IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Dated:31.03.2026 Between:

Sidam Bapu Rao and six others.

…Petitioners And:

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and three others.

…Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to order vide Case No.D1/1785/2018, dated 17.06.2020, passed by respondent No.2 and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same.

2. Heard Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri MD.Ajmal Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that one Syed Jaleel Shah, the husband of respondent No.4, was pattadar of Acs.33-32 gts of land situated in Sy.No.3 of Pardi (K) Village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District; that out of the said extent, he sold Acs.16-36 gts (hereinafter referred to as the “subject property”) to one Mahadu through a sadabainama, dated 12.03.1961, which was subsequently regularized by the Tahsildar under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, “ROR Act, 1971”); and that the subject property was mutated in the name of Mahadu vide proceedings No.ROR/8/88/05.

3.1. It is further averred that, after the death of Mahadu, his son, Kumara Chinnaiah @ Chinnu, became the owner of the subject property and his name was mutated in the revenue records; that Kumara Chinnaiah @ Chinnu executed a registered gift deed No. 621/2009 dated 13.02.2009, conveying the subject property in favour of petitioner No.1 herein, and the property was thereafter mutated in his name.

3.2. Later, petitioner No.1 executed a registered gift deed vide Document No. 2267/2015 dated 17.04.2015, conveying Acs.3-00 gts in Sy.No.3/A/1 in favour of petitioner No.2, and another gift deed No. 2268/2015 dated 17.04.2015, conveying Acs.3-00 gts in favour of petitioner No. 3. Petitioner No.1 also sold Ac.1-00 gts to petitioner No. 4 through a registered sale deed bearing document No. 2269/2015, Ac.1-00 gts to petitioner No.5 through a registered sale deed bearing document No.1938/2019 dated 18.03.2019 and Acs.6-00 gts to Koredde Vinod in the year 2012 through a registered sale deed bearing document No.2446/2012. The said Koredde Vinod, in turn, sold Acs.2-00 gts to petitioner No.6 and Acs.4-00 gts to one Ankath Swathi, who subsequently sold the same to petitioner No.7. The names of the aforesaid persons, in whose favour the gift deeds/sale deeds were executed, were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were also issued to the respective persons. Thus, as of now, petitioner No.1 is in possession of only Ac.1-31 gts out of the subject property.

3.3. It is further averred that after the death of Syed Jaleel Shah, his wife-respondent No.4 herein filed an application dated 02.06.2016 before respondent No. 2, claiming that her husband was the owner of the subject property. Respondent No.2 conducted an enquiry by issuing notice only to petitioner No.1 and, without impleading the necessary parties and without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to them and passed the order dated 17.06.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the subject property was originally sold by Syed Jaleel Shah in favour of Mahadu under a sadabainama, dated 12.03.1961, and the said transaction was subsequently regularized under the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971. Pursuant thereto, the name of Mahadu was duly mutated in the revenue records, which attained finality and was never challenged during the lifetime of Syed Jaleel Shah or thereafter for several decades.

4.1. He further submitted that respondent No.4 filed an application claiming rights o