High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0t rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the Respondent No.4 in issuing the Endorsement proceedings vide No.8/610/2024, dated 06.o2.2o2sand rejected the issuance of E-pattadar passbook to the petitioner on his curtivating rand to an extent of Ac.10.01 Gts in survey No.35, which is a situated at Kodimyara Virage and Mandal, Jagityar District is iflegar, arbitrary, urrconstitutionar and vioration of Articres 14, 15,21 and 300-4 of constitution of rndia and arso vioration of Principles of Naturar Justice and set aside the Endorsement proceedings through vide No. B,r610t2024. dated 06.02.2025 and consequenay direct the Respondent Nos'2 to 4 to conduct the detaired enquiry and panchanama and trace out the missing land to an extent of Ac.1o-o1 Gts in survey No.3s, which is a situated at Kodimyala Virrage and Mandar, Jagityar District and issue the E-pattadar Passbook by mutating the name of the petitioner in all revenue records. tANO:1OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circunstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may t e pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to conduct the detailed enquiry antl panchanama and trace out the missing land to an extent of Ac.10.01 Gts in Survey No.35, which is a situated at Kodimyala Village and Mandal, Jagityal District and issue the E- Pattadar Passbook by mutating the name of the Petitioner in itll revenue records pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI H.SOMAIAH EZRA SASTRI, AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER Y HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7374 of 2O2S ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following reliel '...to issue an oppropiate urit, order or direction more particukTrlA on.e in the nature of Wnt oJ Mandomus dectartng the or:tion of the Respondent No.4 in iss.ing the Endorsemetlt Proceedings vide No.B/610/2024 dated O6.02.2025 and rejected. the issuance oJ E- Pattadar Passbook to th,e Petittoner on his cttltiuating land to an extent of Ac.1O-O1 Gts in Surueg No.35 which is q situdted ot KodimVala Vitlage and Mandol, Ja@tyal District, i.s illegal, arbitrary, unc-onstifr.ttional and uiolation of Articles 14, 15, 21 anrl 3O0A oJ Constittttion oJ Indta and also uiololton of Principtes of Natural Justice and set aside th.e Endorsement Proceedings through uide No.B/ 61O/ 2O24 doted 06.02.2025 and conseErcntlg direct tlle Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to conduct the detailed enquiry and ponchnnama and trace out tte missing lanl. to an ertern of Ac.10-O1 Gts in Surueg No.35, tuhich is a situated ot Kodimgola Village and Mandal Jagitgal Distr.ct and tssue the D-Pattadar Passbook bA nrutating th.e nane of the Petitioner in all reuenue reards.."

2. It is stated that the petitioner's grandfather by name Parlapalli Mallaiah was a Freedom Fighter and participated in the Freedom struggle and also underwent imprisonment in the Central Jail, at Warangal. It is further stated that as per the Swatantra Sainik Samman Scheme introduced by the Government of India, the grandfather of the petitioner was allotted land admeasuring Acs.10.O1 guntas in Sy.No.3S, situated at Kodimyala Village ard Mandal, Jagityal District and the name of the petitioner's grandfather was mutated in ali the revenue records and he was 2 issued pattadar passbook and title deed. It is furttrer stated that after the death of the petitioner's grandfather, the father of the petitioner by name Parlapalli Mallaiah succeedecl to the said property and his name was mutated in all the revent e records and pattadar pass book No.486O8 uide Patta No.486 was issued in his father's name to an extent of Ac.O.02 guntas orly under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in tand and pattarlar passbooks Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder. It is furttrer stated that after the death of his father, the petitioner succeeded to the subject property and he made an application, dated 01. tO.2O24 seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records and :onsequential issuance of pattadar pass book and the said ap tlication was rejected uide endorsement No.B/610 /2024, dated 06 O2.2O25.

3. Considered the submissions made by the learnr:d counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

4. l,earned counsel for the petitioner has submitterl that though the petitioner is eligible for allotment of agriculturz, I land to an extent of Acs.lO.OO guntas and the vacant land is available in Sy.No.35 of Kodimial Village, he was allotted only Ac.C.O2 guntas.

5. Sri H.Somaiah Ezra Sastri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respc,ndents, has .\iE \ \ 3 submitted lhat the petitioner has made online application seeking corrections of entries and consequential issuance of Pattadar passbooks and as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.32239 of 2024, an enquiry was conducted and in the said enquiry, it was revealed that the father of the petitioner was assigned land only to an extent of Ac.O.02 guntas in Sy.No.3S as landless poor and therefore, the claim of ttre petitioner to record his name as pattadar to an extent of Acs. 10.O1 guntas and consequential issuance of pattadar passbook was rejected vide impugned endorsement dated

06.o2.2025.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that his grandfather was assigned land admeasuring Ac.1O.Ol guntas under the Freedom Fighter quota. However, no record has been placed before this Court to substantiate that his grandfather was assigned such extent of land in Sy.No.3S. As observed in the impugned endorsement dated 06.02.2O25, the name of the aileged assignee and the extent of Ac.10.O1 guntas do not appear in the relevant survey, phodi, or assignment records. In the absence of such material evidence, this Court finds no legal infirmity in the impugned endorsement. Hence, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is left open to 4 the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent authority in accordance with law. 7 With the above observations, this Writ petition rs dispcised of. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, shall stand closed. the miscellaleous petitions per:ding, if any, /.8.G. VYJAYANTHI SiTANT REGISTRAR -t To 1 2 3 4 5. 6. 7 PSK. MP gr OFFICER B uilding, ent, High I I HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 I ORDER WP.No.7374 ot 2025 ili 5lAr € 1 Fo k 18 JUN 26 7 ) t, L \ SSp,iTCH f_O DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *Utett 1O &^,