Telangana High Court
Jafar Alam Khan R.R.Dist And Another vs Joint Collector-Ii, R.R.Dist At Hyd And … on 9 July, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Date : 09.07.2026
WRIT PETITION No.20213 of 2014
Between :
Jafar Alam and another.
.. Petitioners
AND
The Joint Collector-II and others.
.. Respondents
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed, aggrieved by the order dated
28.05.2014 passed by the 1st respondent in Case
No.D1/2143/2013.
2. Respondent Nos. 5, 7, 9, and 10 died, and their legal
representatives were brought on record as Respondent Nos.
12 to 23.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-
(a) On 04.07.2001, the 1st petitioner purchased the
agricultural land admeasuring Ac.8-31 gts. in Sy.No.110,
2situated at Yenkapally Village, Pudur Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, through a registered Sale Deed from
Sri V. Venkatesham and others. Similarly, on 20.06.1994, the
2nd petitioner purchased the agricultural land admeasuring
Ac.6-00 gts. in Sy.No.110, situated at Yenkapally Village,
Pudur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through a registered
Sale Deed from Sri M. Adavappa.
(b) The names of the petitioners were duly entered
in the revenue records, and Pattadar Passbooks and Title
Deeds were issued in their favour. The petitioners developed
the agricultural lands by making substantial investments,
and a farm presently exists on the said lands. The petitioners’
vendors acquired the aforesaid lands by virtue of proceedings
under Section 5-A, vide File No.149/1/93 dated 04-09-1995,
based on an unregistered document dated 15-03-1961, which
was subsequently regularized by the 2nd respondent under
Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass
Books Act.
3
(c) A certificate under Section 13(c) was issued to
the petitioners’ vendors, and Pattadar Passbooks and Title
Deeds were also issued in their favour. The petitioners,
vendors regularly paid land revenue to the concerned
Revenue Department, and their names were reflected in the
Pahani Patrika for a considerable period. After the purchase
of the subject property from the lawful owners, namely the
vendors, the names of the petitioners were duly recorded in
the revenue records.
(d) The 2nd respondent passed an order dated
25.04.2013 by observing as follows :-
“In view of the above observations and procedural
lapses the orders passed by the M.R.O., Pudur Mandal
including mutation orders issuing pattadar passbook and
title deeds in favour of Jagadishwar, Venkatesham,
S/o.Ramulu (Patta No.259), Khader Alam Khan (Patta
No.54) and Jaffar Alam Khan (Patta No.143), in respect of
land bearing Sy.Nos.139, 110 situated at Yenkepally
Village of Pudur Mandal are hereby cancelled.
The Tahsildar, Pudur Mandal, is hereby instructed to
restore the old entries prior to the impugned orders i.e.,
4before the date of eksala lease and handover the vacant
land in Sy.Nos.139 and 110 to the concerned under cover
of panchanama and report compliance.”
(e) Earlier, this Hon’ble Court granted a limited stay
of the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in W.P.
No.15237 of 2013 while the matter was pending in revision
before the 1st respondent. Subsequently, W.P. No.15237 of
2013 was disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent
to pass appropriate orders on the petitioners, stay
application.
(f) Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd
respondent, the petitioners preferred a revision before the 1st
respondent, and the same was dismissed on 28.05.2014 by
observing as follows:
“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
the Sub-Collector Vikarabad Division in its orders Case No.
C/1773/2010, dated. 25.04.2013 took appropriate
decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity
to the petitioners. As per rules and regulations as per AP
ROR in Land and PPBs Act, 1989 laid down U/s 5 (5) of
Act. I see no need to interfere in the lower court order
5Further in compliance to the orders of Hon’ble Apex Court
of AP dated 29.05.2013 in WPNO. 15237/2013, it is
hereby ordered that action taken by the respondent No.1
i.e, Sub-Collector, Vikarabad in her file bearing No.
C/1773/2010/dt. 25.04.2013 is appropriate. The action of
the eksala holder in disposing the lands again the eksala
lease terms and the action of the revenue authorities
regularizing such sale in the revenue records is irregular.”
3. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has
been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that respondent Nos.4 to 11 are complete strangers to the
subject property. The petitioners are not aware of any prior
proceedings initiated by respondent Nos.4 to 11 under the
Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioners’ vendors and the
unofficial respondents appear to have colluded with each
other, and that respondent No.2, without providing an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, mechanically passed
the impugned order without jurisdiction.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned
proceedings issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 were never
6
served upon the petitioners. It is contended that neither the
Revenue Recovery Act nor the A.P. Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Books Act is applicable to the facts of the
present case. Despite this, the 1st respondent erroneously
confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent.
6. Learned counsel further submits that taking advantage
of the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in File
No.D1/2143/2013 dated 28-05-2014, respondent Nos.4 to 11
are making strenuous efforts to dispossess the petitioners
from the subject land.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned
orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 are contrary to law
and that the petitioners were not parties to any of the
proceedings referred to under References 1 to 8 of the
impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 failed to consider the issue of limitation. After a
lapse of more than forty years, respondent Nos.4 to 15
initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act.
7
8. Learned counsel further submits that the 1st
respondent also failed to appreciate that the 2nd respondent
invoked the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar
Pass Books Act, 1971, and passed the impugned proceedings
without issuing notice to the petitioners. Therefore, it is
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the
impugned proceedings and allow the writ petition.
9. The 4th respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating as
follows :-
(a) Mirza Bismillah Baig, the father of the 4th
respondent and respondents 5 to 11, was the pattadar,
owner, and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.14-31 guntas
in Sy.No.110 and Ac.4-39 guntas in Sy.No.139, situated at
Yenkapalli Village. The said lands, along with other lands
owned by Mirza Bismillah Baig, were attached by the Revenue
Authorities under Section 28 of the Revenue Recovery Act for
the recovery of arrears of land revenue due from him. The
Revenue Authorities took over the management of the said
lands and leased them on an Eksala cultivation basis.
8
(b) The name of Mirza Bismillah Baig was recorded
as pattadar, owner, and possessor of the lands in Sy.Nos.110
and 139 in Columns 8, 13, and 18 of the Khasra Pahani for
the year 1954-55 (Record of Rights), prepared under the A.P.
(Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358
Fasli. Under Section 13 of the said Regulation, there is a
statutory presumption regarding the correctness of the entries
made therein until lawful entries are substituted.
(c) Respondent No.5, being the eldest son of Mirza
Bismillah Baig, deposited a sum of Rs.1,589.39 in the office of
the Tahsildar, Vikarabad, by remitting the amount through
Challan No.65 dated 07.11.1964. The receipt was placed in
File No.C1/3311/62.
(d) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad,
addressed a letter dated 26.11.1964 in File No.I/5598/64 to
the Tahsildar, Vikarabad, directing him to verify whether all
arrears due up to that date had been paid or deposited and,
upon scrutiny and reconciliation of accounts, release the
9lands in accordance with Section 37 of the Revenue Recovery
Act, after the harvest of the standing crop.
(e) Subsequently, the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Vikarabad, addressed another letter dated 12.05.1966 in File
No.I/1562/66 to the Tahsildar, Vikarabad, stating as follows:
“The lands are attached and leased out on a one-year
temporary lease basis, and the Revenue Inspector and
Village Officers should have handed over these lands to
the defaulter long ago after drawing up a panchanama.
The Revenue Inspector and Village Officers are directed to
hand over possession within three days by intimating the
date to the pattadar/defaulter or his attorney and to
realize the Eksala lease amount, if not already realized,
and credit the same to the Tahsil account, and report
compliance within seven days.”
(f) Despite the aforesaid directions issued by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, requiring the Tahsildar
to release the lands in Sy.Nos.110 and 139 of Yenkapalli
Village, and deliver possession thereof to the legal heirs of
Mirza Bismillah Baig under a panchanama. The attachment
was not lifted and possession of the lands was not restored as
10
directed in the order dated 12.05.1966. Therefore, respondent
Nos.4, 5, and 9 submitted an application dated 23.03.1985 to
the Tahsildar, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, requesting
delivery of possession of the lands in Sy.Nos.110 and 139 of
Yenkapalli Village by evicting the Eksala tenants, namely
Venkatesham and Ramulu. However, no action was taken on
the said application.
(g) As respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to take any
steps to evict the Eksala tenants from the attached lands in
Sy.Nos.110 and 139, respondent No.4 submitted a
representation dated 21.05.2007 to the Hon’ble Minister for
Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, with a
copy marked to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District,
requesting necessary action. However, no action was taken
thereon.
(h) Thereafter, respondent No.4, through his
advocate, submitted a representation dated 06.01.2009 to the
Commissioner for Land Reforms and Settlement, Government
of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, requesting to issue directions
11
to the Tahsildar, Pudur, Ranga Reddy District, to transmit the
relevant records to the office of the Joint Collector for the
release of the lands in Sy.Nos.110 and 139 from the
attachment under Section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act.
(i) The lands of Mirza Bismillah Baig had been
attached and leased out on an Eksala basis solely for the
realization of arrears of land revenue due from him and that,
upon payment or adjustment of such arrears, the Revenue
Authorities were legally bound to release the lands under
Section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act and restore
possession thereof to respondent No.4 and the other legal
heirs of Mirza Bismillah Baig by drawing a panchanama, as
directed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, in his
order dated 12.05.1966.
10. Respondent Nos. 5 to 23 filed a counter-affidavit
stating as follows :-
(a) Respondent Nos. 4 to 23 are the legal heirs of late
Bismillah Baig, who was the owner of land admeasuring
12Ac.14.31 gts. and Ac.4.29 gts. in Survey Nos. 110 and 139,
respectively, situated at Yenkapalli Village, Pudur Mandal,
Vikarabad District. In the year 1962, the District Collector
attached the said lands under the provisions of the A.P.
Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, for non-payment of arrears of
land revenue. Subsequently, the lands were given on a
temporary Eksala lease by the Collector under Section 28 of
the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.
(b) Late Bismillah Baig paid the arrears of land
revenue amounting to Rs.1,589.39 on 07.11.1964. Thereafter,
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, directed the
Tahsildar to restore possession of the attached lands situated
at Yenkapalli Village to the owner, after securing possession
thereof from the Eksala tenant. However, as the Tahsildar
failed to restore vacant possession of the said lands to late
Bismillah Baig, the lands continued to remain under
attachment. After the death of Bismillah Baig on 29.05.1975,
his legal heirs made several representations to the Collector
seeking release of the lands from attachment under the
13Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, and restoration of vacant
physical possession thereof.
(c) The legal heirs of late Bismillah Baig addressed a
letter dated 21.05.2007 to the Revenue Minister. The Revenue
Minister forwarded the said letter to the District Collector,
who, in turn, directed the 2nd respondent to enquire into the
matter relating to the delivery of possession of the land
admeasuring Ac.14.31 gts. in Survey No.110 and Ac.4.29 gts.
in Survey No.139, situated at Yenkapalli Village, Pudur
Mandal.
(d) The 2nd Respondent called for relevant
information from the Tahsildar, Pudur Mandal. When the
Tahsildar failed to furnish the required information despite
repeated reminders, the 2nd Respondent personally inspected
the Tahsildar’s office, Pudur Mandal on 01.12.2012. Upon
inspection, the 2nd respondent found the following
irregularities committed by the Tahsildar, Pudur Mandal:
1. In the file bearing R.Dist. No.18/844/2001, the notice
dated 01.08.2001 was not served on any person. The
14unserved copy of the notice was retained in the file, and
mutation orders were nevertheless passed on 17.08.2004.
2. The MRO, Pudur Mandal, failed to follow the procedure
prescribed under the Record of Rights Act and the Rules
framed thereunder, which was irregular and contrary to
law.
3. The Tahsildar, Pudur Mandal, failed to verify how the
land, which was under Government supervision, came to
be mutated in the names of Venkatesham, Jagdishwar,
and Chandraiah without any valid supporting documents.”
(e) The 2nd respondent thereafter issued notices to
all persons in possession of the said lands and, after
conducting a personal hearing, passed an order in File
No.C/1773/2010 dated 25.04.2013 directing the Tahsildar to
deliver possession of the said lands to the legal heirs of late
Bismillah Baig and restore the names of the legal heirs of
Bismillah Baig in the revenue records.
(f) Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent in
File No.C/1773/2010 dated 25.04.2013, the petitioners filed
a revision petition before the 1st Respondent. Even in the
revision proceedings, the petitioners failed to produce any
proof of ownership in respect of the said lands, which were
15
under Government attachment. By order in File
No.D1/2143/2013 dated 28.05.2014, the 1st respondent
dismissed the revision petition.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 23
submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have rightly passed the
impugned orders and there are no grounds to interfere with
the same. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is
liable to be dismissed.
12. A perusal of the order passed by the 2nd respondent in
Case No. C/1773/2010, dated 25.04.2013, discloses that Sri
Mirza Fataullah Baig/4th respondent, the GPA holder, filed an
application on 21.05.2007 before the Hon’ble Minister for
Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Hon’ble
Minister, by an endorsement dated 26.05.2007, directed the
Joint Collector to examine the matter and take appropriate
action.
13. The preliminary question that arises is how the
respondent authorities acted solely on the basis of the
16
endorsement made by the Hon’ble Minister and proceeded to
pass the impugned orders.
14. The 2nd respondent passed the order, dated 25.04.2013
by observing as follows :-
“The Tahsildar, Vikarbad Mandal in turn vide
Lr.No.B/1413/2010 Dated 31-12-2010 has reported that
the connected records pertains to the land bearing
Sy.Nos.139 & 110 admeasuring 14-13 and 4-29 acres
situated at Yenkepally village is not available in the office
and the entire records were transferred to Pudur after
formation of Mandal system.
The Tahsildar, Pudur Mandal thorugh Lr. Dated
28-01-2011 has submitted Xerox copies of Khasra pahani
1954-55 and pahani 1973-74, but not submitted
conclusive report as how the names of Sri. Venkatesham &
others brought to record as pattedars and how they have
acquired land beaing Sy.Nos.139 & 110 of Yenkepally
village, Pudur Mandal. The Tahsildar, Pudur Mandal has
failed to submit the said information.
Accordingly, the matter has been taken on file on
appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P.Rights in Land and
Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Amended Act, 1/89
and notices were issued to all the concerned parties fixing
the date of hearing on 14.12.2010.
17
In response to the notice one Sri. P.S.Anand,
Advocate has represented on behalf of the respondents,
i.e., Sri. Venkatesham & others filed certain documents,
i.e., Xerox copies of Pattedar Passbook & Title Deeds
issued and also to Jagadishwar vide Katha No. 395,
Chandraiah S/o Ramaiah (Patta No.347), Venkatesh S/o
Ramulu (Patta, No. 259), Khadar Alam Khan (Patta No.54)
& Jaffar Alam Khan (Patta No. 143) and failed to file the
documentary evidences in support of their claim.
It is revealed from the records filed therein that
the land bearing Sy.Nos.139 & 110 of Yenkepally Village
has been mutated in the names of Khadar Alam Khan and
Jaffar Alam Khan vide Registered sale deed
No.5505/2001 Dt: 04-07-2001 and incorporated in the
pahani 1995-96. But the respondent parties have not
submitted rebuttal evidence of record as how their names
were brought to record as pattedar. Moreover there is no
flow of title as how Sri. Venkatesham and others got title.
Thus the sale deed made in favour of Khader Alam Khan
& Jaffar Alam Khan through registered sale deed No.
6505/01 Dated 04-07-2001 does not have any validity
under the Act and Rules.
The Tahsildar, Pudur Mandal has also not
verified the aspect that the said land bearing Sy.Nos. were
under the supervision of Govt. and leased on Eksala
cultivation. Moreover, the Tahsildar has not verified as
how the mutation i.e., change effected in the name of
18Venkatesham, Jagadishwar and Chandraiah who were
stated to be brought to record without any valid document.
In view of the above observations and procedural
lapses the orders passed by the M.R.O., Pudur Mandal
including Mutation orders issuing Pattedar Passbook &
Title Deeds in’favour of Jagadishwar, Venkatesham S/o
Ramulu (Patta No. 259), Khadar Alam Khan (Patta No.54)
& Jaffar Alam Khan (Patta No.143), in respect of land
bearing Sy.Nos. 139, 110 situated at Yenkepally Village of
Pudur Mandal is hereby cancelled.
The Tahsildar, Pudur Mandal is hereby instructed
to restore, the old entries prior to the impugned orders, i.e.,
before the date of Eksala lease and handover the vacant
land Sy.Nos. 139, 110 to the concerned under cover of
Panchanama and report compliance.”
15. In the instant case, though there is no proper
information with regard to the disputed issue, and the
respondent authorities took the file on appeal under Section 5
(5) of the AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971
and issued notices to all the concerned parties fixing the date
of hearing on 14.12.2010.
16. Under the order dated 25.04.2013, it was observed by
the 2nd respondent that the respondent parties have not
19
submitted rebuttal evidence on record as to how their names
were brought on record as pattedar. Moreover, there is no flow
of title showing how Sri Venkatesham and others acquired
title to the property in question. Therefore, the sale deed
executed in favour of Khader Alam Khan and Jaffar Alam
Khan, through a registered sale deed, bearing document No.
6505/2001, dated 04-07-2001, is invalid under the Act and
the Rules.
17. Although the impugned orders disclose that there were
lapses on the part of the respondent authorities, it is not
known how the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to
restore the old revenue entries that existed prior to the
impugned order, i.e., before the date of the Eksala lease and
handover the vacant land Sy.Nos.139, 110 to the concerned
under the cover of Panchanama. This raises a significant
question regarding the legality and the basis of such
direction.
18. Interestingly, the petitioners filed a revision before the
1st respondent and the 1st respondent in Case
20
No.D1/2143/2013, dated 28.05.2014, without looking into
the material on record, dismissed the revision by observing as
follows :-
“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case the Sub-Collector Vikarabad Division in its orders
Case No.C/1773/2010, dated. 25.04.2013 took
appropriate decision in accordance with law after giving
an opportunity to the petitioners. As per rules and
regulations as per AP ROR in Land and PPBs Act. 1989
laid down U/s 5(5) of Act. I, see no need to interfere in the
lower court order Further in compliance to the orders of
Hon’ble Apex Court of AP dated 29.05.2013 in W.P.No.
15237/2013, it is hereby ordered that action taken by the
respondent No.1 i.e, Sub-Collector, Vikarabad in her file
bearing No. C/1773/2010, dt. 25.04.2013 is appropriate.
The action of the eksala holder in disposing the land again
the eksala lease terms and the action of the revenue
authorities regularizing such sale in the revenue records is
irregular.”
19. More so, W.P.No.15237 of 2013 filed by the petitioners
was disposed of on 29.05.2013 with a direction to the 1st
respondent to pass appropriate orders on the stay application
filed by the petitioners.
21
20. A perusal of the above two orders passed by
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 reveals that the respondent
authorities are not in a position to produce any documentary
evidence in support of their claims in respect of the subject
property. Further, the respondent authorities themselves have
expressed doubts regarding the entry of the names of the
concerned persons in the revenue records. This indicates
that, in both instances, the enquiry was not conducted
properly.
21. More so, the respondents filed certain documents such
as xerox copies of pattedar passbooks and title deeds issued
in respect of one Sri Jagdishwar vide Katha No. 395, Sri
Chandraiah S/o. Sri Ramaiah (Patta No.347), Sri Venkatesh
S/o. Sri Ramulu (Patta No. 259), Sri Khadar Alam Khan
(Patta No. 54) and Sri Jaffar Alam Khan (Patta No.143), failed
to file the documentary evidence in support of their claims.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon
several judgments. Prima facie, this Court is not convinced by
the orders passed by both the respondent authorities.
22
Therefore, at this juncture, this Court is of the considered
view that there is no need to take into consideration all those
judgments. However, the respondents are at liberty to place
the said judgments before the authorities concerned, if so
required.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion and circumstances,
this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders
passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 25.04.2013 and
28.05.2014 are legally unsustainable and the same are liable
to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The 1st respondent
is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry, after issuing notice to
both parties, and to pass appropriate final orders in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
24. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed
of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, any miscellaneous applications pending,
shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 09.07.2026
Prv
23
