The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action the action of the 3rd Respondent without following due process of law and without conducting enquiry entered the name of the unofficial respondent No.7 into the revenue records pertains to the petitioners prctperty in agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 0-07 Gts in Sy.No.g72 extent situatecl at Jangampally (v) shivar, Bhiknoor (trll), Kamareddy District in active collusion with unofficial respondents also not considering the representatiorr dt. 1611112022 as being illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural and violation of Article 14, 21of Constitution of lndia and consequenly direct the 3rd respondent to forthwith restore the names of the petitioners for the above said lanCs lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the resJlondent authorities to restore the names of petitioners agricultural land to an extr:rnt of Ac. 0-07 Gts in Sy.No.872 extent situated at Jangampally (v) shrvar, Bhiknoor (M), Kamareddy District by considering the petitioners 16.11.2022 as well as remove the illegal construction over the representation dt. property counsel for tlre petitioners : sRl RAVINDER REDDY slNc.l REDDY counsel for tl'e Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: AGp FoR REVENUE counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : SRI v. sATyAM REDDY counsel for the Respondent No. 7 : sRl B. MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 : __- The Court made the foltowing: ORDER , ,1\ 'l 'i1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No. 2LT of 2o.23 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: u ... To issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 without following due process of law and without conducting enquiry etrtered the name of the unofficial respondent No.7 into the revenue records peitains to the petitioners property in agricultural land to an extent o[ Ac.0.07 guntas in survey No.872 extent situated at Jangampally Village Shivar, Bhiknoor Mandal, Kamareddy District in active collusion with unoflicial respondents also not considering the representation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 and 2l of Constitution of India and prays to direct the respondent No.3 to forthwith restore the names of the petitioners for the above said lands." .

2. Heard Sri Ravinder Reddy Singireddy, learned courlscl for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.l to 3, Sri V. Satyam' Reddy, learned counsel lor respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri B. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.7.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject land and the same was initially mutated in the name of Sri Mothe Lachaiah being the elder- 2 son of tlte common ancestor i.e., Mothe Balaram; that the netme of Mothe Lachaial-r was reflected in the pahani for the year 1984-85 and after demise oI Mothe Lachaiatr thc property was divided between the petition,:rs ancl each petitioner got Ac.0.03 7z guntas; that the names ol the petili<lner No. I and his father and the petitioner No.2 reflected in the pahani from the year 1q84-85 and was continued till 2OO7-2008; that tl-re pctitioners settled in Hyderabad for livelihood and taking advantage of the samo, respondent No.6 with the support of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in ac -ive collusion rvith revenLle authorities manipulated the revenue record rn the year I995-96 and incorporated the name of respondent No.6 in respect of subject land.

4. [,:arned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that rcsponclent Nos.4 to 7 have no right or interest over the said land and responctent No.3 without following due process, incorporated the name of responclent No.7 in the revenue records in respect of subject land. He would further submit that petitioner on 16.1 I .2022 submitted a representation to respondent No.3 to rectify the entries in the revenue records, but no action has been taken and aggrieved by the said inaction of respondcnt No.3, present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 7 would submit that the name of Mot re l-achaiah was continued only upto 1984-85 and thereafter partitioll has taken place between the Mothe family members and the *;urbject land is allotted to the share of respondent No.6 and accordingly, i i: t I I I I I J his name was mutated in the revenue records for the year 1998-99 artcl continuecl thereafter, and pattedar pass book and title deeds were alsr.r issued to him; that respondent No.6 has alier-rated the suttiect lernd itt lavour o[ rcspondent No.7 uid.e r:egistered sale deed No.122 1 of 2Ol4 clatcd O9.O7.2OO4; that initially, sale deed was pending for watrt of stamp duty and subsequently, the same was numbered as document No.1221 of 2O14 after the payment of stamp duty' He would furthcr submit t.hat the Mothe family members have given declaration dittccl 26.07.2004 wherein all the members have given no objection att<l declared that after death of Mothe Chandra Reddy, his family metnl;ers have alienated the lands in Survey Nos.872, 873 and 874 to rt, "*1s1rt Ac.4.O5 guntas and the subject land was sold to'respondent No.7 and declared that they do not have any claim. 6: Learned counsel for respondent No.7 would further submit thal basing on the sale deed No.L22l of 2014 dated O9.O7.2OO4, natne of thc respondent No.7 was mutated in the revenue records in the year 2OO7 - 08 and also in the Dharani Portal and Pattadar Passbook was alscr issued and he has been receiving amounts under Raithu Bandhu scheme; that the respondent No.7 has been in possession for more than 12 years from the date of purchase i.e., from O9.O7.2OO4 and thus, perfected his title and possession. He would further submit that as per Section 5 (5) of Telangana ROR Act, 1971, an appeal against correct.iotr of entries has to be filed within a period of 6O days from the date of 4 correction and whereas in the present case, the petitioners submitted representation in the year 2022 and therefore the same is belated and barred by limitartion. He finally submittecl that writ petition is devoid of merits irncl thc silme is liable to be dismissed.'

7. Leartred Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that nirme of the respondent No.7 was mutated on the strength of registerecl sale deecl executed by respondent No.6 in his favour by duly followirig the prc-rcedure. She r,r,ould further submit that petitioners are allegir-rg; that ttrere is manipulation, however, no material is placecl on record hence the part of said contention is a disputed question of fiacts cannot be decided by this Court as per the provisions under Article226 of Conritittttiort of India and the petitioner has to approach competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance.

8. F'erusal of the record discloses that name of Lachaiah was reflected in the pahani for the year 1984-85 and from the year 1995-96 onwards, the narne of respondent No.7 is reflected as pattadar upto till date. The petitiorrers have submitted representation on 16. Ll.2022 for rectilication of entr/ of respondent No.7 without seeking correction of entry made in the narnc of respondent No.6 in the year 1995-96. As rightly pointed by learnecl counsel for respondent No.7 as per Section s (5) of Telangana RoR A:t, 1971, petitioners ought to have filed appeal within a period of 60 da'rs l'rom the date of mutation, but the petitioners submitted represr:ntation at the belated stage and therefore, the same cannot be ( 5 corlsidered. It is also relevant to note that respondent No.3 has ordered for rnutation of name of respondent No.7 basing on the registered sale dced executed by respondent No.6 and thus, order passed by respondcnt No.3 effecting mutation entries of respondent No.7 over the subject property does not suffler from any irregularity or illegality. 'fherelorc, this Courl does not llnd any reason to interfere with the entries made in thr: revenue records in favotrr of respondent No.7 in respect of sr-rbject Iand.

9. I1 view of the above cliscussion, writ petition is devoid of any merit anci is tiable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, it is Ieft open to the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance wiLh law before appropriate forum. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. SD/.AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER I /TRUE COPYII To, one cc to sRl RAVINDER REDDY slNct REDDY, Advocate topucl One CC to SRI V. SAryAM REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI One CC to SRI B. IVIAHENDER REDDY, Advocate [OpUC] Two ccs to GP FoR REVENUE, High court for the State of rerangana Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 5 PVL BS NT 'a, HIGH COSPI DATED :0419912025 Ti,E S Ye,at .} u 3 rFB 212[ *. c U * ORDER WP.No.21lT of ZO23 DISMISSIhIG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS $,, I I