Dhanvath Thirupathi v. 1. The Government of Telangana

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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing impugned proceedings vide No.E31 426212024, dt.2310412}25 as illegal, arbitrary and against the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same by issuing pattadar pass book in the name of petitioner which stands in the name of family members of petitioner in Sy.No.462 to an extent of Ac.1.01 gts.in the name of Dhanavath Lokiya (Dhanavath Lakhiya), pattadar pass book in the name of petitioner which stands in the name of family members of the petitioner in Sy.No.462,463 to an extent of Ac.2.25 gts. in the name of Dhanavath Pashiya (Dhanavath Aishiya) lA NO: 1 OF 202L Petitic,n under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend tlre impugned order dated. 23-04-2025 vide proceedings Rc.No.E3l426212.024 passed by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K R K GARGEYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI HINGOLEKAR RAKESH KUMAR, AGP APPEARINCi ON BEHALF OF GP FOR REVENUE SRI K. MURALIDHAR REDDY The Court rrade the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No. 23,316 of 2025 ORDER: The prescnt wriL petition is lilcd by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, cleclaring the action of thc 2"d respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide No.E3/426212O24 dated 23.04.2025 as illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 2l of the Constitution and consequently to set aside the same. Further, direct issuance of the .. pattadar passbooks in the name o[ the petitioner for Sy.Nos.462 (Ac.1.01 grs) and 462,463 (Ac.2.25 gts), currently in the names of petitioner's family mcmbers

2. Heard sri KRK Gargeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hingolekar Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appcaring on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings No.E3 1426212024, dated 23.04.2025, is illegat, arbitrary and contrary to the revenue records and was passed without proper appreciation of evidence and in disregard of the proceedings No.B/378912018, dated 05.06.2018, ," t''="'' Paee 2 of4 vrhcrein tl e petitioner's name \,,as duly mutated as pattadar. It is further sul>mitted that the Tahsildar's report, relied upon by the 2no resp()n(le nl. is self-contradicton' uncl inconsistent u,ith the long- standing r('vcnue entries shov.,ing thc petitioner's famil-v as pattadars. Ttrc petitioncr asserts that the fincling regarding non-posscssion is error-rec)us, as the petitioner and his predecessors have been in lawful possess;ion of the subject lands. It is also con[endcd thert the in-rpugned ordcr 'l'as passed without compliar-rcc of clue procedure and in contravention of the directions issued bv this Court in W.P.No.1LO76 of

2021. (e,) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the apltlication filed by the petitioner for mutation and issuance of patLadar passbooks in respect of Survey Nos.462, 463 and 465 admeasuring Ac.15.30 gts., at Chintapally Village, Miryalaguda NIar-rclal, Neilgonda District was dismissed mechanically, without exarrininq the relevant documents and past proceedings. The Tatrsildilr's report, relied upon by the 2',d responclent, is contrary to the rec<rrds an<l his own earlier order vide proceedings No.B/3789/20ls datcd O5.06,.2018, whereb5r the petitioner's name r,r'as dul,y mutated as pattadar following the death of his father, Dhanavath Pedda Janiya. The conclusion that the petitioner is not in possession is thus baseless . arnci contrzlry to the long-stancling entries in revenuc records from 1950 Page 3 of4 onwards showing the names of the petitioner's family members as pattadars. The Tahsildar conducted a biased and irregular survey, not in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the Survey Act and submitted a report inconsistent with the existirig records and his own earlier findings. The impugned order, based upon such a defective and self-contradictory report, cannot be sustained. The impugned order further ignores the directions of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No 'LlO76 of 2024 to consider the petitioner's online application No.22O008998O dated 1I.O8.2O22 for issuance of pattadar passbooks in respect of Survey Nos.462 to 465.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government pleader, representing the learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that despite receipt of notice, the petitioner remained absent during the proceedings conducted by the 2"d respondent and further failed to establish his case by filing any supporting documents' He further submits that upon verification of the records relating to Sy.Nos.462, 463 and 465, admeasuring Ac.15.3O gts., at Chintapally Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District, it was found that the pahanies for the years 1962-1663 to 2Ol3-2O14 do not reflect the name of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the subject land has not been under cultivation and has remained fallow for the past 30 years. Therefore, the present petition is frivolous and liable to be dismissed' ') Page :l of 4 r

5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court without making any obs;erv:rtions on the merits or demerits of the case grants liberty to the petitiorrcr to make a detailed representation on-line as per the provisic'ns of Bhubharathi Act, 2025 to respondent No.2 along vvith original dor:uments to claim the property within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and upon receipt of such an applicar-ion. the respondent No.2 shalt exarnine the same strictl,v adhcring tc: ttre procedure contemplated and in accordance u'ith lari, and pas;s alrpropriate orders. 6 with above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. Nc or<ler as to the costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any per-rding;, shall stand closed SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO STANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER

1.:The Frincipal Secretary, Revenue Department. Secretariat. The Government of Telirngana, Hyderabad - 500022.

2. The Distric;t lVlagistrate and Collector, Nalgonda District. 3. The {iub Collector and Sub Divisional Revenue [/agistrate, tVliryalguda. Nalgo rda District. Telangana State.

4. The Tahsildar, IMiryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5. One C;C to SRI K R K GARGEYA, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two OCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana.

7. TwoCDCopies To, PVL TKS HIGH COURT DATED 11012025 I ? ,J HES le 1 tl 3 :'il,q TfpF 7- * * ORDER WP.No.l23316 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION ITHOUIT COSTS