1. Merugu Raleshwari v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in blocking the petitioner's property in Sy.No.203/1 l1l1l1l1 admeasuring Ac.0.10 gts and in Sy.No.203/1 11111112 admeasuring Ac.0.35 gts situated at Medipalle Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District in the Dharani Portal without notice and assigning any valid reasons on the pretext of pendency of civil suit in O.S.No.28 of 2O22 on the file of Honsble Principal junior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutio nal and contrary to the provisions of ROR Act and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to forthwith unblock the petitioner's property in Sy.No.203/1 11111111 admeasuring Ac.0.10 gts and in Sy.No.203/1 11l1l112 admeasuring Ac.0.35 gts situated at Medipalle Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District in the dharani portal to enable the petitioners to deal with their property. 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 Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to forthwith unblock the petitioner's property in Sy.No.2031111111111 admeasuring Ac.O.10 gts and in Sy.No.2031111111112 admeasuring Ac-0.35 gts situated at Medipalle Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District to enable the petitioners to deal with their property, pending disposal of the above writ petition. . I i Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. C HARI PREETH Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER ,,-. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY trRIT PETITION No.11O77 ol 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is fi1ed seeking the following reliel ". ...to issue an appropiate Wit, Order or Direclion more parttcularlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing the ctction of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in blocking the petitioners properlA in Sy.No.203/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ I admeasuring Ac.O. 1O gts and in Sy.No.2O3/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/2 ad meosuring Ac.0.35 gts situated ot Medipalle Vitlage, Ramogundam Mandal, PeddapalLi Distict in the Dharani PortoL without notice ond asslgning ang uaLid reasons on the pretext of pendency of ciuil suit in OS No.28 of 2022 on the Jile of Hon'ble Principal Junior Ciuil Judge Godauaikhani, Peddapalli Distict as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the prouisions of ROR Act and consequentlg direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to forthu.ttth unblock the petitioners propertg in Sg.No.2O3/ 1/ l/ 1/ 1/ I adneasuring Ac.O.1O gts and in Sg.No.2O3/ 1/1/ 1/ 1/2 admeasuing Ac.0.35 gts situated at Medipalle Vtllage, Ramagundom Mandal, PeddapalLi Distict in the dharani portal to enable the petttioners to deal tuith their properta.. .."

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counscl for the respective parties and perused the record

3. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that the schedule property to an extent of Ac. 1.12 guntas in Sy.No.203/ I situated at Medipalle Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District, belongs to her late husband, and his name was recorded in the revenue records, and after death of hcr husband, respondent No.5-Tahsildar, has ) 1 issued e-pattadar passbooks vide No T2O12O02o61O and Katha No.60471 in respect o[ the subject property in her favour' and since then, she is in pcaceful possession and enjoymcnt of the sublect property as an absolute owner ol the subject lands: an<l later out ol total extent of Ac.1.11 guntas, she has gifted Ac035 gunLas in favour of petitioner No.2, and accordingly, respondent No 5 has issued pattadar passbooks in favour of petitioner No 2 lt is lurther case of the petitroners thal third parties have institutcd a suit rn O.S.No.28of2022onthefileofthePrincipalJuniorCivilJucigeat Godavarikhani in respect of the subject property sceking perpctual injunction, against petitioner No. 1 and others, and even though there are no prohibitorv orclers to block the subjcct property, onllr on the ground of pendency of the said suit, respondent No 5 has blockedthesaidsurvevnumberintheDharaniPortzrllorlurther transactions withouI issuing any notice.

4. Sri C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for thc petitioners vehemently contended that in the absence of an1' restraining orders issued by the competent Civit Court prohibiting the alienations, respondent No.S is not the competent authority to block the said survey number in the Dharani Portal for further transactions lt is further submitted that as per the Standing ()rder 219 (b) of Registration Manual Part-ll, if the High Court or any other civil 3 Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if such orders brought to the notice of the registering officer or served on the registering officer, the registering officer is estopped from going ahead with the registration. [t is further submitted [hat mere pendency of the civil suit does not take away the right o[ the statutory authority to entertain the transactions, and prohibiting the alienations over the subject property in the absence o[ the orders passed by the competent Court amounts to vrolation of the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, 2O2O (tor short Act, 2020J, rherefore, rhe peri[ioners have submitted an online application seeking deletion of the subject property lrom the blocked tist.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have not made an_l' application seeking deletion of the sub.lect propcrty from the blocked list, and if the petitioners submit an application duly enclosing the documents, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

6. [n view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate that ends oljustice would be met if the petrtioners are permitted to make an application duly enclosing the documents seeking deletion of the subject property from the blocked list. On filing such application, I / I , :l \ the respondents are directed to consider the same, and if there are no prohibitory orders issued by the competent Civil Court for blocking the subject property, lhe respondents are directed to pass reasonedordcrsandcommunicatethesametothepetitioners within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt o[ a copy of this order.

7. With thc abovc observations this Writ Petition is disposed of No order as to costs As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// "{#..li['JLtt$,'f^'l \....,tsecrtoH oFFlcER .7

1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department' Secretariat' Hyderaba State of Telangana' The Chief Commissioner of Land Administraton l99Li' Government of Tetansana opp Annapurn'H;[i'N;;ip;itv st'tion Roid Roios' Hvderabad - 2 d, The 500 001 District

3. The District Collector' Peddapalli District' 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer' Peddapalli Revenue Division Peddapalli 5. The Tahsildar, Ramagundam Mandal Peddapalli District' 6. One CC to SRI C HARI PREETH Advocate [OPUC] T.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana

8. Two CD CoPies DD W --l HIGH COURT CVBR,J DATED:1110412025 ORDER WP.No.11077 of 2025 1 1rE STal€ ( a \) 2 B fi 5 1 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ 1 e I i