IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.3798 of 2020 DATED: 01.12.2025 Between:

Manne Uma Rani …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and six others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 12.02.2020 in case No.I/109/2020 of respondent No.3 and quash the same.

2. Heard Sri Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri H.Sudhakar Rao, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally respondent Nos.5 to 7 are owners and possessors of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.3 – 14 gts in Sy.No.122, situated at Ganugapahad Village, Jangaon Mandal, Jangaon District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’); that respondent No.5 to 7 sold the subject property in favour of K.Anji Reddy, K.Ramachandra Reddy and K.Ravinder Reddy under unregistered sale deed dated 14.08.1994 and revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour and they in turn sold the subject property in favour of petitioner herein through unregistered sale deed dated 10.08.2013 and the same was regularized by respondent No.4 vide proceedings No.B/3499/2019-8, dated 30.12.2019 under Section 5-A of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971’), by duly issuing notice to respondent Nos.5 to 7; that subsequently, respondent No.4 issued 1B and the name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records. While the matter stood thus, respondent Nos.5 to 7 submitted a representation dated 17.01.2020 before respondent No.3 as well as respondent No.2 stating that they are the owners of the subject property and that petitioner by creating simple sale deed, trying to obtain Patta and requested to stop the same; that respondent No.3 considering the said representation as an appeal under Section 5-B(2) of ROR Act, issued notice dated 18.01.2020 to the petitioner and posted the matter to 29.01.2020 and to 10.02.2020 and ultimately passed impugned Order dated 12.02.2020; that after receiving impugned Order dated 12.02.2020, petitioner obtained certified copies of the notices dated 18.01.2020 and 30.01.2020, which reveal that the same were not served to the petitioner and no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to defend the case.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.3 has passed the impugned Order in violation of proviso 5-B(2) of ROR Act, 1971, without issuing notice to the affected parties i.e., petitioner herein and thus, the impugned Order is unsustainable. He further submitted that respondent No.4 by duly following the procedure as prescribed under Section 5-A of ROR Act, 1971, regularized the unregistered sale deed dated 10.08.2013 executed in favour of petitioner and issued Form-13B to the petitioner. Without considering the same, respondent No.3 passed the impugned Order on erroneous observation that while regularizing the unregistered sale deed of the petitioner dated 10.08.2013, no notice was issued to the vendors of the petitioners i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein and further observed that VRO made endorsement on the back side of the notice that it was affixed on the Gram Panchayat notice board, as the pattedars were not residing in the village. Without mentioning the date of affixture and even the signature or seal of the Gram Panchayat was also not taken as token of having published the notice and thus, held that no proper notice was served on respondent Nos.5 to 7.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.2 relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. M.R.O, Serilingampally Mandal and another,, 2007 (6) ALT 134(FB) wherei