HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.17773 of 2016 DATE OF ORDER : 06.03.2026 Between Vemula Raji Reddy, S/o. Chandraiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Budharaopet Village, Khanapur Mandal, Warangal District.

.. Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and 5 others .. Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling for records pertaining to the Proceedings passed by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings RC.No.E5/3643/2014 dated 22.04.2016 and quash the same and pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Mr. B.Srikanth, learned counsel, representing A.Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Shashank Garige, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

3. It is the case of petitioner that a revision under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971, (for short ‘ROR Act’) was preferred before the office of Joint Collector (respondent No.2) by respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein in respect of entries in occupation column for land admeasuring Acs.2.30 guntas in Sy.Nos.326/A, 327/A, 328/A, 330/A (Ex.P1) situated in Inapalli Village, Khanapur Mandal. That respondent No.2 vide order dated 22.04.2016 allowed the revision, not considered the aspect of non-presence of petitioner or his counsel. That a notice was served on petitioner on 08.03.2016 to appear for hearing on 05.03.2016, that the said notice was served after the date of hearing of the revision.

4. It is the case of petitioner that one Late Ramreddy was the original owner and possessor of subject land, that after his death in 1990, respondent Nos.5 and 6, being the wife and daughter, were issued pattedar passbooks. That respondent No.5 (wife) entrusted the management and cultivation of land to her brother, petitioner herein. That petitioner got his name entered in the possessor column in the year 2005-06.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Joint Collector erred in holding that the entry of the name of petitioner in revenue records was without any legal basis and the direction to delete irregular entries from the year 2005-06 and to restore original position was bad in law. It is further submitted that no notice was served on the petitioner at the time of deciding the proceedings and that petitioner was not granted an opportunity to present his case. That in the absence of notice, the order of the Joint Collector is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice.

6. It is submitted that revision was filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein after nine years and that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the revision.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that petitioner is relying on a sada bainama, said to have been executed in favour of Dongala Kattaiah by respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 10.05.1994, and that Dongala Kattaiah executed a document in favour of petitioner on 28.06.1995 conferring the right and title in the subject land, as petitioner is the adopted son of Dongala Kattaiah. It is further submitted that a suit bearing O.S.No.55 of 2010 was filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, by respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein, for declaration of ownership and consequential injunction. It is submitted that the suit was dismissed for default and that an interlocutory application is filed for restoration of the O.S. (to its file on 23.12.2024) and the said application is pending consideration.

8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 invited the attention of this Court to the order of Joint Collector and submitted that revision petition was disposed of on merits and that petitioner