Amendment of revenue records without providing notice to the existing recorded holder violates the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) and is legally unsustainable, regardless of general publication requirements.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the Orders passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Petition No.D1/283/2018, dated 16.09.2019, through which the Orders passed by respondent No.2 in appeal case No.B/12095/2015, dated 10.01.2018, was set aside, and the respondent No.4 was directed to correct the extents of petitioners as Ac.0-29½ gts each in Sy.No.989 and an extent of Acs.5-05 gts should be recorded in the name of respondents, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and also in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned Counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally, petitioners’ father was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.1-19 gts in Sy.No.989 of Pegadapally Village and Mandal, Jagtial District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’); that after the death of petitioners’ father petitioners being the legal heirs succeeded to the subject land and partitioned the subject land equally admeasuring Ac.0-29½ gts each and got their names mutated in the revenue records; that the respondent No.4 had also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour in respect of their shares; that the computerized online pahanies for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 also reflected the names of petitioners as against their respective shares. However, in the Pahanies for the year 2015, the names of petitioners is reflected only for an extent of Ac.0-16 gts each instead of Ac.0.29 ½ gts and Ac.0-13 ½ gts each from the lands of petitioners was deleted without any notice to the petitioners and without following the procedure as contemplated under Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971); that petitioners preferred an appeal vide case No.B/12095/2015, before respondent No.3 under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971 and the same was allowed by respondent No.3 vide Order dated 10.01.2018, directing the respondent No.4 to take necessary action for correction of entries; that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 preferred a revision vide No.D1/283/2018, before respondent No.2 and the same was allowed vide, Order dated 16.09.2019, setting aside the Order dated 10.01.2018, passed by respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue by referring to the Counter filed on behalf of respondent No.2 would submit that the total extent of land in Sy.No.989 was Acs.11-26 gts, out of which, Ac.0-16 gts was given to Police Station and the balance extent of Acs.11-10 gts was held by the fathers of petitioner as well as respondent Nos.5 and 6 i.e., Acs.5-25 gts each; that the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 sold an extent of Ac.0-18 gts to third parties, leaving balance of Acs.5-07 gts, which is held by respondent Nos.5 and 6; that the father of petitioners sold an extent of Acs.4-25 gts to third parties, leaving balance of Ac.1-00 gts, to which the petitioners are entitled for Ac.0-20 gts each. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that on the application submitted by respondent Nos.5 and 6, for grant of succession, respondent No.4 had issued notice to the petitioners, but the same could not be served as the petitioners were not residing in the village; that the respondent No.2 after examining all these factors, passed impugned Order dated 16.09.2019 and finally, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 by referring to the Counter would submit that respondent No.4 had issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of petitioners to an extent of Ac.0-29 ½ gts each instead of Ac.0-20 gts each, due to oversight, without issuing any notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6; t