IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J.
Sri Rama Prabhakar and others - Appellants
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.9064 and 9093 of 2019
Decided on : 21-04-2025
ORDER :
(K. SARATH, J.)
Since both these writ petitions are filed questioning the order passed by the respondent No.3- Joint Collector in Revision Case No.D1/87/205 dated 16.02.2019, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in W.P.No.9064 of 2019, the petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7-10 gts in Sy.No.8/A and 8/AA through registered sale deed document No.683/1997 dated 12.06.1997, the petitioner No.2 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7-06 gts in Sy.No.126 through registered sale deed document No.638/1995 dated 28.03.1995, Ac.2-04 gts in Sy.No.122 and Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.123 through registered sale deed document No.637/1995 dated 28.03.1995 and the petitioner No.3 has purchased the land admeasuring to a total extent of Ac.15.26 gts in Sy.No.125 through registered sale deed document No.639/1995 dated 28.03.1995 and the petitioners have purchased the properties from the respondent No.7 herein i.e, Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary, and the said lands are situated in Kusumurthy Village, Krishna Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were also issued in their favour and since then, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of those lands for more than 30 years.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in W.P.No.9093 of 2019, the grandfather of the petitoner No.1 and great grandfather of the petitoner Nos.2 to 5 i.e. late Sayanna was the protected tenant of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.12.26 gts in Sy.No.142 situated at Kusumurthy Village and a certificate of ownership was issued by the competent authority under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 vide File No.E/1513/75. After the death of said Sayanna, his sons had inherited the said property and thereafter the petitioners being legal heirs have inherited the same and through family arrangement, they have divided the said land and obtained pattadar passbooks and they have been in lawful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares of land.
5. For the purpose of narrating the facts, W.P.No.9064 of 2019 is taken as a lead case.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per the revenue records, one Kista Chary and his successors were the pattadars and owners of the suit schedule land and the same was purchased by the petitioners. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Narayanpet in respect of suit schedule properties and other lands initiated land reforms proceedings against the successors of said Kista Chary and held that the declarant holds the land admeasuring to an extent of 1.5386 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date in C.C.No.1412 of 1975 dated 09.06.1976. The respondent authorities have also granted pattas to some individuals in respect of said excess land of the legal heirs of late Kista Chary, however, the possession remained with the legal heirs of late Kista Chary. He further submits that against the said proceedings dated 09.06.1976, the two widows of late Kista Chary filed Land Reforms Appeal No.14 of 1982 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahabubagar and the same was allowed on 02.12.1983 holding that the appellants therein have to be treated as separate individuals and they were entitled to separate holding each and the said Judgment has became final. In view of the said Judgment, the pattas granted in favour of some individuals in respect of the excess land as per the proceedings dated 09.06.1976 were cancelled by the revenue authorities.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that Sri Doshi Ravindra Chary is the adopted son of two widows of Kista Char
Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District vs. D. Narsing Rao
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Darius Shapur Chenai
Registered sale deeds and possession establish land ownership unless proven otherwise; the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
Land granted under Inams Abolition Act confers ownership, which cannot be revoked without due process; arbitrary state action is unlawful.
Claims for land ownership after significant delays must be addressed by civil courts, as administrative bodies cannot adjudicate on disputed titles without violating established rights.
The court established that jurisdictional overreach by administrative authorities can invalidate their orders, necessitating adherence to procedural fairness.
The court emphasized the necessity of following due process and issuing notice to affected parties in revenue record alterations, affirming the principles of natural justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.