1. This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, in R.C.No.I/4719/2015. By the said order, the third respondent cancelled in its entirety the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner by the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar, Jangaon, in File No.A/280/2009 dated 31.01.2011, in respect of the agricultural land in Sy.No.584/E/5/9 (Ac.3-15 gts.), Sy.No.584/E/5/22 (Ac.0- 24 gts.), Sy.No.584/E/5/23 (Ac.0-24 gts.) and Sy.No.584/E/5/24 (Ac.0-24 gts.), aggregating Ac.5-07 gts., covered by Patta No.21050020616 and Khata No.967, situated at Yerrakunta Thanda, H/o. Peddapahad Village, Jangaon Mandal, Jangaon District (erstwhile Warangal District). The petitioner seeks a declaration that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, the setting aside of the same, a consequential direction to the fourth respondent to hold a fresh enquiry after notice to all the parties concerned, and a direction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession in the meanwhile.

2. Heard Sri P. Padma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 9. The material on record has been perused.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The petitioner is an agriculturist. He claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.Nos.584/E/5/9, 584/E/5/22, 584/E/5/23 and 584/E/5/24 of Yerrakunta Thanda, H/o. Peddapahad Village, Jangaon Mandal and District. According to him, the land in Sy.No.584/E/5/9, admeasuring Ac.3-15 gts., is ancestral property which has been in the peaceful and continuous possession of his forefathers, his father and thereafter himself, while the three extents of Ac.0-24 gts. each in Sy.Nos.584/E/5/22, 584/E/5/23 and 584/E/5/24 are lands assigned in favour of his father. He asserts long, continuous and peaceful possession and personal cultivation of the entire holding, and states that he has been availing of Rythu Bandhu, crop loans and other Central and State agricultural welfare benefits with reference to the said lands.

4. On an application made by him in that behalf, the fourth respondent mutated the revenue records in favour of the petitioner by proceedings in File No.A/280/2009 dated 31.01.2011, and Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed, together with Form-I(B) entries, were issued to him accordingly.

5. Respondent Nos.6 to 9, claiming that the subject lands are their ancestral properties and that they are in possession and enjoyment thereof, and alleging that the petitioner had secured the mutation on the strength of false and fabricated documents, moved the third respondent in R.C.No.I/4719/2015. That proceeding was entertained and dealt with by the third respondent as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) (for short, "the ROR Act, 1971"), in which respondent Nos.6 to 9 sought suspension of the mutation in favour of the petitioner and the issuance of fresh pattas in their favour.

6. By the impugned order dated 23.08.2018, the third respondent held that the lands covered by the subject survey numbers of Peddapahad Village are Government lands, cancelled in its entirety the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner, and directed the fourth respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry with reference to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977), as amended in the year 2007, and the Rules, Government Orders and instructions issued thereunder (for short, "the POT Act, 1977"), and to take consequential action for effecting the appropriate changes and deletions in the revenue records.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, and apprehending dispossession, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition in the year 2021.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend, at the threshold, that the third respondent had no jurisdiction or authority in law to entertain the representation of respondent Nos.6 to 9 and to treat it as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, 1971. The remedy of appeal under that provision is available to a person aggrieved by an order of the recording authority, and is to be availed of within the period prescribed; a complaint of fabrication of documents, laid several years after the mutation, could not have been converted into a statutory appeal.

9. It is further contended that, even assuming that the third respondent was competent to entertain the proceeding, the representation of respondent Nos.6 to 9 was confined to an extent of Ac.0-24 gts., whereas the third respondent, travelling well beyond the scope of the enquiry before him, cancelled the mutation in respect of the entirety of the petitioner's holding. Learned counsel would submit that a proceeding under the ROR Act, 1971 is concerned only with the correctness of the entries in the record of rights, and that a finding that the lands are Government lands or assigned lands liable to resumption for breach of the conditions of assignment could not have been recorded in such a proceeding, the POT Act, 1977 having provided its own authority and procedure for that purpose.

10. Upon the preliminary objection as to the alternative remedy, learned counsel would submit that the availability of a statutory remedy is no bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where the impugned order is one passed wholly without jurisdiction, and that the petitioner, who has been in possession throughout, is likely to be dispossessed if the writ petition is dismissed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 5

11. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Revenue raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that an efficacious alternative remedy is available against an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. He would submit that the ROR Act, 1971 was repealed and replaced by the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020, and that the Act of 2020 has, in turn, been repealed and replaced by the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 (for short, "the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025"), which provides for an appeal and a revision against the orders of the revenue authorities, including the Revenue Divisional Officer. The the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

12. On the merits, learned Government Pleader would submit that, although the representation of respondent Nos.6 to 9 related to an extent of Ac.0-24 gts., it came to be noticed in the course of the enquiry that the entire extent held by the petitioner is assigned land; that the petitioner was neither entitled to purchase nor to alienate assigned land, such transactions being prohibited by law; and that the impugned order is therefore in conformity with law. He would further submit that the question whether the petitioner holds assigned land only to the extent of Ac.0-24 gts. or the entirety of the holding, as found in the impugned order, is essentially a question of fact, which may appropriately be gone into by the competent authority under the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025.

NON-APPEARANCE OF RESPONDENT Nos.6 TO 9

13. Respondent Nos.6 to 9, who were the complainants before the third respondent, have not entered appearance and have filed no counter-affidavit. Their claim, as set out in the impugned order, has nevertheless been taken into account, and any order made herein cannot be allowed to prejudice them without a hearing.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

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

               (i) Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-exhaustion of the appellate and revisional remedy now available under the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025?

               (ii) Whether the contentions of the petitioner as to want of jurisdiction in the third respondent to entertain the representation of respondent Nos.6 to 9 as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, 1971, and as to the cancellation of the mutation in respect of the entirety of his holding, ought to be decided by this Court or left to be agitated in the statutory remedy?

               (iii) To what relief?

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Point (i): Maintainability and the statutory remedy under the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025

15. The statutory setting requires to be noticed at the outset. The mutation in favour of the petitioner, and the impugned order cancelling it, were both made under the ROR Act, 1971. Section 5 of that Act provided for the reporting and registration of the acquisition of rights and for consequential amendment of the record of rights, and Section 5(5) provided an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer against an order of the recording authority, with a further revision to the prescribed authority under Section 9 thereof. The ROR Act, 1971 was thereafter repealed and replaced by the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020, and the Act of 2020 has since been repealed and replaced by the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025, which is the enactment presently in force and which governs the preparation, maintenance and correction of the record of rights in this State.

16. The Bhu Bharati Act, 2025 has, in supersession of the scheme obtaining under the Act of 2020, restored a graded hierarchy of statutory remedies in matters relating to the record of rights, by providing for an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer, a further appeal against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector, and a revision to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. The remedy that the learned Government Pleader invites the petitioner to pursue against the impugned order of the third respondent is the appeal so provided under Section 15 of the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025, read with the Rules framed thereunder.

17. That the impugned order was passed under the ROR Act, 1971, which stood repealed during the pendency of this writ petition, does not stand in the way of that remedy being availed of. The repeal and savings provision of the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025 preserves rights acquired, entries made and proceedings taken under the repealed enactments, and enables such proceedings to be continued and dealt with under the Act now in force; the same result follows from Section 8 of the Telangana General Clauses Act. The petitioner will therefore not be non-suited before the competent authority merely on the ground that the order he seeks to assail was made under the repealed Act.

18. It is well settled that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but a rule of discretion and of selfimposed restraint; the High Court may entertain a writ petition notwithstanding such a remedy where the petition is for the enforcement of a fundamental right, where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, where the impugned order or proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction, or where the vires of a statute is in question. The principle has been stated by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai ((1998) 8 SCC 1.), and reiterated in Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited ((2003) 2 SCC 107.). The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

               “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.”

19. The petitioner's case is that the impugned order falls within the third of the above contingencies. The contention is not without force, and is dealt with under the next point. It is, however, to be borne in mind that the challenge, as it stands, cannot be resolved without an enquiry into matters of fact, namely, the extent and character of the land actually assigned, the terms of the assignment, the identity of the assignee, and whether and to what extent the conditions of the assignment came to be breached, none of which has been examined with notice to the petitioner. These are matters peculiarly within the province of the revenue authorities, and the statutory forum under the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025 is fully competent to examine them, including the correctness of the very findings recorded in the impugned order. Having regard to the fact that the record of rights in this State is now maintained under a new enactment which furnishes a complete machinery for correction and for appeal and revision, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to that remedy rather than to decide the matter in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

Point (i) is answered accordingly. Point (ii): The jurisdictional contentions are left open

20. Although the petitioner is being relegated to the statutory remedy, it is necessary to notice the contentions urged on his behalf, so that they may receive the consideration they deserve at the hands of the competent authority. A perusal of the impugned order shows that, while the representation of respondent Nos.6 to 9 was confined to an extent of Ac.0-24 gts., the third respondent proceeded to cancel the mutation in respect of the entirety of the petitioner's holding, upon a finding that the whole of it is assigned land governed by the POT Act, 1977 and that the petitioner had acted in breach of the conditions of the assignment by purchasing assigned land.

21. That assigned land is inalienable admits of no doubt. Section 3 of the POT Act, 1977 prohibits the transfer of assigned land and renders every such transfer null and void, and Section 4 thereof empowers the District Collector, or any officer authorised by him, upon being satisfied that such a transfer has taken place, to take possession of the assigned land after evicting the person in unauthorised occupation, and to restore the land to the original assignee or to resume it to the Government for re-assignment. The exercise of that power is, however, hedged in by the procedural safeguards prescribed by the Act and the Rules, including notice to the person concerned, an enquiry, a speaking order and the appellate remedy provided thereunder. The forum before which such an enquiry is to be held is the authority designated by the POT Act, 1977; it is not the appellate authority under the ROR Act, 1971 hearing an appeal against a mutation.

22. Proceedings for the amendment of the record of rights are, by their nature, consequential; an entry follows upon the grant of a patta or upon the acquisition of a right by sale, gift, succession, mortgage or otherwise, and the authority correcting the record is concerned with whether the entry conforms to the right so acquired. Whether land is Government land, whether it was assigned and on what conditions, and whether it is liable to be resumed for breach of those conditions, are questions which fall to be determined in proceedings taken for that purpose under the POT Act, 1977. Equally, an appellate authority cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the proceeding brought before it and adjudicate upon an extent that no party had put in issue, without at least putting the person likely to be affected on notice in respect of that extent.

23. These contentions are substantial, but it would not be appropriate for this Court to record any final finding upon them, both because their resolution depends upon facts yet to be enquired into, and because respondent Nos.6 to 9, whose claim was the occasion for the impugned order, have not been heard. All such contentions, including the contention that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and in excess of the scope of the proceeding, are left open to be urged before, and are to be considered by, the competent authority under the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025. Point (ii) is answered accordingly.

CONCLUSION AND RESULT

24. For the foregoing reasons, and since an effective remedy of appeal and revision is available under the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by relegating the petitioner to that remedy, while protecting his possession in the meanwhile.

25. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

               (i) The petitioner is granted liberty to prefer an appeal, or as the case may be a revision, under the relevant provisions of the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 and the Rules framed thereunder, before the competent authority, against the order of the third respondent dated 23.08.2018 in R.C.No.I/4719/2015, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

               (ii) If such an appeal or revision is preferred within the time so granted, the competent authority shall entertain and dispose of the same on its merits, without reference to the period of limitation prescribed therefor, the delay being attributable to the pendency of this writ petition before this Court since the year 2021.

               (iii) The competent authority shall conduct a fresh and independent enquiry, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order and by the findings recorded in the impugned order, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after putting all interested parties, including respondent Nos.6 to 9, on notice, and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, dealing with the contentions left open in paragraph 23 above.

               (iv) In the event that the competent authority is of the view that the character of the land or the breach of the conditions of assignment requires to be gone into, that question shall be dealt with in separate proceedings taken under the POT Act, 1977 before the authority competent in that behalf, after notice and enquiry in the manner prescribed.

               (v) The said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within a period of three (3) months from the date on which the appeal or revision is filed.

               (vi) Pending disposal of the appeal or revision, the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from the subject lands otherwise than in due course of law.

               (vii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, including as to the extent and character of the assigned land, all of which shall be gone into independently by the competent authority.

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