Chinthapalli Umapathi Rao v. '1. The State of Telangana

5. The Tahsildar, Vemulawada Town and lvlandal. Rajanna Sircilla District. 6- Smt. Regulapati Ananta Laxmi, Wo. Narsinga Rao, Aged about 68 years, Occ House wife, Rl/o. H.No.7-5-129, Bhavani Nagar, Vemulawada, RajannaSircilla District.

7. Smt. Vallakonda Vilay, Wo. Satyam Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ House wife. Rio. H.No.6-4-122, Vidyanagar. Sircilla town, Rajanna Sircilla District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, order, direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the orders passed by lhe 3rd respondent vide Proc.No.Dl /56/2025 d1.O510612025 and quash the same as the said orders are -7 illegal, arbitra'y I lntrary to the provisions of Bhubharilthi Acl, 2025 and one without jurisCiCtiorr in the interest of justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 20?l Petiti,rn Ur jer Section 151 CPC praying that in the circlmslances stated in the affidavil f e(l in support of the petition, the High C':urt may be pleased to suspend the trl:rs passed by the 3rd respondent vide rroc No Dl156/2025 dt.05-06-20.25 pe rding disposal of the main writ petltion in thr: interest of .iustice. Counsel for tt'e tretitioner : SRI CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Flospondent Nos.1 to 5 : SRI L.RAVINDER, l\GP l:OR REVENUE Counsel for tlre Fkrspondent Nos.6 & 7 : SRI SRINIVAS BHUSAR'\PU The Court at lh€' stage of admission made the following ORIIER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY wRIT PETITION No.16796 of 202s ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "....to issue a Wit, order direction especiallg one in the nature of Wnt of Certiorai colling for the records of the ord,ers passed by the 3,a respondent uide Proc.No.Dt/ 56/ 2025 dt OS/ 06/ 2O2S and quash the same as the said orders are illegat, arbitrary, contrary to the prouisions of Bhubharothi Act, 2025 and one uitltoit juisdiction tn the interest of justice...."

2. Considered the submissions of Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Governrnent Pleader for Revenue appea-ring for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and wittr their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

3. It is stated that the mother of the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring Ac.O.O3 guntas in Sy.No.373/C, Ac. 1.3g guntas in Sy.No.374lC and Ac. 1.00 guntas in Sy.No.378/B situared at Sasnkapelli Village, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District, by way of simple sale deed dated 11.07.1968, and her name was also recorded in all the revenue record.s and the respondent authorities issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in her favour. It is further stated that when respondent No.4-Tahsildar, has 2 mutatinl3 th: names of third parties, the mother of rh e pelitioner preferrerl ;r1r t ppcal in File No.D/ 126l2OO7 bc.bre the respondent No.4-Re'rcnurr Divisional Officer (RDO), and after erLqui y, the RDO has direct,:cl t:rc Tahsildar to take action for mrltation rf the name of the p(iti, ii:) I l,rr's moLher in respect of the subje:t proPe rty in terms of the sa fe c.eed dated 11.07.1968. It is lurther stated that respond:r't II,rs.6 and 7 have instituted a suit irl (). S.No.109 of 2022 (p'e ;iit:t;l-v O.S.No.34 of 20171 on the filt of the Senior Civil Juclge, \' :r-l r- Iau'ada, against the petitioner a ld others, for declaratio r rr'LiL1e and perpetual injunction in rt:spect o the subject 1ands, an I pe nding adjudication of the said suit, the respondent Nos.6 aecl '7 'rcrein have filed applications belbre the respondent authoritie .; r ,r mutation of their names in the rev:r-rur : records in respect o ,.1 r,: subject property, but the saicL alrplic ltions were rejected b'.' I re respondenL authorities, which cronstrairred them to file W- P. N : . t 947 of 2024 before this Court and tht same was allou,ed \ irl(r ordcr dated 10.09.2024 setting asi<le t re rejection order ar.d c1 r c cting the District Collector to cons;ide - t1-rt appiication submitt,:c Lr.' thc respondent Nos.6 arTd 7 . The ilrier ance of the petitionr:r il; that respondent No.3-the Distri<:t C olle:tor, issued impugnr:d :rrceedings vide No.D1/56/2025 darecl 05.06.2025 stating 1.h rt 1l e illegal mutation of the subject [)rop3rty in favour of 3 the petitioner's mother through simple sale deed dated rr.or.196g is canceiled and directed to apply for succession through online as per the Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act,2O2S (for short "the Bhu Bharati Act,,). Hence this writ perition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pending adjudication of the said case, the Government has repealed the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, l97l) and enacted new Act calied as ..the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, 2O2O,, (for short Act, 2O2O) and all the cases pending before the revenue authorities under the Act, l9ZI were transferred to the Special Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Act, 2O2O has been repealed with the Bhu Bharati Act, an appeal is provided under Section 15 of the Bhu Bharati Act, against the orders of the District Collector within a period of thirty days before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration.

5. In view of the above, since the petitioner is. having an efhcacious and alternative remedy of hling an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to avail the said remedy by way of hling an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration as per the provisions of the I l 4 Bhu Bha; ali \r:t. In the event of hling such eppe al s ltisfying the requirern( n1: of the Bhu Bharati Act, the appellate authority is directed t ) .r lrrmine the said appeal. Ir is needless to s ate that the observa,ir,nr; rnade by this Court in this order eLre r.onfined only for the purpr;st: rf disposai of this writ peLition anc: sha11 have no bearing on i ny proceedings between the partr,:s. Since the limitaticn p -,:r;cribed for filing of appeal is 30 ,1ays;, th e impugned proceedinrls t-rall not be given effect for a periocl ,rf 3r) days from today. I1:e l:gistry is directed to return the r>riginal proceedings vide No.t 1,';'r/2025 dated O5.O6.2025 ftl,ed, in suprort of the affidavit tr, I r: petitioner. 6 W:tlr tl e above observations, this Writ petitioll is _lisposed of No order a ; ,o costs As a s: 1r-re1, the miscellaneous petitions p,:nding, f any, shal1 stand ckrs,:cl //TRUE COPY// SD/.P.GO!.^/RI SHANKAR \ DliPUlYREGISTRAR ,.^r. i .j sEcfloN oFFtcER -

1. The Princn r Secretary to Government, RevenuLbecartrnent, Dr. B.R. Ambedk.ar elangana Secrelariat, State of Telangana at l-lyderabad.

2. The C:h r:f ( c,mmissioner of Land Administration, HyCerabad. 3. The C,islrlrt Oollector, Rajanna Sircilla District. 4. The F.even rr; Divisional Officer, Sircilla Revenue Division Rajirnna Sircilla Distrir;t. Hyderabad Hydera[rad

5. The TahsllCar, Vemulawada Town and Mandal. Rajanna liircill: District. 6. The Sec;tic,r lfficer, E.R-Section, High Court for the fitate of T llangana at 7. The Re1;israr Judicial - l, High Court for the State of Telalgana at 8. Two OCr; tc (iP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the fjtate of T,rlangana at 9. One ()C to.iRl CH.RAVINDER, Advocate [OPUC] 10.One OC to ri ll SRINIVAS BHUSARAPU, Advocaie (OPUC) 1'1.Two(;DCrtes Hyderatrad. ICUT] -y--.::yr?.--'{ryx.,xf ., tX 'i t,1. ; Jf *ii&***.. To W SA BS HIGH COUIIT DATED i19l')U2025 C.C. TODAY ORDER WP.No.16'/96 of 2025 I 1HE SI4 t) ()o 2I lilil 1'[i5 .ar ,// ' ,\.. "'., -: ;, :-rtil " "' DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT ,:;OSTS. 6 \ __4ff \, .' ,) I v6 .) ,)