The court ruled that delayed administrative actions undermining property rights must be resolved through civil courts, emphasizing the importance of timely legal recourse.

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel Mr.L.Preetham Reddy, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and learned Counsel Mr. Bobbili Srinivas, on behalf of Respondent No.5.

2. PRAYER :

Petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under :

“To issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring initiating suo motto proceedings No.F3/518/2018 and issuance of hearing notice dated 02.01.2019, on the file of 2nd respondent District Collector, Medak upon the recommendation of the 3rd respondent against the petitioner herein in Sy.No.92, Nagasanpalli village, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District after long lapse of time as arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Lands and Pattedar Pass Books Act 1971.”

3. Case of the Petitioners as per the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present writ petition in brief is as under :

a) The petitioners have purchased the land from Battula Rajani, who in turn purchased it from M/s Indian Poultry Pvt. Ltd, under two registered sale deeds both dated 27.12.2010 bearing Document No. 4732/2010 for an extent of Ac. 10-00 in Sy.No. 92/3 in favour of 1st petitioner and further executed another registered sale deed in favour of 2nd petitioner bearing Document No. 4731 of 2010 for an extent Ac. 16-00 in Sy.No. 92/2 and Ac.6-00 in Sy.No. 92/3, Nagasanpalli village, Gram Panchayath Thimmapur, Kodipallimandal, Medak district. The petitioners herein also obtained respective pattadar pass books bearing No. 141150 and 11228371 respectively.

b) Thereafter, it appears that, on 26.06.2015, the 5th respondent has made a representation to the 3rd respondent without enclosing any documents requesting to enter the 5th respondent’s name in the revenue records from the year 1991-92 onwards by deleting the names of Basic Breeders, G.V. Aswin Reddy and B. Rajini. Thus, based on the said representation, the 3rd respondent entertained the same in an improper, illegal manner without any authority of law. The 3rd respondent herein merely relied upon the report alleged to have been submitted by 4th respondent dated 24.08.2015, who in turn relied upon an ex parte report of V.R.O. Nagasanpalli dated 03.07.2015.

c) Subsequently, the 3rd respondent herein on one hand states that files are not traced in his office nor called for the file from the R.D.O. office, Medak and came to a wrong conclusion not only with regard to the entries and also with regard to the ORCs without any justification in an arbitrary manner. The 3rd respondent further informed the 2nd respondent herein to take up Suo moto revision u/s 9 of the Act and also to take up steps for deletion of names of Mallaiah and 5 others and all subsequent purchasers and to restore the land as Inam, so as to enable him to issue Occupancy Rights Certificates.

d) Therefore, the 2nd respondent herein at the behest of the 3rd respondent initiated Suo motto proceedings No. F3/518/2018 and issued a notice dated 02.01.2019 to the petitioners herein. In the said proceedings, though the 3rd respondent letter dated 27.03.2018 was referred as the basis for the decision, for deletion of alleged wrong entries in respect of Ac. 157-12 gts. said to have been made in the pahanies for the year 1986-87, however it was upon the alleged application of the 5th respondent made before the 3rd respondent that the proceedings impugned had been initiated against the petitioner.

e) Moreover, in the said proceedings neither the application is said to have been made by the 5th respondent before the 3rd respondent, nor documents referred to or at least the letter dated 27.03.2018 of the 3rd respondent were enclosed by the 2nd respondent herein.

f) The 2nd respondent without verifying the records from the concerned authorities merely