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.

ORDER :

K.SARATH, J. 

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in passing of order in Case No.D1/2963/2016 dated 15.07.2017 for rectification of mutations for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-32 gts in Sy.No.42/1A of Battisawargoan Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri V.R.Avula, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Harindra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.

3. After filing this writ petition, the respondent No.5 expired and the respondent No.6 was impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased respondent No.6. The respondent No.7 got impleaded himself as the respondent, but failed to file counter. None appeared for the respondent No.7 on the date of hearing.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts and Ac.2-12 gts through registered documents bearing No.153 of 1980 dated 21.02.1980 and bearing document No.135 of 1981 dated 21.02.1981 respectively and the petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts through registered document bearing No.687 of 1981 dated 27.07.1981 and the said lands are situated in Sy.No.42/1A situated at Battisawargoan Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District and their names were also mutated in the revenue records for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-32 gts and Ac.2-00 gts respectively and out of the said lands, they have sold the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts to the third parties. In the year, 2014 the respondent No.5 filed application to cancel the mutation of the petitioner No.1 and his father alleging that wrong patta was granted to them, the respondent No.3 issued notices to the petitioners and also called for report of the respondent No.4-Tahsildar. After due enquiry, the respondent No.3 has dismissed the said application on 21.04.2016 and challenging the same, the respondent No.5 filed a revision before the respondent No.2 and the same was allowed on 15.07.2017 remitting the matter to the respondent No.4-Tahsildar for rectification of entries in the revenue records.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are in possession of the subject property and mutations were effected in the year, 1983 and the respondent No.5 filed application in the year 2014 i.e, after 30 years by creating fake documents without approaching the competent Civil Court for agitating his rights over the subject lands.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No.2 without application of mind has entertained the revision and issued notice to the petitioners. The petitioners have submitted a detailed counter raising various grounds including delay, but the respondent No.2 without looking into the same allowed the revision petition. The said order of the respondent No.2 is nothing but deciding the title of the property as well as unsettling the settled rights of the individuals, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent No.2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are in possession of the property and the mutation was effected beyond more than 30 years back and the respondent No.5 also sought for delivery of possession of the property. Without going into the said issues and without explaining the inordinate delay of more than 30 years, the respondent No.5 has approached the respondent authorities and the respondent No.2 has entertained the same and passed the impugned order, which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act 1971’) and requested to set aside the impugned order and allow the writ petition.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following