The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ol 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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 4 and.5 in not issuing the Digitalized Pattedar Pass Book in favour of the petitioner by incorporating his name in the revenue records in respect of the land to an extent ol Ac.2.02 V2 gts in Sy.No.1524, siluated at Konaipally Village, Vemulawada village sivar' Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District inspite of submitting the representations, even though the then Tahsildar, Vemulawada passed orders vide proceedings no. 8,196712012, dated 2711112012 for implementation of Virasat Patta in favour of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process of law, against rules and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 to issue the Digitalized Pattedar Pass Book in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent ol Ac.2.02 1/2 gts in Sy.No. 1524, situated at Konaipally Village, Vemulawada village sivar, Vemulawada Mandal, Ra.janna Sircilla Districl pursuant to the orders passed by the then Tahsildar, Vemulawada vide proceedings no. 8/967/2012, dated 2711111012 by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner in the interest ol justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased To direct the respondents 4 and 5 to issue the Digitalized Paledar Pass Book in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent oI Ac.2.02 1/2 gts in Sy.No. 1524, situated at Konaipally Village, Vemulavuada village sivar, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District pursuant to'tlre' orders passed by the then Tahsildar, Vemulawada vide proceedings no. 8196712012, dated.27 11.2012 by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner in the interest of justice pending disposal of above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.3279 OF 2O2O ORDER: This Writ Petition is liled seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents 4 ald 5 in not issuing the digitalized Pattadar Passbook in favour of the petitioner by incorporating his name in the revenue records in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.O2Yz guntas in Sy.No. 1524, situated at Konaipally Village, Vemulawada Village Sivar, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property"), despite the petitioner having submitted multiple representations and despite the then Tahsildar, Vemulawada, having passed orders vide Proceedings No.B/967 l2Ol2, dated 27.11.2012, for implementation of Virasa t Patta in favour of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice- Consequently, the petitioner seeks a direction to Respondents 4 and 5 to issue the digitalized Pattadar Passbook in his favour in respect of the subject property. t- i I \:-! Page 2 of8

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner subm it s that the petitioner's father, Dubbaka Venkataiah. originally purchased lalld to an extent of Ac.2.O2/z gl-.r.tas out of Ac.4.05 guntas in Sy.No.1524, situated at Konarpally Village, then part of Sircilla Taluq and presently within Vemulawada Village Sivar, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sir:illa District, from the original owner Gaddameedi Lachaiar through a registered sale deed vide Document No.70/ 1'176, dated 2l.Ol.\976, for valid sale consideration. Possession was handed over on the same day. Since then, th: petitioner's father was in continuous possession and enjo'Trnent of the subject property. His name was recorded in tn,: pahanies, and Pattadar Passbook No. 1728 was also issued in his favour.

3. It is further submitted that the petiti,rlrer's father passed away on 2O.OL.2OO3, leaving behind the petitioner and his mother as legal heirs. Although the petitioner approached the revenue authorities for mutation of his name in the revenrre records, no action was taken. On C7 .06.2012, the petitioner submitted a representation to t re Tahsildar, Page 3 of8 Vemulawada, requesting implementation of the Virqsat Patta in his name and also sought correction of the extent of the land in the pahanies, as some entries incorrectly reflected the extent as Ac. 1.03 guntas instead of Ac.2.O2V, guntas. After obtaining a report from the Mandal Revenue Inspector- I/Village Revenue OfIicer, the then Tahsildar, Vemulawada, passed orders vide Proceedings No.B/967 /2072, dated

27.11.2012, directing issuance of Virasat Patta in favour of the petitioner. The said order attained finality. However, the petitioner's narne was neither incorporated in the revenue records nor was a Pattadar Passbook issued in his favour. Despite submitting further representations on I l.ll .2014 ald 27.O7.2015 to the 4th respondent, no action was taken. A subsequent representation dated 09.12.2019 also failed to elicit any response or action.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, while reiterating the averments in the counter filed by the 4th respondent, submitted that, based on the Pahani for the year 1999-2000, the petitioner's father, Dubbaka Pagc 4 ofE Venkataiah, was in possession of an exten: of Ac. 1.03 guntas. In the onlnne Pohani, Lhe petitioner is :ecorded as the Pattedctr in Survey No.1524 to the extent ,:l' Ac.l.O3. A digrlal Pattadar Pass Book bearing No. T1911C023034 with Khata No. 61009 has also been issued in his nirme. As per the Resurvel. Settlement Register (RSR), the total extent of Survey No. 1524 is Ac.4.O5 guntas. According ro the online Pahani for Survey No.1524, situated at Vemulalvada village and Mandal, the following pattadars are shown ,rs cultivating the said land, as detailed below: SI No. Sy. No.wirh sub- division Name of the pattadar Extent Remar ks 1 2 4 5 6 1524A t524P 1524C 1524D t524E 1524F Pokkili Chandraiah $lo. Narsaiah Thipireddy Thirupathi Reddy lvo.Malla Reddy Dubbaka Anil Kumar rVo.Venkataiah Janagama Shankar S o Pochaiah Mohammad Saminoddrn Vo.Naseeruddin PaJO,ayu la Yadagiri S o.Chandraiah Ac. 1.01 gts Reg.Doc.No.4644 I 20 t2, dated ()9.05.2O l2 Ac,0.2050 Reg. Doc. No.3934/ 2008 Dt.29. '2.2008 Ac. l.O3 gts Virasalh Ac.O.155Ogts Reg.Doc.No.3939/20 12, Dt: 22 Xtt.2O13 Ac. 1.00 gts Ac.O.05 gts Reg.Doc. No.4643/ 20 I 2, Dt: O9. Cl>.20 12 Reg.Doc.No.3939/2012 Dt: 22 C6.2O13

5. Basing on the aforesaid table, the learr ed Assistant Government Pleader submits that there is no variation Page 5 of8 between the extent recorded in the Resurvey Settlement Register (RSR) and the present total extent of Survey No.1524, situated at Vemulawada Village. As such, the question of increasing the extent, as requested by the petitioner from Ac. 1.03 guntas to Ac.2.O2Yz guntas, does not arlse.

6. He further submits that although the petitioner was grarted succession to an extent of Ac.2.O2% guntas 1n Survey No.1524, Vemulawada Village and Mandal, vide Proceedings No.B/967 /2012 dated 27.11.2012, the petitioner's narne was not incorporated in the revenue records due to non-availability of the original Virasat file bearing No.B I 967 / 2OL2. 7 . He also states that the petitioner submitted an online application for Virasat on 22.02.2022 before the Tahsildar, Vemulawada, for an extent of Ac.1.O3 guntas in the same survey number. Additionally, the petitioner's mother submitted al alfidavit on 03.03.2022 before the Tahsildar, Vemulawada, stating that her husband owned land to an extent of Ac. 1.03 guntas in Survey No.1524, and that she Page 6 ofE --\"*l has no objection to the Virasat being sanctione,l in favour of the petitioner, her son.

8. He submits that the file bearing No.B/96-;12012 dated 27 .ll.2O12 is not traceable. Therefore, tht: petitioner,s request for implementation of the said proceedin5;s carnot be considered, and accordingly, he sought dismissal of the writ petition

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Ilr:venue, and upon examination of the material placed before this Court, without expressing any opinion on the disputec rluestions of fact, this Court deems it appropriate to d rect the 4th respondent to examine the petitioner,s represenlation dated 09 .12.2019 strictly in accordance with lz.vr. The 4th respondent shall duly follow the procedure :ontemplated under law, issue necessarSr notices to all conc<:rned, and, if necessary, grant sufficient opportunity of hearing, particularly with respect to the missing entrir,s relating to the petitioner's father. Upon such examinzrtion of the revenue records, the 4tt, respondent shall pass; appropriate Page 7 ofE orders as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case 10 With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. assrsraslr?h?'3Fr?"J[A //TRUE COPYII G SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla Disftrict at Sircilla. The Revenue Divisional officer, Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla Disttrict. The Tahsildar, Vemulawada Urban, Rajanna Sircilia The Village Revenue Officer, Vemulawlda Urban, Raianna Sircilla Disttrict One CC to SRI S.SURENDER REDDY, Advocate topUCl Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for th'e State'of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 o- PSK. PSK \ HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 ORDER WP.No.3279 of 2020 { r\[ Sfer€ ( J o 1i tr0'l ?ffi o ( o ' --r/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS