The High Court · 2025

Petition 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 direct the Respondents 2 & 3 to mutate my nanie in the revenue records including Bhu Bharati Portal and issue an e-Pattadar Passbook in my favour in respect of 7 land admeasuring Ac.0.31 gts in Sy.No.71.l/el, Miryalagurj;r Village & Mandal, Nalgonda District, pending disposat of the main Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI pONAMPELLI RAV| Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI L. RAVINDER, ASST. GI, I:OR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER ,} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITIO N No.25484 of20.25 ORDER . This Writ Petition is iiled praying this Court to declare the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 uid_e proceedings No.E3/5418/2022, dated 09.O9.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Cons[itution of India and consequently, direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records including Bhu Bharati portal and consequential issuance of pattadar passbook in her favour in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.31 guntas in Sy.No.71 1/eo, Miryaiaguda Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District and for other appropriate reliefs

2. Heard Sri Ponampelli Ravi, learned countel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and with their consent, this Writ petition is being taken up for disposai at the admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner r.r,ou ld submit that the mother-in-law of the petitioner by name Vubbapalli Lachamma, W/o.Late - Venkaiah was Lhe absolute owner and possessor of ) E\''\I. J \\-p 2518.1 2025 n the land to an extent ol Ac-0.31 guntas in l:i,v.No.711/ C9, Miryalaguda Village and Mandal, Nalgonda Distrirrt and she was aiso issued pattadar pass book and title rle ed under tnc plovisions of the Telangana Rights in Lanrl and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971uide patta No.742 and th,t the mother-in- larv of the petitioner died intestate on 04.lO.2O2l leaving behind the petitioner and her children. Learned counscl for the petitioner would further submi[ that the petitioner and her children have approached the Principal Junror Civil Judge, Miryalguda, seeking to declare them as legiLl heirs of late Vubbapalli Lachamma and that the said suit r,ra.; decreed by a decree, dated 28.01.2022 and basing on the r;aid decree, the pctitioner had submitted representations, dated 21.O3.2O22 and O9.O3.2O22 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 seekinll to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in respect of thr: said extent of land in the place of her mother-in-law Late Vubbapalli Lachamma. He r'"'ould further submit tha.., as the said representations have not been considered by tlLe respondent authorities, she was constrained to Iile W.P.No.1a23l of 2022 before this Court. This Court, by- an order, dacd 18.04.2022, u,hile disposing of the said Writ Petition directe:d respondent /! o, 3 EVV. J Wp 25:131 20J5 Nos.2 and 3 therein to consider the said representations within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. He would further subrnit that, in compliance with the said order, the District Collector,respondent No_2, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order rejecting the case of the petitioner basing on the G.p.A., dated 27.0g.201g purportedly executed by Lachamma in favour of third parties. He would further submit that the G.p.A., which was relied upon by respondent No.2, does not transfer title and it only authorises to act on behalf of the executants and after the death of Lachamma/executants the said G_p.A. automaticallv ceased.

4. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, on written instructions, would submit that, the mother-in-la\&, of the petitio.rJ. O, ,^-. Ubbepalli Lachamma executed G.p.A.No.7B29 of 20 1g, dated

27.O8.2OI8 in favour of three persons giving saleable rights in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.31 guntas-in Sy.No.7l 1/A and the said persons have sold the same in favour of third parties. He would further submit that, after conducting an enquiry, respondent No.3 had submitted a report uide Lr.No.B/ 1556/2021, dated nil-09.2O22 and basing on the said 4 E\'\'. J \\'p 2518-l 2015 -o report respondent No.2 had issued the impugne,:l proceedings Hencc, praycd to dismiss the writ petition r. A:: seen from the impugned order, it \r'oul(l rfisclose tilat respondent No.3 had submitted a report statinE l.hat as seen from the Chessala Pahani for the years 1955-56 to 1957-1958, the total extent of land in Sy.No.71 1 is Acs.S.O0 g lrltas and it is classihcd as Inam Patta on the name of Ubbepalii Venkaiah and his name r'.'as recorded as pattadar and continut:ci as pattadar in the pahanies upto 1995-96 in respect of the lar d to an extent ol Ac. i.18 guntas in Sy.No.711/A and after his <leath, his u,i [e by- name Ubbepalli Lachamma had succeeded to ,hLe same and her name rvas continued upto the year 2C 0rl-2006 and subsequcnth.', she sold an extent of Ac.O.27 guntas to Kummariguntla Mallesh (Ac.0.10 gunts), Nr tlilva Raghu (Ac.0.I 1 gunts) and Valigonda Sujatha (Ac.0.06 glitas) and the same \.\'as rccorded in ROR Form-l leaving balance of Ac.0.31 guntas on her name. Thereafter, Ubbepalli L;rc hamma had execuled a registered G.P.A.No.7829 of 2018, dat:<l 27.08.2018 giving saleable rights in favour of Medishetti Naraytrna, Kongari Krishna, Nandigama Vidhyasagar and Perumalla Yerraiah for the selling r he land, u'ho in turn sold the sarn:: to various l I-VV, J \Vp 2-5484 202i persons after converting the same as residential plots, which is evident from the Encumbrance Certihcate. Hence, the request of thc petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 by passing the impugned order.

6. Prima facie, it appears from the record that, after conducting an enquiry and after verifying the records from the year 1955-56, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order. If the petitioner has any right over the subject property, she is at liberty to agitate her grievance before the competent civii court by instituting a comprehensive suit. Hence, this court is of the view that this Writ petition is devoid of merirs and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. N6 costs

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD AS9]STANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRt PONAMPE_LL! EAV!, Advocare tOpUCl 2 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, HiSh Cor;ioiihe-S-tate ot Tetangana 3. Two CD Copies BN u HIGH COURT DATED:1 111112025 J o ORDER WP.No.25484 of 2025 1'*.t€ sr.ql,:€ t- i ? 5 t{0'J nEl * 0 sP.qTc o t 4 I '-i \1 l, DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ll gx-