Saroj Devi Bhatera v. The Special fficer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 18 Feb 2026
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 2 in processing the petitioner application for regularization with plot Numbers wrongly mentioned as 616-61 and total extent of area of the plots together admeasuring wrongly mentioned as 234 Square meters and the action of the 3'd respondent in regulariZing the petitioner's plots through G.OMs.No.96 Dt-29-01-2007 with the same wrong details stated in Page No.7 sl no.45 in the annexure of the G.O.Ms.No. 96 Dt: 29-01- 2OoT,consequently Endorsed by respondent No.1 dt-09-02-2007 with the same wrong details of the Plots of the petitioner bearing Nos.610 and 611 together admeasuring 334 Sq.Mtrs situated in Sy.Nos.547,548,549.552,571 and 572 of Pakalakunta, Old Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and not rectifying the same even after repeated requests and representations of the petitioner to the respondents to correct her details G.O.Ms.No. 96 Dt-29- 01-2007 and Endorsement dt-09-02-2007 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and also violate Principles of Natural Justice and issue a consequential direction to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to correct details wrongly stated with respect to the above said plots of the petitioner in their proceedings and respondent No.3 to correct the details wrongly stated with respect to the above * said plots of the petitioner in G.O.Ms.No. 96 Dt: 29-01 .-2007 i nd respondent No.1 to correct the above stated details in endorsement dt-09-02-i 107. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015 PMP. NO: 20670 OF 2015 / Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr :mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma1 be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to correct details of plot Number wrongly mentioned as 6'16-61 and total extent of area of the plots together ;r imeasuring wrongly mentioned as 234 Square meters with respect to the abr> ,e said plots of the petitioner in their proceedings and respondent No.3 to corl ct the same details wrongly stated with respect to the above said plots of the pr: itioner in page No.7 sl no.45 in the annexure of the G.O.Ms.No.96 Dt:29-01-2007 nd respondent No.1 to correct the above stated details wrongly stated in endorsi( ment dt:09-02-2007 of the Plots of the petitioner bearing Nos.610 and 611 togeti _'r admeasuring 334 Sq.Mtrs situated in Sy.Nos.547,548,549,552,ST1 and S7Z fi pakalakunta, Otd Aiwal Municipality, Malkaigiri Mandat, Ranga Reddy District. l.A. NO: 2 OF 201S(WPMP. NO :26626 OF 2015) Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the cirr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to receive the additional affidavit along with the following mzLl :rial papers, 1) RTI reply from first respondent, 2) Copy of final order in W.p.l,.l t.24SS2 of 2008, 3) Copy of order in W.P.No.24552 of 2008 and 4) Copy of ordr,r in W.p.No.22827 of 2o1o tor the better adjudication of the writ petition in w.p.No. 15874 of 2015 in the interest of the justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. KUMARA SWAMY NAlDl, REp. FOR SRI KIRAN DHARMAPURI Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. GP FOR ASSIGNMEIt The Court made the following: ORDER "t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY W.P. No.15874 of 2015 Date:18.02.2026 Between: Saroj Devi Bhatera Petitioner AND The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban I and Ceilings, Hyderabad & 2 others .. Respondents
ORDER:
This ,vrit petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos. I to 3 ir. correcting the mistake and issue errata in respect of Plot Nos.6l6 and 6l in Survey Nos.547, 548,549,552,571 and 572 ol Pakalakunta, OId Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
It is stated that the petitioners purchased Plot Nos.6l0 and 6ll, together admeasuring 40C square yards or 334 square meters in Survey No.547, 548, 549, 552. 571 and 572 of Pakalakunta, Old Alwal Municipality, Malkajgri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under the registered sale deed bearir.,g document No.998 of 1999 dated 19.04.1999' The petitioner came to know that part of herilot was declared surplus \ under the l.lrban l.and Ceiling Act 1976 (for short .ULC Acr,), and \, 2 SVLJ therefore, she has urade an application for regularisarirn of plots under G.O. Ms. No.455, Revenue (U.C.-l) Deparrmenr, dar<J 29.07.2002, by paying requisite fees to respondent No.r - the S1r, cial officer and competent Authority, Urban Land ceiling, Hyderabad. Respondent No.1 issued G.O. Ms. No.96 dated 29.01.2007 regularisinr the plots of the petitioner which was subsequently endorsed by respr,r r ent No.1 through the endorsement dated 09.02.2007. It is stated that ir G.O. Ms. No.96 dated' 29.01.2007 and endorsement dated, 09.02.2007 pl rt numbers of the petitioner were wrongly mentioned as plot Nos.616 a* I 6r admeasuring 234 square rneters instead of plot Nos.6l0 and 6 l I admr.i suring 334 square meters. The petitioner approached the respondents' r rthorities seeking correction of plot numbers and the extent. Despite se\ ( ml requests made by the petitioner, there is inaction on the paft 01. the respondents, authorities, as such, the petitioner is constrained to appr.ci ch this court.
Heard Mr. G. Kumara Swamy Naidu, learn: I counsel for the petitioner; and leamed Assistant Govemment pleader frr Assignment, and perused the materiai on record. r\s .)
The petitioner purchased Plot Nos.610 and 611 in Survey Nos.547, 548, 549, 551, 571 and 572 under Ex.P-l sale deed bearing document No.998 ol 1999 dated 19.04.1999 from its previous owner Mr. Ashok Kumar Kothari, son of Late Mr. Bachchrajji Kothari. on the application subn.ritted by the petitioner lor regularisation, G.O. Ms. No.96 Revenue (uc.ll) Deparrment dated29.01 .2007 was issued by respondent No.3 and name of the petitioner is shown at Serial No.45 in the annexure thereto. The extent of the plot was wrongly shown as '234 square meters' instead of ,334 square meters' and plot numbers as '6l6 and 6f instead of .610 and 6l L' Even in the endorsernent dated 09.02.2007 also, respondent No.1 has wrongly shown the plot numbers again as'616 and 6f instead of .610and6ll.,Thereafter, thepetitionerappliedtorespondentNo.l seeking correction of extent and plot numbers' Respondent No'l addressed the letter daled 01 .03.20 I 3 to respondent No'2 requesting to issue errata orders by correcting the extent of both the plots together as '334 square meters' instead of '234 square meters' and plot numbers as '610 and 611' in the place of '6 I 6 and 6 I .' 5 For the aloresaid reasons, as there is no dispute regarding plot Nos.610 and 611, total admeasuring 334 square meters, for which the \ 4 B\ R.J rvP rs37' ','|i petitioner has applied fbr regu larisation and more, r ,, :r respondent No.
I has addressed the letter dated 01.03.2013 to respondc; t No.2 requesting f<>r issuance of en.ata orders, respondent No.2 coulci nct have sat on the mattcr fbr an indefinite period' Thus, the action of responc :nt No.2 in not acting upon the request of the petitioner is cr .facic iutitrary and cannot be justified. 6' Therefore' the writ petition is arowed direr: irg rcspondent Nos. r to 3 to issue errata to G.O. Ms. No.96 Revenu,: (UC.fI) Department dated 2g'0r'2007 bv correcting the piot numbers 11. rhe peritioner. as Plot Nos'610 and 6lr in the prace of 'piot Nos.6r6 rnd 61, and arso the extent of the prots together as '334 square rneters' i;r tead of.234 square meters' and even in the endorsement dated og.o2.20t), within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy o'rhi ; or.er. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous application:,. if.any, the writ petition stand closed. pending in //TRUE COPYII ill1,S,,.X'R;ffiit?AiH , \-_. sEcTtoN OFFICER -l l\ \ To, 1 2
3. orficer and competent Authority, Urban L, rd ceirinss, IlffiE:f' 8fi"i":Ji!" thief commissioner and Land Administra i rn, Teransana, I[:?JJif 53 1,3ff ::'3 g"133i,f .,! ff"?: r;-J"., e ( U c ) D epa rtme nt, rh e &.
9n" QQ to SRI KTRAN DHARMAPUR|, Advocate topucl 5. Tvo ccs to cp FoR Rsstctrl|erut, High co; if; the-state of rerangana. 6. Two CD Copies touTJ BN &, HIGH COURT DATED:1 810212026 ORDER WP.No.15874 ot 2015 HES T4 o t J o(- 1' fli,E ll'ii ;.': 0 I J.- "r,._' t { " \\;'.)-;'-' .',: ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS K3 tt l,t 1.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Ceiling Act, 1976.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 18 Feb 2026.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.