Writ petition challenging a Joint Collector revision order that upheld deletion of the petitioners' names from revenue records over agricultural land in favour of the fourth respondent's side. The court declined interference since legal heirs had filed a pending partition suit, and dismissed the writ petition.
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.
[32s5 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANAAT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 9415 OF 2009
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
Respondent Nos. I and 9 are brought on record as LRs ofthe deceased Respondent No. 6 asper C.O.dt. 27.12.2024 in lA No.1/2024.
.,.RESPONDENTS
l
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Order No.F3/3378/2002F3l24lRORl2O02 dated 18.4.2008 passed by the third respondent and in directing to delete the names of the petitioners from the Revenue Records and include the name of the fourth respondent and quash the same declaring its as bad and illegal.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(^/PMP. NO: 12302 OF 2009)
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 staV of the order No.F3/337812OO2-F3124/ROR/2002 dated 18.4.2008 passed by the third respondent pending writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.PRABHAKAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 7: SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY cosy,,AJ {ov -)r'. [rn-s,rrlJ.n\ No] I u-:1: t+s The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Illrit Petition No.9415 of 2OO9
ORDER:
This writ petition has been fi1ed seeking the foliowing
prayer:-
"1o issue an order or orders more particutarlg one in the nature of u.tit of Certiorai calling for the records relating to Order No.F3/3378/20O2-F3/24/ROR/2OO2 dated 18.O4.20O8 passed bg the third respondent respondents and in directing to delete the names of the petitioners fromthe ReuenueRecordsand include the name of the fourthrespondentand quash the same declaing its as bad and illegol. "
2
entered into revenue records.Later, Kammari Shivaiah, Kammari Vetrkatesham, KammariLakshmaiah,diecl and their sons i.e., petitioner Nos.1 and 2 names'werealso recot'dedin the revenue records
)
Class Magistrate, Andole at Jogipet and the sameis not disputed by the learned counsel for thepetitioners.
following:-
'Heard the arguments andperused therecords. The RDO Medak in her orders has obseruedthat the respondent herein was adopted by thedaughter of the oiginal inamdar and tuas declared bg heras her heir and subsequently the name of therespondenthereinutas incorporated in reuenue records and foundin KhasraPahani 1954-55, in the pahanies 1972 73, 1973-74 andother subsequent pahanies.
The RDO also obserued that the names of thereuision petitioners herein were entered u-tithout ang basis for which the MRO Regode could not furnish ong reasons. Moreouer it is also obserued that the reuisionpetitionersherein (respondents before RDO Medak) euen after receiuing mang notices failed to represent their case and did not attend the Court.
From the obseruations made by the RDO Medak it is euident that the name of the respondent herein was being continued from 1954-55 onu.nrds and that the reuision petitioners herein haue failed to represent their case euen after issuance mang notices. Keepingquite for more than(5O) uears the reuisionpetitionersnotD seemsto haue come uith a plea claiming share in the subject matter lands uLhich can not be accepted and not tenable in the ege of Lau.
I, therefore not inclined to agree with the contention of the reuision petitioners herein and in the result the same is dismissed ond the orders of RDO Medok passed in file No: E/ 1O53/ 97, dt.8.9.2OOO are upheld."
4
7 . It is pertinent to note that legal heirs of Sri. Kammari Lakshmaiah have filed O.S.No.S2 of 2020, for partition and separate possession, wherein the petitioner Nos.2 ald 3 are defendant Nos.9 and 10 and the said suit is pending before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrzrte, Andole at Jogipet.
ASSIST!,NT SD/.N. SRIHARIREGISTRAR L //TRUE COPY//
CER
To,
4 Two CD Copies BSR * GJP
HIGH COUR*
DATED: 0410312025
ORDER
WP.No.9415 of 2009
{)^
,(Y
P
Joo 2 + APR 20'25 C
at'
<br>Or-- s parcH <:1.1
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,
WITHOUT COSTS
1.fa -Hr"
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Joint Collector's revision order dated 18.04.2008 upholding deletion of the petitioners' names from revenue records should be quashed under Article 226.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Kammari Venkatesham
Kammari Narasimulu
Kammari Ramulu
The Tahsildar, Regode Mandal, Medak District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak District
The Joint Collector, Medak District, Sangareddy
N.V. Shravan Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
