Chakilam Padmavathi v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 oI 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, order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings No.D|l24O7 t2O23 dated 24-05-2024 wherein and where under the 3rd respondent rejected to mutate the name of the petitioner pertaining to agricultural lands an extent of Ac.2,00 in Sy.No.115/AJ1, an extent of Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No'165/C, an extent of Ac.0-37 guntas in Sy-No.165/8 respectively situated at Kuchanapally village, Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet District on the erroneous ground of ngt reflecting the name of petitioner's husband pertaining to the above stated agricultural lands in the revenue records as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of the provisions of RoR Act apart ) i / from being violative of Articles 21 and 300-4 of the const [ution of lndia and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents.3 and 4 to mutate the name of the petitioner as pattadar and possessor and al:;o to grant e-pattadar passbooks-cum title deeds pertaining to agricultural lands an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.115tAt1, an extent of Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No-165/(;, an extent of Ac.0-37 guntas in Sy.No.165/8 respectively situated at Kuchanap,ally village' Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High ( ourt may lle pleased pleased to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to mutate the name of the petitioner as paftadar and possessor pertaining to agricultural lands in :tn extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.1 15tN1, an extent of Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No.165/(.), an extent of Ac.0-37 guntas in Sy.N,:.165/8 respectively situated at Kuchanapally village, Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet District without reference to the irnpugned proceedings No.D1l24O7t2O23 dated 24-05-2024 of the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition in this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VADLAKONDA RAU KUNIAR REDOY Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER , : I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17652 of 2o25 ORDER: It is stated that the husband of the petitioner by name Ch.Madhusudhan Rao was the owner and possessor of the agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.2.OO guntas in Sy.No.115lAll; Ac.O.37 guntas -in Sy.No.165 lC and Ac.0.37 guntas in Sy.No. 165lB, situated at Kuchanapally Village, Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet District. It is further stated that, after the death of her husband, the petitioner made an application bearing No.22OO535481, dated 27 .O5.2022 seeking grant of Pouthi lzata/ succession and consequential muta[ion of her name in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar passbook. When the said apptication was not considered, the petitioner was constrained to hle w.P.No.33813 of 2022 before this Court and by an order, daLed 26.08.2022, th.e said writ petition was disposed o[ directing the respondent authorities therein [o consider her application within a period of eight (8) weeks from that order. It is further stated that, in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.33813 of 2022, respondent No.3 had rejected the petitioner's application uide proceedings No.Dl/a3OO/2022, dated 07.O1.2O23 and 2 CVBR, J Wp t7651 2025 aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.N,r.7699 of 2023. This Court, by an order, dated 20.O3.2023 dispcrsed ol-the said Writ Petition by setting aside the rejection order and remanded the matter back to respondent No.3 with a direcr.ion to consider the petitioner's application. Thereafter, respondernt No.3 passed the impugned order uide proceedings No.Dl /241t7 120123, dated

24.O5.2O24, rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that the name of the petitioner's husband is not at ail reflecting in any ol the revenue records in respect of the sr.tbject land and the petitioner also did not adduce any docume.ntary evidence proving the rights of her husband in the said sr..rvey numbers. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Considered the submissions made by the [(].lrnecl counsel for the parties and with their consen t, this u,rit p etition is being disposed of at t he admission stagt'.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relling upon the impugned proceedings, has submitted that thr, name of the petitioner's husband was reflecteci for the land lo an extent of Ac.O.37 guntas each in Sy.Nos- 165/B and 165/C in tht: column of pattadar as well as possessor column and his name is also recoided in Dharani Portal maintained under th: provisions of 3 CVBR, J N p _17652J02s the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,2O2O (for short "the Act 9 of 2O2O"l. Learned counsel further submitted that once the entries are made in Dharani Portal, the said entries have to be treated as record of rights and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of Pouthi lzafa/ succession in her favour and consequential mutation and issuance' of pattadar passbook.

4. Sri L.Ravinder, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, has submitted that pending adjudication of the clrhims of the petitioner, Act 9 of 2O2O has been repealed and repiaced by the Tetangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 (for short "[he Bhu Bharati Act"). If the petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection order, she has the remedy of {iling a statutory appeal on the file of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration respondent No.2 and the petitioner, without availing the said statutory remedy, has straight away approached this Court.

5. In view of the above submissions, this Court, without expressing any opinion on Lhe merits of the matter and since the petitioner has an alternative and efhcacious remedy of appeal before respondent No-2, deems it appropriate to dispose t i 4 CVBR, J Wp 17651 2025 of this Writ Petition relegating the petitioner to lilc a statutory appeal before respondent No.2 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ln the event of such an appeal being fileci by the petitioner, rerspondent No.2 shall decide the same within three (O3) months fr.om the date of filing of s;uch appeal. Till such time, status quo r,ith regard to the entries in the revenue records in respect ol tlLc subject land shall be rnaintained.

6. With the above observations, this Writ petitjon is,Cisposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions p,:ndin3,, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. //TRUE COPY// P.6lr. NAGABHUSHAMBA i q,rl;uw REGISTRAR .\ i '5. CTION OFFICER To, 1 1

1. The Principal Secretary, DePartment of Revenue, Telangana State Secretariat, State of Telangana, a t H',16s1r6'ra 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration' Telarrgana State, DrS R.Ambedkar Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Siddipet District, Siddipet' 4. The Tahsildar, Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet District. 5. One CC to SRI VADLAKONDA RAVI KUMAR REDDY, Advo':ate. [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Slate of Telangana'

7. Two CD Copies. OASK GJP t - -' -=:---\-- , f. - ,- .s r,i;i\;_ '- o^..\. f 16 SEP zffi ,ri HIGH COURT DATED:2510612025 /,.i l.) ORDER WP.No.17652 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,{