The High Court · 2025

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 or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not Mutating the name of the petitioner of an extent of Ac 1-00 gts in Sy. No. 185/41 situated at Oorugonda Village, Damera Mandal, Hanamkonda District, pursuant to the judgment and decree in OS No. 566 of 2007 Dt. 25-09-2013 on the file of Honble V Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Warangal and also EP No. 193 ot 2015 on the file of the V / Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Warangal and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to delete the name of the 5th respondent by including the name of the petitioner in the Revenue Records in respect of the Agricultural Lands of an extent of Ac 1-00 '/ gts in sy. No. 185/A/1 by directing the respondents to issue dig tal Pattadar passbooks in favour of th,-' petitioner. A NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Se,:tion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstan()es stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents iL to 4 to issue Digital Passbook by deleting the name of the Sth respondent in resoect of the Agricultural land of an extent of Ac 1-00 gts in Sy. No. 185tAt1 situatec at Oorugonda Village, Damera Mandal, l-lanamkonda District in favour of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAJESHWAR RAO GARIGE Counsel forthe Respondents No.1to4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.S : SRI SURYA SATISH The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32336 of 2O22 ORDER: This Writ Petition is f,rled under Article 226 of t]ne Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not Mutating the name of the petitioner of an extent of Ac.1-0O gts., in Sy.No.lgS/A1 situated at Oorugonda Village, Damera Maldal Hanamkonda District, pursuant to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.566 of 2OO7, dated 25.09.2O13 on the file of Hon'ble V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal and also E.P. No.193 of 2015 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal ald consequently, direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 to delete the name of the 5th respondent by including the name of the petitioner in the Revenue Records in respect of the Agricultural Lands of an extent of Ac. 1.00 gts., in Sy. No.185/A/l by direcn,i:g the respondents to issue digital Pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner and pass..."

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. It is stated that the petitioner is the owrrer €rnd possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 1.O0 Sy.No. 185/A/ L situated at Oorugonda Village, Damera Mandal, Hanamakonda District. It is also stated that when disputes arose in respect of the subjecl. land, the petitioner was constrained to institute a suit uide O.S.No.566 of 2OO7 on the file qf the learrred V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, who in turn issued notices; to the contesting parties, but ers the 'contesting parties did not enter appearance, therr were set ex-parte and Judgment and Decree was pass;ed on 25.09.2011\. The grievance of the petitioner ir; that 'and seeking impbmentation of the said Judgment Decree, the petitioner had filed Execution Petition urde E.P.No.193 of' 2015 and pending adjudication of the same, he filerl an application seeking for mutation of his name as per the procedure prescribed in Dharani Portal, in terms of th.e Telangana Rights in tand and PeLttadar Passbooks A<:t, 2O2O but the same was not consi.dered. Hence, the writ petition.

4. Sri Sury'a Satish, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, has vehemently contended that in fact the subject land was purchased by respondent No.5 and / he has been in possession and enjo5rment of the same. It is stated that the petitioner initially instituted a swit uid.e O.S.No.566 of 2OO7, a suit for bare -injunction, wherein an application was filed seeking to implead respondent No.5 as party respondent. However, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Thereafter, suppressing the said fact, the petitioner has amended the suit prayer from bare injunction to declaration of title over the subject propert5z arrd for consequential possession of the same. t earned counsel contended that since respondent No.5 is not a pafty respondent to the said suit, the Judgment and Decree obtained by the petitioner in O.S.No.566 of 2OO7 is not binding on respondent No.5. It is further stated that after coming to know about the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner basing on the registered sa-le deed, respondent No.5 has taken appropriate steps for questioning the said Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.566 of 2OO7, as the same has been obtained by playing fraud and als'o filed objections in the pending E.P.

5. Be that .as it may, admittedly, it is the case of the petitioner thal: he has obtained Judgment and De':ree in O.S.No.566 of 2OO7 which was filed for declaration of title and consequential possession over the s;ubject property. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has instituted E.P.No. 193 of 2015 for execution of the Judgment and Decree, dated 25.09.2013. It is settled law that the u,rit petition is not an a-lternative rem':dy for implementation of the Judgment and Decree gran.ted by a competent Civil Court. When the suit for declarettion is decreed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has to take recourse for implementation of the same by way of execution proceedings in accordance with law. Mere obtaining decree does not take away the right of the parties, who are possession of the property, to dispute a decree or object for enforcement of the decree. It is well settled 1aw that when the proceedings undt:r the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, are initiated, it is mandatory on the part of the revenue authorities to issue notices to all interested/affected persons, before correction/amendment/change of revenue records and $ 0 I t for consequential lSSllanCe of pattadar passbooks, AS been held by the Full Bench of this Court ln ChinnamPandurongama. Mandal Reoenue Offtc e r, S eriling amp allg Mand.al and others t .

6. In view of the above, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and since it is stated that the execution proceedings are pending, deems it appropriate to permit respondent No.5 to file an appropriate application in the pending execution proceedings, if he has any objections to the implementation of the decree.

7. With the above obsewations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. I AtR 2oo8 AP t5 I As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pendilrg' if any, shall stand closed. I j SD/. T,tr TIRUMALA DEVI REGISTRAR U( I //TRUE COPY// i b'tTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary Revenue Department' Secretariat' Saidallad' State of Telangana, HYderabao ' The District Collector, Hanamkonda District' Hanamkonda The Revenue Divisional Officer' Hanamkonda Revenue Drvision' Hanamkonda District' The Tahsildar/tvlRO, Damera Mandal' Hanamkonda District' One CC tO SRI RAJESHWAR RAO GARIGE, AdVOCAIE. TOPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for the State of Teklngana' One CC to SRI SLIRYA SATISH' Advocate tOPUCl To, 1 2 .)

5. b. 7 B. Two CD CoPies BSK GJP {fr- HIGH COURT DATED:1 710312025 :. '1P o\,. 0g AfB ; t25 * .!) ra:r ... '.Cilr, _---: "-. ,7 ) x / ORDER WP.No.32336 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (r 1ffr,j- \