'1 Patlavath Tariya v. The State of Telangana

The Tahsildar, Balanagar firlandal, I\ilahabubangar District. Smt. C. Sushma Rajesh, W/o Rakesh Vasu, Aged lvlajor, Occ. Not Known to the Petitioner, Rl/o Plot No.273, Road No.10 P, MLA and MP Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of, Writ of Mandamus directing the 5th respondent to restore the original entries in ...RESPONDENTS the P.T. Regrster against Sy.No.44 (Ac.9-03 gts) cf Balanagar lt4andal, lrlahabubnagar District by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 2010212025 in respect of the olds in Sy.No.44 to an extent of Ac.9-03 gts of Balanagar N/andal, l\rlahabubnagar District, Telangana State as per the order dated 211O2,t2025 passed by the 3rd respondent in File No- Rev. F2lINAI\A1153412017 daled 2010212025 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitic ner dated 2010212025 made to the 4th respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoUrt may be pleased to direct the respondents to dispose of the the representation of the petitioner dated 2010212025 made to implement the orders in File No.Rev.F2lINAM 1153412017 dated 20102/2025 passed by the 3rd respondent, pendirg disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.B.SUMUKHA Counsel for the Respondents No.1to6 : ASST.GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.7 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC EC.V.BHASNAR REDDY IIIRIT PETITION No.1O6a2 of2o25 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following rclief: "For the reasolls stated r1 the accompan5'ing affidavit, it is pra,r'ed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleasccl to Issue anl rr rit. oldcr or direction more particularly onc in the nature of, Writ of Mandamus directing the 5'r'respondent to restore the original entries in the P.T. Register against Sy.No.44 (Ac.9-O3 gts) of Baianagar Manctal, Mahabubnagar District by considering thc rcprese[tation crf the petitioner dated 2O'O2-2O25 in respcct oI the larrrls in S-r'.No 44 to an cxtcr)t of .\c.9 03 gts of Balanagar Maldal, Mahabubnagar Dislncl, 'lelangana Statc zrs per the or(ler dated 2I-02-2025 passed b-y the 3nt rcspondct.tt in [rjle No' Rev.F2i INAM/1534 l2Ol7 datcd 20-02 2025 and conseqLrentl\ (lrrect the respordents to consider thc rcpreseIltation of the petitiotrcr (late(l 20 02 2025 made to the 4u' respondertt and pass such other order or olders as rhis t{on'ble Corlrt deems fit and proper irl the circumstances of thc case."

2. It is stated that originally Sri Lambadi Chandru was the original protected tenant of land admeasuring Acs. 9.O3 guntas in Survey No.44, situated at Suraram Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (for short, 'the subject landJ. It is furlher stated that afler the death of the original protected tenant, the petitioners became thc successors of the subject land, but their names were not entered in thc revenue records. It is further stated that the name of the original protected tenant was rounded off against the subject land by the 5n respondent-Tahsildar ulde proceedings No.L/247 12006 dated 08.03.2006 without issuing proper notice to the afiected parLies. It is further stated that aggrieved by thc order dated

08.03.2026 passed by the 56 respondent uide proceedings No A/247 12006' the petitioners have filed an appeal before the 3.d respondent.-Additional 2 CVBR, J W.P.No.1O682 of 2O25 District Collector and the 3.d respondent allowed th e said appeal uide proceedings No.Rev/F2lINAM/1534/20 17 dated 1O.O2.2O25 by setting aside the proceedings No.A/247 l20O6 dated Oa.O3.2O26 on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Tenancy Act, 1950 the originat protected tenant shall hle written application exp:essing conscnt to relinquish P.T. .r'ights over the P.T. lands before the Tahr;ilclar in person, but in the instant case, no such procedure has been follov,zed and as the said surrender is contrary to the Telangana Abolition of Inamr; Act, 1955, directed the Tahsildar tc reslore thc original entries in the P.T. Register against the subject 1and.

3. The above said order has been passed on 7O.O2.2O25 and even within a period of one month of passing of the said or-der, the petitioners have filecl the present writ petition seeking for implem,:ntation of the said order, even without giving any reasonable time to the respondents for implementation of the said order. To issue writ of manctamus, a reasonable time has to be granted to the authorities and if the authorities fail to act within a reasonable time, this Court is having powor to issue writ of mandamus for implementation of the orders passed as trrer the provisions of the statute. Admittedly, in the instant case, order dar_ed 10.02.2025 has been passed by the 3rd respondent and a copy of the sarr e has been received by the petitioner on 13.O2.2025 and even before impleme,ntation of the order dated 1O.O2.2O25, the petilioners have filed the present rvrit petition seeking implementation ,:f the said order dated 1O.O2.2025. Therefore, this Court is -\, \t t.-q-!]|i.'r,7 --, +*t _ .lq{,:.-4!-.nqtr '': 1i'_1" 'Y7 l./ 3 CVBR, J W.P.No.1O682 oJ 2025 of the pima facie view that there is no willful or deliberate action on the part I of the respondents for non-implementation of the order dated 10.02.2025 as the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners without giving any reasonable time to the respondent authorities for implementation of the said order passed by the 3rd respondent. Hence, the present writ petition liled by the petitioners is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 4 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are permitted to make a representation to the respondents seeking for implementation of the order dated 1O.02.2025. If the said order has not been implemented even after reasonable time, then the petitioners are at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications pending, if'any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYi/ SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR v SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SMT.B.SUMUKHA, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana

3. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP tr{tn' HIGH COURT DATED:0910412025 .1 --liXIiisr " ( L.' j 1o stP 2025 . i,..-, \\-__ r \r-----.---_-_ l_1 i --., :/ ORDER WP.No.10682 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1>t.tC! s\+1"{