Revenue authorities must issue individual notices before altering land records to uphold natural justice, as failure to do so renders the action arbitrary and illegal.

ORDER :

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vedula Srinivas, the learned senior counsel appearing for Mrs. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.4 and Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners are constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court aggrieved by the illegal action of respondents Nos.2 and 3 in deleting their names and mutating the name of respondent No.4 in the revenue records in respect of land in Sy.Nos.514/A/2, 514/AA/1/1/1/1/2, 516/A/2 and 516/AA/2, admeasuring Ac.4–21 gts., situated at Turkapally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal–Malkajgiri District. The impugned mutation was effected without issuing any notice to the Petitioners and is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. This writ petition was earlier disposed on 24.08.2023 basing on a counter affidavit said to have been filed by the respondent No.4 stating that in view of the execution of registered sale deeds by her father in favour of the vendor of the petitioners and surrender of tenancy rights by her father, neither she nor her father has right or title over the subject lands. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was allowed. Subsequently, the 4^th respondent came up with IA No.3 of 2023 seeking review of the order dated 24.08.2023 on the premise that the above stated counter affidavit is concocted and that her thumb impression thereon was forged. In that backdrop on 12.03.2024 this Court recalled the order dated 24.08.2023 and restored the matter to file.

4. The Petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land in Sy.No.514 (Ac.17–26 gts.) and Sy.No.516 (Ac.7–25 gts.) of Turkapally Village, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.4962 of 2006 dated 09.03.2006 from Sri B. Ramesh Reddy. Their names were duly mutated under the ROR Act, 1971 and pattadar passbooks, title deeds and e-passbooks were issued in their favour.

(a) Prior to the petitioners’ purchase, the land belonged to Smt. Ummatunnisa Begum and others. The protected tenants, including Section 38-E certificate holders, along with the pattadars, conveyed the land to Sri B. Ramesh Reddy under registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.217 and 212 of 1991 dated 16.01.1991, followed by mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks in his name. Sri B. Ramesh Reddy thereafter conveyed the land to the Petitioners in 2006. Since then, the Petitioners have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession and their names consistently reflected in the revenue records.

(b) Recently, the petitioners discovered that the name of respondent No.4 was entered in the revenue records and a pattadar passbook issued in her favour. Upon enquiry, respondent No.3 stated that the mutation was based on alleged succession proceedings recognizing respondent No.4 as the legal heir of Ooradi Rajaiah. However, Ooradi Rajaiah had already alienated his entire share under the sale deeds dated 16.01.1991 and had surrendered his tenancy rights under Proceedings No.B/69/90 dated 08.02.1990. Consequently, no land remained vested in him and respondent No.4 could not have inherited any right or interest therein.

(c) The entries in favour of respondent No.4 are thus fraudulent, obtained by misrepresentation and were effected without notice to