High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No 2 in issuing the notice vide Rc No. Dl22l2O2O dated 26.2.2020 for basing on the application filed by the respondetn No. 4 to 7 for issuance of patta for th land in survey No. 20 extent ac 17 50 gts situatd at Chilatiguda village of Asifabad [Vlandal Komuram Bheen Asifabad District as arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Rights in lands and pattadar pass books Act and ruels framed there under and also violate of article 1 4, 16 and 3004 rf constitution o consequently to set aside the same. f lA NO: 1 OF 2O2O Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High (;, ura .u, be pleased to grant stay of all further in pursuance of the notice issue<l 5y the respondent No 2 vide Re No.Dl22l202O dated 26.2.2020 pending dislrr sal of the above wr it petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN F EDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : ASST. GP FOR F EVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.4to7 : -- The Court made the'following: ORDER ,! THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.1()771 of 2O2O ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief "....to lssue tttit, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of urit oJ mandantus decloitrg the action of the respondent No.2 in tssttittg the the notice uide Rc.No.D/ 22/ 2O2O dated 26.2.2O20 for basing ort the application fiIed bg the respondent Nos 4 to 7 for issuance of patta for th land in sutaey No 2O e'xterrt Acs.I7.5O gts situated- at Chilatiguda uillage of Asrfabad Mantdal, Komuram Bheen Asifabad District as orbitrary anrl illeqal and contrary to the prouisions of the Telanqarta Rights itt londs and pattaddr pass books Act an<7 ntles framed thereunder and also uiolate of article 14 16 cutcl 300A of constitution of India consequentlA to set aside tlrc satne and Pass.... "

2. Hearcl lcarned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, lor respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the record.

3. The bricf lacts of the case are that father in lau' o[ the petitioner i.c. Mohd Osman I(han is the absolute ot\rner and possessor of the land to an extent of Acs'I7 5O cents in Sy.No.20, situated at Chilatiguda Vitlage, Asilabad Mandal' Page 2 o[8 Komurambhcem Asifabad District and his narr I is shown in the revenue records as pattedar. Mr. Mohd Jsman Khan died on 04.03.1996 and the only son i.e. Maji<t Khal, who is the husband of the petitioner died prior to his ather,s death and the entire famil.y was under the custody of r )sman Khan. While things stood, rhus some third parties rre trying to mutate land in S_i'.No.20 basir-rg on thc created , locuments of 1955, thercb-r, the petitioncr submittcd a ) llication on 19.10.2019. Thereaftcr respondent No.3 after ollowing the due procedure prcscribed ur-rder the Telang: na pattadar Passbooks issued E-passbooks uide Khata No.tr ) 154. Wl-rile the matter stood, rcsponclent No.3 issued notice uide Rc.No.Dl22/2O2O. clated 26.O2.2O,2O basir g on rhe application l-ilcd bv rcsponclcr-rt Nos.4 to 7 for. issuance of patta in resl)ccr of the land to an extent of Acs. li .5O cents in Sy.No.20 bv c:ancellirrg the pattedar passbooks granted in favour of t lrc l)etitioner [or. the above [z I rd wherein respondent No.3 dirccted the Petitioner to atten(l in the office of Revenue [)ivisior-ral Officcr. Thc pctitioner :rttended on

29.O2.2O2O in tl'rc oflicc of respondent No.2 anri r equested to Page 3 ofE furnish application tiled by respondent Nos.4 to 7, but respondent No.2 refused to issue the copy. As per the said notice, the petitioner attended and respondent No.2 orally informed that they would inform next date of hearing by issuing the notice, but till date there is no response. Respondent No.2 has not mentioned the provision of law under u'hat provision he has issued the notice. The action of respondent No.2 in issuing notice uide R.C.No.D/22 /2O2O, daLed 26.O2.2020 basing on the petition filed by respondent Nos.4 to 7, datecl 18.O2.2O2O for issuance of patta in respect of land in Sy.No.2O to an extent of Acs.17.5O cents even though thc petiLioner was gra-nted e-passbook. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 l-rave not filed any appeal aggrieved by the order passcd b-v respondertt No.3 in issuing pattedar pass books in favour of the petitioner. Instead of filing an appeal undcr Section 5(5) ol ROR Act respondent Nos.4 to 7 filed an application and respondent No.2 entertained the same ancl i ssued the notice, thus the notice issued by respondent No.2 is rvithout anv jurisdiction. Hence, the present rT'rit petition. l'agc 4 ol8

4. Learnecl counscl appearing for the peti ioncr rel-ying upon the order dated 16.O9.2008 passed in Vr P.No.8695 of 2001 in the matter of Thintpuruarant Kirshr r Retdddy us. Joint Collector would submit that in the pr-r':;, nt c:ase also respondent Nos.4 to 7 have r-rot filed any appciL aggrieved by the order passed bv resltondent No.3 in issL ing pattedar passbooks in favour of the petitioner. Respor.rdc rt Nos.4 to 7 instead of filing the erppcal under Secrion 5(L of ROR Act filed an application ancl the same u,as cr nsidered by respondent No.2 and issucd noticc lvithout ar-r,, jurisdiction. He further submitted that under the similar c I lumstances, this Court was plcasecl to pass intcrinr rrdr:r dated

27.O2.2O2O in W.P.No.4524 ol 2O20, u'hr:r-tr-r the RDO Mancherial issued notice basing on thc applic:. ,ion liled by respondent No.4 thercin.

5. Learned Assistur-rt (lovernment Pleader. or Revenue would submit that tl-re pctitioner has tilcd an a6 plication on

24.06.2019 be forc the Tahsildar, Asitabad krr sanction of succession in lavour ol tl-re petitioner duc to u,hich, the recording authorit-v - Tahsildar issucd notices ur dcr Rule (9) Pagc 5 ol8 of ROR Act, 1971 to the petitioner and legal heirs of the protected tenant as well as lnterested parties i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 7 uideNotice No.Dl592/20 19, dated 13.09.2O2O for summary enquiry laid dorvn under Rule (9) follovt'ing the principtes under Rule (6) of ROR Act in respect of Tenancy, Mortgage and Occupancy of the land. After issuance of notices, summary enquiry u'as conducted and petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 7 attended and respondent Nos.4 to 7 sought time at-rd the cnquirv u'as adjourned. Due to general transfers of tl-re ther-r Tahsitdar, the case was kept pending' Further the Tahsildar s'ho has succeeded the Transferred Tashildar had initiatcd the action for its completion of pending sum mary enqltit'r and issued e-pattadar passbook in favour of the petitioner. Due to which respondent Nos'4 to 7 are inte|ested parties.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioncr has approached this Court vvit\ unclean hands. ln Prestige Lights Ltd' as' State I I)agc 6 o[8 Bank of Indiot the Hon'ble Apex Court reld that in exercising power under Article 226 of the <., nstitution of Iudia, the High Court is not just a Court of lar,, but is also a Court of equiry and a person u,ho invokes tltr, Iligl-r Colrrt,s jurisdiction under Article 226 ol the Constlt ion is cluty_ bound to place all the facts bclore the Court u.ithout an_v reservation. If there is suppression of mitl r rial lacts or twisted facts have been placcd before the Higlr Jourt then it u,ill be fully justified in refusing to errtertain : t)etition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrrtl r. A person approaching the Court u,ith unclearr han<l:r ancl taking recourse the legal proceedings successivcl,v for rc vcry same cause of action u,ith the vert sarnc rclicf, ciut I )t bc shown any indulgence as such an action is an abusc o thc process o[ the Court and law. It is not necessary thar ;rrch person b1, way of such suppressior-r should have olr airred some favourable order from the Court. [t is enouglt [ ,r. the Court to refuse further hearing, if it is fourrcl that tlt. ltcrson has (. '(2007-08) SCC 449 l ) I I { Page ? of ll suppressed the material facts, even during the course of hearing. On this ground alone, thc writ petition is liable to be dismissed at threshold.

7. [n the light o[ the aloresaid lacts and circumstances o[ the case, this Court is ol the opinion that respondent No.2 has alreadv issuccl proceedings and the said proceedings have been staycd l)y this Court uide order dated 21.O7.2O2O in I.A.No. I of 2O2O zrnd since that date to this date necessary amendmcnts have taken place to the said Act. Since, thc matter is pcnding ltc[<rrc rcspondcnt No.2-RDO, this Court deems it appropriatc to direct respondent No.2 to re-conduct the entLre pror:ecclirrg :ts pcr Scction l5(l) of 'the Bhu Bharathi Act, 2025, b1, zrf[ording elr opportunity of hearing to the petitioner :rnd all concerned 1;arties as by procedure establishcd b-r, [au' zrnd upon examination of the records pass appropriatc ordcrs in accordance r.t,ith lau,, as expeditiouslv as possible, prclcrzrbl-1, rt'ithin six months from the date of receipt of a copt' of this orde r l ) Pagc 8 of8 (

8. With the above direction, this Writ Pctitior is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequcl, miscellaneous petitions, if rr ry, pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. JAYASREE ASTi STANT REGISTRAR ',//c\_-./ SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary. Revenue Department Secretatz The ReverfSe,frvisional Officer, Asifabad- Komuram Bt't The TahasiHar, Asifabad Komuram Bheem Asifabad D : One CC to SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' Advo'; Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Stit Two CD Cogies. 1 2 J 4 5 t, Hyderabad. em Asifabad Dist t rte [OPUC] -. of Telangana. BSK PVL SK i HIGH COURT DATED:04/0912025 rrlf- S14 ) JAN 2026 oo( .t ORDER WP.No.10771 ot 2O20 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0 \(, o,b \