Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18731
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Smt.Guguloth Laxmi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and 13 others – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 5706 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.V. Ramana
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare, Srikanth Reddy
Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot be exercised as an appellate power to re-appreciate evidence. Orders under tribal land protection laws must be based on cogent evidence and revenue records, not inadmissible documents.
Headnote:The case involves the A.P. (Telangana Area) Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, and the V Schedule of the Constitution. The petitioners challenged a Government Order (G.O.Ms.No.1) which, in revisional jurisdiction, set aside an appellate order and restored a primary order directing the restoration of Ac.18.00 of land to the 7th respondent. The court found that the primary order relied on inadmissible unregistered documents and ignored revenue records, while the appellate order had correctly identified the land as Government Poramboke. The court framed the issues around the sustainability of the Special Deputy Collector's order, the jurisdiction of the appellate authority, and whether the revisional Government Order suffered from jurisdictional infirmity. The court reasoned that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court. It held that the revisional authority exceeded its jurisdiction by converting its role into an appellate one and failed to provide reasons for discarding the appellate findings. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the above directions.
ORDER
The petitioners challenge the orders passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1, Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department, dated 14.02.2023. By the said order, the Government, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by the Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam in CMA No.3 of 2016, and restored the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam in LTR Case No.110/2012/KGM, whereby restoration of land admeasuring Ac.18.00 in Survey Nos.137/1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Chunchupalli Village and Mandal, BhadradriKothagudem District, was directed in favour of the 7th respondent.
Heard Mr. P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare for respondents No. 1 to 6, and Mr. Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.7. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1, Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department, dated 14.02.2023, is illegal, arbitrary, non-speaking, and vitiated by total non-application of mind, as the Revisional Authority failed to discharge its quasi-judicial duty of independently examining the record and assigning reasons while reversing a well-considered order of the appellate authority.
It is contended that the Government failed to consider crucial material, particularly the detailed survey report dated 21.05.2021 submitted by the Additional District Collector, BhadradriKothagudem District, which was directed by the Government itself. The said report, prepared through five survey teams, clearly depicts the nature, classification, and actual enjoyment of the land in Survey No.137, including extensive residential occupation, Government classification as Sarkari/Sarkari Poramboke, and large-scale existence of houses and house plots.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the survey findings demonstrate that Survey No.137, admeasuring Ac.427.31 guntas, is predominantly Government land, with substantial portions under residential, industrial, and public occupation. In particular, it is contended that within the disputed extent of Ac.18.00 in Survey Nos.137/1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, a major portion is already occupied by houses and plots purchased from tribals, leaving only a small extent vacant, thereby negating any claim of exclusive possession by the 7th respondent.
It is contended that the Government ignored the corroborative report of the Tahsildar dated 25.06.2022, which identified numerous plot owners and house occupants within the subject land, reinforcing the conclusion that the land is not in the exclusive possession of the 7th respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that the impugned order overlooks the parawise remarks of the Additional Agent to Government dated 15.04.2017, which categorically recorded that Survey No.137 is Government land along with portions belonging to the Golusula family, and not exclusively to the 7th respondent.
It is their contention that from Sethwar records through TeensalPahani (1954–56) and subsequent revenue records, Survey No.137 has been consistently shown predominantly as Sarkari Poramboke land, with only limited private holdings, and the claim of the 7th respondent over Ac.18.00 is unsupported by any revenue entry.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further assert that the father of the 7th respondent was never recorded as pattadar for the disputed extent and was shown only as an enjoyer to a limited extent of Ac.3.00, thereby contradicting the claim of larger entitlement.It is contended that the alleged sada sale deeds of 1967 and 1968 relied upon by the 7th respondent are fabricated, unregistered, mutually inconsistent, and not supported by revenue records. It is contended that such documents do not convey title under law and were wrongly relied upon without examining the
