The High Court · 2025

Sri Anemoni Anjanelu, S/o Sri Anemoni pedda Mashaiah. Aoed about 45 vrs - ' "' OccAgriculture,_Rt/o H.No. 'l-85, Chinna Darpaili tVl. Hiriwa"Aa ttVi-' lVla ha bubna ga r D istri ct Sri Anemohi Venkat Ramulu, S/o Sri Anemoni pedda Mashaiah, Aged about 35 yrs, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o H.No. 1-85, Chinna Darpaili (U, Hrhr;a; aM), Mahabubnagar District. Sri Anemoni Raju., S/o Sri Anemoni pedda trrlashaiah, Aged about 32 yrs, Occ Agriculture, R/oH.No. '1-85, Chinna Darpalli (V), HanwaEa (M), l\rla ha bu bnaga r District. - R 7 to 9 are impleaded as per C.O. dt.O7 .Ot .2025 in tA. No. 2/2025 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of ln( i circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the pleased to issue a writ order of direction more particularl'u Writ of Mandamus challenging the action of the Responc r issuing Pattadar pass books in favour of the Petitioners anc action of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in trying to disposses s their Agricultural Land to an extent of admeasuring 4c.2.2' gts) in Sy.No.65, situated al Chinnadharpally Village , lvlahaboobnagar District Telangana, which is illegal, arbitra of Section 6 of the Telangana Rights in land and Pattada' and also agdinst Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitutic against the principal of the Natural Justice and tor r Respondent Nos-2 to 4 to issue the Pattadar pass bcc Petitioners in related to the Petitioners agricultural land. a Respondent Nos.2 to 5 not to dispossess and disturb th€ r praying that in the H igh Court may be one in the .nature of nt Nos.2 to 4 in not also challenging the the Petitioners from gts (Out of .Ac.4-11 Hanwada Mandel, 'y and a lso violation rass Book Act 2020 r of lndia and also equently direct the <s in favour of the rd f urther direct the leaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the , in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co r direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 not to dispossess anc possession and enjoyment of the property of the Petitio-r Ac.2.21 gts (Out of Ac,4-1 1 gts) in Sy.No.65, situated at Ct i ircumstances stated t may be pleased to listurb the peaceful :rsi.e., admeasuring rnadharpally Village, Hanwada N/andal, lt4ahaboobnagar District Telangana, pe r I ing disposal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 BETWEEN '1 . Sri Anemoni Anjanelu, S/o Sri Anemoni Pedda fvlashaiz I , Aged about 45 yrs, Occ Agriculture, Fl/o H.No. 1-85, Chinna Darpalli (V), H r rwada (M), Mahabubnagar District.

2. Sn Anemoni Venkat Ramulu, S/o Sri Anemoni Pedda l\ z shaiah, Aged about 35 yrs, Occ Agriculture, Fl/o H.No. 1-85, Chinna Darpal i V), Hanwada (lVI), lt4ahabubnagar District I i

3. Sri Anemoni Raju, S/o Sri Anemoni Pedda lVlashaiah, Aged about 32 yrs, Occ Agriculture, RI/o-H.No. 1-85; Chinna Darpalli (V), Hanwada (l\il), Mahabubnagar District. ... Petitioners/Prop. Rspdts. AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District. 3. . The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahboobnagar, IVlahboobnagar District. 4. The Tahsildar, Hanwada [Vlandal, Mahboobnagar District. 5. The Station House Officer, Hanwada Police Station, Mahaboobnagar District. 6. Syed Musleh Uddin, S/o. Late Syed Nizamuddin, Aged 40 Yrs, Occ. Business R7o. H.No. 18-272, N.G.O.'s Colony, Near RTC Colony, Shadnagar, Rangareddy District. .. .. . .. . .Respondents

7. Sri Anemoni Yadaiah, S/o. Late Anemonilt/achaiah, Aged 50 Yrs, Occ. Aqriculture, RJo. H.No.174, tvlekala Bazar, Hartianwada, Chinnadharpalle Village. HanwadaNandal, Mahaboobnagr District.

8. Sri A.Narayana, S/o. Late AnemoniAnthaiah, Aged 5O Yrs, Occ- Agriculture, Ryg. H.N6.174, Mekala Bazar, Harijanwada, Chinnadharpalle Village, Hanwada Mandal, Mahaboobnagr District. .. - -.. Respondents/Petitioners 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 vacate the Status Quo Order passed by this Hon'ble Court ln WP No. 272512025' Dt7 3) 28-12-242-5 and pass any further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MRS SRILATHA FQR T. SIREESHA Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 4: SRI L. RAVINDER AGP APPEARING ON BEHALF OF GP FOR REVENUE SRI K. MURALIDHAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe'Respondents No 6 To 9 : MRS T. DIVYA REPRESENTING FOR SRI MANGA SATEESH The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATT) OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.I/ }NUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.2725 ot' 2o25 DATED :27.11.2o25 Between: Anemoni Yadaiah and another. 'l'hc Statc of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary. Departlnent of Revenue, Secrctariat, Hyderabad and others. And ORDER: Petitioners. Respondcnts The present writ petition is hled by the petit r ners under Article 226 of rhe Constitution of India for the following reli: : "...to issue a writ order of direction more part nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging the actior Nos.2 to 4 in not issuing pattadar pass books Petitioners and also challenging the actiori of the Rer;, in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their A E an extent of admeasuring Ac.2.2l gts (Out of Ac.4 situated at Chinnadharpally Village, Hanwada Mancz District, Telangana, which is ilGgal, arbitrary an i Section 6 of the Telangana Rights in land and pattrLr 2O2O and also against Article 21 & 3OO_A of the C,r and also against the principal of the Natural Justicr: direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to issue the patrr, favour of the Petitioners in related to the petitioner; and further direct the Respondent Nos.2 to S not I disturb the peaceful po"".""io., and enjoyment of tht cularly one in the r[ the Respondent in favour of thc ,ondent Nos.2 to 4 -rcultural Land to gts) in Sv.No.65, [, Mahaboobnagar also violation of ar Pass Book Act rstitution of India and consequently r1r pass books in agricultural land, r dispossess and )etitioners...." r- \ -:r,,<{ \t \ Page 2 of6

2. Heard Mrs.Srilatha, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri L.Ravinder learned Assistanr Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy and Mrs.T.Di\T/a, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 9 Sri Munaga Sateesh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioncrs submits that the petitioners are protected tenants and lawful successors-in-in lerest to agricultural land measuring Ac.2.27 gts., out of Ac.4. 11 gts., in Sy.No.65 of Chinnadharpally Village, Hanr,r'ada Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. The petitioners claim to have continuously cultivated and possessed the land after inheriting it from their deceased fathers, whose tenancy rights were affirmed by this Court in W. P. No.11917 of 1985. It is contended that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have failed to discharge their statutory duty under Scction 6 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 2O2O, by not issuing pattadar passbooks. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 5 have attempted, on multiple occasions, to dispossess the petitioners through coercive and unlawful means, u,ithout notice, enquiry, or due process, thereby violating Articles 2l and 300-A of the Consti tution of India and the principle of audi alteram partem. The j ._tiil; Page 3 of6 petitioners have raised standing crops and ir. ested substantial resources in cultivation and face imminent and i reparable harm if such actions continue. The prayer is for a declara.t.r n that the actions of the respondents are illegal and arbitrary, for < irections to issue pattadar passbooks in favor of the petitioners and br restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners, r:aceful possession pending disposal of [he r,vrit petition. 4 . Learned Assistant Government plead: ', reiterating the contents of thc counter aflidavit filed by respondent i the l st pe titioner, along with another resident r I b.4, submits that Chinnadharpally Village, had hled W.p. No.2725 of 2O2S seeking di:r ctions to restrain respondent Nos.2 to 5 from dispossessing or distur possession of the land measuring Ac.2.2), gts., i I ring their alleged Sy.No.65. This Court, vide orde r clated 3 i .01.2025 in I.A. .No. I of 2( i petition, directed both parties to maintain status qrr( 5 in the said writ over the subject property. It is submitted that, according to the Sessal 58 and the old record of rights, the entire land in I gts.) is patta land standing in the name of Sri Sy: pattadar, with Telugu Bheemaiah (Ac.1.20 gts.) and l, (Ac.2.21 gts.) recordecl only as occupants, without cle r of their occupation. Under Section 35 of the Telan5;t . Pahani of 1955- iy.No.65 (Ac.4.1 1 I Nizamuddin as Lemoni Machaiah ty on the legality na Tenancy and Page 4 of6 l \ Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, a person claiming protected tenancy must obtain a declaration from the Tahsildar, which was never obtained by the petitioners' predecessor, Sri Anemoni Machaiah. Therefore, neither he nor the petitioners can be treated as protected tenants. While the petitioners' physical possession is not disputed, they possess no valid title and are not entitled to pattadar passbooks. Allegations of attempted dispossession are denied as false and it is stated that no coercive action has been taken. In lhe absence of documentary evidence conferring title or lenancy rights, the petitioners, claim for pattadar passbooks is legally untenable.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.6, reiterating the contents mentioned in the counter fiied on behalf of the 6s respondent, contends that the father of the 66 respondent, late Syed Nizamuddin, was the absolute owner and pattadar of Ac.4.11 gts. in Sy.No.65. After his demise, the 6rh respondent succeeded to the property and lawfully sold Ac.2.38 gts., by registered sale deed dated 22.02.1982 to late Alimoni Pedda Mashanna, delivering possession on the same day. The remaining extent is in possession of third parties and a temple. The purchasers and their legal heirs have been in continuous possession for over four decades. The petitioners have no right, title, interest or possession over any portion of Sy.No.65. The claim of being protected /'\.., I I tenants is unsubstantiated and unsupported by an., declaration under the Telangana Tenancy Act, relying solely on similz I ity of names with unrelated persons. Allegations concerning land i r quisition, award, compensation, tenancy rights and present possessit I are not correcL. The petitioners have not produced any document es lawful occupation and therefore cannot seek pattiL( relief under the ROR Act. The writ petition is miscor_r,; -ablishing title or ar passbooks or ived, lacks cause of action, and suffers from non-joinder of necessary pz rties. 6 Upon examination of the pleadings and r tcord, this Court allegation that find s no materta I I o substantiate the petitioner ; respondent No.4 or any official agency attempted to fispossess them. Respondent No.4 has categorica y stated that no nterference was undertaken or contemplated and this assertion rerr Lins unrebutted. The petitioners' claims of forcible dispossession are ulr rorroborated and contradicted by revenue records, which consistently r:flect possession in favor of the successors of the 19g2 registered In Lr.chaser. In the absence of any demonstrable threat or illegal action by the respondents, no violation of Articles 21 or 3O0_A i; made out. The dispule concerns contested title and possession, ri, rich cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. Considering the submission by respondent No.4 that there is no intention to disposscs s the petitioners, I Page 6 of6 '".=fi \ \l \i - \ this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, recording the said submissions cosls. 7 8 In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,<(? SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The irincipal Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Telangana, Secretariat Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahboobnagar, Mahboobnagar District' 4. The Tahsildar, Hanwada Mandal, Mahboobnagar District' 5. The station House officer, Hanwada Police Station, Mahaboobnagar District 6. One CC to SRl. T.SIREESHA, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT]

8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

9. One CC to SRI IVIANGA SATEESH , Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CD CoPies DAN trA BS HIGH COURT DATED:2711112025 ORDER WP.No.2725 o12025 '+ 1r, r,l, :.il ? flE 22 ).' -) ) \, ). DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (N \ 1. \ r-- ),) \