1. Chelimini Pentanna v. violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

Counsel for the Petitioners: MS. SHAHEENA, REPRESENTING SRI G. RAJESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8: S. BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5,6 AND 9:--- The Court made the following: ORDER FF--,.1, THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.25166 of 2o25 ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in entering the names of respondent Nos.5 to 9 without issuing any notice to the petitioners without following due process of law and without considering the petitioners' application, issued endorsement Lr.No.B/CMBG/ 122012024, dated 03.01.2025 in revenue records regarding the land in Survey No.88 admeasuring Ac.3-35 guntas situated at Motlampally Village Sivar of Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District, the present writ petition is filed. A consequential prayer is sought to direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 in enter the names of the petitioners in revenue records pertaining to land in Survey No.52/A admeasuring Ac.4 -O2 guntas.

2. Heard Ms.Shaheena, learned counsel representing Mr. G.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners on record and Mr. L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. karned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Atmakur Mandal, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, issued the impugned endorsement dated O3.O1.2O25 on the application submitted by the petitioners throug(r 2 the Bhu Bharathi Porta-l in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2-20 guntas in Survey No.88/A. It is contended that the sajd land was allegedly sold under a registered sale deed bearing document No.124311990 dated 20.12.1990 by the guardial of the petitioners, who, according to the petitioners, had no authority in law to execute the said sale deed. It is further submitted that the oflicial respondent No.4 failed to examine this crucia,l aspect, ald mechanically observed in the endorsement that the properly had already been sold, without addressing the question of the guardian's competence to convey title.

4. This Court on hearing the iearned counsel for the petitioner, considers that the issues raised by the petitioners pertain to the validity of the sale deed, the authority of the guardian, and the title to the property, which are the matters that necessarily require adjudication on disputed questions of fact and evidence, not submissive for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

5. In these circumstalces, this Court is of the view that the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the competent Civil Court to seek redressal of their grievances, including challenging the sajd sa-le deed, the authority of the guardian and any consequential entries in the revenue records 3

6. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court to work out their remedies in accordance with law. 7 . With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending, in this petition, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, (Revenue), The State of Telengana, Secretariat, at Hyderabad.

2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,, Nampally station road, Opp Annapurna Hotel Karimabad, abids Hyderabad - 500001.

3. The District Collector, at Wanaparthy District. 4. The Thahisildar, Atmakur lrrlandat , Wanaparthy Dist. 5. One CC to Sri G. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. One CC to Sri S. Bhaskar, Advocate[OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies TJ GJP dL HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 ORDER WP.No.25166 of 2025 f I ntr i, ( 2 4 t'i!\fl 7rli t -r. \.,-+ -',-:.-. -j: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 'i,.,,