The High Court · 2025

Petition under Arlicle 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, Order or Direction, rnore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the official respondents in mutating the petitioner Name in Revenue Records and issue pattadar passbook to the petitioner in respect of lands in Sy.No.63 to an extentlAc.5-14 gts respectively, situated at Duvasipally village (Sasnool) Grampanchyath, ltikyala Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwala District T.S. as illegal, arbitrary, and Violation of Article 14 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the official respondents to mutate the name of the petitioner in Revenue Records in respect of lands in Sy.No.63 to an extent of Ac.5-14 gts respectively, situated at Duvasipally village (Sasnool) Grampanchyath, ltikyala Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwala District T.S., in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circt.mstances stated in the affidavit filed in.support of the petition, the High court nay be pleased to direct the respondents to mutate petitioner name in revenue Records and issue pattadar passbook to the petitioner in respect of lands in sy-N,r.63 to an extent of Ac.5-14 gts respectively, situated at Duvasipally village (Sasnool) Grampanchyath, ltikyala Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwala D strict T S if any executed by the unofficial respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PRAVEEN BONKURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23280 of 20/23 oRDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief "....to issue an aPpropiate Wit, Order or Direction more parlicularlg one in the noture of Wit of Mandamus declaing the inaction qf the official respondents in mutoting the petitioner Name in Reuenue Records and issue pattadar possbook to the petitioner ift respect of Lands in SU No 63 to an extent Ac.S 14 gts respectiuetA situated at Duuasipattu uiltage' So.snoot Gramponchgath, ltikgala Mandat' Jogulamba GctduLala Distict TS o.s iltegat, arbitrary and Violation of Articte 14 of Constitution of India and consequentlg direct the official respondents to mutate tlle name of the petitioner in Reuenue Records in respect of lands in Sg No'63 to an erte oI Ac'5.14 gts respectiuelg situated at Duuasipaltg village' Sasnool Grampanchgath" Itik4ala Mandc'L' Jogulamba Gadu'ola Distict' T S ''

2. Considered the submissions ol the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record'

3. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.S-14 guntas in Sy No'63 situated at Duvasipally village, Sasnool Grampanchyath' Itikyaia Mandal' Jogulamba Gadwala District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No 5 of 1986' dated O2'O1'1986' The case of the petitioner is that he submitted several representations before the respondents seeking to mutate his name in the revenue records 2 rn respect of the subject rands, but t r date no ar:tion has been taken by the respondents on the said representations .

4. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents, on written instructions has submitted that the land in Sy.No.63 is originally Khidmathi inare land and the name of Sri Joshi Thimmappa S/o. Bheema Charlu is recorded as Inamdar from 1954-55 to till date. It is further subrnitted that no Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) is issued in favour of any person till date as laid down under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act, 1955' It is also submitted that on verif,rcation of En iowment 1and register, it was found that the land in Sy.No.63 i; recorded as Endowment land. It is further submitted that eve-r though the petitioner has purchased the subject property in the year 19g6, he has not made any application under Section 4 of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, lgZI (tbr short Act, 1971') seeking.to mutate his name in respect of the su:ject property and therefore, at this length of time, he is not entitlec for mutation of his name in the revenue records and for consequel Ltial issuance of pattadar passbooks. It is further submitted that in Executioe OlJicer, Group of Temples, Wanaparthg, Ma.habubnagar District os. Joint Collector, Maha-bubnagar and otflersl the Full ' zoz3 1r; erD a: (TS) (FB) 3 Bench of this Court held that purchaser of land from an Inamdars is not a successor-in-interest and cannot apply for Occupancy Rights Certihcate and only a legal heir is a successor-in-interest to Inamdar who can continue to occupy the Inam land, can apply to get ORC. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Fult Bench of this Court, the contesting parties have fi1ed Speciai Leave Petition before Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court without suspending the orders, granted status-quo with regard to possession of the petitioners therein and the finding given by the Full Bench of this Court apply to the instant case.

5. The relevant portion of the orders passed by the Full Bench of this Court it Exec-utiae Olftcer's case (supra) reads follows: \ \ "58. In the light of the aboue discussion, u)e qnsu)er the reference as under: (1) Ttrc lau laid dotun in S. Veera Reddg's ca.se (supra), is not coffect hauing regard to the scheme of the 1955 Act. We agree with the laut laid down in R. Ramender Reddg's case (supra| as correct qnd ouern-tle the decision in S. Veera Reddy case (supra). (2) We hold that purchaser of land from an Inamdar is not a successor-tn- interest and cannot applA for ORC. (3) Onlg a legal heir is a successor-in interest to Inandar utho can conttnue to occltpy the inam land cqn applg to get ORC. (4) Tlrc decision in Kodithqla Keshqrrulu's case (supro), does not lag doun tte corect lou.t and is ouemtled. For that malTer, aLl the decisions of leanted Single Judges and the Divtsion Benches which haue taken contrqry vieu stands ouerntled. (5) We make it clear that an Inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim permanent tenant, protected tenant ond fton-protected tenqnt can acquire saledble interest onlg afier theg obtain ORC and cannot create third partA ights qnd/ or interest in ang other person before obtaining ORC." 4

6. The findings given by the Full Bench of this Court squarely apply to the instant case, and accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of following the orders passed in Executiu,z Offcerrs case (supra), as the petitioner claims to have purchasec the land from the legal heir of the Inamdar. After disposal of Specierl Leave petition before the Honble Apex Court, if any cause survives , the petitioner herein is at liberty to agitate his right before the app ropriate forum. tn accordance u,ith law As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pendirrg, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. JAYAS ASSISTANT REGIS Fz SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Tank bund,State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Jogulamba Gadwal District, T.S. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, ltikyala [/andal, Jogulambi r Gadwal District. 4. One CC to SRI PRAVEEN BONKUR|, Advocate. tOpUC 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana.

6. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP t/ HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 ORDER WP.No.23280 of 2023 '..?:)-\! ,' STA T q t) 11 JUN 2$6 DE Sp^-rC DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a./ // /0 5 €