Telangana High Court
Dongari Murali , Murahari vs State Of Telangana on 9 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.14931 OF 2021
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief/s:-
"... to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to quash the order of the Special Tribunal, Suryapet in Case No.F2/3029/2019, dated 03.02.2021 whereby the order of the 4th respondent in ROR Appeal No.D2/1567/2018, dated 23.08.2019 is confirmed, by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and also to set aside the proceedings of the 5th respondent in File No.ROR B/379/2006, dated 30.09.2008 and ROR B/380/2006, dated 18.09.2008 whereby the alleged certificates in Form 13(B) were issued in favour of the respondents 6 and 7, and to issue a consequential direction to the 5th respondent to restore the name of the petitioner in respect of Ac.5.08 Gts. in Sy.No.310/AA of Dosapahad Village, Penpahad Mandal, Suryapet District in the revenue records, and pass such other order or orders ..."
2. Heard Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel representing Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.Jetty Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agriculture land Acs.5.08 2 Gts. in Sy.No.310/AA at Dosapabad Village, Penpahad Mandal; that since more than five decades the name of the petitioner is being reflected in the revenue records; that respondent Nos.6 and 7 got deleted the name of the petitioner illegally and entered their names in respect of the said property saying that they have obtained 13B certificates from the Tahsildar basing on Sadabainamas executed by one Donagiri Bhaskar Rao; that respondent Nos.6 and 7 were issued the pattadar passbooks in respect of said land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the RDO by way of an Appeal U/s.5(5) of the ROR Act, 1971 in Appeal No.D2/1567/2018; that on the said application, filed before the Tahsildar with regard to the copies of the Sadabainamas under which respondent Nos.6 and 7 claim to have purchased the subject land, along with the related mutation proceedings, notices issued by the Tahsildar, statements recorded while conducting the proceedings U/s.5A of th Act, etc, under the RTI Act, the Tahsildar has furnished information on 05.06.201 stating that none of those records are available in his office; that there is no record available in the office of the Tahsildar regarding the proceedings U/s.5A of the Act 3 whereby the Sadabainamas were validated in favour of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and the mutation has taken place in their names. Thus, the entire burden would fall on respondent Nos.6 and 7 to prove that they had purchased the subject land from Donagiri Bhaskar Rao under Sadabainamas; that the application was made to the Tahsildar for validation of those transactions, the enquiry was conducted by him and proceedings were issued validating those Sadabainamas after issuing notice to persons whose names are already reflected in the revenue records, etc.; that the R.D.O. had dismissed the Appeal vide order dated 23.08.2019 observing that as the report of the Tahsildar, respondent Nos.6 and 7 are in the possession of the land and that in the copy of 1-A Register the amendments were recorded.
4. It is stated that the name of the petitioner was reflected in the revenue records much prior to the alleged validation process of the Sadabainamas of the respondent Nos.6 and 7; that the petitioner was not put on notice at any point of time either for the purpose of validation of the Sadabainamas or for the purpose of mutation in the names of respondent Nos.6 4 and 7; that the petitioner preferred Revision against the order of the RDO dated 23.08.2019 to the Joint Collector and the same was transferred to the Special Tribunal U/Sec.16 of the Telangana ROR Act, 2020; that the petitioner was not served with any notice and vide order dated 03.02.2021 the Special Tribunal had confirmed the order of the R.D.O; that in a P.I.L. case, this Court had observed that in all those cases where the Special Tribunal has disposed of the Appeals/Revisions without hearing the parties, a fresh hearing has to be given and matters have to be decided afresh; that in obedience to the same, the State Government has also issued Circulars asking the Special Tribunal to rehear those cases wherever the parties were not heard when the cases were disposed of; that the petitioner had filed a Petition dated 29.04.2021 before respondent No.2 requesting him to rehear the Revision Petition since the Special Tribunal had passed the order dated 03.02.2021, without hearing the parties; that there was no response from respondent No.2 and it can be assumed that the Special Tribunal is not taking up the case afresh despite the directions of this Court in a PIL case and the circulars issued by the State Government. Therefore, he states that the 5 order of the Special Tribunal in Case No.F2/3029/2019, dated 03.02.2021 is illegal and without application of mind. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the order dated 18.03.2021 in W.P.(PIL).No.20 of 2021 and the decision passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal and Others 1, he states that the impugned order is not tenable in the eye of law and seeks to pass appropriate orders.
6. Learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.6 and 7, by filing counter affidavit/vacate stay petition contends that they are the owners and possessors of the subject property and the writ petitioner has filed this Writ Petition basing on false and frivolous grounds. Relying on the decision passed by this Court in Velupadas Veeraswamy Vs. State of A.P. and others 2, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. 1 AIR 2008 Andhra Pradesh 15 Full Bench 2 2007 (1) ALD 435 6
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue concedes to the said submissions.
8. Having regard to the submissions of all the learned counsel and relying on the decisions cited (supra 1 and 2) and the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Limited and another Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh and another 3, wherein it is held that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing, and prior intimation of such a move is necessary, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings are passed without taking into consideration, the principles of natural justice. Hence, this Court deems it fit and proper to set aside the order passed by the Special Tribunal, Suryapet in Case No.F2/3029/2019, dated 03.02.2021 and the order dated 23.08.2019 passed by respondent No.4 in ROR Appeal No.D2/1567/2018.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and remanded back to respondent No.4, for fresh consideration in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferable 3 AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1770 7 within a period of six (6) months thereon from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on putting the effected parties on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Date: 09.09.2025 ESP