Riyazuddin Ahmed v. The State of Telngana

Gonela Laxmaiah, S/o. Gonela Papaiah, Age.60 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ryo H.No.13-27, Shankarnagar, H/o. Shanigaram Village, Koheda Mandal, Siddipet Distrlct. Smt.Gonela Kanukamma, W/o. Goneta Laxmaiah, Age. 55 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1 3-27, Shankarnagar, H/o. Shanigaram Village, Koheda IVlandal, Siddipet District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of Ihe 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 Respondents No.2 to 5 in not considering my representation dated 21t0112025 to delete the entries from list of prohibition in respect the land in survey No. 4O4lN1l1 to an extent of Ac.0-14 guntas, situated at sanigaram Village, Kohed Mandal, siddipet District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 5 to delete the entries from list of prohibition in respect the land in survey No. 4o4lAl111 to an extent of Ac.O- 14 guntas, situated at Sanigaram Viilage, Kohed Mandar, siddipet District by considering representation applied through IVee seva vide transaction No.2500000482, dated 21l01lZO25 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 3 to consider the representbtion dated 21lo1l2o2s submitted by the Petitioner in the interest of justice pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRt. SREENTVASA RAO RAVULAPATI Counsel forthe Respondents NO .l TO 5: AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondents NO 6:-- The Court made the following: ORDER ..iA..-ir. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12509 of 2o25 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: :For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit of the petitioner it is prayed that the Honble 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 Respondents No. 2 to 5 in not considering my representation dated 21-01- 2O25 to detete the entries from list of prohibition in respect the land in Survey No.aoa/A/1/1 to an extent of Ac.0-14 guntas, situated at Sanigaram Village, Kohed Mandal, Siddipet District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 5 to delete the entries from list of prohibition in respect the land Survey No.4O4/A/ l/l to an extent of Ac.0-14 guntas, situated in Sanigaram Village, Kohed Mandal, Siddipet District by considering representation applied through Mee Seva vide transaction No.2500000482, dated 21 Ol-2O25 in the interest ofjustice and pass such other order orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Acs. 10.27 guntas in Survey Nos.4O4, 4O5, 406,408 and 428, situated at Sanigaram Village, Koheda Mandal, Siddipet District, having purchased the same from his paternal uncle Sri Waheeduddin. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and he was issued pattadar passbook bearing No.T101OOO4O775 uide Khata No.295 under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2O2O (for short, 'tlre Act 9 of 2O2O'1. It is further stated that out of the said land, he sold a part of land i.e., Acs.9.34 guntas in favour of his brother-in-law Sri Syed Shahabuddin Ahmed, but the name of his brother-in-law was mutated only for an extent of Acs.7.O9 guntas and lI 2 CVBR, J -'! W.P.No.126O9 of 2025 pattadar passbook was issued uide Khata No.6O7O3 for the said extent and the remaining extent i.e., Acs. 1.25 guntas i.e., Acs. 0.26 guntas in Survey No.4O4; Acs. 0.O7 guntas in Survey No.405 and Acs. 0.32 guntas in Survey No.428 is not mutated on the ground that the said extent is notihed as prohibited property and mentioned in the list of prohibited properties and therefore, representations dated 25.09.2018, ll.O2.2Ol9, 27.O8.2O19 and

15. 10.2019 were submitted seeking for deletion of the said land from the list of prohibited properties and to record the said extent in the name of the petitioner's brother-in-law in Dharani Portal maintained under the provisions of the Act 9 of 2O2O.

3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 1.25 guntas in the pahanies, the name of the petitioner is recorded as pattadar, whereas the names of the unofficial respondents i.e., respondent Nos.6 and 7 were recorded as possessors. Learned counsel for the petilioner further submits that basing on the entries in the pahanies, respondent Nos.6 and 7 are claiming rights over the properties and respondent No.7 had instituted a suit for perpetual injunction uide O.S.No.l28 of 2Ol9 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad against the petitioner and his brother-in-lau, and obtained an ex parte r 3 CVBR, J W.P.No.126O9 of 2025 decree. Learned counsel lor the petitioner further submits that immediately on coming to know about the ex parie decree passed against him, the petitioner has taken steps for hling of an application seeking to set aside the ex pade decree and he has also contemplated to institute a separate suit seeking declaration over the 1and, which is in illegal possession of the unofficial respondents

5. Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for ! Revenue appearing for re-spondent Nos. 1 to 5, has submitted that unless the ex parte decree obtained by respondent No.7 is set aside by the competent court, the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of pattadar passbook for the land admeasuring Ac. 1.25 guntas.

6. A careful examination of the facts would reveal that there are serious disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos'6 and 7 and there is an ex parte decree against the petitioner and his brother-in-1aw, in whose favour he sold the subject property, in a suit for perpetual injunction urde o.s.No. 128 ol 2Ol9 filed by respondent No.7. Since there are serious disputes with regard to the nature of the land and rights of th.e inter se parties, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is not a remedy to adjudicate/ decide the title and possessory rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition relegating the petitioner to file appropriate application in <4. 4 CVBR, J W.P.No.126O9 of 2025 ( o.S.No.128 of 2019 to set aside the ex parte decree or to file a fresh suit before the competent civil Court.

7. With the above observations, this Writ petition is disposed of. There.shali be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY S ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The State of Telngana, Represented by the Princ Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. I Secretary, Revenue

2. The Commissioner, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Abids, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Siddipet. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Husnabad, Sidddipet District. 5. The Tahsildar, Kohed Mandal Revenue Office, Kohed Village and Mandal, Siddipet District.

6. One CC to SRl. SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana'

8. Two CD Copies o DD GJP I i HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 Ir!t- c,. \ Ri.') ( l0 tlJE 216 q ) t) ORDER WP.No.12609 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS