The court emphasized that appeals filed beyond statutory limitation periods cannot be entertained, reaffirming the importance of adherence to procedural timelines in resolving land disputes.

ORDER :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in passing order dated 07.01.2020 in the appeal vide No.B/20/2018, filed by respondent No.5 herein and the consequential notice issued by respondent No.4 in Rc.No.91/2020 dated 20.01.2020, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Section 5(B) r/w Rule 21 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass book Act, 1971 and Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri P.Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri K.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.1.23 guntas in Sy.No.206, an extent of Ac.1.37 guntas in Sy.No.218, an extent of Ac.2.28 guntas in Sy.No.219, an extent of Ac.3.09 guntas in Sy.No.205/A , an extent of Ac.4.05 guntas in Sy.No.203/A/2 , an extent of Ac.2.23 guntas in Sy.No.202/A, totaling to an extent of Ac.16.05 guntas, situated at Rangapoor Village, Kodakandla Mandal, Jangaon District (for short ‘subject land’), having purchased the same from respondent No.5 under Sadha Sale Deed dated 12.08.1999; that petitioner No.2 filed application under Section 5(A) of the TELANGANA RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS ACT , 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971’); that respondent No.4 after due enquiry regularized the same and issued Form No.13 A and 13 B; and that consequently pattadar pass books and title deeds vide Khata No.511 were also issued to petitioner No.2 and since then petitioner No.2 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land.

4. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.5 submitted a representation to respondent No.3 alleging that he had never sold the lands to petitioner No.2; that he had earlier lodged a complaint on 20.06.2000 before respondent No.3, which was registered as Rc.No.B/876/2000; and that the said complaint was disposed of on 03.08.2001 with a direction to both parties to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their dispute.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.5 had earlier filed O.S.No.550 of 2008 for perpetual injunction against his brother on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, and had also filed O.S.No.336 of 2008 before the same Court seeking rectification of revenue records by deleting the name of his father and brother and substituting his name. Both suits were decreed in favour of respondent No.5 vide Common Judgment and Decree dated 03.01.2014.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in entering the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, respondent No.5 filed Appeal No.B/20/2018 under Section 5(B) of the Act, 1971 read with Rule 21 of the Rules. It is further submitted that respondent No.3, despite being aware of the above disputes, entertained the appeal filed by respondent No.5 after more than two decades from the date of the Sada Sale Deed and more than five years from the date of its regularization. Upon receipt of notice in the appeal, petitioner No.2 appeared before respondent No.3 and filed a counter stating that out of the subject lands, she had sold an extent of Ac.2.00 to one S. Somakka under Document No.675/2017 and had gifted a certain extent of land to petitioner Nos.1 and 3 under a gift settlement deed No.397/2018 dated 05.03.2018. It is further subm