Court emphasized adherence to limitation periods for land record corrections as prescribed by law, rejecting petitions filed after significant delay.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, namely:

(i) Order in Case No. D1/4580/2018, dated

26.10.2019, passed by the 2^nd respondent–Joint Collector;

(ii) Order in Case No. C/2742/2015, dated

12.07.2018, passed by the 3^rd respondent; and (iii) Memo No. B/2899/2015, dated 29.10.2015, issued by the 4th respondent – Tahsildar.

The petitioner further seeks a consequential direction to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to carry out necessary corrections in accordance with the proceedings No. G/RS/4/98-III, dated 05.12.1998, issued by the 4th respondent/Tahsildar, in respect of land measuring Acs. 1.00 guntas in Survey No. 286 and Acs. 3.00 guntas in Survey No. 287, situated at Urella Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that originally one Mr. Tuppari Chandra Reddy, the father of the petitioners, was the pattadar of lands in the entire Sy. Nos. 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, and 289, totaling Acs. 155.38 guntas, situated at Urella Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The names of the father of the petitioners, i.e., Chandra Reddy; the respondents 5 to 8, namely Tuppari Parma Reddy, the junior paternal uncle of the father of the petitioners; and one Tuppari Ramchandra Reddy, who is a cousin of the father of the petitioners, have been recorded in the Khasra as per the partition between them.

3. Since the date of partition, the father of the petitioners had been in possession and enjoyment of lands measuring Acs. 52.31 guntas as the absolute owner and pattadar. After his death, the petitioners have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said lands. However, upon noticing discrepancies in the revenue records, the petitioners made an application to the then MRO, Chevella, during the Revenue Sadassulu for correction of the records in accordance with the correct revenue records pertaining to the year 1951-1952.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the then MRO, Chevella, after issuing notices to respondents 5 to 8 and conducting a detailed enquiry into the old records and actual possession of the petitioners, passed an order in File No. G/RS/4/98-III, dated 05.12.1998, under Section 3(3) of the ROR Act, sanctioning mutation in favor of respondents 5 to 8, the petitioners, and Ramchandra Reddy for extents of Acs. 50.15 guntas, 52.31 guntas, and 42.09 guntas, respectively. The MRO also directed the VRO of Chevella to make the necessary changes in the revenue records.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have sold part of the land from their share and retained land measuring Acs. 5.06 guntas in Sy. No. 286 and Acs. 6.10 guntas in Sy. No. 287, situated at Urella Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. However, in the revenue records, land measuring Acs. 1.00 guntas in Sy. No. 286 and Acs. 3.00 guntas in Sy. No. 287 was not recorded in the names of the petitioners.

6. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners submitted an application on 28.07.2015 to the Tahsildar, Chevella (4^th respondent herein) seeking implementation of the order passed by the then MRO in File No. G/RS/4/98-III, dated 05.10.1998, by correcting the entries in the revenue records with respect to the land measuring Acs. 1.00 guntas in Sy.

No. 286 and Acs. 3.00 guntas in Sy. No. 287. However, the 4th respondent, without conducting any enquiry, issued Memo No. B/2899/2015, dated 29.10.2015, stating that the said order could not be implemented d