Telangana High Court
Sri Ramaraju Sudarshan Rao vs Joint Collector – I, Ranga Reddy … on 30 June, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.9724 of 2010 and 8506 of 2010
Date : 30.06.2026
W.P.No.9724 of 2010
Between :
Sri Ramaraju Sudarshan Rao and another.
.. Petitioners
AND
Joint Collector-I, Range Reddy District-cum-
Divisional Authority and others.
.. Respondents
W.P.No.8506 of 2010
Between :
Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple.
.. Petitioner
AND
Joint Collector-I, Range Reddy District-cum-
Divisional Authority and others.
2
.. Respondents
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved is identical, these two writ
petitions are disposed of by way of a common order.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the
order passed by the 1st respondent in Case
No.D5/7280/2008, dated 16.01.2010.
3. For convenience, the facts in W.P.No.9724 of 2010 are
discussed hereunder:
a) The 1st petitioner is the founder family member of
Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple and the 2nd petitioner is
the Commissioner of Endowments. Sri Ramalingeshwara
Swamy Temple is the absolute owner and possessor of land
admeasuring Ac.134.01 guntas in Sy.Nos.175, 176, 177,
307, 308, 309, 310, 321, 138, 454/A, 41/A, 318, 302, 301,
312, 320, 456, 459, 165, 168, 171, 73, 45 and 35 situated at
Bommarasipet Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District. Out of the said land, an extent of Ac.49.22 guntas is
3the inam land falling in Sy.Nos.307, 308, 309, 310 and 321,
which were granted to the Temple and maintained by the then
Nizam. The rest of the land was donated by the forefathers of
petitioner No.1 herein, who are the founders of the Temple
and the same is confirmed as per the ceiling declarations filed
by them before the ceiling Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad, East
Division in C.C.Nos.1968/M/75, 235M/75, 1589/M/75 and
1301/M/75, dated 19.05.1977.
b) The ownership of Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy
Temple is established from the entries contained in the
endowment register maintained under Section 43 of the
A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1987.
c) Respondent Nos.3 to 11 herein are claiming as
successors to the protected tenant, late Sri Talla Balreddy.
The claim made by respondents 3 to 11 before the 1st
respondent is that the original protected tenant was one Sri
Talla Baganna @ Bagi Reddy, and after his death, their father
late Sri Talla Balreddy was granted succession of protected
tenancy rights under Section 40 of the A.P.(Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act,
4
1950) vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent in File
No.A/973/2000, dated 02.05.2001, and as such, they have
become successors to the protected tenancy over the subject
land.
d) The further claim of respondents 3 to 11 is that,
since the succession certificate issued in the name of their
father, Talla Balreddy, inures to their benefit as well, no
succession certificate in respect of protected tenancy rights
was granted in their favour by the 2ndrespondent.
e) Respondent Nos.3 to 11 herein had invoked the
jurisdiction of the 1strespondent under Section 9 of the
A.P.Record of Right inLand and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971
(for brevity ‘the Act, 1971’) alleging that they are entitled to be
declared as protected tenants and that Sri Ramalingeshwara
Swamy Temple has no right or title in respect of the subject
lands and the revenue records, such as pahanies, should be
rectified by entering their names after deleting the name of Sri
Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple.
5
f) The 1st respondent had entertained the said
revision, beyond the period of limitation and without
jurisdiction and even without any appeal before the Revenue
Divisional Officer and issued notices to the 2ndrespondent, the
petitioners herein and Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple,
called upon them to file their respective counter Affidavits.
g) Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple and the 1st
petitioner herein had filed detailed counter affidavits in the
revision petition contending that the revision petition filed by
respondents 3 to 11 is not maintainable in law and devoid of
any substance. The correction of revenue record from the year
1980 onwards cannot be claimed as a belated stage in the
year 2008, particularly, without availing the appellate remedy
under Section 5 (5) of the Act, 1971. Respondents 3 to 11 are
not the successors of the late Talla Balreddy, and when the
relationship between themselves was in dispute, they cannot
assert themselves as protected tenants.
h) Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple and the 1st
petitioner herein had also contended that all the earlier efforts
made by respondents 3 to 11 before the Civil Court for title
6
and before the authorities under the Endowment Act for
deletion of the subject lands from the endowment register
have failed and disclosed that Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy
Temple is the owner and hence, the said issues cannot be
raised or agitated again by invoking Section 9 of the Act,
1971.
i) The 1st respondent, without appreciation of the
factual and legal controversy in the matter, had allowed the
revision petition filed by respondents 3 to 11 in Case
No.D5/7280 of 2008 by order dated 16.01.2010 and declared
that respondents 3 to 11 as protected tenants and that Sri
Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple and the 2nd petitioner
herein are in unauthorized possession of the subject land and
further directed eviction of the Temple under Section 98 of the
Act, 1950.
j) Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petitions have
been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the proceedings under the Act, 1971 and the proceeding
7
under the Act, 1950 are distinct and separate. The 1st
respondent, in the impugned order, had exercised powers of
District Collector, in so far as Section 98 of the Act, 1950 is
concerned and also exercised the powers of the Joint
Collector, while adjudicating under Section 9 of the Act, 1971.
Thus, the impugned order passed by the 1strespondent is
unsustainable in law.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further
submits that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to decide
the title. Section 8 of the Act, 1971, provides for the remedy
when there is a dispute about title. The 1st respondent had
totally ignored the fact that respondents 3 to 11 had suffered
a dismissal order from the Civil Court as well as from the
Appellate Courts, when contested on title. Ignoring the fact
that the suit filed by the respondents 3 to 11 ended in
dismissal, the 1strespondent held that Sri Ramalingeshwara
Swamy Temple has no title to the subject land. Therefore, the
said finding of the 1st respondent is absurd and in utter
violation of settled principles of law.
8
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further
submits that the provisions of the Act, 1950 are not
applicable to the lands belonging to or given or endowed for a
Temple. Therefore, the respondents 3 to 11 cannot claim any
right with respect to the subject land, as the same was
endowed to Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple. So long as
the endowment register and the revenue records disclose that
Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple is the owner of the
subject land, it is not proper on the part of the 1strespondent
to hold that the subject lands do not belong to the Temple.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further
submits thatthe amendment of the provisions of the tenancy
Act, 1950 with respect to the lands belonging to endowments
was upheld by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in
W.P.No.23076 of 2003, dated 31.12.2007.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further
submits that when respondents 3 to 11 or their predecessors
have lost before the Civil Court and also the endowment
authorities, the 1st respondent erroneously passed the
impugned order in favour of respondents 3 to 11 and such a
9
course of action is prohibited by the doctrine of estoppel as
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1999 (5) S.C.C. 590
Para 26).
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further
submits that it is settled law that, as per the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Court succession of protected tenancy rights is
not within the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar and that whenever
there is a dispute, the same should be adjudicated by a Civil
Court. In the present case, the relationship of respondents 3
to 11 as the so-called protected tenants itself was in serious
dispute. Such a dispute cannot be adjudicated by the
authorities under the Act, 1971 or the Act, 1950. Hence, the
impugned order of the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction,
and the same is liable to be set aside.
10. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating as
follows :-
(a) The Civil Court, in O.S. No. 193 of 1983 on the
file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, L.B.
Nagar, after recording both oral and documentary evidence,
10held that the lands in question are not Temple lands.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the 2nd petitioner filed A.S.
No. 179 of 1994 before this Court; however, the same was
dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the finding of the Civil
Court that the subject lands are not Temple lands has
attained finality.
(b) The dispute between the 2nd petitioner, and the
respondents herein has already been adjudicated by the Civil
Court, and the findings therein were rendered against the 2nd
petitioner and the same have attained finality. Consequently,
the 2nd petitioner is precluded from re-agitating the very same
dispute, as the same is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Therefore, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed
on the ground of res judicata.
(c) The petitioner has suppressed the fact that
Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple had filed W.P.No.8506 of
2010 earlier than the filing of the present writ petition, and
the same is pending before this Court. On this ground alone,
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
11
(d) It is false on the part of the petitioners to contend
that Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple is the absolute
owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 134.01 situated
in Survey Nos. 175, 176, 177, 307, 308, 309, 310, 321, 138,
454/A, 41/A, 318, 302, 301, 312, 320, 456, 459, 165, 168,
171, 73, 45, and 35 of Bommarasipet Village, Shamirpet
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and from out of the said extent,
Ac. 49.22 guntas in Survey Nos. 307, 308, 309, 310, and 321
constitute Inam land granted to the Temple during the
Nizam’s regime.
(e) It is false on the part of the petitioners to contend
that the remaining land was donated by the forefathers of
petitioner No. 1, who are alleged to be the founders of the
Temple, and that such donation was confirmed through the
ceiling declarations filed before the Ceiling Reforms Tribunal,
Hyderabad East Division, in C.C.Nos.1968/M/75, 235/M/75,
1589/M/75, and 1301/M/75, dated 19.05.1977.
(f) It is false on the part of the petitioners to contend
that the ownership of Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple is
established by the entries contained in the Endowment
12
Register maintained under Section 43 of the A.P. Charitable
and Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1987.
(g) It is true that Respondents 3 to 11 claim to be
the successors of the protected tenant, late T. Bal Reddy. The
original protected tenant was one Talla Baganna alias Bagi
Reddy, and that after his death, their father, Talla Bal Reddy,
was granted succession to the protected tenancy rights under
Section 40 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act, 1950”), vide proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in File No.
A/973/2000 dated 02.05.2001. Consequently, they claim to
have succeeded in the protected tenancy rights over the
subject land.
(h) It is true that the succession certificate was
issued in the name of their father, Talla Bal Reddy, and they
claim the benefit thereof, although no separate succession
certificate conferring protected tenancy rights has been issued
in their favour by the 2nd respondent.
13
(i) The respondents are the legal heirs of late Sri
Talla Baganna alias Bagi Reddy, son of late Sri Bal Reddy,
who was a registered protected tenant under the A.P.
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950,
in respect of the following lands situated in Bommarasipet
Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District: Sy.No.37 –
Ac. 12.12 guntas, Sy.No.165 – Ac.4.05 guntas, Sy.No.168 –
Ac. 0.21 guntas, Sy.No.171 – Ac.7.32 guntas, Sy.No.301 – Ac.
15.28 guntas, Sy.No.302 – Ac. 7.02 guntas, Sy.No.307 – Ac.
14.19 guntas, Sy.No.308 – Ac.17.17 guntas, Sy.No.309 – Ac.
10.09 guntas, Sy.No.310 – Ac.15.03 guntas, Sy.No.312 – Ac.
17.21 guntas, Sy.No.318 – Ac.10.29 guntas, Sy. No. 320 – Ac.
19.22 guntas and Sy.No.321 – Ac. 7.17 guntas.
(j) The total extent is Ac.159.18 guntas, classified as
dry patta land. As per the Permanent Register of 1950
(Protected Tenancy Register), the aforesaid survey numbers
stood in the name of Sri Ramaraju Lakshmi Narasimha Rao
as pattadar, while the name of Talla Baganna alias Talla Bagi
Reddy was recorded as the protected tenant.
14
(k) According to the pahanies from 1954-55
onwards, the protected tenants and their legal heirs have
been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands
without interruption. However, in the year 1980, the name of
Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple came to be recorded as
pattadar in the relevant pahani entries. It is not known under
what proceedings or authority the name of the Temple was
entered in the pattadar column, particularly when the lands
in question are private lands and do not belong to the Temple.
Therefore, the entry of the name of Sri Ramalingeshwara
Swamy Temple in the pattadar column of the pahani for the
year 1980 appears to have been made with an oblique motive.
There is no record demonstrating that the Temple was the
lawful pattadar of the subject lands.
(l) Without any lawful authority, the original
pattadars, namely: Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Rao and Smt.
Ramaraju Tulsamma, Sri Sudershan Rao, and Sri Venugopal
Rao, executed a Gift Deed in favour of Sri Ramalingeshwara
Swamy Temple in respect of Sy. Nos. 37, 165, 168, 172, 302,
312, 330, 320, 307, 309, 310, and 321 of Bommarasipet
15
Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the year
1967, which was subsequently registered in the year 1980.
(m) The pattadar himself happened to be the
Chairman and Hereditary Trustee of Sri Ramalingeshwara
Swamy Temple. Under the guise of the said Gift Deed, he
managed to have the name of the Temple recorded in the
pattadar column without obtaining any mutation proceedings
or orders from the competent authority and without issuing
notice to the protected tenant.
(n) The pattadars had no legal authority to execute a
Gift Deed in favour of any individual or institution in respect
of lands over which protected tenancy rights existed. It is
further submitted that Sri Ramaraju Sudershan Rao, son of
the original pattadar, committed fraud with the intention of
harassing the protected tenants and evicting them from the
lands by gifting the protected tenancy lands to Sri
Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple, of which he himself was
the Hereditary Trustee. In effect, the donor and the donee
were substantially represented by the same individual.
Therefore, the Gift Deed is invalid and unenforceable.
16
(o) When the protected tenants came to know of the
entries made in favour of Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy
Temple in the pattadar column of the relevant pahanies, they
instituted O.S. No. 193 of 1983 before the learned Additional
Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking a
declaration of title by adverse possession in respect of the
lands in question. However, the said suit was dismissed on
19.04.1993. Questioning the said judgment, the Additional
Commissioner, Endowment Department, Ranga Reddy
District filed A.S.No.179/94 before this Court, and the same
was dismissed vide order dated 28.4.2008. Therefore, the
finding of the trial court that the lands in question are not
endowed lands has become final.
(p) The lands are private patta lands, and Sri
Ramraju Sudershan Rao is the pattadar, while the legal heirs
of Sri T. Bal Reddy are the Protected Tenants (PTs). Further,
neither the Endowments Department nor Sri Ramraju
Sudershan Rao has any right over the lands in question.
(q) The father of Respondent No. 3, namely the PT
holder Sri T. Bal Reddy, filed a petition before the Assistant
17
Commissioner, Endowments, seeking deletion of the lands
standing in the name of Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple
from the records on the ground that they were not endowed
lands but PT lands. The said petition was dismissed by the
Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Ranga Reddy District.
Aggrieved by the said order, Sri T. Bal Reddy filed O.A. No.
2/96 under Section 45(3) read with Section 87(1) of the A.P.
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act before the
Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Ranga Reddy District.
The said application was dismissed by order dated
21.04.1997.
(r) Aggrieved thereby, Sri T. Bal Reddy filed C.M.A.
No. 45/97 before the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District,
which was also dismissed by order dated 24.06.1998.
Thereafter, Sri T. Bal Reddy filed C.R.P. No. 3531 of 1998
before this Hon’ble Court, which was dismissed by order
dated 16.11.1998. However, this Hon’ble Court observed that
the said order would not preclude the petitioner from
agitating his rights as a Protected Tenant before the
appropriate forum in accordance with law.
18
(s) Aggrieved by the said order, Sri T. Bal Reddy
preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. In Civil Appeal No. 6088 of 1999, by order dated
30.09.2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the
respondents were at liberty to agitate their rights as Protected
Tenants under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act.
(t) Sri Talla Bagi Reddy is the Protected Tenant as
per the Protected Tenancy Register of Bommaraspet Village in
respect of the subject lands, as contemplated under Sections
34 and 35 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act. Subsequently, Sri Talla Bal Reddy,
son of Sri Talla Bagi Reddy, obtained a succession certificate
under Section 40 of the said Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer,
Shamirpet, after following the prescribed procedure, issued
Proceedings No. A/973/2000 dated 02.05.2001 granting
succession of Protected Tenancy rights in favour of Sri Talla
Bal Reddy, who is the father of the respondent herein.
Therefore, it is an undisputed fact that the lands are PT lands
held by the respondents.
19
(u) A gift allegedly made in or prior to the year 1980,
without notice to the Protected Tenants and without their
knowledge or consent, cannot convert the lands into temple
properties. Further, neither the Commissioner of Endowments
nor Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple is competent to
determine whether the respondents are Protected Tenants or
not. Their claim over the property emanates from the alleged
gift made by Sri Ramraju Sudershan Rao and others.
(v) If the lands in question were indeed temple lands
under the control of the temple authorities, the same would
have been reflected in the Khasra Pahani, which was prepared
after following the procedure prescribed under the Telangana
Area Census Rules. Therefore (i) The properties were not
temple properties of on the year 1954; and (ii) There is no
document to show that the subject properties were gifted to
the temple by its founders, as a gift of immovable property
requires registration under Section 123 of the Transfer of
Property Act.
(w) Except for making bald assertions in the counter
affidavit and written arguments that the subject properties
20
are temple properties, neither the Commissioner of
Endowments nor Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple has
produced any documentary evidence before the Joint
Collector to establish that the subject lands are endowed
properties.
(x) The issue as to whether the property is an
endowed property or not stands concluded by the judgments
in O.S.No.193 of 1983 and A.S. No. 175 of 1994. The findings
therein operate as res judicata against the Commissioner of
Endowments and Sri Ramraju Sudershan Rao, preventing
them from raising the same plea once again before the
competent authority. Therefore, neither the Commissioner of
Endowments nor Sri Ramraju Sudershan Rao nor any other
respondent can contend that the respondents herein have no
right to seek relief on the ground that the suit properties are
endowed properties.
(y) Insofar as Section 9 of the Record of Rights Act is
concerned, it is an independent provision, and the Joint
Collector has the authority to review any order passed
thereunder. Therefore, the contention of the Commissioner of
21
Endowments and Sri Ramraju Sudershan Rao that the
respondents ought to have filed an appeal under Section 5(5)
of the Record of Rights Act, 1971 before the Revenue
Divisional Officer within the prescribed period of limitation is
wholly unsustainable.
(z) It is a settled principle of law that once a person
is recognized as a Protected Tenant, he continues to remain a
Protected Tenant unless otherwise determined in accordance
with law. It is equally settled that a pattadar cannot
unilaterally transfer his rights, together with the rights of the
Protected Tenant, in any manner contrary to the provisions of
the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act. Such transfers have consistently been held to be void by
both the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court.
(a)(i) In C.R.P. No. 3531 of 1998, decided on
16.11.1998, this Hon’ble Court held that the question of
whether a person is a Protected Tenant or not is a matter to
be decided exclusively by the Tribunals constituted under the
A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1950. The said view was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
22
Court in Civil Appeal No. 6088 of 1999 by judgment dated
30.09.2004. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ
petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 11
submits that the respondents 3 to 11 are the legal heirs of
late Sri Talla Baganna @ Bagi Reddy, who was the protected
tenant, and they were in continuous possession and
enjoyment of the subject lands. However, in the year 1980,
the name of Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple was
erroneously recorded as a pattedar in the relevant column of
pahanies, though the subject lands are private land and do
not belong to any Temple.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 11
further submits that the original pattadars, without any
authority, executed a Gift Deed in favour of the Temple in
respect of the subject lands in the year 1967 and the same
was registered in the year 1980. The name of the Temple was
recorded in the revenue records without any notice to the
protected tenants. The donor and done is the same person,
and therefore, the Gift deed is an invalid document.
23
13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 11
further submits that the protected tenants approached the
Civil Courts and the Endowment authorities, but they
erroneously rejected the claim of the protected tenants.
However, the 1st respondent, after hearing both sides and
after considering the material available on record, rightly
passed the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petitions are
devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
respondents. Perused the record.
15. W.P.No.8506 of 2010 (for short ‘the first writ petition)
is filed by Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple, represented
by its Manager Sri H.K.Babu.
16. W.P.No.9724 of 2010 (for short ‘the second writ
petition) is filed by Sri Ramaraju Sudarshan Rao, founder
family member of Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple and
Commissioner of Endowments, represented by the Assistant
Commissioner of Endowments.
24
17. In both the said writ petitions, the petitioners are
seeking to set aside the same impugned order passed by the
1st respondent in Case No.D5/7280/2008, dated 16.01.2010.
The first writ petition was filed on 15.04.2010, whereas the
second writ petition was filed on 23.04.2010.
18. Initially, in the first writ petition, there is no interim
order. However, in the second writ petition, the interim
suspension as prayed for is granted on 27.04.2010 i.e.,
suspension of the operation and effect of the order of the 1st
respondent in Case No.D5/7280/2008, dated 06.01.2010.
19. When the first writ petition was filed, this Court did
not grant any interim order. Subsequently, a second writ
petition was filed, in which this Court granted an interim
order on 27.04.2010. After some time, by relying upon the
said interim order granted in the second writ petition, the
petitioners obtained a similar interim order in the first writ
petition on 31.01.2011, which is incorrect.
20. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners challenged
the same impugned order. Although the names and
25
designations of the parties may differ, the parties are
substantially the same and also in both WPs., the subject
Temple is one and the same. Therefore, the filing of the
second writ petition amounts to res judicata. On this ground
alone, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
21. In the present case, both the petitioners and the
respondents have filed several proceedings to establish their
possessory rights over the subject property. The petitioners
contend that the entire extent of the land belongs exclusively
to Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple and that the
unofficial respondents have no legal right, title, or interest in
the said lands.
22. The unofficial respondents filed a revision petition
No.D5/7280/2008 before the 1st respondent under Section 9
of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 for
correction of records from the year 1980-81 onwards in
respect of the lands in the survey numbers, as stated supra,
for the total land admeasuring Ac.159.18 guntas situated at
Bommarasipet Village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R.District,
stating that they are the legal heirs of late Sri Talla Bal Reddy,
26
and their father is being the only son of Sri Talla Baganna @
Bagi Reddy, who was the registered protected tenant holder
under the A.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture
Lands Act, 1950.
23. The 1st respondent passed the impugned order on
16.01.2010 by observing as follows :-
“As such, in the light of findings given in the
above points, it is held the respective Hon’ble Courts i.e.
from Civil Court, Ranga Reddy District to Supreme Court of
India, it has been established that the said lands are not
Endowed lands and the Endowment Department has
nothing to do with the lands under the subject matter and
also declared that the Tenants can approach the
appropriate Revenue Authorities for redressal of their
grievances to protect their Protected Tenancy Rights.
The said observations were given in the following
Judgments / Orders/Decrees the operation portion of
which are shown as hereunder.
1. The Decree of Hon’ble Additional Sub-Judge, R.R.District
dated 19-1-1993 in O.S.No. 193/1983.
a) Issue No.1:- “considering the plaintiffs version I hold that
the plaintiffs are the share holders in the suit land”.
27
b) Issue No.2:- “It is held that the suit properties are not the
Endowed properties”.
c) Issue No. 4:- “I hold that the unit lands are not endowed
with Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Bommraspet,
Medchal Taluk”.
d) Additional issue No.6 : Since the suit is being dismissed
and since it is held that the suit lands are not the endowed
lands, there is no need to give any finding on this issue. If
at all the plaintiff wants to get any corrections the record of
rights, they can do so by approaching the concerned
authorities with this Judgment.
2. The order of Hon’ble High Court, AP. dated 16-11-1999
in CRP No 3531/1998 :
“It therefore follows that the revision is without any merit
and it is liable to be dismissed. This will not however
preclude the petition from agitating his rights as protected
Tenant before the appropriate forum in accordance with
law.”
3. The order of Hon’ble High Court of AP in Appeal Suit
No.179/1994, dated 28.04.2008 :
“In the light of submission made by the Government
Pleader for appeals, the Appeal is dismissed as the
appellants not interested to contest the matter as per the
28letter given by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments
dated 24-4-2008 addressed to Government Pleader for
appeals”
4. The order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 13-9-
2004 Appeal No.6088/1999. “Dismissal of this appeal
does not come in the way of appellant agitating his rights
as protected Tenant before the appropriate Forum. It is
needless to say so that as in the impugned order, the High
Court has already stated so”
In the above circumstances, I do not hesitate to
come to a conclusion that the lands under subject matter
covered by the Protected Tenants are unauthorisedly
occupied by the Respondents 4 & 5 and illegally got the
lands transferred in their favour which attracts the
provisions of Sec.98 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy
& Agricultural Act, 1950. The Tahsildar, Shameerpet shall
act upon accordingly.
Therefore, the Tahsildar, Shameerpet Mandal is hereby
directed to take necessary action under the provisions of
A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 in
respect of lands under subject matter.
The Revision petition is hereby allowed accordingly”.
24. A perusal of the above impugned order discloses that,
although the unofficial respondents may not have succeeded
29
in the cases, their rights were never denied, and they were
directed to approach the appropriate forum. Insofar as the
petitioners are concerned, none of the orders passed in those
cases support their contentions. Moreover, it has been
specifically observed that the suit lands are not endowed
lands. The observations made by all the courts are sufficient
to demonstrate that the petitioners have no substantial
ground to pursue their case. However, it was only pursuant to
the directions of the respondent authorities, that the
unofficial respondents approached the 1st respondent and
filed a revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, seeking correction of the
revenue records.
25. As per the letter dated 24.04.2008 addressed by the
Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to the Government
Pleader for Appeals, it was stated that the appellants were not
interested in contesting the matter. Consequently, A.S.No.179
of 1994 was dismissed on 28.04.2008. In view of this stand
taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, namely
that the appellants had no interest in pursuing the matter
30
and that there was no scope to litigate regarding the temple
lands.
26. In the said circumstances, the contention of the
unofficial respondents that they are the legal heirs of late Sri
Thalla Baganna alias Bagi Reddy, S/o late Sri Bal Reddy, who
was the registered protected tenant under the A.P. (Telangana
Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, in respect of
land admeasuring Ac.159.18 guntas, classified as dry and
patta land in nature, that the Permanent Register of 1950
(Protected Tenancy Register) pertaining to the above-
mentioned survey numbers records Sri Ramraj Lakshmi
Narasimha Rao as the pattadar, while the name of Thalla
Baganna alias Bagi Reddy was recorded as the protected
tenant, further, the pahanies from the year 1954-55 onwards
reveal that the protected tenant and his legal heirs have been
continuously in possession and enjoyment of the subject
lands without interruption from any person; however, in the
year 1980, the name of Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple
came to be recorded as the pattadar in the relevant column of
the pahanies; it is not known under what proceedings or
31
authority the name of Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple
was entered in the pattadar column when the lands in
question are private lands and do not belong to the temple.
There is no record available to establish that Sri
Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple was the pattadar of the
subject lands, and the relevant pahanies clearly establish
these facts, which cannot be denied.
27. At the same time, in both writ petitions, the petitioners
have not filed even a single document to substantiate their
claim that the subject land is an endowment property. Their
repeated contention that the unofficial respondents have not
succeeded before any court cannot, by itself, be a ground to
reject the respondents’ claims in the present cases. It is true
that the unofficial respondents did not obtain positive orders
from the courts; however, at no stage were their rights were
conclusively negatived. On the contrary, from the Civil Court
up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, opportunities were granted
to the unofficial respondents to approach the appropriate
forum and establish their protected tenancy rights. Therefore,
32
the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted or given
due weight in the present proceedings.
28. In the instant case, Sri Talla Bal Reddy, R/o.
Bomraspet village has filed an application stating that his
father Sri Talla Bagi Reddy is the protected tenant over
Sy.Nos.165, 171, 301, 307, 302, 168, 312, 318 and 320 of
Bomraspet village of Shameerpet Mandal, who has expired
and he is the only son of the deceased protected tenant and
requested for grant of Succession U/s.40 of the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act,
1950.
29. The Protected Tenancy Register of Bomraspet
Village has been verified, and according to the Protected
Tenancy Register, Sri Talla Bagi Reddy is the Protected
Tenant over Sy.Nos.165, 171, 301, 307, 302, 168, 312, 318
and 320 of Bomraspet Village.
30. As prescribed under the rules, a General
Notification has been issued on 24.02.2001 calling objections,
if any, from the public within (15) days from the date of
33
notification, i.e., from 24.02.2001, a copy of which has also
been affixed on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat,
Bomraspet village, and no objections have been received.
Accordingly, the Succession of Protected Tenancy was granted
in favour of late Sri Talla Bal Reddy, S/o. late Sri Talla Bagi
Reddy.
31. If the petitioners really, have any legal right, they
would have responded to the said Notification. But, the
petitioners have not filed any objections. Therefore, the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamirpet Mandal, R.R.District,
after verifying the relevant proceedings, issued the Succession
of Protected Tenancy was granted in favour of late Sri Talla
Bal Reddy, S/o. late Sri Talla Bagi Reddy.
32. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in VALLABHDAS
PALLOD (DIED) AND OTHERS Vs. NAGAR PANCHAYAT
34
(MUNICIPAL COUNCIL), ZAHEERABAD 1, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court held as follows :-
“21. Section 9 of the Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971
confers power upon the Joint Collector that he may either
suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and
examine the record of any recording authority, Mandal
Revenue Officer, or Revenue Divisional Officer, in respect
of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy
himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality and
propriety of any decision taken, or order passed or
proceedings made by the said authorities. It is true that
there is no period of limitation, as such, prescribed for
exercising revisional power.”
33. In the case at hand, the unofficial respondents have
approached before the 1st respondent under the above
provisions only and the 1st respondent passed the final order
after conducting thorough enquiry and after going through
the different court orders. Hence, the above judgment would
not support the case of the petitioners.
34. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also
relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra
1
(2009) 4 ALD 129
35
Pradesh in PINDI JAGGAYYA ALIAS JAGGARAO Vs. DEITY
OF SEETHARAMASWAMY VARU 2 regarding the endowment
properties, wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as
follows :-
“Validity of Endowment: Under Hindu Law an endowment
is a dedication of property for a charitable or a religious
purpose. The two requirements are: (i) The purpose must
be specific and (ii) the property must be set apart for the
said purpose. No writing is necessary to create an
endowment except where the endowment is created by a
will. Accordingly a dedication of land for an idol or a
temple is not a gift within the meaning of Secs. 122 & 123
of the Transfer of Property Act and those provisions have
no application. as it is not a transfer of property from one
living person to another living person within the meaning
of Sec. 5 of the said Act though an idol is a juristic person
capable of holding property. Similarly no trust as
contemplated under Sec. 3 of the Indian Trusts Act II of
1882 is necessary to constitute an endowment as the said
Act does not apply to public or private religious or
charitable endowments. The rule of perpetuity also has no
application and the endowment is an exception as per Sec.
18 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sec. 114 of Indian
Succession Act.”
2
APLJ-1986-2-242
36
35. The above judgment relates to the suit for partition
between the private parties and temple lands. But, in the
present case, it is not at all a partition suit, and moreover, the
subject lands are protected tenancy lands of the unofficial
respondents. More so, no court has observed that the land in
question is endowment land. Therefore, the said case is not
helpful to the petitioners.
36. The petitioners referred to several judgments which are
in a different context, and moreover, the petitioners filed two
writ petitions with two different persons relating to the Temple
and in the first writ petition they could not get any interim
order and in the second writ petition, they got an interim
direction and that itself shows the unfairness of the
petitioners.
37. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in KASU
RAYAPA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P. 3, regarding interference
3
2021 SCC Online AP 1902
37
of the quasi judicial authorities’ orders, wherein the Apex
Court held as follows :-
42. In view of these principles referred in the above
judgments, normally, the writ courts would not interfere
with the administrative order, unless the procedure
followed, by quasi-judicial authorities or administrative
authorities lack jurisdiction and decision is perverse. But,
in the present case, the fourth respondent/Tahsildar did
not follow the mandatory procedure, as discussed above
and thereby, the second respondent/Joint Collector
interfered. But, the defect or wrong done cannot be
remedied by allowing the revision, directing to delete the
names of this petitioner, since the principle of natural
justice was not complied by the fourth
respondent/Tahsildar. If, a notice in Form-VIll IS
published, there may be several claims or objections
against mutation of the name of this petitioner. On account
of failure to comply with the mandatory procedure by the
fourth respondent/Tahsildar, setting aside the same by
the second respondent on the ground of noncompliance of
procedure may result in future litigation. Therefore, in such
case, the second respondent ought to have set-aside the
order and remanded the matter to the fourth respondent
directing to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act
and Rules framed thereunder. Instead of doing so, the
second respondent allowed the revision, setting-aside the
order passed by the fourth respondent and affirmed by the
third respondent. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the
38second respondent to issue a direction to delete the name
of this petitioner while mutating the names of rival
claimants is again contrary to the procedure, since Form-
VIll notice was not published as mandated under Rule
19(1) of the Rules to avoid any further complications, the
second respondent ought to have remanded the matter
with a direction to follow the Rules by the fourth
respondent/Tahsildar. Thus, the second respondent/Joint
Collector committed an error and in such case, this Court
can interfere with such order with a view to put an end to
litigation for mutation of names of the petitioner and rival
claimants and other interested persons.
38. Regarding the above mentioned para, the 1st
respondent in the instant case thoroughly examined the
arguments of both the parties and followed all the Rules and
Regulations contemplated under the law and passed the
impugned order. Therefore, the above referred case law would
support the case of the unofficial respondents.
39. In view of the foregoing discussions and as per the
material available on record, this Court is of the considered
view that W.P.No.8506 of 2010 (first writ petition) is filed on
15.04.2010 and W.P.No.9724 of 2010 (second writ petition) is
filed on 23.04.2010 challenging the same impugned order
39
dated 16.01.2010. When the first writ petition was filed, this
Court did not grant any interim order. However, this Court
granted interim order in the second writ petition on
27.04.2010. By relying upon the said interim order in the
second writ petition, the petitioner obtained a similar interim
order in the first writ petition. The petitioners have
suppressed the fact that Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple had
filed first writ petition earlier than the filing of second writ
petition, which amounts to res judicata. On this ground
alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
40. Moreover, no Court has declined the contention of the
unofficial respondents and the Courts only directed to
approach appropriate forum. Further, the Civil Court in
O.S.No.193 of 1983 held that the lands in question are not
Temple lands. Aggrieved thereby, the 2nd petitioner filed
A.S.No.179 of 1994 and the same was dismissed on
28.04.2008, as the petitioners herein have not contested the
said appeal and the said finding has attained finality. In the
year 1980, the name of Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple
was erroneously recorded as a pattadar in the relevant
40
column of pahanies, though the subject lands are private
lands and do not belong to any Temple.
41. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
1st respondent has rightly passed the impugned order and the
same needs no interference by this Court.
42. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed by
confirming the order passed by the 1st respondent in Case
No.D5/7280/2008, dated 06.01.2010. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 30.06.2026
Prv
