In land administration, proper legal procedures must be followed for record mutations, ensuring all parties' rights are respected.

ORDER :

K. SARATH, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order dated 15.06.2021 in File No.D/ST/75/2021/Case No.D1/795/2018, passed by the respondent No.2/Special Tribunal, Jagtial, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Sub-Collector & Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Metpally, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents. In spite of service of notice none appeared for the respondent Nos.5 and 6.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.155, and another extent of Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.156 of Korutla Villaeg and Revenue Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject lands’). Originally the said land belongs to one Thirumala Raja Goud, who had only one daughter by name Rajavva and she was married to one Battu Bhoomanna. The petitioner is the son of said Bhoomanna and Rajavva and after death of his parents the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same being the sole legal heir. While it being so, the petitioner came to know that the names of the fathers of unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been recorded as Pattadars and possessors of the subject lands from 1999- 2000 onwards. The families of unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 were never in possession and enjoyment of any piece of land and Tirumala Raja Goud, who was the original owner, nor the petitioner had sold any piece of land to the fathers of the respondent Nos.5 and 6. The official respondents have recorded the names of the unofficial respondents without any valid document or proceedings and without there being any physical possession. Challenging the said entries, the petitioner filed application before the respondent No.4, but he did not pass any orders. Questioning the inaction of the respondent No.4 the petitioner filed W.P.No.1273 of 2003 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent No.4 to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitoner also filed appeal in Case No.B/10/2017 under Section 5 (5) of the ROR ACT for not being corrected the entries by the respondent No.4 and the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal on 11.05.2018 without verifying the documents and pahanies filed by the petitioner which shows the name of the grandfather of the petitioner the last 50 years in respect of the subject land. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the Appeal, the petitioner filed revision under Section 9 of the ROR ACT , 1971 before the respondent No.3 and later the same was transferred to the respondent No.2. The said revision was disposed of on 04.02.2021 without putting any notice to the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner filed a review pursuant to the directions of Division Bench of this Court dated 18.03.2021 in WP (PIL) No.20 of 2021. Thereafter the matter was taken up by the respondent No.2. When the matter was taken up for hearing by the respondent No.2 on 15.06.2021 the Counsel for the petitioner argued at length, but none appeared for the unofficial respondents. In spite of the same, the respondent No.2 dismissed the revision on 15.06.2021 with an observation that the revision petitioner has not filed any additional evidence in support of his contentions.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would fur