020 is^{illegal, arbitrary,unjust'} discriminatory, without^jurisdiction and unconstitutional,^{(ii) The orders passedby} the 3'd respondent vide 8t258912017,^{dated 2510812018and consequential} orders issued by the 4th respondent^{vide his orders bearing no.81509212018'} daled 22lO1l2019are holds^{good. (iii) further hold that, subsection (1) of Section} 3 of A.P.Ts Assigned Land^{(POT)Acl, 1977 is not applicableto present case}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the r;ircumstances stated} in the affidavit filed n support^{of the petition, the HighCc urt may be pleased to} suspend the orders^of the^{2nd respondent issued vide corrpt.No,Ell1877212019,} dated 02-01-2020^{to the extent of the part against the writ petitioner i.e.,setting} aside the orders^{No. 81258912017, dated 2510812018, Nr 8/5092/2018, dated} 22-01-2019 and initiation action^{underthe provisions of Sec 3(1) of TS Assigned} Land (POT) Ac:, 1977with a^{direction to the 4th respon:l(: nt to implementthe} proceedings Bl5092|2018, dated 22-01-2019^{pending disr<;sal of the mainWrit} petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. RAGHAVENDERREDDYIIE:P} SRI VENKATESHWARLU GUMMADAVELLY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.^{1to4: SRI H. RAKESH KUVIAR,} AGP FOR REVENUE

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI^{K. AJAYKUMAR}

¶22

The Couft made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶24

WRIT PETITION^{No.124O OF 2O2O}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition^{is filed seekinga Writ of Mandamus;}

¶27

Compt.No.EIl^{1877212019, dated02.Ol'2O2Oas} iliegal, arbitrary,^{and without jurisdiction.}

¶28

1. The^{orders passed by the 3'd respondent vide} Bl25S9 l2ol7,^{dated 25.08.2018 and consequential} orders issued^{by the 4*' respondentvide orders} bearing No.Bl5092l2Ol8'^{dated 22.01'2019are} holds^good.

¶29

1. Further hold^{that sub-section(1) of Section 3 of} T.S.Assigned Land^{(POT) Act, 1977 (for short the} Act, 19771 is not applicable^{to present case.}

¶30

Heard Sri Raghavender Reddy,^{Iearned counsel}

¶31

representing learned counsel on^{recordfor the petitioner, Sri} H.Ral<esh Kumar, learned Assistant Government^Pleader representing learned Government Pleader^forRevenue

¶32

Page 2 of l0

¶33

appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Aiay Kumar Kulkarni, learned counsel for the 5th respondent

¶34

Briefly, the case of the petitioner is thi, t her late husband, Shivappa, being a landless poor persc.:r, made an application to the Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hydera:rad, for the a-llotment of agricultura.l land for cultivation. F--rrsuant to this application, the Bhoodan Yagna Board iillotted land measuring Acs. 3.18 guntas in Survey No. 652, situated at Ponnakal Village, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnrr5zar District (hereinafter referred to as the subject prol>erty'), a-fter collecting a donation of Rs.87.50, vide proceedi-t;:1s No.7138 dated 18.03.1983, with a direction to the 4th rt's'rondent to issue a consequential patta to him.

¶35

Based on the directions of the Bhoodal Ya51na Board, the 4th respondent issued an order bearing No.D.Dis.C/ 1108/ 1985, dated 10.10.1985, mu'-ating the name of thr: petitioner's husband in the Recolc of Rights (ROR). The petitioner's husband remained in posst:ssion and enjoyment of the said property by cultivating it. until his deqgh on 04.lO.2OO7. Since then, the petitioner htl.s been in

¶36

Page 3 of l0

¶37

continuous possession and enjoyment of the property However, the name of one Ghattanna was recorded as pattadar in respect of the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner approached the 3'd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar District, requesting the deletion of Kavali Ghattanna's name from the ROR and entry of her narne as pattadar. The 3.d respondent, after issuing notices to both the petitioner and Ghattanna and examining the material placed before him, directed the 4th respondent to delete the name of Ghattanna artd enter the name of the petitioner in the ROR, vide proceedings No. B/2589/2017, dated 25.08.2018. Based on these directions, the^4Lh respondent deleted Ghattanna's name and entered the petitioner's name in the ROR, a-fter following the due procedure established by Iaw.

¶38

While things stood thus, the Sth respondent, claiming to be the legal heir of the donor of the subject land, filed a petition dated 31.08.2019 before the 2"d respondent/Joint Collector, seeking a stay of the proceedings initiated by the 3.d respondent. Based on the said representation, the 2"d

¶39

Page 4 of 10

¶40

respondent passed the impugned proce(:ciings dated 02.Ol.2O2O, wherein not only was the petition lil:d by the 5th respondent dismissed, but the orders passed tr1 the 3'd and 4th respondents were a-lso set aside. Furtl-rr:r, the 2nd respondent directed the 4th respondent to restrrr,: the earlier entries ald record the subject property :ir: "Bhoodan Sarkari, " zrnd to initiate proceedings under S -'r: tion 3 ( 1) of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1977

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the a-ffidavit liled in supporl. of the writ petition, submits that the 3'a respondent p a,,;sed orders dated 25.08.2018 based on the proceedings of th,: Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hydera)tad, in File No.7138/1983 dated 18.03.1983, allotting t1e subject property in favour of the petitioner's husband. .rt.s such, no perversity <:an be attributed to the orders pass:r(. b\r the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the directions of the 3,rL :espondent, the 4th respondent entered the name of the p::tittoner AS pattadar by deleting the name of one Kavali Ghirt tanna from the pattadar column in the Record of Rights (RO R).

¶42

Page 5 of l0

¶43

He further submits that the 2"d respondent committed an error in conciuding that the petitioner approached the 3.d respondent after a lapse of 32 years from the date of grant of patta, and also erroneously found that neither the petitioner nor her husband was ever in possession of the subject property. It is further submitted that once the Bhoodan Yagna Board has allotted the property by way of a notification, it cannot unilaterally retract or cancel the same. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Kambala Sesharatnam and others v. Government of Andhra Pradeshl, wherein it is held as

¶44

follows:

¶45

"13. In fact, as per the provisions of the A.P.Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 once a donation made to Bhoodan Board is vested in the Board under Section 15 of the said Act, there is no provision for denotification. On the other hand, as per Section 29 of the said Act any person whose interests are effected as a result of the donation of any land for the purpose of Bhooda;r Yagna or Gramdan whether before or after the commencement of t]"e Act has to institute a suit in a civil Court having jurisdiction."

¶46

lharned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, in I the counter filed before the 2.d respondept, tlrg petitiqner

'^{2ot21ql.ro zss}

Page 6 of 10

has enclosed the following documents: (1) true e)(tract of the pahani for the year 197 l-1972; (21 true extract ol'the pahani for the year 1976-1977; (31 cash receipt issuel by the A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board; (a) copy of the proceedi:rp;s issued by the A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board vide No.104/ 1,/ . 983, dated 18.03.1983; (5) copy of the proceedings isr;r-,ed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Moosapet, vide No.C,/ 1108/1985, dated 10.10.1985; (6) copy of the proceedings o1 1.he Revenue Divisiona-l Officer, Mahabubnagar, vide No.B,r^',2569 12Orr, dated 25.08.2018; and (7) copy of the procee dings of the Tahsiidar, Addakal, vide No.B/5092 12O18, dated 22.O7.2019.

¶51

He further submits that, based on t;-rr aJoresaid $ documents. the petitioner has perfe.e ted her trt. e over the subject property. Therefore, tlne 2"d respondent ortght not to have passed the impugned proceedings settirL6, aside the orders of the 3'd and 4trr respondents. Accordinld'r, he prays that the writ petition be allowed.

¶52

¶53

Page 7 of l0

¶54

On the other hand, the learned^{Assistant Government} Pleader for Revenue, upon instructions,^{would submit that} the Bhoodan Yagna Board was not made^{a pafiy to any of} the proceedings either before^{the 2'd respondentor the 3'd} respondent. The said Board^{has also not been impleadedas} a party in the present writ^{petition.The 2"d respondent,} based on the documentary^{evidenceproducedby both the} petitioner and the 5th respondent, rightiy^{set aside the orders} of the 3'd and 4tr' respondents^{and directed initiationof} action under the provisions of Section^{3(1) of the Andhra} Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna^{Act, 1977, after duly serving notices} in Form-l and Form-ll to both^{parties. As such, no perversity} can be attributed to the action^{of the 2"a respondent,and} there is no illegality or infirmity in^{the impugned order} insofar as the subject^{property is concerned.}

¶55

1 1 . Learned counsel for the unofficiai^{respondent would} submit that the 2"d respondent, upon^{perusal of the materia-l} placed before her, found that the narne^ofone 1n Sri Kava-li Ghattanna^{had been recorded as pattadar} respect of the subject^{property without any supporting}

¶56

Page 8 of 10

¶57

documentary evidence. As such, the 2'a re,lF ondent has rightly passed the impugned proceedings. He further submits that the petitioner has not liled an1' clocumenta-ry proof to substantiate her claim. Moreor el-, the 2nd respondent has rightly observed that, althouql-t patta was granted in favour of the petitioner's husbanci in the year 1983, the petitioner approached the 3'd res':rondent for correction of revenue records only after a laps(t ,;f 32 years, which is barred by limitation. He therefore sr,tbmits that there is no illegality in the order passed try the 2nd re spondenl

¶58

Having heard the learned counsel for the f,e.-itioner, the learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Revenrre, and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, and upor: perusal of the material placed before this Court, this Co rrr-t is of the considered opinion that the 2"a respondent passed the impugned orders based on the documenta.rv evidence submitted by both the petitioner and the 5th resrl:ondent. As such, no illegality or infirmity can be found r:. the order passed by the 2"a respondent.

¶59

Page 9 of l0

¶60

1 3. In fact, as rightly contended by the^{learned Assistant} Government Pleader for Revenue, the^{Bhoodan Yagna Board} was not made a party to arly of the^{proceedingsbefore} respondents 2 to 5, nor has it been impleaded in^{the present} writ petition before this Court

¶61

Therefore, there are no merits^{in the writ petition,and} the sarne is liable to be dismissed, and^accordingly, dismissed. However, it is^open to^{the petitioneras well as the} 5th respondent to assert their respective^{rights beforethe} competent civil Court, in accordance^{with law, if they are so} advised.

¶62