Kunuru Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Sri B. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for 4th respondent. Perused the record.

2. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order dated 19.03.2022 passed in Case No. Rev.E10LALE/1/2021-Esec/2463/2021 by 2nd respondent.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:-

3. The petitioner belong to Scheduled Tribe. His father was in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac. 5.05 guntas in Sy. No. 329 of Konganagula Village, Balmur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District since long time. Pursuant to the partition, the then Tahsildar vide proceedings No. A/165/2008, dated 04.03.2008 mutated the name of the petitioner after following the due procedure. The name of the petitioner is continuing in the revenue records including form-I-B. Pattadar passbooks both old and latest were issued in favour of the petitioner. He is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land for the last 14 years. He is cultivating the land by raising various crops. Due to party and faction rivalry, 4th respondent filed a writ petition vide W.P. No. 15823 of 2021 to declare the action of official respondents therein in issuing Dharani Pass Book based on the alleged assignment of Government land in Sy. No. 329 admeasuring Ac. 5.05 gunts, at Kondanagula Village and not preventing the petitioner herein from illegally cutting the tamarind trees and cultivating the said land as illegal and requested to conduct enquiry on his complaint and cancel the alleged assignment and Dharani Pass Book. This Court vide interim order dated 14.07.2021 directed the petitioner herein not to cut down the grown up tamarind trees, if they are existing and if they are not already cut. The said writ petition is pending and said interim order is still subsisting.

4. The proceedings dated 04.03.2008 are mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is a tribal and the provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Schedule Areas) Act, 1996 are incorporated in the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 and those provisions deal only with transfer of land and no way concerned with the present facts of the case.

5. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have to follow the procedure laid down under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, 'ROR Act, 1971' or Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for short, 'the Act, 2020') and the same deals with the preparation and maintenance of Record of Rights and issuing pattadar Pass Books etc. Any order passed by revenue authorities in respect of entries in the revenue records, record of rights and issuing pattadar passbooks can be dealt with presently only under the Act 9/2020 and the provisions of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasili (for short, '1317 Fasili') has no application. Therefore, the order passed by 2nd respondent under Section 166(B) of 1317 Fasili, does not provide suo motu power to 2nd respondent. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are illegal.

6. CONTENTIONS OF THE 3RD RESPODNENT:-

i. The name of the petitioner was incorporated in the revenue records against the subject land without any valid proceedings from the competent authority.

ii. The subject land has not been assigned to the petitioner at any point of time and however, in collusion with some of the recording authority illegally got entered his name in the revenue records.

iii. Basing on the said irregular entry, the petitioner is trying to enter into the subject land with ill-motive to cut tamarind trees existing in Sy. No. 329 of Kondanagula Village.

iv. 4th respondent had filed writ petition vide W.P. No. 15823 of 2021 and this Court has granted interim order on 14.07.2021.

v. As per the revenue records right from kasra pahani 1954-55, land to the extent of Ac. 5.05 guntas in Sy. No. 329 of Kondanagula Village of Balmur Mandal is classified as poramboke Sarkari.

vi. The said entries were continued in the revenue records till 1998-99 only. In the pahanies for the years 1999-2020, name of the writ petitioner was recorded in the cultivation column of the pahani against the subject land.

vii. The contention of the petitioner that his father was in possession of the subject land is not supported by any documentary evidence.

viii. As per G.O.Ms. No. 1406 dated 25.07.1958, the Government land upto Ac. 5.00 (dry) only shall be assigned to a landless poor person, whereas, according to the petitioner, his name is recorded to an extent of Ac. 5.05 guntas in Sy. No. 329 of Kondanagula Village of Bamoor Mandal.

ix. The petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition suppressing the material facts and has not approached this Court with clean hands.

x. The proceedings No. A/165/2008 dated 04.03.2008 filed by the petitioner along with the counter filed before 2nd respondent are to the effect that the authority has granted succession in favour of the petitioner which is contrary to the statement that the land was assigned in his favour.

xi. The said proceedings No. A/165/2008, dated 04.03.2008 is relating to issuance of caste certificate in favour of Ms. Sambu Vidyavathi D/o. Bala Goud, the resident of Ramajipally Village, Balmur Mandal. Therefore, the very claim of the writ petitioner is based on the forged and fabricated documents.

xii. 2nd respondent, on consideration of the entire material available on record and also report of 3rd respondent passed the impugned order.

xiii. There were tamarind trees aged about 100 years, tamarind crop is to be sold out in the public auction in olden days.

xiv. The subject property is under the custody of the Village Revenue Officer. During the year 2016, Palm trees are planted partly in the subject land.

xv. Considering the said facts, 2nd respondent has passed interim order.

xvi. There is no error and no irregularity in the impugned order.

7. 4th respondent has also filed counter with almost on the same lines. According to him, mere entry in revenue records does not confer any ownership, right and possession over the Government land in favour of the writ petitioner. On the complaint lodged by 4th respondent and other villagers, 2nd respondent, after conducting proper enquiry, passed the impugned order. In fact, 2nd respondent is competent authority to conduct enquiry and protect the Government land. The petitioner is not at all the landless poor person as he has owned and possessed the land admeasuring Ac. 2.07 guntas in Sy. No. 598/AA. With the said submissions, 4th respondent sought to dismiss the present writ petition.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-

8. The aforesaid facts would reveal that according to the petitioner his father was in possession and enjoyment of the subject land since long time. After his death, pursuant to the partition, the petitioner got the subject land and mutation proceedings were issued in his favour. Thus, the petitioner nowhere stated that on what basis his father was in possession of the property and whether any assignment was made either in favour of his father or petitioner himself. It is the specific contention of the 3rd respondent that the mutation proceedings No. A/165/2008, dated 04.03.2008 said to have been issued by 3rd respondent does not belong to subject property and in fact the same pertains to caste certificate issued in favour of Ms. Sambu Vidyavathi. In proof of the same, 3rd respondent has filed a copy of Distribution Register.

9. In view of the said specific contention, this Court directed the learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Assignment to produce original Distribution Register for the year 2008. In compliance of the said order, the learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Assignment has produced original distribution Register for the year 2008. The same was perused and returned back. Perusal of the said Register would reveal that it pertains to caste certificate issued in favour of Ms. Sambu Vidyavathi D/o. Bala Goud, the resident of Ramajipally Village, Balmur Mandal and it relates to issuance of the caste certificate. Though the petitioner filed reply, there is no denial to the said fact.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 2nd respondent cannot invoke Section 166-B of Act 1317 Fasali, the revisional powers suo moto and it has to be exercised only on application accompanying it original impugned order and even suo moto power has to be exercised within reasonable time. 4th respondent is not an aggrieved person and he has no claim over the suit land and it is the Public Interest Litigation and the same is not maintainable.

11. In view of the said submissions, it is relevant to extract Section 166-B of Act 1317 Fasili which deals with revisional powers:-

"166-B(1). Subject to the provisions of the Telangana Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 Fasili, the Government or any Revenue officer not lower in rank to a Collector the Settlement Commissioner of Land records may call for the record of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and may make suitable order in that behalf:

Provided that no order or decision affecting the rights of the raiyot shall be modified or annulled unless the concerned parties are summoned and heard.

(2) Every Revenue officer lower in rank to a Collector or Settlement Commissioner may call for the records of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and if, in his opinion, any order or decision or, proceedings should be modified or annulled, he shall put up the file of the case with his opinion to the Collector or Settlement Commissioner as the case may be. Thereupon the Collector or Settlement Commissioner may pass suitable order under the provisions of sub-section (1).

(3) The original order or decision or an authentic copy of the original order or decision sought to be revised shall be filed along with every application for revision."

12. 4. Therefore, 2nd respondent being the District Collector is having power to call for the record in any proceedings in order to satisfy himself with that order or decision passed is regular, legal and proper. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 2nd respondent is not having suo moto power to exercise is unsustainable.

13. It is relevant to note that 2nd respondent has exercised the aforesaid power on the complaint received from 4th respondent. Liberty was given to the petitioner. He has filed counter stating that the subject land was assigned to him long back and since the date of assignment, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without disturbance from anybody. The proceedings issued by 3rd respondent is also genuine one and it is with respect to subject land only but not caste certificate as averred by the 4th respondent. Thus, according to the petitioner, subject land was assigned to him, whereas in the proceedings No. A/165/08, dated 04.03.2008 said to have been issued by 3rd respondent it was mentioned that in view of the death of the father of the petitioner i.e. V. Balaiah, the petitioner has submitted application claiming succession in prescribed Format No. I as pattadar of the subject property. Therefore, the statement made by the petitioner that subject land was assigned to him is contrary to the said proceedings dated 04.03.2008.

14. As discussed supra, there is no denial by the petitioner that the said proceedings No. A/665/08, dated 04.03.2008 relating to the caste certificate but not mutation proceedings.

15. Perusal of the pahani copies filed by the petitioner for the year 1993-94 would reveal that in pattadar column in respect of the land in Sy. No. 329, it is mentioned as Sarkari and in possessor column, it is mentioned as Valuvai Venkataiah, the petitioner herein. Whereas, in the pahani filed by petitioner herein for the year 2001-02 in respect of land in Sy. No. 329 in pattadar column, petitioner's is mentioned as pattadar and also Sarkari and in possessor column, the petitioner name is mentioned and also tamarind trees. However, in pahani copy for the year 2014 in respect of land in Sy. No. 329//1, the name of the petitioner is mentioned in pattadar column as well as possessor column.

16. It is relevant to note that the said pahani copies were issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Balmur Mandal. Whether the Deputy Tahsildar is having power to issue pahani copies is also doubtful.

17. According to 3rd respondent, as per G.O.Ms. No. 1406, dated 25.07.1958, land upto Ac. 5.00 guntas (dry land) only shall be assigned to landless poor person, by the Government. In the present case, the petitioner herein is claiming that the land admeasuring Ac. 5.05 guntas was assigned to him. Therefore, the same is contrary to the said G.O.

18. In the counter, 4th respondent specifically mentioned that the petitioner herein is not landless poor person and he is owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 2.07 gunts in Sy. No. 598/AA and his son Valuvai Naresh is owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac. 3-00 guntas in Sy. No. 112/1/2. There is no answer to the same by the petitioner herein and there is no denial to the same in the reply. The said aspects were specifically considered by 2nd respondent in the impugned order. There is no error in it.

19. As discussed supra, according to 3rd respondent, the proceedings No. A/165/2008, dated 04.03.2008 filed by the petitioner said to have been issued by 3rd respondent are not mutation proceedings but they are the proceedings in relation to caste certificate. There is no denial to the said fact by the petitioner herein in the reply affidavit. Therefore, the said proceedings dated 04.02.2008 are illegal.

20. In the present writ petition the petitioner is seeking to declare the impugned proceedings dated 19.03.2022 of 2nd respondent as illegal. If the said contention of the petitioner is accepted and the impugned proceedings are set aside by allowing the writ petition and consequences of the same is that the said proceedings No. A/165/2008, dated 04.03.2008 said to have been issued by 3rd respondent will be operative which are illegal which is impermissible.

21. It is relevant to note that the proceedings No. A/165/2008, dated 04.03.2008 relied upon by the petitioner said to have been issued by 3rd respondent are before promulgation of ROR Act, 2020. Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 deals with the revision as per which 2nd respondent is having suo moto power to exercise revisional power. Considering the said provisions and also Section 8 of the Telangana General Clauses Act, 1987 and also principle laid down by the Apex Court, this court vide order dated 27.02.2023 in W.P. No. 441 of 2023 held that the order impugned therein filed by the petitioner therein under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 is before promulgation of ROR Act, 1971 and therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner therein challenging the said order dated 04.08.2018 vide appeal No. B/884/2018 passed by 5th respondent therein is maintainable.

22. Viewed from any angle, there is no irregularity in the impugned order dated 19.03.2022 passed by 2nd respondent. Petitioner herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

23. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 29.04.2022 shall stand vacated.

Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.