Smt. Manne Uma Rani Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more^particularly one^{in the nature of a} writ of certiorari calling for the^{records pertainingto the impugnedorderdated} 12tO2t2O2O in case no. ll1o9l2o2o^{passed by the Revenue Divisional officer,} Jangaon Mandal, Jangaon^{District,the 3rd respondent hereinand to quashthe} same in the interest of^justice.

¶20

lA NO: 1

¶21

Petition under Section^'15'l CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} grant interim suspension of impugned order^{dated 1210212020 in case no.}

¶22

ll1ogl2o20 passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, Jangaon Mandal, Jangaon District, the 3rd respondent herein in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.14 guntas in survey number 122, situated at Ganugapahad vifiage, Jangaon Mandar, Jangaon District pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

:1OF

¶24

Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to receive the additional material papers i.e., copies of the Registered Sale Deed vide Document No. 404 of .2023 datedt 24.02.2023 with Dharni, copy of the complaint dated:22.11.2023, F.t.R. No.SB of 2024 dated:}7.02.2024 and charge sheet dated:22 .02.2024 in the interest of justice and equity and to pass such other order or orders

¶25

NO:1 2021

¶26

Between:

¶27

lttaboina chandraiah, S/o Sri pedda Ramaiah Major, occ Agricurture, Rl/o Ganugapahad Village, Jangaon Mandal, .tangaon Oi'stric

¶28

^ z. tttaboina Narsimha, S/o.Sri Komaraiah Majorf Occ Agricuiture, Rl/o -^{Ganugapahad Village, JangaonMandal,JangaonDiitrict,-- -' ' - -}

¶29

tftaboina Sjddutu, S7o Sri Ciina namiiah vaior O-c Agiiturture, Ryo Ganugapahad Village, Jangaon Mandat, Jan!i6n District.

¶30

AND

¶31

...PETIT|OENRS/RESPONDENTS No.S TO 7

¶32

'l . Smt. Manne Uma Rani, ..W/o .._Sri Sridhar, Aged about 30 years, Occ Housewife, Fl/o Wanaparthy Vinage, Ling;h 6h;";i;;-tv;;rlllJhgXin District.

¶33

...RESpONDENTNo.l/WRtT pETtTIONER

¶34

The State of Telanoana, represented by its principal Secretary, Revenue

¶35

^^{g.epqltmentSecreiariat,Hyderabad.}

¶36

The District Collector, Jang'aon, Jangaon District,

¶37

The Revenue Divisionar olfrcer, Janiaon nerente Division, Jangaon District,

¶38

The Tahsildar, Bachannapet Manda[Jangaon District,

¶39

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶40

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to

¶41

vacate the interim Orders dated 24.02.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Wp No.379B of 2020 in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA Counselfor the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counset for the Respondent Nos.S TO 7: SRI H.SUDHAKAR RAO

¶43

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶44

.1

¶45

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD

¶46

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶47

WRIT PETITION No.3798 of 2O2O

DATED: O1.12.2025

Between:

Manne Uma Rani

Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secret.ary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and six others.

¶54

..Respondents

¶55

ORDER:

¶56

This Writ. Petition is filed to call for the rec<lrds pertaining to the impugned order dated 12.o2.2o2o in case No.l/ Logl2o2o of respondent No.3 and quash the same.

¶57

2- Heard Sri Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government pleader for Rcvenue and Sri H.sudhakar Rzto, learned counsel for respondent Nos.ij to 7.

¶58

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally respondent Nos.5 to 7 are owners and possessors of ag,ricultural land admeasuring Acs.3 - 14 gts in Sy.No.l22, situated at Ganugapahad

¶59

/ /

¶60

2

¶61

village, Jangaon Mandal, Jangaon District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property); that respondent No.S to T sold the subject property in favour of K.Anji Reddy, K.Ramachandra Reddy and .^{K.Ravinder Reddy underunregistered sale deed dated 14.0g.lgg4} and revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour and they in turn sold the subject property in favour of petitioner herein through unregistered sale deed dated 10.0s.2o13 and the same was regularized, by respondent No.4 uide proceedings No.B/349912019-8, dared 3o.L2.2org under Section 5-A of Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar passbook Act, tgr L (for short'the Act, L97l), by duly issuing notice to respondent Nos.S to 7; that subsequently, respondent No.4 issued 1B and the name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records. white the matter stood thus, respondent Nos.5 to 7 submitted a representation dated L7.or.2o2o before respondent No.3 as well as respondent No.2 stating that they are the owners of the subject property and that petitioner by creating simple sale deed, trying to obtain patta and requested to stop the same; that respondent No.3 considering the said representation as an appeal under Section 5-B(2) of RoR Act, issued notice dated 18.01.2020 to the petitioner and posted the matter to 29.ol.2o2o and to lo.o2.2o2o and ultimately passed impugned order dated 12.o2.2o2o; that after receiving impugned -^{Order dated 12.02.2020,petitioner obtained} certified copies of the \ -

/1

Jn

'-,/

notices dated 18.01.2o2o and 30.01.2o2o, which reveal that the same were not served to the petitioner and no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to defend the case.

¶66

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.3 has passed the impugned Order in violation of proviso 5-B(2) of RoR Act, lg7l, without issuing notice to rhe affected parties i.e., petitioner herein and thus, the impugned order is unsustainable. He further submitted that respondent No.4 by duty following the procedure as prescribed under Section 5-A of ROR Act, 1971,, regularized the unregistered sale deed datt:d i0.0g.2oI3 executed in flavour of petitioner and issued Form- 13B to the petitioner. wil-hout considering the same, respondent No.3 passed the impugned Order on erroneous observation that while regularizing the unregistered sale deed of the petitioner dated 10.0g.2013, no notice'*,as issued to the vendors of the fetitioners i.e., respondent Nos.S to 7 herein and further observed that VRO macle endorsement on the back side of the notice that it was affixecl on the Gram Panchayat notice board, as the pattedars were not residing in the village- without mentioning the date of affixture and even the signature or seal of the Gram Panchayat was also not taken as token of having published the notice and thus, held that no proper notice was served on respondent Nos.S to 7.

¶67

I \

¶68

4

¶69

5- Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.2 relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this court in chinnam pandurangam vs, M.R.o, serilingampaflg Mand,al and another,t wherein this court held that any order passed by the authority without serving notice on the affected persons is illegal on the ground of Audi Atterm pantem and Rule 22(3) clearly mandates service of notice in form No.1 1 on all the interested persons. In fact, the ratio laid down by the Full Bench squarely applies to the case of the petitioner since no notice has been served on the petitioner and thus, prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶70

on the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.S to 7 submitted that respondent No.3 has rightly passed the impugned order by setting aside the impugned 13-B certificate dated 3o.12-2or9 issued in favour of petitioner since notices were not served on respondent Nos.S to 7 who are affected parties in the application submitted by the petitioner for regularization of unregisterdd sale deed dated 10.og.2013. He further submitted that respondents are residing in the same village, however, the vRo instead of serving notices to respondent Nos.S to T, aflixed the notices in the Gram panchayat notice board preventing the respondents from participating in the 13-B proceedings. He further ,{or,u, ALr 134(FB) \ I

I

,. : " ..

1

5

submitted that respondent No.3 has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Fu, tlench of this court and petitioner has fa,ed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order, therefor€:, writ petition is liable to be clismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶76

7 Perusal of the impugned order dated r2.o2.2o2o, discloses that the siLme was passed solely on the ground that while considering .he apprication filed by the petitioner for regurarization of unregistered sale deed dated 10.0g.2O13 , no notices were served on respondent Nos.5 to 7 and that vRo has prayed game by affixing notices in .he Gram panchayat notice board without serving the same on affected parties i.e., respondent Nos.S to 7 andfurther there is no signature or seal of Gram panchayat in proof of affixing of the said notice. Respondent No.3 has reried upon the rertio laid down by the full Ben<:h of this court in chinnam pandurangq.m (supra) wherein this court has held that orders passed by an authority without servi,g notice on the affected parties is nulrity and since no material is praced on record to show that notices are served on respondent Nos.S to 7, and set aside the 13_B certificate datecr 30'12'201g issued in favour of petitioner. The principal contention raised by the petitioner is that in the impugned prroceedings, no "*'::"s .a. served on the petitioner and the ratio laid down by the fuu

¶77

\

¶78

6

¶79

Bench of this Court also squarely applies to the petitioner in view of non-service of notice.

¶80

The petitioner has placed on record, the copies of notices dated 18.01.2O2O and 3O.Ol.2O2O which were issued to the petitioner in the impugned proceedings and perusal of the same shows that they were received by one K.Ram Chandra Reddy i.e., father of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner specifically contended that petitioner and her father are not in talking terms and further, petitioner is residing in another village. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Section 5(3) of ROR Act, 197l, the notice has to be served on the affected party, which reads as under:

¶81

Section 5(3): The Mandal Reuenue Officer shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of ights 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 bg the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to belieue to be intereited" th.erein or affected tlrcrebg to shota cause within the peiod specified therein as to uhg the amendment should not be carried out. A copg of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be publislrcd in such manner as may be prescribed. The stnll consider euery objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as maA be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit.

¶82

\ \

¶83

7

¶84

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner who is affected party has not- been served with the notice contrary to Section 5(3) of ROR Act, l9|71. Therefore, this Court finds considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. I.n view of above facts and circumstances, without adverting to the merits of the case, in considerecl opinion of this court, it is appropriate to remand the matter back to respondent No.3 for fresh adjudication.

¶85

Accordingly, writ Petition is allowed and thr: impugned order dated L2-o2.2o20 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 for fresh adjudication. Respondent No.3 is directed to dispose of the application dated 17.oL.2o2o, submitted by respondent Nos.S to 7 in accordance with law by duly issuing notice to petitioner and respondent Nos.S to 7 and afford an opportunity of hearing to both parties. Respondent No.3 shall complete the entire exercise wittrin a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of t-his order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶86

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalr s;tand closed.

¶87

SD/-P.PONNA KRISHNA T REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ttsecnoru oFFtcER

To