The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for quasi-judicial authorities to provide detailed reasons for their decisions, in accordance with principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent No. 2 in old Case No. F2/4768/2018 dated 09.06.2021 wherein the revision filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 to 23 in respect of lands in Sy. No. 18 (Acs. 9.31 guntas), Sy. No. 20 (Acs. 9.22 guntas), Sy. No. 21 (Acs. 2.20 guntas), Sy. No. 25 (Acs. 21.05 guntas), Sy. No. 174 (Acs. 2.23 guntas), Sy. No. 175 (Ac. 1.25 guntas) and Sy. No. 176 (Ac. 0.29 guntas) totally admeasuring Acs. 48.35 guntas situated at Naseempet Village, Atmakur (S) Mandal, Suryapet District, was dismissed.

2. Petitioner stated that the impugned order was passed without application of mind and recording any reasons and without adverting to documents/submissions of the petitioner and thereby violating the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 2020 (for short ‘the Act of 2020’) and Section 5(A) of the Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act of 1971’) and Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his maternal grandmother, namely, Smt. Guduru Radhamma W/o Sitarama Rao Guduru, was the exclusive owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. 48.35 guntas in Sy. Nos. 18, 20, 21, 25, 174, 175 and 176 situated at Naseempet Village, Atmakur (S) Mandal, Suryapet District (subject property). The said land was bequeathed in favour of her daughter i.e. petitioner’s mother as ‘Pasupu Kunkuma’ vide registered will deed executed on 15.06.1967. The property was mutated in the name of the mother of the petitioner, namely, Ramaraju Jankamma, by the respondent No. 4 vide proceedings File No. A/721/827 during the year 1987. The mother of the petitioner was issued pattadar passbooks. Petitioner’s mother bequeathed the property to the petitioner vide will deed and also executed a GPA in favour of the petitioner vide registered document dated 17.08.1987. The mother of the petitioner expired on 10.03.1991. Upon death of his mother, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the subject property.

4. The petitioner requested the respondent No. 4 to carry out mutation and change of entries of the subject property in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the original will deed submitted by the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 passed mutation order dated 21.05.1991 effecting mutation in respect of the subject land in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 issued pattedar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner on 16.07.2004 bearing Khata No. 39. The said information was confirmed in Form 1-B.

5. It is stated that the petitioner is a Government employee in Agriculture Department in Khammam District and he was not in a position to look after the day-to-day affairs of the subject property. He entrusted the management of the subject property to one Alameni Tirupathaiah, who leased the said land to various persons including the respondent Nos. 5 to 23 and collected lease amount and remitted the same to the petitioner. Upon the death of the said agent, the petitioner visited the village and directed the respondent Nos. 5 to 23 to vacate the land. Initially, the respondent Nos. 5 to 23 requested the petitioner to wait for completion of harvest. However, they did not vacate the land or paid the lease amount and they became trespassers of the subject land. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Suryapet, complaining illegal trespass, creation of false, fictitious documents by the respondent Nos. 5 to 23. In the meantime, the petitioner lost pattedar passbook and title deed and lodged a complaint with the I Town Police Station, Suryapet.

6. The petitioner applied for duplicate pattedar passbook in the office of the respondent No. 4. As there was inaction by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 31454 of 2015 and this Cour