IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY DATED: 24.03.2026 Between:

Shikari Hari Babu and another. …Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the Order passed by respondent No.2 vide Case No.D5/7597/2010, dated 30.04.2016 and consequently, the Order passed by respondent No.4 vide Case No.B/97/2017, dated 18.06.2019, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of Telangana State Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioners, Ms.T.Swetcha, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue and Sri G.V.Ramana Murthy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 7 to 9.

3. Brief facts of the case, as averred in the writ affidavit are that petitioners’ mother namely Shikari Anjamma, purchased the land admeasuring Acs.3-04 gts in Sy.No.80 of Daira Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed No.7838 of 1990, dated 03.09.1990, and the petitioners purchased land admeasuring Ac.1-10 gts and Acs.4-10 in Sy.Nos.80 and 81, under registered sale deed No.5936 of 1991, dated 30.09.1991, from the unofficial respondents; that petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same; that respondent No.4 after detailed enquiry issued pattadar passbooks to petitioners in the year 1998, as per the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971; that unofficial respondents filed revision before respondent No.2 alleging that petitioners names were mutated and pattadar passbooks were issued erroneously; that petitioners filed counter before respondent No.2 stating that revision is not maintainable since the revenue authorities have no power or authority to decide the disputed questions of facts and complex issues and as much as revision was filed after lapse of 12 years after the grant of pattadar passbooks, therefore, revision is liable to be dismissed, however, respondent No.2 vide Order dated 30.04.2016, remanded the matter to respondent No.4 for fresh enquiry and to determine the shares of executants of registered sale deed.

4. It is further averred that on remand, respondent No.4 without conducting proper enquiry and without determining the shares, had passed the impugned Order dated 18.06.2019, and deleted an extent of land admeasuring Acs.2-23 ½ gts from Sy.Nos.80 and 81 from the entitlement of petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that revenue authorities have neither jurisdiction nor authority or power to adjudicate the validity of registered documents and cannot decide or adjudicate the disputed questions of facts and title, and thus, the impugned Order passed by respondent No.4 is without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is unsustainable. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following Judgments:

i) Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Govt. of A.P. Vs. G.Padmavathi.

ii) V.Goutham Rao Vs. Revenue Divisonal Officer, Jagtial.

iii) Mahila Bajrangi Vs. Badri Bai.

iv) B.Pushpamma & others Vs. Joint Collector, R.R.District, 2005 (1) ALT 240

1 1999 (4) ALT 209 (D.B.)

2 2003 (1) ALT 615

3 (2003) 2 SCC 464

6. Learned Counsel for petitioners further submitted that respondent No.2 erroneously entertained the revision filed by unofficial respondents, though, the same was filed after lapse of more than 12 years from the date of issuance of pattadar passbooks to the petitioners. He also submitted that though, no limitation has been prescribed for revision, the same has to be filed within a reasonable time, as held by the Hon’ble Apex court in Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another Vs. D.Narsing Rao and others5 which reads as under:-

“Even when there is no limit