'l . Smt. Malan Bai v. State of Telangana

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 order or orders particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction and to declare the action of the official respondents in rejecting the application of the Petitioner herein in Application No. 250001'l 520, Dt. 19.O2.2025 through Dharani Portal without any reason, which was made under (TM-33) Module (Passbook Data Correction) with a request to add Missing Survey/Sub-Division No. in respect of land admeasuring Ac. '12-09 Gts in Sy No. 99 situated at Mamidipally village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbook Act 2020 and rules thereunder and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to consider the application of the petitioner herein Dated .,19.02.2025 vide Application No. 2500011520 afresh, and issuance of pattedar Passbook-cum-title deed in respect of rand admeasuring Ac. '12-09 Gts in sy. No. 99 situated at Mamidipally village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 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 Respondent No. 2 to consider the application No. 250001 .1520, Dt. 19.o2.2025, afresh, which is submitted by the petitioner through Dharani portal, in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 12-09 Gts in sy No. 99 situated at Mamidipally village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and issue pattedar passbook-cum- title deed in respect of land admeasuring Ac. i 2-09 Gts in sy. No. 99 situated at Mamidipally village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner:Ms.. GOWALA SATYA KAMESHWARI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HON 'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITI oN No.14465 of2O25 ORDER: lrarrred counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 07 .OI.2O25 passed by this Court in W'P'No'399 of 2025 Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the

2. respondents has not disputed the said fact' I ( g. The operative portion of the order dated 07 'Ol '2025 passed in W.P.No.399 of 2025 reads as under: "5. In view of the above, since respondent No.2 has neither adopted the said procedure rvhile rejecting the application of the petitioner nor provided an opportunit,v of personal hearing to the petitioner to enable him to produce relevant records, the rejection order, dated 05 07 2024 in File No.D2l43glll8/2o22 (2200029816) issued by respondent No.2 is set aside. The respondent No 2 is directed to conduct detailed enquiry with regard to the nature and classiltcation of the subject tands duly taklng into consideration of the revenue records and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as rvell as the interested / affected partres and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of receiPt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner 1 2 CVBR, J w.P N<'.14465 of 2025

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."

4. In view o[ aforesaid submissions and for thc rcasons assigned by this Court in the order dated 07.01.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.399 of 2025, this Writ Petition is disposed of on same terms and with similar directions. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sh:rll stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. P.Ch NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR sehkorrrcEn 1 2

3. 4 5 6 The Principal Secretary Revenue Department' Secretar at Hyderabad' The State of Telangana. The District collector, Ranga Reddy District At Kongara Kalan, Ranga Reddy District The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division' At l(andukur' Ranga Reddy District TheTahsildar,BalapurMandal,Badangpet'RangaRecldyDistrict One CC to SRT GOWALA SATYA KAMESHWARI Advocate [OPUC] TwoCCtoTheGPFoRREVENUE'HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana,at Hyderabad[OUT] 7 Two CD CoPies (AlongwiththeCopyofCourtorderdt:07/01t2025inW.P.No.399of2025) DD GJ HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 \ ,. t'' C -. \\ l..F ' -" C . - t,t: t-) 0:r ..iEP zltr 1-r,,,:-o t- .: ORDER WP.No.14465 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ JI HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V,BHASKAR REDDY PETITIO N No.399 of2o25 ORDER: ThisWritPetition,underArticle226oft}:.eC.onstitulionof India, is filed seeking the fo owing relief: '..--to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other opPrcpriate Wit' Order or dirdion to at set d.sidg Cle reiection order dded 05/ 07/ 2024 'frle File "' i" ozna*l/ 18i202229ooo29$16 ptts'sed bg tle za 'i*irrrui'Av dectarittg the same as illegal' dieifid'doty' 'm-*rd'* utotation of Anicle 2I of the can$.Fwion d the 1nfr4" bt Dted Rgr @nfuflt No'2 to qsnsider tlw o@idhm No' "' ;;rMgtli; darcd 2 5/ o5/ 2022 afresh uthich is suhni@' og. thoush Dharani Portat in reqd ?t-W- ;;";d;;;; ec-ti-zt Gts in suruev numtur 9912 of ;;^;ffi ii"ffirt villase, Batapur Mandat Ronga .Rddy Distrirl ';;";#;;f 'a*is" oI tand ctassifmtion chatgre € Y4 t;;;Xro;A o[ tLnrl tspe chanse of manner in uhidn bnd iq"ind ifuiitge of na.,rc and cl ditd, rfr,pofldent No.2 to bs e Patta' Pa-ssbdt q Wd '' 'Jiiffi Ac.t5-23 GB n swea nuntur 99dY. of ffiffiivAi"ce,.Balapur anlal Ranga Rddy In*ia in ,n" oniatolUe petilionerherein" " "

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respeetiv. e pafties and perused the record'

3. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possBssor of Iarrd admeasur'ing {cs. I 5-23 guntas in Sy' No'99/2 sit'uated eit I l i *,; Marnrrlip:rllv .:ilJ:rge, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Rccir{r, Ilistrict, and all tlLr-: r t'r,enire records depicts the naturc ,tl titr, lands as patta I:lnd s and the predecessors-in-interes L .rtt also the pattadars of thc said property. It is iurther statrxl rhar_ rvhen the entries rrrade in the revenue rdcords depictcct as Deval Inam, the petiLioner was csnstrained to submit an application vide No.22O0029876, dared, 25.05.2O22, seeking correction of said entries in the revenue records in respect of the subjeet lands.

4. Sri L. Ravichander,. learne.d Senibr Csnnsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that without pm.dfitrg &n oppgrtu.rrily of hearing ro the petitioner and sftfraNt considering t$e doeuments re lating to tberrature/ claOdfutiOa of the lands.ia revenue records such as Sethwar, Ka,Sfq, ptranrs, Fai,sal pafti, Vasool Baaki; and odly taking iffi<i: effirsiderarion of the pahanis fron'r 1970, respondent Ns"g*&e Dislnr:r Collector passed an order vide File No.D2 / 439 L I tg / ZOZ2,p2OOO29AL$I dated 05.07.2024 rejecting the appLigration -of rhe petitiorsr and stating rliat the subject land is ctasslfied as l)er.a.l [nam and rocordeC ,n the name of Deval Ranga Nfayak tr ta Cudi, and thE s.ubject s L:rve_y nur[ber included aF Enddu,m,:.r.r I land vide Rc.No.NNli 34576107, d,ated 26.12.2OO8. [.earned Senior Counsel contended lhat the entrics made in the pahanis are never considered to be the entries relating to Record oi Rights (ROR) as per the provisions of the Telangana Rights in l^and and Pattadar Pass Books Act, I97l (hereinafter referred to ROR Act, 797 l) and they are considered only for the purpose of classification of the. land and do not confer any rights in favour of the pattadar nor take away the existing rights of eiths of ttle Parties.

5. A carefi:l reading of the impugned order, dated O5.O7.2024 in Fil,e No.D2/a391/ 1812022 (22OOO2}AL64, p.assed by respondent No.2 revcals that only by rel5ring upon tlre report vide Lr.No.B/238-77 /2024 dated 21.06-2024 5rrb6itted by the Tahsildar and alsq the report dated 2ZAL.2O22 submitt-od by the Revenue Divisional Otfrcer (EBO), .respondeht NUJ has rejected the application of the petitioner and the reIlqr!9 which are basis for rejection of the oldim of the petiti,on.er, were not communicated to the peu-tiirner. l 6 It is 1 , 1,i6r,t that n'hen thr:r'e are displltes u rlh leg.ird lo nature trnC r:i.rssitlcation of the Iard, the tespond{:ttt authoritit's llzrvr: prescribed a format under the ,Jhitrarrti Portal. enablirrg i:he aggrievcd parLies to subrnit applir:ations seeking correction ol- the entries. While passing the impugned order, respondent No.2 ought to have taken into consicteration the classificatiotr, nafure, boundaries and extent oflhe lands.

7. ln vieq, of the above, since respondent No.2 has neither adopted the said procedure while rqiecting ttte application of the petitioner nor provided a-a oppor'tunity of Bersonal heartng to the petittoner to enable hiru to profltrc,e rslevant r-ecords, the rejection of<ier, dated O5.O7 -nX F"rle No.D2,ra39l I LS/2O22 (22{Ii,Ozglrc) issued try'res,pe66s.s No.2 is set aside. The respondent No.2 ls dif€ctsd to conduct detailed enquiry with regard to the nature and cta-ssification of the subjeot lands duly taking into consideration of rhe revenqe records 4nd after providing an opportunity of' hearing to the petitioner as well as the igte.r,ested/effected pef..bes and pass a reasonqd order in accorilarice. wir.h law within .a period o[ thiee \13; months flom the d.ate of rqceipt o[ a copy.sf lhis order and communicate the clecision thereon to the petitioner. ). With the above observations this Writ petition No order as to costs rs erilou,cd As a sequel, the rnis6slls sha.ll stand closed. neous petitions pending, r[ any,