1. Padmavath Bheem Naik v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Anide 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 a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the pattadar pass books, title deeds in favour of the petitioners and not conducting the survey the land in Sy.No.598/A to an extent of Ac 4.289ts, Sy.No.598/E to an extent of Ac 4.279ts, Sy.No.598/EE to an extent of Ac 4.289ts, Sy.No.599/A to an extent of Ac 4.20gts and Sy.No.600/A to an extent of Ac 5.22gts situated at Katkur village, Akkannapeta Mandal, Siddipet District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ( rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoLrr. may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue pattadar pass books, tifle <lr eds in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands in Sy.No.598/A to an 3 (ent of Ac 4.28gts, Sy.No.598/E to an extent of Ac 4.27gts, Sy.No.S9B/EE o an extent of Ac 4.289ts, Sy.No.599/A to an extent of Ac 4.20gts and Sy.No ( OO/A to an extent of Ac 5.22gts situated at Katkur village, Akkannapeta Mande I Siddipet District by conducting re-survey the land, pending disposal of the writ p rtition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SHAIK KARIMULLA Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the foltowing: ORDER l I / TI{T HONOURABLE SRI .TUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.1s753 of 2O2O ORDER: This writ petition is frled with the following prayer: "to issue a utrit order or direction partiattarlg one in the nature of urit of mand amus dectaring the iction of tLrc respondents in not issuinq the pattadar po_s;s books title deeds in fauour of the petttioners and not iinductinq the surueu the land in SU.No.S9g/A to an extent of ei + 2igts S!.f No 598/E to an ertent of Ac.4-27ots SU.No' Sgg/EE to an extent_of Ac 4-2gqts Su. No.S99/A to an irtent of Ac.4_20 qts and Su.No.6OO/A to an ertent of Ac.S_22 gts situated. at Katktr uillaqe, Akkannapeta Mandal Sid.dipet Distict as ilLeqal arbitraru and uiolatiue oy art*'i-OOA of the Constitution of India" 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue.

3. l.earned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the deceased father of the petitioners was the holder of the rand in the subject survey numbers. Upon his demise, the petitioners succeeded to the said property as his 1egal heirs and have been in peaceful possession and enjo5rment thereof. The petitioners, being agricultura-l labourers, used to travel to other villages for agricultural work to eke out their livelihood. Taking advantage of their absence, certain unknown persons encroached upon their lands. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners approached respondent No.4 and submitted representations on lg.0g.2olg 2 arrd 12.10.2018. It is further submitted that bas,t d on the said representations, respondent No.4 issued nemos uide No.B/6714/2018, dated 19.09.2018 arrd No r )/ i519/2018, dated 12.10.2018, stating that the records per.l eining to the subject lands were not available in the office # res rondent No.4, as the frles had not been transmitted from Bhi nadevarapally Mandal after bifurcation

4. Icarned counsel for the petitioners woulcl contend that respondent No.4 ought to have called for records from Bhimadevarapalli Mandal and had taken app - rpriate action instead of issuing a memo citing non-availabiliy of records, which adversely affects the rights of the pe, tioners. He, therefore, sought indulgence of this Court to pir rs appropriate orders.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Gover tment pleader for Revenue, opposing the writ petition, subm I s that in tJle absence 'oT any records in the ofhce of respon( ent No.4, ttre issuance of the impugned memos cannot be lrulted. It is contended that respondent No.4 cannot be expecL:d to pass any orders without records and that the petitioner, insrr ead of availing the remedies available under law, has prematurr ty approached J this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

6. This Court, having heard the submission of both counsel and upon perusal of the records, finds that in the absence of any documents pertainfug to the land claimed by the petitioners, no positive direction can be issued in the present writ petition. However, it is open for the petitioners to avail remedies as are available to them in law. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to

7. costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/I H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR SISTANT REGTSTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 One CC to SRI SHAIK KARIMULLA, Advocate I Two CCs to GP FOR REVE NUE, High Court for the State of Telangana IOUT] cI

3. Two CD CoPies BN SAL HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 ORDER WP.No.15753 o12020 a- ) liJ l_) l, ! r'\ I4 iri 2U[ 1 \.::Al'lt:i i I i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t4