The court upheld that all parties must be afforded a fair opportunity to present their claims before revenue records can be altered, in compliance with natural justice principles.

ORDER:

K. SARATH, J.

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned order dated 22.01.2021 in Case No.ST/D1/601/2021 (B/2955/201911/2021) rejecting the claim of the petitioners for correction of records pertaining to the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac:25.18 gts in Sy.Nos.61, 63, 64, 75 and 414 situated at Manmarri Village, Shahbad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal on merits by holding an enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Gulam Hyder, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government for Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri Keshav Hulsurkar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.8 to 20.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolute owners of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.18 gts in Sy.Nos.61, 63, 64, 75 and 414 situated at Manmarri Village, Shahbad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having succeeded the same from their father namely Mohd. Ali, who was the pattadar of the said lands and his name was reflected in the revenue records till his death on 25.12.1968. Thereafter, one Sikander Ali and others have got mutated their names in the revenue records in the year, 1970. Thereafter, on the representation filed by the petitioners, the respondent No.5 has conducted enquiry and issued proceedings ROR No.354/89 dated 18.09.1991 for correction of the revenue records and granted Fouthi Izafa in favour of the petitioners. As the said proceedings were not implemented, the petitioners have filed another petition, but the respondent No.5 has rejected the said petition vide Proceedings No.B/4029/97 dated 11.12.1997. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioners have filed appeal before the respondent No.4 and the same was dismissed by order dated 01.05.2014. Challenging the order dated 01.05.2014, the petitioners have preferred revision before the respondent No.3 under Section 9 of the ROR ACT , 1971 and the same was allowed in Case No.D5/3348/2006 dated 11.12.2006 by setting aside the order of the respondent No.4 directing the respondent No.5 to pass orders afresh by giving notice to all the parties.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the unofficial respondents claiming to be legal heirs of one Sikandar Ali and Mohd. Omer have filed W.P.No.4614 of 2007 and the same was disposed of on 14.09.2018 directing the parties to produce relevant evidence before the respondent No.5 and thereafter, the petitioners have filed a petition before the respondent No.5 for correction of revenue records and to enter the names of the petitioners as successors of late Mohd. Ali by granting Fouthi Izafa and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in view of order in W.P.No.4614 of 2007 dated 14.09.2018. As per G.O.Ms.No.4 Revenue Department dated 12.01.2021, the Special Tribunal was constituted and the said petition filed by the petitioners was transmitted to the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal to conduct enquiry. Learned counsel further submits that the Special Tribunal without conducting enquiry and without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioners has dismissed the petition by the impugned order, which is illegal and arbitrary and requested to set aside the same.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for