Telangana High Court
Pavurala Krishna vs The State Of Telangana on 12 September, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.3094 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mr. M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. L.Ravinder, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.
2. This writ petition is filed to declare the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.4 as illegal and to set aside the same.
3. The petitioner submits that the land admeasuring Ac. 1.26 guntas in Sy.No.169/E/5 situated at Arempala Village, Khammam Rural ( for short, 'the subject property') was purchased by petitioner's father namely Pavurala Raghavulu from his maternal grandfather under sada sale deed dated 08.11.1979 and he had cultivated the said land till his death. After the death of his father, the petitioner let out the subject property to Respondent No.5 i.e. his maternal aunt namely Boddu Venkamma, for some period. Respondent No.5 and her family 2 members are claiming that they have purchased the subject property in the year 2003 from Sri. Pavurala Raghavulu.
4. The petitioner submits that he has submitted applications dated 18.01.2025, 10.01.2025 and 02.01.2025 with Respondent Nos.2 to 4 with a request to issue e-passbook in his favour. On conducting spot inspection, detailed enquiry and after following the due procedure laid down under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for short, 'the ROR Act') and the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules ( for short, 'the Rules'), Respondent No.4 has issued e-passbook in his favour vide Khata No.60424.
5. While the matter stood thus, Respondent No.5 has submitted his application dated 21.06.2024 through Dharani portal with Respondent No.4 with a request to cancel the e-passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner. Vide impugned order dated 25.11.2024, Respondent No.4 disposed of the said application dated 21.06.2024 submitted by the Respondent No.5 stating that the land admeasuring Ac.1.1550 guntas in Sy.No.169/E situated at Arempala Village of Khammam Rural belongs to Respondent No.5 and recommended to 3 delete the subject property from Khata No.60424 stands in the name of the petitioner.
6. Respondent No.5 has not filed any appeal or revision against grant of passbook in favour of the petitioner within the stipulated time. When both the parties are claiming the source of title from the same original pattadar on basis of various transactions, the revenue authority has no jurisdiction to entertain such applications.
7. The petitioner and his family members filed a suit vide O.S.No.467 of 2015 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for perpetual injunction and the same is pending.
8. Respondent No.4 has no authority to pass the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.11.2024 passed basing on the application of Respondent No.5 without conducting enquiry and without following the due process of law, is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.
9. Respondent No.4 has filed counter contending that Respondent No.5 submitted representation to Respondent No.2 and to the Minister for Revenue, Telangana alleging that the petitioner obtained pattadar pass book fraudulently in collusion with the revenue 4 authorities, though not in actual and physical possession over the subject property and requested to delete the entries made in Dharani Portal in the name of Petitioner.
10. As per Khasra pahani, the land admeasuring Ac. 3.13 guntas in Sy.No.169/3 situated at Arempala village is recorded as CHOWTA INAM and one Boddu Ananthaiah S/o Sheshaiah, is father-in-law of Respondent No.5 was recorded as enjoyer. Subsequently, name of the said Boddu Ananthaiah was recorded as Pattedar and enjoyer of the said land. The enquiry made by Girdhawar reveals that the family members of said Boddu Ananthaiah are cultivating the land admeasuring Ac. 1.1550 guntas. During the year 1979, the said Boddu Ananthaiah has sold away the land to an extent, of Ac.1.1550 guntas to Sri Pavurala Raghavulu, his son-in-law through sada agreement of sale. He was recorded as enjoyer of the land from 1980 to 2002.
11. Respondent No.5 has purchased the land from Sri Pavurala Raghavulu through sada agreement of sale during the year 2003 and she is in actual and physical possession of land to an extent of Ac.1.1550 guntas. Notices were issued to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 on 21.08.2024. The petitioner has submitted his 5 written reply on 09.09.2024 wherein he has admitted that the land was Inam land said to be given to one Boddu China Ananthaiah, being washerman who is said to be grandfather under CHOWTHA INAM to an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas. Out of which, his father purchased an extent of Ac.1.16½ guntas through sada sale deed dated on 08.11.1979 and also purchased part of land from one Gaddam Ramaiah S/o Lalaiah. After death of his father, he succeeded the said property.
12. Father of the petitioner has sold away the land to Respondent No.5 through sada sale deed dated 08.04.2003 and all the family members of Pavurala Raghavulu along with the Petitioner scribed on the said document. Knowing the fact that the land was sold to Respondent No.5, the petitioner obtained Pattadar Pass Book fraudulently from the then revenue authorities without having physical possession over the land.
13. The petitioner submitted that pattadar Pass book vide Khata No. 148 issued in respect of the subject property, in favour of his mother namely Pavurala Venkatamma and subsequently transferred in his favour. In the said fabricated pattadar pass book, the caste of his mother was shown as schedule caste, but he belongs to 'Chakali'. But the khata No. 148 belongs to Domala Manikyamma w/o late Bixam in 6 respect of land in Sy. No.53/1 measuring Ac. 0.20 guntas which was assigned land. Therefore, the fraud played by the petitioner is proved beyond doubt. Respondent No.5 is in possession of the subject land over a period of nearly 22 years i.e., from the date of purchase of land in the year 2003. The petitioner failed to produce substantial evidence to prove that he is in possession of the subject property.
14. Having taken into consideration of the facts on record and also ground position, Respondent No.4 has made out proposals to the Respondent No.2 for cancellation of entries in Dharani portal recorded in the name of the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 has approved the proposals. Accordingly, e-pattadar pass book is issued in favour of Respondent No.5 basing on the entries made in revenue records and also ground position to protect his rights.
15. The petitioner filed O.S.No. 467 of 2015 for declaration of title, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction, before the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Khammam in respect of subject lands and the same is pending.
16. Respondent No.5 further submits that in similar case, vide order dated 25.11.2024 in WP No.30688 of 2024, this Court observed that a Civil Suit in OS No. 74 of 2024 is pending and the matter is sub 7 judice, leaving it open to the parties to make appropriate application soon after the suit being decided in favour of either of the parties for mutation/alteration/correction of the revenue records in accordance with the provisions of ROR Act.
17. In the instant case, the matter is sub-judice before the competent Civil Court for deciding rights of the parties in O.S No. 447 of 2015. It is open to the parties to make application soon after the suit is disposed of for mutation/alteration/correction of the revenue records in accordance with the provisions of ROR Act. However, in order to avoid future complications, Respondent No.4 is taking steps to block the entries made in Sy.No.169/E1 to an extent of Ac. 1.1550 guntas recorded in favour of Respondent No.5 till disposal of O.S No. 467 of 2015.
18. With the said submissions, Respondent No.4 sought to dismiss the writ petition.
19. The aforesaid rival contentions would reveal that originally, Boddu Chinna Anthaiah s/o Boddu Chinna Sheshaiah, was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.2.32 guntas in Sy.No.169/A, Ac.1.16½ guntas in Sy.No.169/E, situated at Arempala Village. He has sold the said property to father of the 8 petitioner i.e. Pavurala Raghavulu under sadabainama/simple sale deed, dated 08.11.1979. The petitioner's father name was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said property and old passbook / ryoth passbook was issued in his favour. After death of his father, petitioner succeeded the said property. Latest pattadar passbook and title deed was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.03.2024 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas in Sy.No.169/E/5 (for short, 'the subject property') of Arempala Village. According to him, he is in possession of the subject property and cultivating the same.
20. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner's mother i.e. Pavurala Venkatamma, petitioner, his brothers and sister, filed a suit O.S.No.467 of 2015 against respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein and 4 others for declaration of title, recovery of possession from defendant Nos.1 to 5 including respondent No.5 herein and also for perpetual injunction. Suit schedule property is Ac.0.23 guntas in Sy.No.169/B, Ac.0.23 guntas in Sy.No.169/AA, situated at Arempala Village, Ac.1.26 ½ guntas in Sy.No.169/C and Ac.0.08 guntas in Sy.No.208 of Arempala Village. The subject property is in Sy.No.169/E. 9
21. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in item No.2 of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.467 of 2015 survey number is wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.169/C instead of Sy.No.169/E, therefore, plaintiffs are taking steps to amend the plaint. However, the said suit is pending. There are no interim orders.
22. 5th respondent is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.1.06 guntas in Sy.No.169/A, Ac.1.26 guntas in Sy.No.169/E (dry land), Ac.0.08 guntas in Sy.No.208, total admeasuring Ac.3.0½ guntas situated at Arempala Village, on the strength of sadabainama dated 08.04.2003 executed by Sri Pavurala Raghavulu, father of the petitioner. Her name was mutated in the revenue record, pattadar passbooks were also issued in her favour, dated 05.02.2025. In the said latest pattadar passbook and title deed, land admeasuring Ac.1.1550 guntas in Sy.No.169/E/1 of Arempala Village is mentioned.
23. It is apt to note that though the 5th respondent is claiming right over the aforesaid property on the strength of sadabainama, dated 08.04.2003 said to have been executed by father of the petitioner, she has not obtained regularization proceedings in terms of Section 5-A of 10 the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971(for short, 'ROR Act, 1971') and 13-B proceedings.
24. Though the 5th respondent is claiming that she has purchased the subject land under sadabainama dated 08.04.2003, she has not filed any document to show that her name is mutated in the revenue record and old and latest passbooks were issued. Latest passbooks and title deeds were issued in her favour only on 05.02.2025. There is no explanation from 5th respondent with regard to obtaining of regularization proceedings regularizing sadabainama dated 08.04.2003 in terms of Section 5(A) of ROR Act, 1971 and 13- B proceedings.
25. She has submitted a representation dated 11.05.2024 to the Revenue Minister stating that land admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas in Sy.No.169/E of Arempala Village is 'Chowtha Inam'. Revenue record discloses the same. Her father-in-law i.e. Boddu Chinna Anthaiah was the Inamdar. After the death of her father-in-law, her husband Sri B.Sheshaiah succeeded the said property. After the death of her husband, she is in possession of the said property. On conducting survey in the year 2010, the land physically available is Ac.1.15½ guntas in Sy.No.169/E. Even then, the petitioner obtained pattadar 11 passbook by playing fraud. Therefore, she sought to conduct enquiry and cancel the passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner.
26. As discussed supra, even the petitioner is claiming that his father purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.169/E/5 situated at Arempala Village under a sadabainama dated 08.04.2003 from Sri Boddu Chinna Anthaiah s/o Boddu Sheshaiah. Even, the petitioner did not file a copy of the said regularization proceedings obtained by his father regularizing the said sadabainama, dated 08.11.1979 in terms of Section 5-A of ROR Act,1971 and 13-B proceedings. However, his father obtained ryoth passbook. Perusal of the said ryoth passbook would reveal that the land admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas in Sy.No.169/E of Arempala Village, the petitioner's father name i.e. Pavurala Raghavulu is mentioned as pattadar. The petitioner has also filed pahanies for the years 1995-96, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 wherein Sri Boddu Chinna Anthaiah name is mentioned as pattadar and Sri Pavurala Raghuvulu as possessor. It is also mentioned that the petitioner's father Sri Pavurula Raghavulu purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas. He has submitted representations dated 08.01.2025, 10.01.2025 and 02.01.2025 to respondent Nos.2 to 4 alleging that at 12 the instance of 5th respondent, 2nd respondent is not issuing pattadar passbook. Therefore, he requested to issue passbook. Finally passbooks were issued in his favour in respect of the subject land on 17.03.2024.
27. It is relevant to note that the original owner i.e. Sri Boddu Chinna Anthaiah, is the maternal grandfather of the petitioner and father-in-law of 5th respondent. Both the petitioner and 5th respondent are closely related. The aforesaid suit in O.S.No.467 of 2015 filed by the petitioner, his mother, brothers and sister seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction, is pending. There are no interim orders in the said suit.
28. In the plaint filed in O.S.No.467 of 2015, the petitioner, his mother, brothers and sister categorically contended that Sri Pavurala Raghavulu, father of the petitioner, purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.26 ½ guntas in Sy.No.169/E on 08.11.1979 from Sri Boddu Chinna Anthaiah i.e. father-in-law of 5th respondent. It was attested by husband of 5th respondent and his brothers i.e. Sri Boddu Venkanna and Boddu Kanakaiah. The said land is item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Thus, the petitioner, his mother, brothers and sister filed the said suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit 13 schedule properties from defendant Nos.1 to 5 including 5th respondent and for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. Even then, the petitioner is claiming that he is in possession of the subject property and he has obtained latest pattadar passbook and title deed on17.03.2024.
29. As discussed supra, 5th respondent is claiming right over the said property on the strength of sadabainama dated 08.04.2003. She has not obtained regularization proceedings. She is also claiming that she is in possession of the subject property.
30. As discussed supra, at the cost of repetition, though the 5th respondent is claiming right over the subject property basing on the sadabainama dated 08.04.2003, she has not filed mutation proceedings and old or latest passbooks in respect of the subject property. She has obtained latest pattadar passbook only on 05.02.2025. There is no explanation from 5th respondent for non-obtaining regularization proceedings under Section 5-A of ROR Act, 1971 and 13-B proceedings. Without obtaining the same and in the absence of regularization proceedings, she cannot submit a representation with the Revenue Minister, who in turn, referred the same to the District Collector i.e. 2nd respondent, who in turn, referred the same to the 14 Revenue Inspector for enquiry and report. Basing on the same, 4th respondent conducted enquiry and passed orders dated 25.11.2024 to delete the subject property and the name of the petitioner in respect of the subject land. In the said proceedings dated 25.11.2024, there is mention about representation submitted by the petitioner to the Minister for Revenue dated 11.06.2024, Dharani application dated 21.06.2024 of 5th respondent, her application dated 05.08.2024 and also the report of Mandal Girdavar-1.
31. There is no reference to the sadabainama dated 08.11.1979 executed by Sri Boddu Chinna Anthaiah in favour of father of the petitioner i.e. Sri Pavurala Raghavaiah, old ryoth passbook issued in his favour. There is also no reference with regard to regularization proceedings obtained by 5th respondent in respect of her sada bainama dated 08.04.2003. In the absence of the same, without considering the said aspects, 4th respondent has passed order dated 25.11.2024, directing to delete the name of the petitioner in respect of the subject property.
32. As per CCLA No.1 of 2024, dated 15.01.2024, 5th respondent has to submit online application to the District Collector with a request to delete the name of the petitioner and cancel pattadar 15 passbooks, if any, issued in his favour. Instead of submitting online application, she has submitted a representation to the Minister for Revenue on 11.06.2024, thereafter, she has submitted online application dated 21.06.2024 and another application dated 05.08.2024. It is the District Collector who is competent to delete the name by considering the said online application. 4th respondent is not competent authority to cancel the passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner as on 25.11.2024.
33. It is apt to note that as on the date of online application, representation by 4th respondent dated 11.06.2024, 21.06.2024, 05.08.2024, ROR Act, 2020 was in force. The Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 was notified only on 04.01.2025. Therefore, as per the provisions of ROR, 2025 as per the CCLA No.1 of 2025 dated 15.01.2024, 4th respondent is not the competent authority to cancel the passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner.
34. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned proceedings dated 25.11.2025 of 4th respondent are liable to be set aside.
16
35. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings dated 25.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.4 is set aside.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:12.09.2025.
vvr