High Court · 2025

1. Smt. Susheela Bai, Wo. Late Bansidhar Rao Aged about 89 years, R/o' H.No.1-98 Sirikonda VillTge and Mandal Nizamabad District.

2. M.Sudharkar Rao, S/o. Bansidhar Rao Aged about 71..years,^R/o' H.No.2-4-900 Road No.7, Plot No.63, Samathapur! Colony New Nagolu cross Road, Hyderabad 3 M.Dharmendra Rao, S/o, Late Bansidhar Rap Aged about 69 years, Retired Principal L.B.Collge, R/p H,No.1-7-1i9611'Nakqhatra AvenUe' Advocate Colonv Hanmakonda. Waranqal District. a M.Bha'star Rap, S/it. La[e Ba.-nsidhar Rao Aged abqut 6f years, R/o. H-No.1- ."PETITIONERS 98 Sirikbnda Village and Man{4! Nizamabad Qistrict Aryq

1. The stqte of Tplangana, Rep, by its Principal Secretary Bevenue Department' Secretariat Building.s, Hyderahad.

2. The District Collecflbr. Ni2amabad, Nizamabad DistJict 5. rne Rey.nue bivisionat'Offiier,' Nizamabad, Nizamabad Distric(. 4 The Td6sildar. Sirikonda Mandal, Nizamabad Districl 5. M.Ajay Chandra alias Ajay Kulakarni, S/o. M.Bha4q praf4sh Rao.Aged not knowri, Rio. H,No.i-t-ebilz4 Shirdi gai Krupa Nagar, Vinayaka Jrlagar Nizam:abad District . 503001 O Hl.nsnwjn aliai Ashwin Kulakarni, S/p. M,Bhaqu Brakash Rao Agqd not *hown, hlo. H,tlo.1:l-:o+lz+ Shirdi $ai (rup6 Na$ai, Vinayaka Nagar Nizamabad Qistricl - 503Q01 ?;041?4, srrirdi Sai (rupa Nagai, vinayaka Naqar, Nizamabad District - ,:

7. k.Bh;hi Prdhsh hao, S/oVenkat Rao, Aged about73 ygars, R/o H No 1-1- ...BE9PONDENTS Petitiqn undel Article 226 o'f' lbe Constitution qf 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 wRlT oF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th respondent herein in issuing the propeedlngs t_rloA1/1880t2016, dated 0810412022 is illegal Brbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and set aside the saqe and consequently direct the respondents to mutate and issue pattadhar passbooks in favour of the petitioners. IANO:1OF2 22 Petition under,Section 151 CPC praying that in the cireumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedrngs No.A1118E0/20'16, dated 081Q412022 isgue{ by the 4th respondent, pending oisposal of the main writ petition. O:1OF 2023 Pptitiqn under Section 151 CPC praylqg tha! in the crrcpmstances stated in the affidavit tiled in suooort of lhe petition, thg High Court may be preased to direct lhe respendent Nq 2 and 4 to coosider and pass ordpl in anline eppticalion Ng, 2300714817 dated 15t09t2029 aqd in pul?_uanqe, to lhe rgpresgnlatign daled 20110t?Q23, p[endiqg clispssal qf mEin Writ Peritioq' Cognsel for tbe Petitioners: QRI S,LAKSHM| KAIITH Coqnsel for the Respondent Nos.l tQ a: GP FOB REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.i Tq 7: SRI C.RAMESH SAOAB fhe Cqurt 11tpfle the followinql ORPER n THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.34373 of 2022 ORDER: ThisWritPetitionisfiledseekingtodeclaretheactionof respondent No.4 in issuing the proceedings No'Al/ 7880 12016' dated og.o4.2O22 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently prayed this Court to direct the respondents to mutate and issue pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners' 2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record' It is stated that petitioner No' 1 is the wife and petitioner g. Nos.2 to 4 are the sons of late Bansidhar Rao' It is also stated that late Bansidhar Rao was the owner and possessor of various extents of lands situated at Sirikonda and Mailaram villages. It is further stated that after the death of late Bansidhar Rao' the petitioners herein hled an application before respondent No'4-Tahsildar seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds' It is further stated that respondent Nos.S to 7 have filed an application on the frle oI respondent No.4 seeking not to mutate the lands in favour of the petitioners in the revenue records on the ground that they are cvBR, J wp_34373_2022 having coparcenary rights over the properties. Respor.rdent No.4 has issued Memo No.A1 l1BBOl2016, dated 18.12.2017 stating that there is <lispute in the subject lands and directed petitioner No. 1 to approz,r;h the Civil Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners havc filed an appeal uide No.A3l364 l2(.18 wnder Section 5(5) ,rl the Telangana Rights in Land anc Pattadar Passbooks Acr., 2O2O on the file of respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer. After examining the entire revenu e records, respondent No li, vide order dated 14.06.2OI9 directed rospondent No.4 to take steps to enter the name of petitioner No. 1, ,,vho is the wife of the deceased pattadar in the pattadar,s colunn in the revenue records and also issue ROR pass books in her name. The grievance of ttr.r: pctitioner is that despite the same, rr:spondent No.4 has issued proceedings No.A1/ BaOl2016, dated Oi3.O4.2022 proposing to keep the subject lands in dispute category.

4. Learne.d L),lunsel for the petitioner has stated thal from the year 1974, i.e., zrfter the death of the grandfather of the petitioner, the name of the husband of petitioner No. 1 was recorded in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor and the revenue authorities alsc, issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favour and aftel the death of the pattadar, an appJication was hled by the petitiont:r's herein seeking grant of pouthi izafa. Further, 3 CVBR, J wp_34373 2022 respondent Nos.5 to 7 also filed an application in the year 2016 not to mutate the lands in favour of the petitioners in the revenue records. It is further contended that since the name of the husband of petitioner No.l has already been recorded in the' revenue records, subsequent grant of pouthi izafa is only a consequential act to mutate the names of the parties' The said act does not amount to taking away any existing rights of either of the parties. It is further stated that if respondent Nos'S to 7 are aggrieved with the entries being made in the revenue records in favour of petitioner No. 1, appropriate remedy would be to institute appropriate suit before the competent Civil Court seeking correction of entries, but, they are not having any right for objecting granting of pouthi izafa in favour of the petitioners' \ \

5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.S to 7 fairly submitted that responden! Nos'S to 7 have already i t instituted a suit for partition uide O.S'No'4L of 2016 on the hle of the VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad'

6. Since it is stated that a suit has already been instituted by the coparceners for division of the property with metes and bounds, this Court does not find any irregularities or legal inhrmities in the orders passed by the appellate authority- respondent No.3 in Appeal No.A3l36al2018, dated 74'06'2019' . 4 *p-"os;L""2tLl 7 . Accordingly, this writ petition is disposecl c f directing respondent No.4 to comply with the orders passed by :espondent No.3 in AppeirJ No.A3 /364/2O1g, dated 14.O6.2019. Further, if any alterations are required after partition decree, parties are_at Iiberty to make appropriate application in terms of th,r partition decree and orr such apprication, the said alteration. shalr be carried out. Tht:re shall be no order as to costs. As a seqrrel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY GISTRAR OFFICER 2 p 4 5I

1. The Princi pal Secreta ry Revenue Department, Secretariat Builclrngs, Hyderaba d, State of Tel angana The D istrict Collector, N izamabad , Nizamabad District The Revenue Divrsional officer, Nizamabad Nizamabad Distrlc The Tahsildar, Siri onda Mandal Nizamabad , Districf One CC to SRI S LAKSHMIKANTH Advoca te loPUCl Two CQs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Qqurt for the Statq of Telsngana, af Yderabad H a ne C0 to Two CD Copies SBI C RAMESH SACAR, Advecate toeuCl UT] k To PSK. 7 I BS s HIGH COURT DATED:19102t2025 ORDER WP.No.$4373 of 2022 k J o 1 H€ S Ar€ 10 AP{ ?m t 19 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PET}TION WTIIOUT COSTS (tF'' 10