1. This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 31.07.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal, Siddipet District, in Case No.F3/Spl.Tribunal/Maddur/25/2021 (Old Case No.D/256/2018 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Husnabad), concerning agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3.31 guntas in Survey Nos.13 (Ac.1.06 guntas), 14 (Ac.1.13 guntas), 15 (Ac.0.22 guntas) and 16 (Ac.0.30 guntas), situated at Gagillapuram Village, Maddur Mandal, Siddipet District. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the said proceedings and quashing the impugned order dated 31.07.2021.

2. Heard Sri A.S.Diwakar, learned counsel representing Sri Kanathala Ashok Reddy, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, and Ms.T.Swetha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 8. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 7.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The case of the petitioner, as set out in her affidavit, is that she acquired the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3.31 guntas in Survey Nos.13 (Ac.1.06 guntas), 14 (Ac.1.13 guntas), 15 (Ac.0.22 guntas) and 16 (Ac.0.30 guntas), situated at Gagillapuram Village, Maddur Mandal, Siddipet District (“the subject land”), under a registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.2117/2007 dated 19.09.2007. On the strength of the said registered gift deed, the subject land was mutated in her name in the revenue records and a pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in her favour, and she claims to be the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the subject land. In the year 2009, respondent Nos.5 to 7 allegedly interfered with her possession, whereupon she instituted O.S.No.61 of 2009 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, seeking perpetual injunction, and an interim injunction was granted in her favour. Subsequently, pursuant to an undertaking given by respondent Nos.5 to 7 before the village elders not to interfere with her possession, she did not prosecute the suit and the same was dismissed for default.

4. In the year 2018, the petitioner came to know that the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 had been recorded as pattadars and possessors of the subject land. It transpired that the Tahsildar, Maddur, had regularised the subject land in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7 under Section 5-A of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “ROR Act, 1971”), vide proceedings in Rc.Nos.B/639/2011, B/640/2011 and B/641/2011 dated 06.11.2011, on the basis of unregistered sada sale deeds dated 29.06.1979, said to have been executed by her grandfather, Sri Nimma Raji Reddy. The petitioner disputes the said transactions, contending that her grandfather was never the owner, pattadar or possessor of the subject land and that the said documents are forged and fabricated.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 5-B of the ROR Act, 1971 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Husnabad, in Appeal Case No.D/256/2018, seeking deletion of the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 from the revenue records, cancellation of the pattadar passbooks, title deeds and Form 13-B certificates issued to them, and restoration of her name in the revenue records.

6. During the pendency of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Telangana Legislature enacted the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (Act No.9 of 2020) (“the ROR Act, 2020”), which came into force with effect from 29.10.2020. Section 15 of the ROR Act, 2020 repealed the ROR Act, 1971 with effect from that date, and Section 16(1) provided that, on such repeal, all pending appeals and revisions under the ROR Act, 1971 shall stand transferred to the Special Tribunals to be constituted under the new enactment, the order of the Tribunal on disposal being made final under Section 16(2). Accordingly, by G.O.Ms.No.4, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 12.01.2021, the Government constituted the Special Tribunal, comprising the District Collector and the Additional Collector (Revenue) as Members, for disposal of the cases pending before the Revenue Authorities under the ROR Act, 1971. Consequently, Appeal Case No.D/256/2018 stood transferred to the Special Tribunal, Siddipet District, and was renumbered as Case No.F3/Spl.Tribunal/Maddur/25/2021.

7. By order dated 02.02.2021, the Special Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the dispute was civil in nature and relegating the petitioner to the competent civil Court. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions of this Court in the order passed in W.P.(PIL) No.20 of 2021, the petitioner sought reopening of the case and an opportunity of personal hearing. After hearing the parties and receiving the written arguments of the petitioner, the Special Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 31.07.2021, again dismissed the appeal, holding that the dispute involved title to the subject land.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner instituted the present writ petition. During its pendency, learned counsel for the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2026 seeking to implead the District Collector, Siddipet District, as respondent No.8. This Court, vide order dated 08.07.2026, allowed the said application and impleaded the District Collector, Siddipet District, as respondent No.8.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Special Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal by treating the dispute as one relating to title and relegating the petitioner to the civil Court. It is contended that the petitioner is not seeking adjudication of title in the present proceedings, but is questioning the legality of the proceedings of the Tahsildar in regularising the alleged sada sale deeds dated 29.06.1979 under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short “ROR Rules, 1989”). It is further contended that the specific objection of the petitioner that the said documents were forged and fabricated and that the mandatory notices were not issued was not considered by the Special Tribunal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4 AND 8

10. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 8 did not oppose the order passed by the Special Tribunal and submitted that the dispute essentially involves title to the subject land and therefore, the petitioner was rightly relegated to the competent civil Court.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

11. Having regard to the pleadings, the rival submissions and the material on record, the following points arise for consideration:

               (i) Whether the order of the Special Tribunal, relegating the petitioner to the civil Court, is sustainable?

               (ii) What relief, if any, can be granted?

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Point (i)

12. The scope of this writ petition is confined to the legality of the order dated 31.07.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal. The petitioner does not seek adjudication of title in these proceedings. Her case, as pleaded and argued, is that the Tahsildar regularised the unregistered sada sale deeds dated 29.06.1979 in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7 under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971, on the basis of documents which are forged and fabricated, and without issuing notice to her, and that the Special Tribunal, in the appeal filed against those proceedings, failed to examine these grievances.

13. It is not in dispute that the Tahsildar, vide proceedings in Rc.Nos.B/639/2011, B/640/2011 and B/641/2011 dated 06.11.2011, regularised the sada sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7, and that the petitioner challenged the said proceedings by way of an appeal under Section 5-B of the ROR Act, 1971, seeking deletion of the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 from the revenue records and cancellation of the pattadar passbooks, title deeds and Form 13-B certificates issued to them. The said appeal was transferred to the Special Tribunal and was renumbered as Case No.F3/Spl.Tribunal/Maddur/25/2021. The subject matter before the Special Tribunal was, therefore, the legality of the proceedings of the Tahsildar and not for declaration of any title.

14. The Special Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the dispute involved title to the subject land, as it had done earlier by order dated 02.02.2021 by holding the dispute to be civil in nature. The impugned order does not record what the civil dispute between the parties is, nor does it explain how the question of title stood in the way of examining the proceedings of the Tahsildar. The mere existence of a dispute regarding title, by itself, would not absolve the appellate authority from examining whether the proceedings under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971 were in accordance with the statutory requirements.

15. The specific contention of the petitioner that the sada sale deeds dated 29.06.1979 were forged and fabricated was not taken into consideration by the Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal did not pass a reasoned order, as required under law and as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan. ((2010) 9 SCC 496.) A quasi-judicial authority is bound to record reasons in support of its decision, and the impugned order, which does not deal with the objection raised by the petitioner, falls short of that requirement.

16. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that the entries in the revenue records in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7 were made without issuing any notice to her. What was required of the Special Tribunal was to enquire whether the competent authority had followed the procedure prescribed under law, particularly the ROR Rules, 1989. Under the ROR Rules, 1989, Form XI and Form XII are the statutory notices to be issued by the Tahsildar under Rule 22(3) during the inquiry into unregistered or unrecorded alienations, such as sada sale deeds, under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971. The impugned order does not examine whether these notices were issued to the petitioner. In the absence of any such enquiry, the order of the Special Tribunal cannot be sustained, and the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

Point (ii)

17. Whether the sada sale deeds are genuine and whether the procedure under the ROR Rules, 1989 was followed are questions which have to be examined first by the appellate authority on the material available in the revenue records. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not propose to go into these questions, and the matter has to be remanded for fresh consideration of the appeal.

18. Ordinarily, the matter would be remitted to the Special Tribunal. However, the ROR Act, 2020 has since been replaced by the Telangana Bhu Bharathi (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025, and the Special Tribunal is no longer in existence. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to remand the matter to the District Collector, Siddipet District, respondent No.8, for fresh consideration. The point is answered accordingly.

CONCLUSION

19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 31.07.2021 cannot be sustained and that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the District Collector, Siddipet District (respondent No.8), for fresh consideration.

RESULT

20. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 31.07.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal, Siddipet District in Case No.F3/Spl.Tribunal/Maddur/25/2021, and remanding the matter to the District Collector, Siddipet District (respondent No.8), for fresh consideration of the appeal, particularly with regard to the legality of the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 06.11.2011, the compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971 and the ROR Rules, 1989, the specific objections raised by the petitioner regarding the sada sale deeds dated 29.06.1979, and the issuance of the prescribed notices.

21. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the title or ownership of the subject land. The District Collector shall consider the matter strictly in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, and pass a reasoned order, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

22. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.