THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.10449 of 2019

ORDER:

Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Madas Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and perused the entire material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that great-great-grandfather of the petitioner No.2 i.e. Koyalkar Ramulu @ Ramaiah was the absolute owner and pattadar of land admeasuring Ac.0.27 guntas in Sy.No.1028/AA and Ac.0.19 guntas in Sy.No.975 situated at Metpally Village, Metpally Mandal, Jagtial District, in which the land in Sy.No.1028/AA to an extent of Ac. 0.27 guntas under the share of the great-grandfather of the petitioner No.2 and subsequently inherited by grandfather of the petitioner No.2. After demise of the grandfather of the petitioner No.2, the land was divided equally between petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the land in Sy.No.975 admeasuring Ac.0.19 guntas was inherited by Koyalkar Sayyaji and later succeeded by the his son Koyalkar Rajanna, from whom the petitioner No.4 descends and the names of the respective successors were mutated in the revenue records. Thereafter, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar issued mutation proceedings vide File No.B/248/2005 dated 31.03.2005, in favour of the petitioner No.5 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.13 ½ guntas in Sy.No.1028/AA and also in favour of the father of the petitioner No.2 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.13 ½ guntas in Sy.No.1008/AA situated at Metpally Village and the same was also entered in the register separately.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after lapse of more than 14 years, the respondent No.5 has submitted a representation dated 24.01.2019 falsely claiming the rights over the subject land in view of the similar names. Without issuing any notices to the petitioners and merely basing on the said representation, the respondent No.2-Joint District Collector treated the said representation as a Revision Petition No.D1/129/2019 dated 24.04.2019 under Section 9 of the Rights in Land in Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 and passed impugned ex parte order stating that the petitioners were absent on 16.03.2019 and 30.03.2019 and set aside succession proceedings dated 31.03.2005 in B.No.248/2005 issued by respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, this Writ Petition is filed and requested to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the ex parte order in Revision Petition No.D1/129/2019 dated

24.04.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5, basing on the counter affidavit, denied the averments made by the petitioners and submits that the alleged mutation proceedings bearing File No.B/248/2005 dated 31.03.2005 are false and fabricated. The mutation proceedings dated 31.03.2005 regarding pahani for the year 2004-05 towards Sy.No.1203, in which, it clearly mentioned that the name of one Poojari Padmasri w/o Sudhershan was recorded as pattedar by the revenue authorities as well as in the register maintained by the authority.

6. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5 further submits that basing on the material available on record and by following the due procedure, the respondent No.2-Joint Collector rightly passed the appropriate orders in Revision Petition No. D1/129/2019 dated 24.04.2019. It was clearly identified and noticed by the respondent No.2-Joint Collector that the petitioners herein manipulated and created the records having malafide intentions in order to grab the land of the respondent No.5. Therefore, the alleged grounds raised by the petitioners in the writ affidavit are not valid and baseless and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on devoid of merits.

7. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire material on