The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent flgs,:! to 5 : AqP FOR REVENUE Counsel for: the Respondent No.6 : SRI FABIiAN AZAM KHAN The Ccurt at the stage qt admissiorl madq ![e following ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.S O32 of2o25 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.Rev/E 1/W pHC /OOO3 /2O24-E- 57424, dated 07.72.2O24, wherein respondent No.2 refused to mutate the names of the petitioners by granting succession, consequential issuance of pattadar passbook and to remove the land from the list of prohibited properties in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.4.31 guntas in Sy.No.S13/E/ 1 and Ac.O.1g guntas in Sy.No.513/E/2, situated at Maddigatla Village, Bhootpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

2. It is stated that the father of the petitioners by name Abdul Hameed was inamdar of rhe aforesaid lands and Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) in File No.K/3653/87-I, dated 21.11.1987 has been granted in the name of their father as per the provisions of the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"). It is further stated that questioning the granting of ORC, the State Waqf Board has filed an appeal under Section 2a Q) of the Act uide Appeal No.B2/IA-4/7996 arrd dle said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority, uide order, dated 20.12.1999. It is further stated that I I 2 C\TBR, J wp 'i032 2025 thereafler, thc lather of the petitioners had made an app lication seeking mul a tron of his name in the revenue recor 1s and consequenlial issuance of paltadar pass book uncJer the provisions ol' the Telangana Rights in Land ar-rd F attadar Passbooks Act. 1971 (for short "the ROR Act, 197 l"l It is further stateci that the name of the petitioners' fatb er u'as recorded in tlrr: pahanies but the revenue authorities h evc not issr:ed pattad rt- passbook under the provisions of the Rtf R Act, 197 i . It is fur-l her stated that after the death of their fat'ler, the petitioners h avc made online Dharani Application s Nos. 23OOOOa677 eLnd 230000867 dated 28.02.20'23 secking for mutation of r heir names in the revenue records by Slranting successior-r ar c[ for issuance of e-pattadar passbooks al-'d n'hen the said appl,<:ations were not considered by the respc'ndcnts, they have 1i1c,i W.P.No.31813 of 2023 before this Courl. By an ordcr, datcd 17.11.2023, this Court disposed of tl're s rid rvrit pctition direc .ing respondent Nos.2 and 5 there to r:ons Lder the petitioners' )harani application Nos.23O000867': and 230000867, clated 28.O2.2O23. In plrrsuance ol the di:cotions of this Court, rcspondent No.2 passed the impugned ord lr. 3 CVBR, J Wp_5032 2025

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage

4. A careful examination of the impugned order would show that as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.31813 of 2023, respondent No.2 had examined the claims of the petitioners and after consideration of the entire records relating to their entitlement, had rejected their claim stating that the subject property is attached to the Institution of Jama Masjid. It is further observed in the said order that respondent No.4 without verifying the connected records has issued the impugned ORC in File No.K/3O53187-1, dated 21.11.1987 in respect of the subject property. l I , t

5. No doubt, there is an order in favour of the father of the petitioners for grant of ORC by the original authority and the said order has attained finality in the year 1999. Soon after t , conhrmation of the said ORC in favour of the petitioners' father, he ought to have taken steps by making an application under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, I97l (for short "the ROR Act, 1971"), for incorporation of his name in the revenue records and 4 CVBR, J Wp 5032 2025 consequential issuance of pattadar passbook. Furttrer, the petitionel's alsc, have not taken any steps when the ()ove,rr:ment has introduceC the program of updation of the re\uenue I ecorcls. Since either frrlher of the petitioners or the petitioners have not taken anv steps at the earliest point of time, the application tilecl by the petitioners with inordinate delay, without explain.ng any sufhcient reasrns is not maintainable. Therefore, tlre writ petition is lialrlc to be dismissed on the grounds of dcray and laches. flowcrrr:r, this order does not preclude the petitic,ners to take approl;ri.r te ste ps as available under law.

6. Accorciinlllv, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. As a sc<3tel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shali stand closr:d //TRUE COPY// Hyderabad [OtJT] L Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of 2 Oie CC to SRI M MEHDI HUSSAIN Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SBI FARHAN AZAM KHAN, Advoqate (OPUC) 4. Two PD Copies To SA BS SD/-V. KAVITHA GISTRAR OFFICER -l'elangana at HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 9RBER WP.No.5032 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION W]THOUT COSTS. 45- Sia 1 € f 5 o o 10 Api 2025 t a r-O o ( z C I t+