Parvathi Bapu, And Another Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction' more^{particularlyone in} the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the^{action of the 4th respondentin} deteting the names of the^petitioners from^{revenue recordsto the extent of Ac 0-} 0975 guntas each in Sy.no.421l3l1 ard^{Sy.no.42113situated at Sabbepally} Revenue Village, Hazipur Mandal, Mancherial^{Distrcit,without issuingany notice} and without following the^{procedwe contemdated under the Law' as being illegal,} arbitrary, un.iust and unconstitutional^{by setting aside the Proceedingsin Memo} and consequential order No.Bl244ln2O^{dated2910712020andproceeding} No.Bt117t2O13 dated 1611112013 and consequently^{direct the respondent no.4 to}

¶19

of the^{petitionersas pattadarsof th: abovesaid land} re-incorporate^{the names} under their Possession'

¶20

r.A.NO^{:1oF 2021}

¶21

petrtion under section^{151 cpc praying that in the circurstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High court may t : pleased to pass} interim^{orders directing the respondentno 4 to not to issuepe( adar passbookin} favour of^{third parties in respect of petitionerslands S t'no'4211311 and} Sy.no.421l3^{to the extent of Ac'0-0975 guntaseach' situ:ri :d at Sabbepally} Revenue^{Village, Hazipur Mandal' Mancherial District'pendrrg disposalof the} main^writ Petition'

¶22

t.A NO:^10F2025

¶23

Between:

¶24

The^{stateof rerangana.rep. by its principarsecretary,Re /enue Department} Secretariat,^Hyderabad' r.--^L^.i-r

¶25

, ffi'ffiil'i^{c6rr""to'. Mancherial District' Mancherial'}

¶26

The Revenue^{Divisionat tli'"!tltvr'n"i'"rralPlslliq'Man: rerial'}

¶27

;. iil i;;;il;;,^{Hazipur Mandar' Mancherial District'}

¶28

" "PETITIONE:l^{IS/RESPONDENTS}

¶29

ANO

¶30

,1 . Parvathi Bapu, S/o, Pochaiah,^Aged70 .years,^{o.r ; Agriculture,Rl/o.}

¶31

'srtt"p"rrvlitazipur Mandal' Mancherial District' os"l iq v*tt'^{o: : ; Agriculture'FI/o}

¶32

2 Parvathi^{Bapu, S/o} "t#;'it' ' illt?prr-rv, ilatip" Mandal' Mancherial District'

¶33

.....RESPONEII^{:NTS/PETITIONERS}

¶34

petition Under section^{151 cpc praying that in the cirr umstances statedin} the affidavit^{fired in support of the petition, the High court maybe pleasedto} vacate^{the interim orders dt O7 04 2O21 in WP No 8451oI 2 )21 and dismissthe} writ Petition,

¶35

Gounsel^{for the Petitioners: SRI N'VENKATAIAH}

¶36

Counsel^{for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE}

¶37

The Court^{made the following OROER}

¶38

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

¶39

WRIT PETITION No.8451 OF 2O2L

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

This Writ Petition is hled seeking a Writ of^Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent^{in deleting the names} of the petitioners lrom the revenue^{records, to the extent of} Ac.O.O975 guntas each in Sy. No. 42ll3l1^{and Sy. No.42ll3,} situated at Sabbepally Revenue^{Village, Hazipur Mandal,} Mancherial District, without^{issuing any notice and without} following the procedure contemplated under^law, AS illega-t, arbitrary, and unconstitutional;^{and consequently,to set aside} the proceedings in^{Memo and consequential OrderNo.} B1244l2O2O, dated 29.O7.2O2O,^{andProceedingNo.} BlLtT l2013, dated^16.1 1.2013; and^{further direct the 4th} respondent to re-incorporate^{the narnes of the petitionersas} pattadars of the above-mentioned land under^{tJreir possession.}

¶42

Learned counsel^{for the petitionerssubmitted that:}

¶43

i) the father of the^{petitionersand his brother,i.e., Late} Parvathi Pochaiah^{S/o Chandraiah and Parvathi Bhumaiah} S/o Chandraiah,^{were the absolute joint ownersand}

¶44

2

¶45

ent of Ac.6.O33A possessors of agricultural^{land to an e>l} guntas in Sy. No. 421, situated^{at Sal} bepally Revenue Village, Hazipur Mandal,^{Mancherial Distri} :t. SubsequentlY, the said property^{was partitioned betweert} them during the year 2OOO-2OOL.In the said^{partition, the} 1 ,etitioners' father, Parvathi Pochaiah,^{was allotted land to arL} extent of Ac.4.OO guntas in Sy. No. 42 1, while^{Parvathi Bhurr} Laiah was allotted land to an extent of Ac.2.33%^{guntas in Sy.} No. 421/1.

¶46

ii) During his lifetime, the^{petitioners .ather alienated a} portion of the land to various^{individuals t rrough registered} convey€rnce deeds. He^{passed away in the} I^{ear 2OOT,leaving} behind the petitioners as his^{legal heirr; and land to an} extent of Ac.O.195O^guntas 1n Sy. Nr,. 421/3, which continued to be reflected in^{the revenuer:cords as per the} ROR 1-B until 2017.

¶47

iii) Based on an application made^{by : re petitioners, the} 4rt, respondent issued Pro :eedings No. RoR/6A/Sabbepalli/265 I^{2O17, dated 12., 2.2017, mutating} their names as^{successors to the extetrt o'Ac.0.O975 guntas}

¶48

3

¶49

each. Accordingly, the petitioners have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. The 4th respondent also issued new pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners on 25.04.2018 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.0975 guntas each, with a new sub-division number Sy. No.421 /3/2, and their names were duly reflected in the revenue records.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, while the matter stood thus, the petitioners came to know that their land, which continued to be in their name as on the date of the order passed by the 4*' respondent vide Proceedings No. 8/24412O2O, dated 2g.OT.2O2O. had been deleted from the revenue records. The deletion was made on the ground that one Parvathi Bhumaiah S/o chandraiah had sold Ac.1.OO guntas of land in Sy. No.42t/3, situated at Sabbepally Village, in flavour of one Gaddam Mondaiah, through a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 3273/2002, and consequently, the name of Gaddam Mondaiah came to be reflected in the revenrle records. He

¶51

4

¶52

submits that, without^{issuing any notice 1c the petitioners,} the name of one Pampad^{Satyanarayana vas ordered to be} 1n resl ect of the^land entered in the revenue^records belonging to the^{petitioners. Such action ir; in grossviolation} of the principles of natural^{justice, ashe rights of the} petitioners were unilaterally and^arbitraril '^{removed by the} official respondents. Hence,^{he seeks theI ndulgenceof thrs} Hon'ble Court to set aside the^{impugnedpr', rceedings.}

¶53

On the other hand, the learned^{Assj: tant Government} Pleader, representing the learned^{Goverll rrent Pleader for} Revenue, upon instructions, submitte'r t that^the4th respondent passed the impugned ordc' based on^the Circular issued by the Chief Commi^;sioner of^Land Administration vide Lr. No. ROR/ 128199,^{rlated14.10.1999.} In the said circular, it has been clea'ly clarified^that correction of clerical errors can be made^, tt^{any time if the} Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, r the Recording Authority genuinely believes that clerical erors were made in the Pahani. He submits that, upon^vcr. ification, the^4th

¶54

.,a i

¶55

5

¶56

respondent found that the names of the^petitioners were erroneously entered in the revenue^records to an^{extent of} Ac.0.0975 guntas each, instead of the name of one Gaddam Mondaiah, who had purchased Ac.1.OO of land in Sy. No. 421/3,- situated at Sabbepally Village, from Parvathi Bhumaiah. Accordingly, the 4th respondent ordered the deletion of the petitioners' names.

¶57

He further submits that, based on the above-mentioned CCLA Circular and upon verification of the registered sale deed executed by Parvathi Bhumaiah, the names of the petitioners were deleted and the name of Pampad Sa$ranarayana was ordered to be incorporated in the revenue records. He contends that, if at all the^petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the 4th respondent, their remedy lies in approaching the competent civil court, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶58

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and perused the material on record placed before this Court,

¶59

CA

¶60

6

¶61

particularly the^{Circularissued by the C( LA' Hyderabad'} vide Lr. No. ROR/^{128/gg, dated 14'10'19119' A perusal of} the impugned^{proceedingsof the 4th res:cndent vide No'} Bl244l2O2O,^{dated29.O7.2O2O,and No' Bt Ll7l2ol3'dated} 16.01.2O13, reveals^{that no notice was issued tothe} petitioners prior to^{passing the impup;r red proceedings} deleting their^{names from the revenue recl rds in respect of} land to the extent^{of Ac.0'0975 guntas eac'l L in Sy' No' 42 1'} Sabbepally Village,^{HazipurMandal' Such o nission amounts} to a violation of^{the principles of natural jus; ice}

¶62

7 Furthermore, the^{said proceedings \1 re passedsolely} on the basis of an^{applicationmade b1' rne Mr' Pampad} Satyanarayana.^{There isnomention irthe imPugned} proceedings No.^{B/244/2O2O, dated 2c)')7'2O2O,of any} notice being issued^{to the petitionersor o any opportunity} being afforded to^{them to be heard' Tht 4th respondent} pa.ssed the impugned^{proceedings relr i rg only on the} representation submitted^{by said Pamprl 1 Satyanarayana} andontheCircularissuedbytheCCLA'{yderabad'dated

¶63

7

¶64

14.10.1999, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶65

In view of the above discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 4tt, respondent to act upon the representation made by the petitioners dated 27.O8.2O2O. Further, liberty 1S granted to the petitioners to hle a fresh representation, in case the earlier representation dated 27.O8.2O2O is not available with the 4th respondent. Upon receipt of such representation, the 4th respondent is directed to issue notices to the petitioners and all concerned parties, conduct an enquiry strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under law, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously AS possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order.

¶66