The 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 an appropriate writ, more pa(icularly a writ of certiorari, quashingtheimpugnedCollectorsProceedingsNo-D1l575212024dated 08.01.2025 and Tahsildars Letter No. N63512024 dated 05.12.2024, in so far as they pertain to the petitioners agricultural lands situated in Kalwa Village' Dilawarpur Mandal, Nirmal District, bearing survey No.750/2 to an extent of Ac. 1.20 gts, Survey No. 748tN1 to an extent of Ac. 0.33 gts, Survey No' 749/A'/2 to an extent of Ac. 0.07 gts, Survey No. 749/A,/1 to an extent of Ac 0 18 gts, Survey No. 750/1 to an extent of Ac. 0.39 gts' and Survey No. 751lNA to an extent of Ac l.3ogts,andtodeclaretheactionsofRespondentsNo.2and4incancellingthe pattas and mutating the said lands in favour of Respondents No. 5 without issuing I , I i ;| l: notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing and sol() i basing on ex parte decree in OS.no. 35 of 2020 where petitioners are not even )arties to the suit as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 30C \ of the Constitution of lndia and the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass tooks Act, 2020. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou' may be pleased to suspend the operation of the pattas issued to Respondentr; No. 5 and direct the revenue authorities to withhold all related benefits until fina I adjudication, restore the revenue records in favour of the petitioners as per orig nal Dharani entries, grant interim relief by staying all further proceedings pursJ lnt to the impugned orders, restrain Respondents No. 5 and 6 from alienatinly or encumbering the lands. Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. TAKKURI CHANDHANA. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR RE\/ :NUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PEf,ITION No.11161 of 2o25 ORDER: This writ petition is frled seeking the following relief: "...to bsue an appropriate utit, mnre partianlarlg a Wit of Ceftiorai, quashing the impugned Collector's proceedings No.Dl / 5752/ 2O24, dated O8.O1.2O25 and Tahsildar's lefter No .4/635/2024, dated 05.12.2024, in so far a.s theg peftain to petitioners' agrianlturol lands situated. in Kalua Village, Dilauarpur Mandal, Nirmal District, beaing Suruey Nos.75O/2, 748/A/1, 749/A/2, 749/A/1, 75O/1 and- 751/A/A to the extents of Ac.1-2O gunta-s, Ac.O-33 guntas, Ac.O- 07 guntas, Ac-0-18 Wntos, Ac.O-39 gantas and Ac.1-3O guntas respectiuelg and to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 4 in cancelling the pattas and mutating the said lands in fawr of respond.ent No.S uithout issaing notice and uithout giuing an opportunitg of heaing and solelg basing on ex-pdtte decree in O.S.No.35 of 2020, where petitioners are not euen parties to the suit, as illegal, arbitrary, uiolatiue of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 3OO-A of the Constitution of India and the Telangona Righls in Land and Pattotlor Passbooks Act, 2020..."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4.

3. karned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petiLioner No.2 is not a writ petitioner in W.P.No.1O276 of 2025, in which this Court passed an order dated 04.04.2025, as extracted below: 'Since it is stated by the leamed @unsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.l has already filed LA.No.S4 o.f 2O24 seeking to set aside tLe ex-parte judgment / decree, he is at libertg to make appropiate application seeking cofiection of tle entries in the reuenue records, after disposal of the said LA. As it is settled that ttrc- a-parte decree is olso a ualid decree for 2 \ enforceable, the petitioner No. 7 has not made out tt tg case and the obseruation-s made are eqtallg binding on pe-: ioner Nos.2 and 3, as theg haue joined with the petitioner bg Ji ng common utrit petition, and if theg are aggrieued uith he c -ders of the ex-parte decree, theg are at liberty to file an appl.,< ztion before the Exeanting Court. With the aboue obseruations, this urit petition is rCr mrbsed. .iVo order as to costs. "

4. While considering the fact that the writ petiti,rn has been filed challenging the proceedings No.DI/5752/2024, dat,: I08.01.2O2S and 'Tahsildar's letter No. A1635/2024, dated O5.I2.2O2. arrd even in this writ petition as well, the same orders have been ch:rJl rnged.

5. It is further submitted that the order passed b1 rhis Court in the said writ petition was not on merits, and that rlr ) present second petitioner was not a petitioner in W.P.No. 102Z6 of 20 >.5. 6 . On ttre other hald, learned Assistant Gover r ment pleader for Revenue, while producing a copy of the order passing in W.p.No. 10276 of 2025, submitted that the l"t petitioner herein wie; the 2'd petitioner arrd the 2"a petitioner herein was the 3.d petitioner ir W.p.No.1O2Z6 of 2025. lt is contended that having already filed thr: said writ petition challenging the same proceedings, and this Cou - having recently passed orders therein, the present writ petition filed r gain on the s4me cause of action is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the earlier order, he proper course would have been to challenge the same before the ,r rpropriate forum, 3 \ \ instead of frling a fresh writ petition on similar grounds. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present writ petition.

7. This Court having heard the submission of learned counsel for I I the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, arrd upon pemsal of the record, Iinds that the petitioners were unsuccessful in W.P.No.10276 of 2025. The present writ petition has been frled without disclosing any fresh cause of action, except by Frling an additional afl-rdavit on 10.O4.2O25, which has been taken on record urde U.S.R.No.4O885 of 2025.

8. This Court does not find any change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the same issue already adjudicated upon. The proceedings challenged herein are the very same as those questioned in the earlier writ petition, which has been dismissed by ttris Court. Filing the present writ petition, despite knowledge of the earlier dismissal and by the same counsel representing the petitioners, amounts to misuse of the judicial process and results in wastage of the precious time of this Court.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicatior.: if arly pending, in this petition, shall stand closed. \ To Sd/.M.NAGAMANI ASr\r STFNT REGISTRAR \, \r____/ '\, SECTION OFFICER -l //TRUE COPY//

1. One CC to Ms. TAKKURI CHANDHANA , Advocate [dl' JC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Stitl : of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI

3. Two CD Copies PSK. Er0. HIGH COURT DATED:0611112025 , I f I ORDER WP.Nb.11161 of 2025 J,.J ( * IHt S I 5 "',r 2ut z { t rlA DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 P^1", "ul"la6 €