DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E v. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION NO

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 appropriate writ more particularly one in the mature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 herein in not cancelling the New Pattadar Passbooks vide Passbook No. T09080071359, Khata No. 1802 issued in favour of the Sth respondent hereinfor the land in Sy.No. 364. admeasuring an extent of Ac. 6-3'1 Gts situated at Kandi village and Mandal, Sangareddy District which he obtained fraudulantly by suppressing the Judgment and Decree dated 31/10i 2018 in O.S.No. 10812012 on the file of the Honorable Special Judge for SC/ST (POA)Act - Cum - V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medak, Sangareddy District inspite of the Representation dated 06-10-2020 as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the established principles of law and consequently direct the respondents 2 lo 4 herein to Cancel the Pattadar Passbooks vide Passbook No. T09080071359, Khata No. 1802 issued in favour of the Sth respondent herein for the land in Sy.No. 364, admeasuring an extent of Ac.6-31 Gts situated at Kandi village and Mandal, Sangareddy District lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Pattadar Passbooks vide Passbook No T09080071359, Khata No. 1802 issued in favour of the sth respondent herein for the and in Sy.No. 364, admeasuring an extenl of Ac. 6-3'l Gts situated at Kandi r,lllage and Mandal, Sangareddy District pending disposal of the present Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. K. PALLAVI Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI HINGOLEKAR RAKESH KUMAR, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No. 5: SRI K. MURALIDHAR REDDY & SRI K. B. RAMANNADORA Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 & 4: SRI MOHD, ISLAMUDDIN! ANSARI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.2O754 of 2O2O ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by Mohammed Isrnail (died) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not cancelling the new pattadar passbook No.T09O8O071359, Khata No. 1802 issued in favour of the 5e respondent for the land in Sy.No.364, admeasuring Ac.6-31 Gts., situated at Kandi Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District alleging that he obtained the same fraudulently by suppressing the judgment and decree dated 3I. 10.20 18 in OS No. lO8 of 2Ol2 on the file of the learned Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak, Sanga Reddy District inspite of the representation dated O6.1O.202O as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the established principles of law and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to cancel the pattadar passbook issued in favour of the 5e respondent for the above said land.

2. Since Mohammed Ismail, who filed the present writ petition died, his legal heirs were brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 8 vide order dated Ol.Og.2O25b in IA No.2 of 2022- Subsequently, respondent Page 2 of8 Nos.6 and 7 were also got impleaded vide order dat-ed 16.09.2025 in IA No.1 of 2023

3. Heard Smt.K.Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hingolelcar Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, Sri KB Ramalnadora, learned counsel for the rcspondent No.5 and Sri Mohd.lslamucldin Ansari, lcarned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7.

4. 'lhe case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.6-31 Gts in Sy.No.364, purchased under a registered sale deed bearing document No.l22O7 of 2007 dated 04.06.2007 from Mohammed Abdul Hammed Siddiqi, whose father, late M.A. Aziz, was the original owner. The property was duly mutated in the petitioner's name and pattadatr passbook No.Y- O3872O in patta No.1698 was issued. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the deceased Mohammecl Ismail was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.6-3 1 gts., in Sy.No.364, situated at Chimnapur H/o.Kandi Village, Sangareddy Mandal, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No.l22O7 of 2OO7 dated 04.06.200Z from Mohammed Abdul Hammed Siddiqi, who derived title under a gift settlement deed dated 1B.03.2004 from his father, the original owner, 7 l'age 3 of 8 Late M.A.Aziz. The said property was mutated in the name of the petitioner and pattadar passbook No.Y-03872O and patta No.1698 were issued. The petitioner has been in peaceful possession, developed the land, constructed structures with Gram Panchayat permission ald has regularly paid taxes and electricity charges. The 5th respondent, without any right or title, fraudulently revived O.S.No.234 of 2OO7 originaliy withdrawn by another party and secured a decree by suppressing material facts. Based on this, he obtained a sale deed through Court execution on 05.01.2012. Upon receiving summons in O.S.No.142 of 2012, the petitioner contested the matter, resulting in dismissal of the suit with costs on 26.07.2078 with a ciear finding that the 5th respondent had not approached the Court with ciean hands. The petitioner also filed O.S.No. 1O8 of 2012 seeking declaration and injunction, wherein the Court found that the Sth respondent had obtained the decree in O.S.No.234 of 2OO7 by fraud. Though the suit was dismissed on technical grounds, A.S.No.S8 of 2019 is pending with status quo orders granted on O5.03.2O 19. Despite this, the 5th respondent obtained pattadar passbook No.T0908OO71359, Khata No.1802 from respondent Nos.2 to 4 by suppressing the above facts. The said issuance was done without notice to the petitioner, in violation of natural justice and established revenue procedure. The petitioner made a representation dated 06.10.2020 requesting cancellation of the fraudulent passbook, but no action has been taken to date. The 5tt' I'aeo 4 of tl respondent is now attempting to interfere with petitioner's possession and create third-party rights over the subject propcrfy.

5. Learned counsel for thc rcspondents No.5 submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on fzrcts, as the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts and the pendenc)r of multiple civil proceedings. The Sth respondent is the lawful olr,nr--r and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6-3 1 gts in Sy.No.364 situated at Chimnapur Village, Sangareddy District, having acquirr:d the same through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.175 of 2012 dated O5.O1.2012, executed pursuant to a decree dated 15.O3.2010 in O.S. No. 234 / 2OO7 on the file of the Hontrle Senior Civil ,Judge, Sangareddy. (a) It is further averred that the petitioner having obtained a sale deed allegedly executed in his favour during the pendency of the aforesaid litigation, initiated O.S.No. 108 of 2Ol2 set:king declaration of title and to nulliff the earlier decree. The said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 31.1O.2018 on the grounc[ of suppression of facts. An appeal preferred there against in A.S. No. 88 of 2O19 is stated to be pending, with status quo orders in force. The 5 h respondent also preferred O.S.No. 142 of 2012 chailenging the alleged fraudulent transaction in favour of the petitioner. Though the said suit was dismissed, the respondent has frled A.S.No.1O3 of 2O18, which is I Pagc 5 ol8 pending adjudication. lnterim injunction has been granted therein in his favour. The petitioner's sale deed document No. 12207 of 2O07 was fabricated in collusion with the 3.,1 respondent, despite the existence of a prior agreement of sale dated 13.06.2O05 and pending litigation, rendering any claim based thereon void and unenforceable. It is asserted that the execution of the sale deed in favour of the Sth respondent was neither fraudulent nor irregular and is fully supported by judicial decree and execution proceedings. (b) It is also submitted that based on valid title and physical possession, the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook No.TO908O071359 and Khata No.1802 in the name of the Sth respondent. The petitioner's claim for cancellation of the same, without disclosing the pendency and outcome of related proceedings, is impermissible in law and amounts to misuse of interim judicial orders. The Petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy and the present writ petition, frled by suppressing material facts and with the sole intention of harassing the 5th respondent, is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the process of 1aw.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 submits that they are in possession of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6.00 gts in Sy. Nos.181, 337 and 364 at Kandi Village, Sangareddy District, purchased under registered sale deeds bearing document Page 6 of8 Nos.1953 of 2OO7 ard 21731 of 2OO7. They have been cultivating the land without interference. Upon applying for mtrtation and Pattadar Passbooks in June 2023, they were informcd the land is in the prohibitory list due to pending litigation, including A.S.No.88 of 2079 and the present writ petition. As Sy.No.364 is rnvolvecl in the said cases, they got themselves impleaded as proper and necessary parties to protect their interest. Stating thus, he seeks to pass appropriate orders.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pieader, appearing on behalf of thc learned Government Pleader for Revenue, submits that the petitioner has preferred A.S.No.88 of 2019, which rs currently pending adjudication before this Court. It is submitted that no interim order has been granted in favour of the petitioner in the said erppeal. Therefore, in the absence of any legal bar or restraint, the oflicial respondents proceeded to issue the subject pattadar passbook bearing No.T09O8O07 13 59 in favour of the 5th responclent. Il is further submitted that the petitioner's representation dated 06. 1O.2020 was made during the Covid-l9 pandemic, a period marked by administrative restrictions and delays. Moreover, since then, signifrcant amendments have been introduced to the ROR Act and the new Bhubharati Act. 2025 has come into force. In view of the changed legal Page 7 ol8 framework, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that appropriate orders may be passed by this Hon'ble Court.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the parties, without expressing any opinion on thc merits of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition rvith the following directions: In view of the fact that the Bhubharati Act,2025 has come into force and considering that the petitioner has already preferred alr appeal in A.S.No.8S of 2Ol9 before this Court against the dismissal of O.S.No.108 of 2072 on the file of the learned Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak, Sangareddy District, the petitioner is granted liberty to submit a fresh and detailed representation before the appropriate authority, as contemplated under Section 15(C) of the Bhubharati Act, 2O25. Upon such representation being filed, the competent respondent authority shall consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to a1l concerned parties. Till such time, the parties to the present writ petition shall maintain status quo, obtained as on the date of this order.

9. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscelletneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/- AS INIVASA REDDY NT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// I-ION OFFICER To, elangana Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

1. The Principal Secretary (Revenue Department), State c) 2. The District Ccllector, Sangareddy Medak District. 3. The Reven ue Divisional Officer, Kandi lvlandal, Sangareddy, It/edak District 4. The Tahsildar Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District. 5. One CC to Smt. K Pallavi Advocate [OPUCI 6. Two CCs to GP For Revenue,High Court for the State o1'Telanclana. [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 8. One CC to Sri K. B. Ramannadora, Advocate (OPUC) 9. One CC to Sri Mohd. lslamuddin Ansari, Advocate (OPl,lC) 10 Two CD Copies [,48C LS +y I HIGH COUR DATED: 1ilA912025 Tt€ S (tr'r 1/0[T 'i, * {) TC .L :l' 7: ..,) ORDER WP.No.20754 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ ?,.-l ) La la{' t