Vennamuneni Supriya, D/o v. Someshwar Rao. Aged about

Koduri Srinivas, S/o Koduri Subba Rao R:/o. Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam tVlandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Artrcle 226 of tte Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or more in the nature of a writ of [Vlandamus or any other appropriate writ order declaring the action of Respondent No. 2 to 4, in recording the Respondent No.6 and 7 names in Dharani and Revenue Record in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 0-'1 3 guntas, in Sy.No. 645lV12 and Ac. 0-23 guntas, in Sy.No. 645/V/1 situated at Nandiwanaparthy village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R. Dist., even though there is no land available in Sy. No. 645lV11 and 645lV12 on the field except Ac. 3-04 gts on petitroners name and Ac. l-C0 gts on P. Sudha Rani and A,4ajudha Rani names, Total admeasuring Ac. 5-t 4 gts out of Ac. 6-00 gts in Sy. No. 645 as Ac. 0-36 gts of land in Sy. No. 615 was left for the formation of road, even though the Respondent No.2 to 4 entered the Respondent No- 5 name Somaiah for Ac. 0-36 gts in Sy. hlo. 645iA and on his alienation subsequently Respondent No.6 and 7 names w3r(, entered in Dharani and Revenue Records which are amounting to multiplicity :1 litigations between Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 to 7 which is illegal, a'ti-rary against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Resp rndent No. 2 to 4 to make enquiry on the subject property whether the land is ava lable in Sy. No- 645 on the name of Respondent No. 6 and 7 names on the field or not by considering the petitioners representations dated 2610712021 , 28107 l2t)21 , 0410812021 to Respondent No. 2 to 4. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the :ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co'rt may be pleased to stay all further proceedings on revenue entries and Dha'ani on the name of respondent No.6 and 7 in respect of agricultural land adn'r:a suring Ac. 0-'1 3 gts on the name of Respondent No. 6 in Sy. No. 645lV12 and P,r;. 0-23 gts, in Sy. No. 645lVl1 on the name of Respondent No. 7, situated at Nard wanaparthy village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R. Dist., till disposal of this writ petiticn. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between: Koduri Srinivas, S/o Koduri Subba Rao, aged abc ut 48 years, R/o Nawadiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam ft/andal, Ranga ;leCdy District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 J Vennamuneni Supriya, D/o. V. Someshwar Rao. Aged alrout.33 Years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, Fl/o. H No. 12-1134411 , Bandlagud,:, Indraprasta Colony, Hayathnagar, R.R. District. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. Ftevenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

4. The Revenue Divisionat Officer, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 5. The Tahsildar, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 6. Kadari Somaiah, S/o Kadari Ramulu, R/o. Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam Manddl, Ranga Reddy District.

7. IVaknuru lVlalini Rao, FAr'y'lo Anantha Krishna Rl./o. Nandiwanaparthy Village, Yacharam [Vlandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under section i 5l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 20.09.2022 in w.p. No. i9,t45 of 2021 and dismiss the present Writ Petition with exemplary costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI pADALA PRAVIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI HINGOLEKAR RAKESH KUMAR, AGP, REP.FOR GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 7: SRI K.MURALIDHAR REDDY AND SRI PASHAM MOHITH The Court made the following: ORDER I j I I I l i I I I I I ! THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.I'T)NUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No. 19145 of 2O2L ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the pe rtioner under Article 226 of tl:e Constitution of India with the following rrzryer : ".... seeking issuance of a uht or mor'? in the nature of a urit of Mandamus or ang other approS.ticte utrit order declaing the action of tlrc respondent No.2 to I in recordinq the respondent No.6 and 7 names in DLtararti and reuenue record. in respect of land admeosunng Ac.l .3 guntas in Sa.No.645/V/2 and Ac.O 23 guntcts in \u No.643/V/ 1, situoted at NandituonaparThy Village, Yac|ro,'am Manda| Ranga Reddg Dist., euen though there is no h1,uL auailable in Sg.No.645/V/ 1 and 645/V/2 on the field exce)t Ac.3 04 gts., on petitioner's name ond Ac.2 OO gts., on P.fitc'ha Rani and Maju.dha Rani names. Total admeasuing Ar.5 O4 gts out of Ac.6'O0 gts in Sy.No.645 as Ac.O-36 gts of larrL in Sy.No.645 was left for the fonnotion of road, eu)1 though the respondent No.2 to 4 entered the respond"-t No.S name Somaiah for Ac.O-36 gts., in 5g.No.645,\ and on his alienation subsequentlg respondent No.6 & t names Luere entered in Dharoni and Reuenue Recorc.s tthich are amounting to multiplicity of litigations betu.teet S etitioner and respond.ent No.S to 7 uthich is illegal, arbitrart (gatnst to the pinciples of notural justice and consequer.tlq direct the respondent No.2 to 4 to make enquiry on the s i)ject propertA uhelher the lond is auailable tn Sg.No.645 tt the name of respondent No-6 & 7 on the fietd or not bg c ctt.sideing the petitioners repre sentations doted 2 6. O 7. 2 O 2, . 2 8. 07. 2 O 2 1, 04.08.2021 to respondent No.2 to 4....'

2. Heard Sri Padala Pravin Kumar, learrred counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hingolekar Rakesh Kumar, k:arned Assistant Government Pieader appearing on behalf of 1:a -ned Government Pleader for Revenue Srr K.Muralidhar Reddy and iiri Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.s to 7. Page 2 of6

3. The case o[ the petitioner is that she had tawfully purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3.04 Gts. situated in Sy. No.645/a1/ 1/ 1 of Nandiwanaparthy Village through registered sale deed bearing Document No.51 o[ 2O2I, datcd LS.I2.2O2O from her vendor viz. Mekala Mallesh. The said Mekala Mallesh had earlier .-\ acquired the total extent of Ac.5.O4 Gts. in the same survey number through registered sale deed bearing document No.3925 of 2005, dated

12.08.2005. Out of this total extent, an area of Ac.2.OO Gts., was subsequently sold by Mekala Mallesh to Sudha Rani and Majudha Rani. Furthermore, a portion of Ac.0.36 Gts., had already been merged for road widening purposes prior to 2O05 and this fact was clearly recorded in the petitioner's vendor's title documents, namely, the sale deed bearing Document No.3925 of 20O5, dated 12.08.2005 and the registered GPA bearing Document No.29 ol 2O05, dated I 1.07.2005. In the sale deed of the petitioner's vendor, it is also stated that the vendor's vendors, namely Yerukula Venkataiah and Yerukala Bikshapathi, had explicitly mentioned in their registered documents that the total extent of land available to them in Sv.No.645 was Ac.6.OO Gts., out of which Ac.O.36 Gts. was earmarked for road formation on the Western side of the [and. (a) After alicnating the subject property to the petitioner's vendor, Yerukula Venkataiah and Yerukala Bikshapathi attempted to Pagc 3 of 6 interfere with the said property. To restrain this nrerfcrence, Mekala Mallesh filed o.S. No.2416 of 2006 on the rrle of tl c learned principal Se.ior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District .and oblr irred an injunction against his vt:.dors and ultimately secured a dt'.rce in hrs favour. Despite this, one Kadari Somaiah/responden t Nr,..r, a knou,n land grabber, illegally created a hctitious document I r.rring No.2439 ol 2017 , dated '.21 .O4.2O17 , claiming ownership of li Lnd admeasuring Ac.(1.36 Gts. tl)at had already been utilized for rr,ad widening. He further cxecutc(l illegal sale transactions of .ton_cxistent land adnrcasuring Ac.0.23 Gts., and Ac.O. l3 Gts., i. .vour of Koduri Srinivas and M.Malini Rao, despite the fact that _Lr.:h land docs not physically exist. Thereafter, the said Kadari Somai rlr entered into an agroement of sale with the petitioner, purportinr, to sell the non- existent of Ac.0.36 Gts., land and receiverl .tn amoultt of Rs.23,0O,OOO/ as advance sale consideration. Subsequentll,, the pelitroner discovered the fraud during verihcatior l,rocess, revealing that only a shapeless excess land of Ac.0. 1 1 Gts. e)i s I s on the ground. Despite submitting multiple representations .rr ecl 26.O7.2Cl21, 28.07.2021 and 04.08.2O27 to the revenue authorirics viz_ respondent Nos.2 lo 4, no action was taken to delete the fic ttous entries from Dharani portal, tt is pertinent to mention that Crinr,. Nos.29O of 201g, 49 of 2019, and 89 of 2Ol9 have been registe-.rl against Kadari Som:rizrh lor his fraudulent activities. Hence, in llrr absence of any I'age ,l ol 6 ._f={ \ \l - effective alternative remedy, the petitioner is constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Articre 226 of the constitution of India, seeking appropriate directions and relief.

4. lrarned counsel lor the respondent No.7, submits that one Yerukala Venkataiah was the original owner of land admeasuring Ac.6.00 Gts., in Sy.No.645/A, Nandiwanaparthy village, as reflected in pahanis for the years .1998-2013. In 2OO5, he executed a GpA for Ac.5.04 Gts., in favour of B.Ram Mohan Reddy, who sold it to Mekala Mallesh i.e. the petitioner,s vendor. Said Mallesh in turn sold Ac.2.O0 Gts., in the year 2O19 and another extenI of Ac.3.04 gts., in 2O20 to the petitioner. The remaining Ac.0.36 gts., was sold by Venkataiah to respondent No.S in 2017, who subsequently sotd Ac.O.13 gts., from and out of Ac.0.36 Gts., to respondent No.6 in 2021. Accordingly, the respondent Nos.6 and 7 tawfully owned and possesscd the entire Ac.O.36 Gts., with valid title and possession and the same was duly recorded in revenue records and Dharani portal. A road was already existed on the western boundary. Thc contention of the peti[ioner that Ac.O.36 Gts., was merged with the road is a false submission and that the petitioner was fully aware of all these facts prior to her purchasing the subject land in the year 2O2O. The petitioncr, having failed to purchase the said land, is now abusing legal process through false and inconsistent claims, while suppressing material facts and excluding her I \ Paqc 5 of 6 vendor from the case. Her request to delete respct)c enls, names from Dharani lacks merit. No rights have been violate:. Stating thus, the lcarned counscl for the respondent No.7 prays to ,lismiss the present rn rit petition br:ing misconceivcd.

5. The Learned Assistant Government [,erdcr opposed thc *'rit pctition, star ing that it involves private land d :;p utes and complex lacts fit for c:i'il courts, not writ jurisdiction. Il. argued that the pctitioner failercl to exhaust remedies under the 'r'.:langzrna Rights in Land and Perttadar Passbooks Act, 1971, and Dhara-ri procedures. He t furt.her submirs that out of Ac.6.OO Gts. in Sy.No.6.1S Ac.5.04 Gts. was lar'r'lully convevccl to the petitioner's vendor via D...rment No.3925 of 2005, datecl i 2.08.2005 and revenue . records -cflt.ct this. The rcmairring Ac.O.36 Gts., was left for road formation, ,u; ac:knowledged in prior rcgistered documcnts. private arrangements .: r-rnot alter public records unless both parties jointly submit a forma :r _,prcsen tation and folkru' the prescribed legar procedures for correctior ,rf their respective rccords. Stating thus, he prays to dismiss the preser t it,rit petition.

6. This Courr, havir-rg heard the rival ,.s p1sn1ions of the lcarned counsr:l trnd upon perusal of the material , )r re cord, is of the opinion that thc issues involved require adjudicati ,rr bY a competent civil court. Filing a writ petition on this subject mar rc. - is misconceived. Howevcr, the petitioner is at liberby to pursue reme:r( s :rvailablc under Page 6 oi6 law before the appropriate civil Courts, wherc rclated litigation is said to be pending. With regard to the entries in the revenue records, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated 26.07.2021,28.O7.2021 and O4.O8.2021 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

7. With the above observations, this wri[ petition is disposed of. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.M EPUTY OHD. ISM RAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Se of Telangana. tariat, Hyderabad, State The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, lbrahimpatnam' Ranga Reddy District- The Tahsildar, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. One CC to SRI PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRt t<.trlURnLlDHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI PASHAIM MOHITH, Advocate [OPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies 2 4 5 6 7 8 o BSR GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1 110812025 I ORDER WP.No.19145 of 2021 /: .^' .: .- ; .: i :) \., (. \, ,-) , 1:r titr ?ffi t ,.''/ ,./ ,-.7' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @) ),/ \9Ir'