High Court · 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispensp with the tiling af the Certitied copy of the impugned order in Case No. B 17 45 12020 ren umhered as ST/B 1 /.932/2021 dated 09.Q2.2021 lA NO: 2 OF 2025 -:----=!--=ir-- Fetitiqn under Secllon 151 gPQ praying that in the gircumgtancgs stated in the affidqvit filed in support of the petitign, the High Cou( may bq please{ to direct the lgspond$nts t9 cor-rgidgr petitioner]F applicption without reference tp the pendency of any suit inclu-ding the suit in Q.S.l)lo. 335 of 2920 Counsel for lhe Pelitionel; SRI VIJAY B.P4B9PAKARI Counsef for the ReFpondent I{o.1 to 9: SRI L.RAVINDER, AqP FOR REVENUE The Coqrt r44y'e thg following; ORQEF I I I I t/ // / HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.91 1 1 of 2025 ORDER It is stated that the petitioner, along with his mother Vijaya Lakshmi, has instituted a suit for partition uide O.S.No.884 of 2OO7 on the hle of the ill Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and the said suit was decreed uid-e jud.grnent and decree, dated 1 l.O7 .2011. It is lurther stated that, in terms of the preliminary decree, final decree was passed in I.A.No.146 of 2Ol4 and the division of t\e suit schedule property was made by metes and bounds. It is further stated that seeking implementation of the Iinal decree proceedings in I.A.No.146 of 2014, the petitioner filed an application under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short "the ROR Act, 1971") for mutation and consequential amendment of record of rights. It is further stated that pending consideration of the said application, ROR Act, 1971 u,as repealed and replaced by the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,2O2O (for short "the Act 9 ol 2O2O"l. It is further stated that, meanwhile, the unoflicial respondents have instituted a suit for perpetual injunction uide OS,No.335 of 2O2O on the lile of the VII Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The I 2 CVBR, J Wp_91l1_2025 grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order advising the petitioner to agitate their rights before the civil Court in the pending suit and then, after outcome of the final orders in the above suit, approach the revenue authorities, for redressal of their grievance.

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Ciovernment Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. I to 3 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. In view ol the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofficial respondents is dispensed with.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that, in terms of the final.decree, the trial Court has already delivered the possession to the petitioner and mere pendency of the suit for injunction hled by the unofhcial respondents does not take away his right in implementation of the {inal decree proceedings in the revenue records.

4. In view of the above submissions and since it is stated that the petitioner has already obtained final decree in I.A.No.146 of 2Ol4 in O.S.No.884 of 2OO7, dated 16. lO.2Ol9, a t I J CVBR, J wp_91 I l_2025 this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if respondent No.3 is directed to examine the case of the petitioner, if any application is being submitted by him under Section 7 of the Act, 9 of 2O2O aIId, if the said application complies with all the requirements of the Act 9 of 2O2O, consider the same after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the interested and effected parties and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of eight (OS) weeks from the dat'e of such application.

5. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pcnding, if any, shall stand closed. \ /,TRUE COPYI' .J SD/.7 DEPUTY SREE STRAR SECTION FFICER ** ""'ti on a nd sta mps) R R Ds'irict and To, , :' -' I:?,5:H',1 ?lr::,'js:il rL"d??\? 3""J:lT': , il"",S?Tlittrfl"pJJ;;t',s[aij,":Bi4". 3. The Tahsildqr' oanoipet-;;al Gandipet Ranga-ReddY 4 One CC to SBlvrJAv e ;nnoFAKARt' Advoqate toPuQl ' llS":.?:J"cP-roR;;vei'rue 6. Two QD Copies Xl3.Yi:?] pistrict' Hist' courl ror the state or Teransana at BSR BS W I 1 I t0 HIGH COURT DATED: 2610312025 ORDER WP.No.9111 of 2025 .IHE Si4r (-' 0 3 APfl 2025 oEs.,ATCII frO , (.( o li -< l/o" li 'i-) \'t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, l,vlrHouT cosrs @ )A d