Telangana High Court
Banoth Seetha Ram vs State Of Telangana on 8 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.9901 of 2020
DATED: 08.07.2026
Between:
Banoth Seetha Ram ...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. ...Respondents
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the Order of respondent
No.3 in Case No.D1/582/2018, dated 29.06.2019 and that of
respondent No.4 in Rc.No.C/789/2014, dated 17.02.2017, as
erroneous and unsustainable and for consequential relief.
2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri
A.Praneeth, learned Counsel for respondent No.6.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that
originally, the land admeasuring Acs.11-15 gts in Sy.No.340 of
Gangapur Village, Rebbena Mandal, Kumarambheem Asifabad
LNA,J
W.P.No.9901 of 2020
2
District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land) belongs to one
Mahorkar Rajeshwar Rao and the petitioner’s father was cultivating
the same; that the said Rajeshwar Rao, gifted the subject land to
petitioner’s father more than 50 years back; that the name of
petitioner’s father was shown as ‘cultivator’ and the name of
Rajeshwar Rao as ‘pattadar’ in the pahanies; that the petitioner’s
father sold an extent of Ac.1-08 gts out of Acs.11-15 gts to one
Mamidipalli Rajamma, through an unregistered sale deed in the year
1968 and the same was later validated by the Tahsildar, Asifabad,
under Section 50B of A.P.(T.A) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act,
1950 (for short ‘the Act, 1950’) and Certificate under Section 50-B of
the Act, 1950 has also been issued to Rajamma to an extent of
Ac.1-08 gts, but the said extent was entered erroneously by the local
Patwari as Acs.11-08 gts in the pahanies.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that on coming to know about the said wrong entries, petitioner
made an application before R.D.O for rectification of wrong entries in
the revenue records; that the R.D.O vide Memo dated 17.02.2017,
directed the petitioner to approach competent Civil Court, since the
dispute is civil in nature. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred
revision before the Joint Collector, under Section 9 of the A.P(T.A)
LNA,J
W.P.No.9901 of 2020
3
Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act,
1971’) and the Joint Collector vide Order dated 29.06.2019,
erroneously dismissed the revision.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the entry of Acs.11-08 gts in favour of Rajamma, was erroneous,
as the certificate given under Section 50-B of the Act, 1950, was only
for Ac.1-08 gts, thus, there is patent error on the part of the RDO
and the Joint Collector in dismissing the appeal and revision, on the
ground that there is civil dispute and the matter has to be decided by
a competent Civil Court and finally prayed to allow the writ petition.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue by
referring to Counter of respondent No.5 would submit that the land
admeasuring Acs.11-08 gts in Sy.No.340 of Rebbena Mandal, was
sold by the original pattadar Mahorkar Rajeshwar Rao in favour of
Mamidipalli Rajamma through Sadabainama and the sale deed was
validated as per the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 50-B of
the Act, 1950, without prejudice to rights accrued to any person
under Section 37-A or 38 or 38-E of the said Act and the name of
Mamidipally Rajamma, was also reflected in amendment register for
the entire extent of Acs.11-08 gts.
LNA,J
W.P.No.9901 of 2020
4
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further
submitted that there is no error in maintaining the revenue records
and the petitioner is misrepresenting the real facts and is trying to
mislead the Court, which amounts to abuse of process of law. She
further submitted that the statutory authorities are vested with
limited powers, which are summary in nature and a competent Civil
Court can only deal with disputed questions of ownership and title,
therefore, there is no error in the Orders passed by respondent Nos.3
and 4.
8. Learned Counsel for respondent No.6 by referring to Counter
would submit that originally, one Mahrokar Rajeshwar Rao was the
pattadar of land admeasuring Acs.11-08 gts in Sy.No.340; that on
14.02.1968, he sold the subject land in favour of M.Rajamma
through a simple sale deed and the said sale deed was validated
under Section 50-B of the Act, 1950 and the said validation file
No.B8/642/70, was recorded in the Faisal Patti of 1971-72 and she
was issued ‘Land Cess’ revenue records; that subsequent to
introduction of Rythu Passbooks in the year 1978, the said
Mamidipally Rajamma, was issued with new Passbook, in which, the
extent was recorded as Acs.11-38 cents; that she sold a small extent
of Ac.0-78 cents out of Acs.11-38 cents and was holding an extent of
LNA,J
W.P.No.9901 of 2020
5
Acs.10-60 cents. He further submitted that in the year 1989, an
amendment was brought to the Act, 1971, thereby, the system of
pattadar passbooks and title deeds were introducted; that Rajamma
was issued pattadar passbook as well as title deed in respect of land
admeasuring Acs.10-60 gts in Sy.No.340/A and out of said land, an
extent of Acs.2-17 cents was sold to third parties and an extent of
Acs.8-43 cents was left with her; that the sons of Rajamma i.e.,
Mamidi Srinivas i.e., husband of respondent No.6 and Mamidi
Venugopal-respondent No.7, succeeded to an extent of Acs.4-21
cents in Sy.No.340/A/1 and Acs.4-22 cents in Sy.No.340/A/2
respectively and got their names mutated in the revenue records and
pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour.
9. Learned Counsel for respondent No.6 further submitted that
after the death of said M.Srinivas, the land admeasuring Acs.4-21
cents was succeeded to by respondent No.6 vide proceedings
No.ROR/26/2017, dated 29.07.2017 and got her name mutated in
the revenue records. He further submitted that petitioner had
approached the State Commission for SCs & STs to conduct enquiry
with regard to Patta in respondent of land in Sy.No.340 of Gangapur
village; that the Commission has forwarded the said complaint to
RDO, Asifabad and the RDO after conducting enquiry, vide Memo
LNA,J
W.P.No.9901 of 2020
6
dated 17.02.2017, held that issue is civil in nature and directed the
petitioner to approach competent Civil Court. Thus, the said Order of
RDO was not passed by exercising appellate jurisdiction under
Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971. Since no appeal was filed before RDO,
the revision before the Joint Collector is also not maintainable.
10. Learned Counsel for respondent No.6 further submitted that
an application for rectification of entries in revenue records has to be
filed before the Tahsildar under Section 5(3) of the Act, 1971, within
a period of 60 days from the date of notification in official gazette or
within one year from the date of issuance of pattadar passbook and
title deed. In the instant case, the name of M.Rajamma was entered
in the revenue records in the year 1971-72 and she was issued
pattadar passbook in the year 1972, but the petitioner filed the
application before the Commission after lapse of 40 years, therefore,
the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation and finally prayed
to dismiss the writ petition.
11. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced on behalf of petitioner as well as respondents and perused
the entire record.
12. Perusal of the record discloses that initially, petitioner filed an
application before TS Commission for SC & ST, requesting to conduct
LNA,J
W.P.No.9901 of 2020
7
enquiry and initiate stringent action as per the provisions of Andhra
Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, against
the sons of said M.Rajamma i.e., M.Srinivas and M.Venugopal, for
encroaching his land in Sy.No.340 and the Commission forwarded
the application to RDO and the RDO after conducting enquiry,
directed the petitioner to approach competent Civil Court vide
R.C.No.C/789/2014, dated 17.02.2017. Aggrieved by the same,
petitioner preferred revision before the Joint Collector and the same
was also dismissed vide Order dated 29.06.2019, confirming the
Orders passed by the RDO.
13. It is pertinent to note that as per Section 5 of the Act, 1971,
any person aggrieved by an order of the recording authority i.e.,
Tahshildar, has a remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act,
1971, within a period of 60 days.
14. In the present case, M.Rajamma purchased the subject
property from M.Rajeshwar Rao, under simple sale deed dated
14.02.1968, and the same was validated under Section 50-B of the
Act, 1950, by following due process of law and has obtained pattadar
passbooks and title deeds in her favour. It is not in dispute with
regard to mutation of the name of M.Rajamma in the revenue records
in the year 1971-72 and issuance of pattadar passbooks in the year
LNA,J
W.P.No.9901 of 2020
8
1972 and significantly, no steps have been taken by the petitioner’s
father, for rectification of entries in the revenue records during his
life time. Further, out of Acs.11-38 cents, the said M.Rajamma, sold
an extent of Ac.0-78 cents and Acs.2-17 cents to third parties and
the remaining extent of Acs.8-43 cents was inherited by her sons and
their names have also been mutated in the revenue records.
15. The petitioner approached the revenue authorities after lapse
of about 40 years for correction of entries in the revenue records and
thus, it is evident from the facts that petitioner is trying to revive
stale claim and unsettle the settled things after long period of time.
16. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of this Court in
W.A.No.969 of 2012, dated 17.08.2012 between K.R.Shankar
Singh V. The Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Godhavari Khani, Karimnagar District 1, wherein
it was held that:-
“The principle on which the court refuses relief on the
ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others
by delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless
there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because court
should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged
by the delay on the part of the petitioner.”
1
2012 (5) ALD 781
LNA,J
W.P.No.9901 of 2020
9
17. It is appropriate to refer to Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another Vs.
D.Narsing Rao and others 2, wherein, it was held as under:-
“Even when there is no limitation period prescribed for the
exercise of any power, revisional or otherwise, such power
must be exercised within a reasonable period.”
18. It is also pertinent to refer to Judgment of the erstwhile High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy V.
Joint Collector, 3 wherein it was held as under:-
“The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) can exercise appellate
jurisdiction under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in
Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 197, only when a proper
statutory appeal is filed within the prescribed limitation and in
the manner required by Rule 21 of the Rules,1889.”
19. The petitioners have failed to place on record, pahanies or any
other document evidencing their title and possession over subject
land and have failed to offer cogent and plausible reasons for filing
an application for correction of revenue entries after lapse of 40
years. As rightly observed by the RDO and Joint Collector, there are
complex disputed question of facts and title and it is settled principle
of law that revenue authorities have neither jurisdiction nor
2
(2015) 3 SCC 695
3
2008 SCC Online AP 533
LNA,J
W.P.No.9901 of 2020
10
authority to adjudicate the disputed questions of facts and title (See:-
Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.142 of
2009, dated 13.10.2023).
20. In the light of above discussion, in considered opinion of this
Court, respondent No.4 and respondent No.3 have rightly rejected
the application and directed the petitioner to approach competent
Civil Court for redressal of his grievance and thus, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the impugned Order passed by respondent
No.4 as well as respondent No.3.
21. In the result, writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
DATE: 08.07.2026
Tri
